Merkley discusses the 2003 vote; calls for troop withdrawals "starting immediately"
The Associated Press has comments from Jeff Merkley, responding directly to critics of his 2003 vote on HR 2.
Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley says he has no regrets about his 2003 vote on an Iraq war resolution that has become an issue in his campaign to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith. ...Merkley, in an interview with The Associated Press, fended off criticism he's gotten on the subject from Republicans as well as his Democratic challenger, Steve Novick.
"I wanted to stand up and say I disagree completely with the decision to go to this war, but I honor the sacrifice and the dedication and the courage of our troops," Merkley said Monday.
The Portland Democrat also said that having U.S. troops in Iraq "is not helping" that country and he would advocate bringing the troops home, "starting immediately."
"I don't think our troops will or should have a significant role in the country," Merkley said. "Our troops need to get out."
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
August 27, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (90 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 11:20:10 PM
>It really doesn't matter now
Whew, that's a relief!
Posted by: Harry | Aug 27, 2007 11:59:21 PM
"This broke around lunchtime and none of the commenters on the other threads bothered to pick it up."
------------
Isn't that called 'letting him twist in the wind?'
I was surprised that Jeff waited so long to respond. Kinda reminds one of that Mass Senator who lost to the bozo chimp, eh? Is Jeff gonna get swift boated by Smith just like Kerry?
I think Steve did a good job stating his case with his own words in his own post. It shows he understands new media (wow, that's a 90's phrase!), he understands that his race is being waged for the hearts of the party influencers, and he is not afraid to speak to them in their own language and turf (BlueOregon).
I can't believe that Jeff did not respond right here in the BlueOregon community (either via comments in Steve's entry, or his own entry) within 30mins of Steve's post. To me, that shows that Jeff is:
- not a fighter, much less a street fighter
- clueless about the internet and those weblog thingies
- not taking Steve seriously
Pick your favorite... any of the above means that Jeff will get blindsided... never seeing where that left hook came from!! (hint, it didn't come from the right side!)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 1:00:37 AM
- not a fighter, much less a street fighter
- clueless about the internet and those weblog thingies
Oh come on... You can say all you want about this particular vote and the responses to the GOP's stupidity... that's been argued ad nauseum around here...
But let's not go making shit up.
Under Jeff Merkley, the Oregon House Democrats finally started fighting back against the GOP majority.
And, since you're talking about my work, Jeff Merkley led the first legislative caucus in the nation where the entire caucus blogged - way back in 2005. The 2006 campaign to take back the Oregon House was a statewide grassroots and netroots campaign.
Jeff Merkley's street-fighter instinct and net-savviness is exactly what led to the 2006 takeover. In two cycles under his leadership, they picked up six seats and sent Karen Minnis, Wayne Scott, and Chuck Adams packing.
Did you know that and ignore it? Or forget it? Or are you new around here?
[Full disclosure - My company has provided internet services and strategic consulting to the Oregon House Democrats since 2004 and is now doing the same for Merkley for Senate. As always, I speak for no one but myself.]
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Aug 28, 2007 3:36:17 AM
Kari Chisholm, the Merkley operative, makes a number of good points in suggesting that Merkley's reaction to this flap about the resolution hardly demonstrates his cluelessness when it comes to politics and the web. Still, what this episode does demonstrate is that while Merkley may be an upgrade to Smith, he is no Steve Novick.
Novick has challenged Merkley to make a number of joint appearances so that they can demonstrate conclusively -- not via paid operatives, like Chisholm -- who the real street fighter is. I think any objective observer knows the answer. Novick is a rare breed in American politics: a brilliant man, beholden to no one, who feels compelled to fight with fire for the truth and the little guy. While the Merkleys of the world cast a lot of good votes and can even muster a legislative coup or two, they also make you yawn. Novick, by contrast, makes you want to stand up and pump your fist. Washington needs people like Steve, and now more than ever. He would shake things up that desperately need shaking.
I don't fault Chisholm for supporting Merkely -- after all, Jeff is paying her company for the support. But why would other Oregon Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, ignore the opportunity to elect such a unique and inspired fighter like Novick? Just picture him on the national news shows, speaking truth to power in a way that simply can't be ignored. If that image doesn't appeal to you, I suggest you consider what it is that turned you on about politics in the first place.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 28, 2007 4:29:18 AM
Harry, what do you mean, took so long to respond? Novick swore he never even brought it up. And you can't compare this to swift-boating. It wasn't even an attack, remember?
And Daniel, I'm not opposed to Novick, despite how polarized this particular issue made the race. But I'm also grounded enough to realize that Novick is not a character in a Frank Capra movie.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Aug 28, 2007 4:51:50 AM
No, James, Novick is not a character in a Frank Capra movie. He's a guy who graduated from Harvard Law School, with honors, at the age of 21. He's a guy who has worked in Washington, D.C. for years -- he's breathed the air in that town, he knows its pulse. He wouldn't be depending on some script writer to bail him out unrealistically and romantically. He would get the job done the old fashioned way -- with knowledge of the issues, an excellent sense of humor, a great appreciation for human psychology and an IQ even bigger than, oh I don't know, Frank Capra's.
Maybe you're more grounded than I am, James. I'll concede that. But again, I'm a progressive. I'm allowed to dream. I haven't drunk the Kool Aid that must have been handed out during the Clinton years, suggesting that the best that progressives can do is fight back against the reactionaries and hope that, somehow, we can preserve the status quo (plus tinker a bit around the edges). I still believe, naively perhaps, in the possibility of real, honest-to-God change. And to implement that change, we need real, honest-to-God inspiring politicians -- not simply machine candidates whose best argument is "I've been effective and I'm not a Republican."
Yawn.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 28, 2007 6:07:03 AM
First of all, that resolution had nothing to do with honoring the troops, and anybody with an ounce of honesty in their soul knows that. It was about exploiting the troops' sacrifice for cheap political gain.
If they wanted to honor the troops, they could have simply said so without tying that vote to loaded partisan political statements. Instead they USED the troops to put democrats who opposed the war over a barrel. That's not honoring them, Jeff, that's exploiting them, and the decent thing to do was to not participate in that exploitation but rather to expose it for what it was. That wold have been the best way to honor the sacrifice of the troops. Merkley chose the cheap, easy and expedient way out. Just vote for it.
The fact that Merkley has not "lowered" himself to respond to democratic primary voters' concerns directly suggest he could be the type of play-it-safe, over-consulted establishment Democrat who has dissapointed us all so many times before.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 28, 2007 6:40:27 AM
"Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley says he has no regrets about his 2003 vote on an Iraq war resolution"
I was kind of jesting yesterday about Merkley and signing statements but now we have it out the horse's mouth. Merkley embraces the M.O. of voting one way but believing/saying something else. I hope that November '08 gives blue Oregonians a choice other than politicians as usual.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 28, 2007 7:07:19 AM
If John Kerry can apologize for a vote, why can't Jeff Merkley?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 28, 2007 8:13:30 AM
I think it's worth pointing out that the story "in the news" actually begins with a somewhat fuller lede than the one Kari quotes above.
Kari quotes the story as follows:
Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley says he has no regrets about his 2003 vote on an Iraq war resolution that has become an issue in his campaign to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith. ...
Merkley, in an interview with The Associated Press, fended off criticism he's gotten on the subject from Republicans as well as his Democratic challenger, Steve Novick.
That ellipsis is convenient because the paragraph between the two quoted reads as follows:
The nonbinding House resolution, approved as the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq, voiced support for U.S. troops, but also praised "the courage of President George W. Bush" and supported "the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein."
It's good that readers of the AP article (which is to say, the voters) are getting a fuller version of the story.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 28, 2007 8:40:13 AM
That ellipsis is convenient because the paragraph between
That's because Kari is trying to obfuscate an inconvenient truth. And when that fails, you can flat out lie. Rhis morning in his weekly KPOJ interview, the chief editor of "the biggest blog in Oregon" said (with a "straight" face - if that's even possible on the radio) that the GOP "got all the Democrats to vote for [George W. Bush's courage]"
Kari knows well that 5 legislators had the courage to do what Speaker Merkley did not. They were able to express their support for the troops without falling for Karen Minnis's trap.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 8:52:04 AM
Daniel Spiro, Jeff is paying her company for the support.
Um, Danny buddy, I'm a guy. Don't worry about it, happens all the time. Not too often on a blog where my picture is all over the place - but no worries.
Welcome to BlueOregon. Take a look around.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 8:55:08 AM
Thom, please don't make the mistake of assuming that I write all the "in the news" items here at BlueOregon. I don't. This isn't my blog. We have two other co-editors here and lots of contributors. You're minimizing their contributions when you assume that I write everything on this blog. I don't.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 28, 2007 9:00:13 AM
Kari, I also assumed it was your post. If it was not, I apologize for attributing it to you incorrectly.
The underlying point remains, of course.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 28, 2007 9:03:45 AM
"I was surprised that Jeff waited so long to respond."
That's a little absurd, isn't it? The initial story came out over the weekend, he responded MONDAY.
"But I'm also grounded enough to realize that Novick is not a character in a Frank Capra movie."
True--he's nowhere as naive as Jefferson Smith was*.
*not the Bus genius; the Capra character.
Posted by: Who Posted This Thread | Aug 28, 2007 9:07:28 AM
Who posted this thread?
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 28, 2007 9:13:12 AM
Anyone have the full text of the 2003 statement Merkley made about the resolution?
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 28, 2007 9:20:16 AM
Ahh, I see it on the other thread.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 28, 2007 9:48:42 AM
One of the problems with people saying they supported the troops at the beginning of the war was that people on both sides of the debate - anti-war and pro-war - were saying the same thing: "We support the troops." The words were the same, but the meanings had to be different. Unfortunately, very few defined what they meant. It was a good bet to assume that the pro-war crowd meant helping get them on aircraft to fly to the war zone in the Middle East, but they didn't seem to care that the troops were going in insufficient numbers under incompetent leadership and without sufficient supplies and equipment - including armor for their bodies and vehicles. Some support!! With supporters like that who needs enemies?
What did the anti-war crowd mean when they said, "We support the troops"? Not much, because in this war and as in all previous wars the mass of people feel compelled to make gestures of support because they are intimidated by the mob. And so, like the pro-war gang they essentially went along with the troops walking up aircraft gangways that would inevitably mean thousands of them would return on another flight in caskets or medi-vac planes.
If the troops understood they were participating in an illegal war, they should have refused to climb on board those flights to Iraq and the anti-war people should then have shouted, "We support you." If the troops didn't realize they were participating in an illegal war, those against the war should have told the troops so and let them know that those opposed to the war would support them if and when they got around to refusing to fight in an illegal war as the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles required them to do.
With the troops hearing both sides shout, "We support the troops" the more thoughtful among them must have wondered what the hell America was saying.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 28, 2007 10:07:23 AM
Merkley's vote for the Republican's resolution was unfortunate, but it is not grounds for condemning him or dismissing his abilities. Every legislator [probably even Joanne Bowman and Dennis Kucinich] have cast votes based on political calculus. Merkley's vote is a problem for running against Smith in this election cycle in particular. In the strange and sordid world of politics in general, it's a minor smudge.
Posted by: colin maloney | Aug 28, 2007 10:17:43 AM
{meta}actually, Kari DID post this entry.
You can tell who posted the "in the news" entries (all the entries actually) by using Google Reader. (it lists "by POSTER'S NAME" after each title.)
whether it's relevant or not is another issue altogether. But Stephanie and Thom seemed to be curious, so I thought I'd clarify since Kari didn't.{/meta}
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Aug 28, 2007 10:22:52 AM
It makes the Novick campaign look desperate for advantage to condemn Merkely for assenting to the R-majority's good-wishes-to-the-embarking-troops resolution.
Again, I'd expect better from Novick; he has plenty to recommend him without this petty BS. Not a good sign that he's echoing the R's, either.
Posted by: BHamm | Aug 28, 2007 10:25:57 AM
Tom, you're exactly right. This vote shouldn't be THE ISSUE for this primary race or the general election. It may be indicative of a minor lapse in judgment or self-worth, but it does not make Merkley a gun-toting, warhawk neo-con.
However, I still think that he is less electable than Novick. What a lot of us on this site (because of our hatred for Smith) forget is that Gordon Smith is incredibly good at campaigning. The guy is smooth, poised, and can really bring in the support. No offense to Speaker Merkley, who has done great things in the House and is obviously very intelligent, but he comes off as kind of plastic. It's the same weakness shared by Congressman David Wu. When they speak in front of a crowd or go out to meet people, they come across as very fake, and a little sleazy because of it.
Personally, I want a Senator who speaks his mind, doesn't talk in soundbites and will stand up for things he believes in, regardless of the consequences for his image.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 28, 2007 10:26:12 AM
Thanks Tom, for your most "civil" post. This is what should have been emphasized a while back when the HR2 tempest was blown out of proportion early on here at BlueO. (injected into the debate, perhaps defensibly, by Merkley supporters... not the Speaker himself)
House Res 2 could be simply a small negative notch in the Beltway candidate's campaign. (if it's handled well) Or the Democrats can do what they're good at... squandering resources and snatching defeat.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 28, 2007 10:32:12 AM
BHamm very concisely expresses the gist of what we need to take from this discussion.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 28, 2007 10:42:58 AM
"I still think that he is less electable than Novick."
Right now I think their relative electoral chances against Smith are fairly even. I would say merely that I find Novick more DESIRABLE, as opposed to more "electable"--or at least that Merkley himself is also electable. I think Steve's dynamic more congruently matches the mood for change, but either has the ability to make an even-money race of the general.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 28, 2007 10:57:23 AM
tom and east bank thom, that's exactly what i've posted here a couple of times - that i see this as a negative in the merkley column, but not something that has the magnitude to be a dealbreaker.
in a weird way, it looks to me like the merkley supporters are blowing this up to be bigger than, in my mind, it is.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Aug 28, 2007 11:01:14 AM
I can't imagine why it took so long for credible Democratic candidates to jump into the race against Smith, seeing the support they're getting. It will be ironic if demands for perfectly unblemished hands from our side results in re-electing those whose hands are absolutely filthy.
Is that the goal here? To remain the pious opposition party forever? Or does anyone actually want to change something? I have to wonder.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 11:02:59 AM
actually, Kari DID post this entry.
Um, folks... Yes, I did write this entry. I didn't say that I didn't. You'll note that I post a version of the "please don't assume" comment every single time that someone suggests that I wrote a particular post. I've done it dozens of times over the last year.
I write many of the posts. I don't write all of them. When I'm posting my opinions, I do it over my own name. When it's in the "Voice of BlueOregon", it's much more neutral. (That is neutral/progressive - not neutral/neutral.)
It's a disservice to the many other people that contribute to BlueOregon - especially my co-editors - to assume that I write everything. I don't.
Unlike most blogs, the editorial position of BlueOregon is separate from the opinions of its contributors.
And least one of the hardcore Novick supporters in this conversation has been offered a post as a BlueOregon contributor and turned it down. So let's not go crazy with the meta conspiracy theories.
And soon, btw, I'll be writing much less. We'll soon be making our final decision about a BlueOregon Fellow who will be contributing the bulk of the "Voice of BlueOregon" content -- and I'll soon be having my first child. Expect to see much less of me around here this fall.
Can we get back to the substance now, rather than speculating about people's motives?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 11:04:04 AM
p.s. The Google Reader thing was a glitch. It's now fixed. The "author" of the posts should read as "BlueOregon.com" - not any one individual. For what it's worth, it was reporting many posts that I didn't write as mine, too.
Posted by: Person who may not be James X., so please do not make assumptions. | Aug 28, 2007 12:40:45 PM
Kari: What's wrong with putting your name on everything you post? You've chided us for not doing that.
Posted by: genop | Aug 28, 2007 12:54:20 PM
Seems like we have two viable candidates to replace Gordo. This excites me. I would sure love to see a "youtube" discussion by each candidate on their current views of a number of significant national issues. How about it Blue Oregon. Let's showcase both candidates. Can we move forward?
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Steve Novick for US Senate | Aug 28, 2007 1:28:31 PM
Kari, you write:
I write many of the posts. I don't write all of them. When I'm posting my opinions, I do it over my own name. When it's in the "Voice of BlueOregon", it's much more neutral. (That is neutral/progressive - not neutral/neutral.)
---
That is what may bother folks about this post. You use ellipses to skip over the second sentence in the article, which read:
The nonbinding House resolution, approved as the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq, voiced support for U.S. troops, but also praised "the courage of President George W. Bush" and supported "the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein."
And then reproduce Merkley's response that this was simply a vote to support the troops. The last three days of conversation here (and Steve's post) would seem to indicate there is a difference of opinion on what this vote represents. To only offer the Merkley framing of the issue, which is also identical to the framing used in this original post on Sunday, would suggest that these "in the news" posts are less than neutral.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity for Steve to post on the subject yesterday and further the discussion, but nevertheless I think it warrants careful attention to what is represented as a "neutral" opinion on the site.
After all, we're all friends and allies here and it would be a shame to see that lost through recrimination and misunderstandings.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 1:52:39 PM
True enough, Jake. It's something we're all feeling our way through here.
As you know, from your perch at the Kulongoski campaign in 2006, I worked pretty hard to make sure that BlueOregon remained a neutral venue for his primary opponents -- and they'll all tell you that we did that successfully.
I'm definitely committed to doing that again here. Sometimes, I'm sure I'll make a mistake -- but I'm hoping that folks understand that this is all a labor of love, a volunteer effort to help create community and dialogue for progressives in Oregon.
As you know, if BlueOregon were to become exclusively an outlet for spinning lines for my clients, it wouldn't be even remotely credible. We wouldn't be able to keep our audience, and someone else would take up the charge.
We'll keep plugging away, trying to walk the tightrope. You've got me on your speed dial, and I've got you on mine. Everyone else reading here has access to the guest-columns link, and I'll happily post well-written stuff.
Thanks, folks. That's enough meta-chatter for one day.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 1:55:19 PM
p.s. OK, I can't leave the specific accusation alone. There is absolutely no one on this thread that didn't already know the substance of the second paragraph of that AP story.
To BlueOregon readers, that part was old news. The reason for this post was to communicate the new news in the AP story -- which was Merkley's comment.
I didn't clip the second sentence because it said bad things about Merkley -- but because it wasn't anything new. The entire resolution has been reprinted here at BlueOregon many, many times.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Steve Novick for US Senate | Aug 28, 2007 2:04:24 PM
Kari,
Right on. I think everyone can agree that more conversation and more perspectives are good.
And I really appreciate you, Jeff and Charlie for making this site available for us. It takes a lot of work (in addition to your day jobs) and of course we poke because we just want to make it better.
We're all feeling our way through this thing and, has been said many times here and elsewhere, it is vital we all come out the other side united in our desire and enthusiasm to beat Gordon Smith.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 28, 2007 2:12:49 PM
I hate to break up this lovefest, but some of us feel that the full text of that resolution (and all relevant text of news articles in which it is digested) deserves to see the light of day even more than it has so far.
%^>
Posted by: LT | Aug 28, 2007 2:28:41 PM
Jake,
Let's return to events of 2007, OK?
You said:
>>
That is what may bother folks about this post. You use ellipses to skip over the second sentence in the article, which read:
The nonbinding House resolution, approved as the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq, voiced support for U.S. troops, but also praised "the courage of President George W. Bush" and supported "the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein."
<<
In our local paper today is an AP article I have already discussed with a staffer at the local congressional office.
Gen. Casey is concerned about the National Guard's wider role in Iraq and the strain on families, personal lives, careers.
On the other hand, Sen. McCain is quoted as saying
notions about the Guard are obsolete.
He says the distinctions between Guard and active duty which were " once so clear" are now "virtually undetectable".
Steve Novick prides himself on being the most outspoken candidate for US Senate. Here is his chance to prove he cares about more than a vote on a 2003 resolution.
Does Steve share McCain's view or Gen. Casey's view?
Or doesn't that matter because Jeff should be so ashamed of a 2003 vote that nothing else matters?
This whole debate about the 2003 resolution is not something most people are going to be aware of. Those working multiple jobs, those with health, work and family concerns, those who believe other subjects are more interesting than politics are probably unaware of this topic--even though it has been printed in newspaper(s) and discussed on blogs. Anyone who ignores that reality has never seen a friend in a store or somewhere else and asked "did you see that TV ad (or read that newspaper article) about..." only to be cut off with "sorry, haven't had the time--too busy".
Activists may be more interested in Measures 49 and 50 (which we vote on in 2007) than a primary next year.
Anyone who reads BO often knows there are those who have great faith in political consultants and others who don't.
To the extent this debate is still raging in September, it risks looking like a consultant's ploy.
One would think a very bright consultant running for public office would be interested in being quoted on the news of the day, not just on an opponent's voting record.
If the troops were withdrawn starting tomorrow and everyone who had ever said the slightest good word about Bush or any of his politics was banished from political life, there would still be a lot of disabled vets, veterans like the Sherwood police chief who discover their old job isn't really there when they return from active duty, veterans who find their housing or their family life disrupted.
Does Steve want to be the candidate who shows he cares about those veterans?
Or is he someone who acts like he belongs to a debating society and by golly everyone had better agree with him on a legislative vote from 2003?
Steve is obviously proud of his work on the Bruggere campaign. But although "I fought a war" was a large part of that campaign, Tom Bruggere himself had a blank and puzzled look on his face when asked after a speech about the details of veterans legislation.
Care for veterans is even more important now, and there are more family, friends, and employers of those Oregonians who are deployed or have been on active duty than most politicians realize.
I am related to or friends with more veterans (back generations) than anyone here can possibly imagine. I was a Democratic national convention delegate for a US Senator who authored one of the most important pieces of veterans legislation during our adult lives.
If Steve and his campaign think none of that matters because we should all tell Jeff he made the wrong decision on a House Resolution in 2003, then they can forget about my vote.
Does Steve even know anyone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or previous wars?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 28, 2007 2:44:10 PM
One would think a very bright consultant running for public office would be interested in being quoted on the news of the day, not just on an opponent's voting record.
I think it's more than a little ironic to criticize someone for a monomaniacal focus--and then repeatedly ask them to focus on one issue! But my reason for responding is to point out that this IS the news of the day, literally. Steve's quotations on the issue--before his followup at BlueO yesterday--came as the result of the media asking him about it. The first time it was because the GOP brought it up (albeit with a different argument), the second time because the first time made news, so Cain called Novick back for more quotes.
The other thing I find bothersome about your last post is the use of distortive hyperbole:
*Steve and his campaign think none of that matters because we should all tell Jeff he made the wrong decision on a House Resolution in 2003
*is he someone who acts like he belongs to a debating society and by golly everyone had better agree with him on a legislative vote from 2003?
*Or doesn't that matter because Jeff should be so ashamed of a 2003 vote that nothing else matters?
These are not honest questions.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 28, 2007 2:49:49 PM
LT - those are interesting questions. have you emailed novick directly to ask him for answers, or have you just posted them here hoping he reads regularly and will post a response?
if you do email him or otherwise get in touch with him, please let us know what his response to your questions is. i would like to know. i'm not holding my breath for a post here on BO from him on the subject matter, though.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 28, 2007 3:11:40 PM
There is absolutely no one on this thread that didn't already know the substance of the second paragraph
Just curious, Kari. What special tool did you use as chief editor of Blue0 to determine exactly who read this thread and what their knowledge base was. Share with us little guys.
By the way... still waiting for the correction/retraction... and the chocolates...
Posted by: Miles | Aug 28, 2007 4:06:42 PM
If Steve and his campaign think none of [those other important policy issues] matters because we should all tell Jeff he made the wrong decision on a House Resolution in 2003, then they can forget about my vote.
I think Steve, and those of us who support him, aren't pointing out the 2003 resolution because it, in itself, matters all that much. It's being raised because it might be indicative of how Merkley will act if elected to Congress, and that's concerning. The tactics of Oregon's GOP on that resolution were pretty transparent and amatuerish. In DC, those same things are going to happen, but they'll be much better executed and harder to deal with.
I think everyone looking honestly at this issue knows that Merkley voted for this resolution to innoculate himself against future attacks that he didn't support the troops. Which brings up the legitimate question: What else would Merkley vote for in order to avoid taking a political hit?
It's not the 2003 resolution that's important, it's what that resolution tells us about the candidate that's important. I would love to see Merkley say that in retrospect, it was a mistake to vote for the resolution because of the poison clauses it contained, and that he's learned from his mistake and will never fall into such a trap again. But of course, no consultant would ever let him say that.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 4:37:48 PM
What special tool did you use as chief editor of Blue0 to determine exactly who read this thread and what their knowledge base was.
EBT... On the internets, there's this awesome new technology called "links". Some people call them "hotlinks" but that sounds like sausage to me. Others call them "hyperlinks" but that's too sci-fi for me.
These "links" you see, have this magical property. You "click" on them, and they instantly provide you with more information - including the full text that's quoted. Go ahead, try it!
Here on BlueOregon, our "links" are unsurprisingly blue. We don't underline ours, like some people, but we do bold them. Just "scroll" back on up to the top of this page and click on the first lovely blue and bold "link" in the story - and you'll see all the text of the AP story.
Try it and see! Whoohoo!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 28, 2007 4:42:11 PM
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 4:37:48 PM
But Kari, that dang Al Gore and his tubes are too devious.
;-P
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 28, 2007 4:48:32 PM
I think Steve, and those of us who support him, aren't pointing out the 2003 resolution because it, in itself, matters all that much. It's being raised because it might be indicative of how Merkley will act if elected to Congress, and that's concerning. The tactics of Oregon's GOP on that resolution were pretty transparent and amatuerish. In DC, those same things are going to happen, but they'll be much better executed and harder to deal with.I think everyone looking honestly at this issue knows that Merkley voted for this resolution to innoculate himself against future attacks that he didn't support the troops. Which brings up the legitimate question: What else would Merkley vote for in order to avoid taking a political hit?
Exactly so. Thank you.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Aug 28, 2007 5:08:08 PM
Kari,
My apologies for confusing your gender based on your name. I looked around for pictures of you as you suggested but found none (but I'll take your word for it!). Anyway, forgive my mistaken assumption.
My embarrassing screw-up does, however, allow me to make a separate point. What bothers me about Merkley's conduct is less that he voted the way he did in 2003 but that he has refused to apologize for that vote. Every politician makes mistakes, but the ones I like are the ones who are uncomfortable enough about spinning half truths that they admit their mistakes. Just contrast the way Edwards and Clinton presently discuss their 2003 Iraq War votes if you want another example.
To those who are offended that Novick supporters are turning this into "Resolution-Gate" (my term, nobody else's), allow me to remind you of the following: Novick has suggested that he and Merkley make a ton of joint appearances where they each make their respective cases against Smith, rather than debating each other, and let the people decide which of the two has the more impressive approach to winning next November. Should Merkley take Novick up on that invitation, any hint of intra-party negativity would go away. The best man would win, and everyone could unify behind the winner.
If, however, Merkley doesn't accept the challenge and tries to turn this primary into business as usual, the fear is that Merkley would be hiding behind his contacts in government and in websites like this one (see the advertisement prominently placed at the top right of the site) and turn this into an attempt to win based on having the superior "machine." In my view, while that approach could theoretically be successful in the primary, it would surely result in the Democrats losing the General Election. Smith has a lot more money as well as the "machine" advantages of incumbency. To beat him, the Dems need to show that they have a candidate with a better combo of passion, intelligence, command of public policy issues, courage, integrity, inherent likeability, and judgment. If the candidate who best fits the bill is Merkley, than he ought to win. He certainly has nothing in my book to disqualify himself from taking his shot. But let's find out who the best candidate is by having those joint appearances start early and often. Spin from paid operatives, advertisements in web sites, and endorsements from politicians merely sidetrack us all from the task at hand.
And please, if Merkley takes a position and Novick is asked about it (or vice versa), don't call it "going negative" if Novick answers the question honestly. The issue raised by this thread isn't what Novick and/or his supporters think of Merkley's vote. It's what Merkley -- four years after the war started -- thinks of his vote and why. Surely, Novick should have to defend his own positions, and I think we all know he's ready and willing to do so.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 5:48:53 PM
(see the advertisement prominently placed at the top right of the site)
That's a paid ad. It's available to anyone that pays the fare. Previously, the Novick campaign had their own series of ads on the left side.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 5:50:13 PM
Oh, and apology accepted. No worries. And welcome to BlueOregon.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Taoiseach | Aug 27, 2007 10:59:38 PM
This broke around lunchtime and none of the commenters on the other threads bothered to pick it up.
See what the Boundary has to say about Merkley's remarks. Or don't. It really doesn't matter now that he's clarified his intent when he voted.
Oh wait. He did that on March 21, 2003 too (the day of the vote).
You can expect Jeff Merkley to do his homework and speak proudly of his findings.
The post is here.