Novick visits Eastern Oregon to make his case
Last week, the East Oregonian covered Senate candidate Steve Novick's visit to the Wheeler County Democrats picnic. Can a Democrat like Novick win east of the mountains?
Novick said he believes his message plays as well in Eastern Oregon as anywhere else."I think that rural people are at least as likely as people in the cities to be without health insurance and rural folks don't like the idea of huge tax breaks for multi-national corporations any more than urban folks do," he said.
He said a good candidate won't "get slaughtered" in any part of the state.
"You just need to get out and let people know who you are and what you have to say," he said.
Once again, Novick argued that his nontraditional background is a strength.
"Gordon Smith is a highly talented traditional politician and you aren't going to beat him with traditional politics."Novick said voters, if presented with two similar candidates, likely would choose the one that already is in office. Instead, he points to Montana Senator Jon Tester.
"Jon Tester was not the DSCC candidate in the last election," Novick said. "He didn't look like most people's idea of a senator. Here's this 300-pound guy with a flat-top missing a few fingers."
While many partisans see the ouster of Gordon Smith as an end unto itself, Novick focuses on the issues:
"This campaign is about the future of the country and the state. The reason I'm going to the United States Senate is I want to do something about economic inequality and global warming and preventing the federal government from going bankrupt," he said. "That's what this is about. Gordon Smith needs to be replaced because he's an obstacle to those issues."Novick favors a swift end to the Iraq War and made a point of noting that Merkley signed a 2003 Oregon House resolution praising George Bush's courage for entering Iraq.
"You start conversations now with Iraq's neighbors. If they're willing to engage, then you sit down and you work out a schedule of what a collection of nations are going to do," Novick said.
If that doesn't work, Novick said he would favor a complete withdrawal.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
August 31, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (107 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 31, 2007 4:12:33 PM
I crossed town to see both the candidates in person. (Not together mind you. I know that Novick has been offering to do joint appearances around the state, but Merkley has yet to take up the challenge.) Before hearing Novick speak, i had heard all the banter about Novick being some super genius. He's smart, for sure. But he really connected with that crowd out in Aloha and this story from Wheeler County seems to confirm my impression too.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 31, 2007 4:13:25 PM
What more can the people of Oregon ask for? The choice is form (Smith) over substance (Novick). An empty suit talking out of both sides of his mouth with a rubber stamp in his hand or someone who knows the meaning of words and chooses them wisely so you can believe what he says.
Posted by: colin maloney | Aug 31, 2007 4:18:35 PM
one of the things i like best about Steve is that he comes off as being well informed, yet doesn't pretend to know everything about every issue.
he's also smart without being or coming across as "Mr. Smartypants." He'll take a position but will be willing to learn more about a position from people he's talking to.
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Aug 31, 2007 4:20:03 PM
I'm impressed that Novick is willing to go to Eastern Oregon to try and get some votes. That takes balls, and he seems to have them.
From the tone of the article, Novick seemed genuinely concerned with the issues that the folks there had. He knows he's running an underdog campaign, but is doing it smartly.
Hey Steve--if you can do Wheeler County, you can do Josephine County. I'm sure the local Democrats would be more than happy to host you in Grants Pass. And I'd be more than happy to attend...in a professional capacity, of course.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Steve Novick for US Senate | Aug 31, 2007 5:18:21 PM
Scott,
Thanks for the invite! We're already in conversations with folks down there about a trip, so stay tuned. And, of course we'd be more than happy to sit down with you in a professional capacity.
People can catch Steve this weekend at the Democratic Party of Oregon booth at the State Fair in Salem between noon and 2.
And then he'll be at the Portland and Eugene Labor Day picnics on Monday.
Have a great weekend everyone!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 31, 2007 5:31:02 PM
I know that Novick has been offering to do joint appearances around the state, but Merkley has yet to take up the challenge.
I don't know if you'd call it a joint appearance, but they appeared jointly (first Merkley, then Novick) at the MoveOn rally this week.
I thought you were there?
Posted by: colin maloney | Aug 31, 2007 5:58:29 PM
I think Thom is referring to this, posted here on BlueO, where Novick suggested joint appearances/debates between him and Merkley and Merkley welcomed the prospect.
From that post:
For his part, Jeff Merkley said on KPOJ this morning that he would be pleased to join Novick and looks forward to the opportunity to talk about why one of them should replace Gordon Smith.
I think that the voters in the Democratic Primary would be best served by as many as these appearances/debates as possible, so that they can make their decisions between these two very decent candidates.
IMHO, these debates should get underway as soon as "scheduling" allows. It will be a great way to generate publicity for the race and highlight why either Merkley or Novick would make a fine replacement for Gordo. It would be a shame to wait until January...
I'm not sure much of the public is aware that there's an important Senate race coming up here in Oregon and we have the best opportunity we've had yet to send Smith packing. When I talk to non political junkies, they're often not aware that there's a race coming up. Joint appearances would likely raise the profile of both candidates more so than solo appearances.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Aug 31, 2007 7:00:38 PM
Initially I was going to put up some tongue in cheek complaint in here about Kari secretly favoring the Novick campaign, since he bumped this up out of a comment and a newspaper; he wasn't informed about it by the Novick campaign itself.
But then the thought struck me - why didn't the Novick campaign tout this to BlueOregon? What's going on out there?
I was glad to read some pro-Steve Novick stuff in this article, and the positivity is most welcome. Next up, maybe his staffers need to be told about the concept of "free media", like BlueOregon. Steve is going to need a lot of that to win.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 31, 2007 7:16:29 PM
Novick favors a swift end to the Iraq War and made a point of noting that Merkley signed a 2003 Oregon House resolution praising George Bush's courage for entering Iraq.
An equally... forthright statement would be if Merkley were to point out to a crowd that Novick has stated in no uncertain terms that he would not have voted in favor of supporting the troops going into Iraq.
Half truths are half lies.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 31, 2007 7:39:39 PM
An equally... forthright statement would be if Merkley were to point out to a crowd that Novick has stated in no uncertain terms that he would not have voted in favor of supporting the troops going into Iraq.
Half truths are half lies.
And a half truth and bald-faced distortion is exactly what the first paragraph above contains.
Novick said, and many agree with him, that he would not have signed that phony sandbag resolution concocted by Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott that meant also praising George W. Bush's courage. Five Democrats had enough sense not to sign it. This resolution had the same ethical standards as a prosecutor demanding a "yes" or "no" answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Kevin: This resolution pinata was thoroughly flayed in previous threads. Are you so limited in ideas that you can't think of something new?
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Aug 31, 2007 8:38:33 PM
Jake-
Great. I look forward to hearing from you.
Posted by: LT | Aug 31, 2007 8:52:38 PM
Bill,
We've discussed the 2003 resolution here repeatedly, some would say ad nauseum.
Sen. Webb has been pushing legislation (amendment to a bill or resolution, I'm not sure) requiring a certain amount of down time between deployments, which would have the effect of reducing troop levels, stop loss, extended deployments, etc.
Sen. Warner wants the president to order a contingent (maybe 5,000) home by Christmas.
What would be truly instructive is for Merkley and Novick to state whether either agrees with either the jr. or sr. Virginia Senators. Or any other proposal by those currently serving in the US Senate.
And maybe someone should do the research to discover what GOP attacks were aimed at Merkley in the days right after he announced. Was it just the old chestnut "serial tax raiser"?
Or was there something else?
If one of the other attacks was "he's no different than Gordon, they both supported then opposed the war", open minded Oregonians might contend that people like Bill and Stephanie got caught in a GOP trap.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 31, 2007 9:53:39 PM
>open minded Oregonians might contend that people like Bill and Stephanie got caught in a GOP trap
Except that we never said that "he's no different than Gordon, they both supported then opposed the war."
We said, we think it was craven and foolish to vote for a resolution in support of a war he opposed.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 31, 2007 9:55:36 PM
If one of the other attacks was "he's no different than Gordon, they both supported then opposed the war", open minded Oregonians might contend that people like Bill and Stephanie got caught in a GOP trap.
I don't recall saying anything in line with the above. Nor do I recall Stephanie saying something similar. Looks to me like another case of overwrought imagination or under-utilized comprehension in reading.
My original statement on this was that Merkley made a mistake signing on to that phony resolution and I believed Steve was right because he was more meticulous in how he regarded words. I also added that this was but one issue and it was time to move on to many other issues that were very much more important. (What are their positions on immigration, habeas corpus, pursuing war profiteers? Who cares? Merkley supports the troops and Novick doesn't. What a crock!!!)
From the past threads dealing with this issue it became obvious that almost all commentators were locked into their respective positions and that they are not likely to change nor will they likely change others.
On the previous threads two, three or four people made what were essentially non-partisan statements that could have put this debate in a reasoned perspective. Their statements were all ignored because most people wanted to push their particular agenda and, if possible, ram it down their perceived opponents' throats.
The opening article in this thread has some points worthy of discussion that would be a better and more rewarding exercise than flaying this mercilessly battered resolution pinata.
If people want to continue to bore others with rehashing their opinions using variations on the same tired theme, go ahead. It's your First Amendment right. But count me out.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 31, 2007 11:45:32 PM
I don't know if you'd call it a joint appearance, but they appeared jointly (first Merkley, then Novick) at the MoveOn rally this week. I thought you were there?
I could only take so much schmoozing and speachifying. My sign and i spent some time demonstrating on the bridge before the vigil finally got underway. I saw Novick take part in the vigil. (He actually stands out in a crowd.) Did Merkley have somewhere else to go?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 1, 2007 12:07:47 AM
Steve Maurer asked... But then the thought struck me - why didn't the Novick campaign tout this to BlueOregon? What's going on out there?
For the record, they did. It was in a phone call, while I was driving, on the day I got Rogue'd, amidst other topics. I just plain forgot about it. Jake's doing a fine job.
Colin Maloney wrote.. When I talk to non political junkies, they're often not aware that there's a race coming up.
Yeah, I'm hoping so too. The key will be getting in front of audiences that aren't made up of political junkies. At this stage in a campaign, it can be real hard to build an audience that isn't made up of the supporters on both sides, or political junkies that will make up their mind based on other information.
Candidate time is the scarcest resource any campaign has; it's best used to actually move voters that wouldn't otherwise move.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 1, 2007 12:17:14 AM
>I don't know if you'd call it a joint appearance, but they appeared jointly (first Merkley, then Novick) at the MoveOn rally this week.
Based on that description (and I wasn't there), that isn't my idea of a "joint appearance."
Ideally, a joint appearance would be a lot more interactive (among all of the above: candidates, press, voters).
I too hope that we can get a lot of them going on, and plan and site them so that the maximum number of ordinary Democratic voters will attend.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 1, 2007 12:33:10 AM
Agreed. 100%.
But let's not pretend that they've never appeared on stage together.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 6:47:21 AM
Thank you, Bill, for making my point for me. Just like Merkley supporters do when challenged on the 2003 vote issue, you want to immediately bring up the full context. And you're right, the full context clearly isn't capable of supporting the assertion that Novick didn't want to support the troops. Yet his statement certainly could be construed to make it sound like opposition to the troops is what Novick is about. All it would take is stripping away context.
Half truths are half lies, inconvenient though that fact may be.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 1, 2007 8:50:01 AM
Let's get back to the topic in the lead article - Steve's visit to Wheeler County and his positions. This was just one of his points:
"This campaign is about the future of the country and the state. The reason I'm going to the United States Senate is I want to do something about economic inequality and global warming and preventing the federal government from going bankrupt," he said. "That's what this is about. Gordon Smith needs to be replaced because he's an obstacle to those issues."
Is he the kind of person you would want in the senate? Someone who won't be more concerned with maintaining the senate's tradition of taking care of corporations but might have some high-minded or basically decent idea that maybe the government should also do something for the people? I know that to Lars Larson, Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh fans that latter part of the preceding sentence will sound a lot like socialism, but they might want to consider it also sounds like a phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance - "... one nation, ..., indivisible..." Or, do they consider the corporations are the nation and the people just cogs to be used and tossed away when they have served their purpose or to serve as the 21st Century's version of cannon fodder in global wars and dumped in moldy hospital wards if they are wounded or abandoned if they return with psychological problems?
Posted by: NIck | Sep 1, 2007 9:49:20 AM
My concern with Novick isn't that he can't connect with the rural vote. Moreover my concern isn't really that he can't win the general election, because if he is the best candidate there is no shame in losing. My concern rather is that Novick isn't the best candidate. He might be the smartest guy in the room but he is also a divisive person. I do not believe that Novick has the disposition to sit in conference and work in the best interests of the state with someone like Senator Larry Craig. No matter any personal feelings about Sen. Craig, his vote and the vote of the person who will surely replace him are important to our state, if only to the timber counties. There comes a time in every legislator’s career where he or she must swallow his or her pride and vote for an imperfect bill or work with imperfect people to do what is in the best interests of our state, and I am unconvinced that Stave Novick is that person.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 1, 2007 10:20:24 AM
I do not believe that Novick has the disposition to sit in conference and work in the best interests of the state with someone like Senator Larry Craig.
I don't know what the basis is for the preceding, but I don't buy it without supporting evidence. To the contrary, Steve has shown remarkable intelligence throughout his career, and I believe we can count on him to continue to do so as Smith's replacement. Novick knows what is important for ordinary people in Oregon and he will do what is best for them. Most certainly, more so than Smith.
One of the qualities I see in Steve that appeals to me is a likely disinclination to sit down and work with other senators (Republican and Democrat) willing to go along with the current war on Iraq and another in Iran.
PS to another commentator who likes to try to inject "sarcasm with humor." Some sage noted a long time ago that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. On this basis, "sarcasm with humor" would be a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 1, 2007 10:48:06 AM
My concern with Novick isn't that he can't connect with the rural vote.
Indeed. This belated post with the East Oregonian story "Novick Impresses" shows that Novick does connect with Oregonians of all stripes.
I do not believe that Novick has the disposition to sit in conference and work in the best interests of the state with someone like Senator Larry Craig.
Fortunately, nobody in the Senate will have to work with that Dirty, Nasty, Naughty boy any more. We've already seen Merkley's willingness to reach across the aisle and give the GOP a hand (job) in passing HRes 2. I wouldn't vote against Merkley based just on that. It just makes me less likely to support his promotion from local political insider to DC-DSCC Schumer-bot.
he is also a divisive person.
Funny. I have only seen Steve Novick speak a couple times, but i got the exact opposite impression. You must have some awfully interesting back stories?!
[Disclaimer: I didn't see either candidate speak under the bridge before the peace vigil. Merkley's media guy said upthread: "Candidate time is the scarcest resource any campaign has; it's best used to actually move voters that wouldn't otherwise move." So why would he choose to just address the choir of move.on supporters and not take part in the actual vigil with hundreds of passersby who aren't "political junkies"? I'm just saying, i saw Novick on the bridge, all 4'9" of him. Merkley should have stood out? Did i miss him?]
Posted by: colin maloney | Sep 1, 2007 10:50:57 AM
My concern with Novick isn't that he can't connect with the rural vote.
Did you read the article?
Steve is more than capable of connecting with "the rural vote." And he's able to do so because he realizes that a lot of the same issues that matter to "the urban vote" or "the suburban vote" also matter to "the rural vote."
The rural/urban divide isn't nearly so wide as many make it out to be, and Steve has been spending a lot of time in Eastern, Southern, and Coastal Oregon. His support doesn't just come from us in the Willamette Valley.
From the summary (even):
"I think that rural people are at least as likely as people in the cities to be without health insurance and rural folks don't like the idea of huge tax breaks for multi-national corporations any more than urban folks do," he said.
Posted by: colin maloney | Sep 1, 2007 11:11:47 AM
...isn't that he can't connect...
note to self: don't get entangled by double negatives.
never mind.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 1, 2007 12:52:32 PM
I am not arguing that Novick can't go to Southern Oregon and speak in a manner that appeals to the activists that might attend one of his events. (Double negative duly noted). Rather, and for example, his recent attacks of Merkley's vote in support of the troops shows me that Novick, who has never been placed in a position where voting either way will have negative repercussions, is too smart (or too naive) to do what is politically expedient.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 1, 2007 2:17:04 PM
>too smart (or too naive) to do what is politically expedient
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Seriously, political expediency certainly has its purposes, but I'd rather be represented by a Senator whose default is not set to "whatever is politically expedient."
And that's Novick for sure.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 1, 2007 2:47:40 PM
... to do what is politically expedient.
Unlike Hillary and Chuck and others who wrote Bush a blank check to go to war on Iraq because it was the "politically expedient" thing to do.
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 1, 2007 2:53:32 PM
"Yet his statement certainly could be construed to make it sound like opposition to the troops is what Novick is about. All it would take is stripping away context."
What self-respecting candidate wouldn't say bring that on? Much easier than trying to defend the actual purpose of the bill. Supporting the troops is a platitude. Supporting US policy is a substantive declaration, IMO.
As for expediency, I bring up Dr. Phil--how's that working out so far? Has it been the expedient choice the last month?
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 3:00:28 PM
Perhaps "politically effective" would be a better way to phrase it.
I absolutely identify with the desire to be represented by someone whose default isn't to compromise principles upon the alter of expediency. That value is a huge reason why I remain a dedicated Independent/NAV. But making the perfect the enemy of the good often equates to ineffectiveness, and Oregon needs effective representation.
If Senator Bernie Sanders made a stand upon principle then as the lone honest-to-god Independent in the Senate he would forge his own path. I would admire such a principled stand more than the English language allows me to express effectively. But it would leave him utterly ineffective, both for his constituents and for the nation. So he took the path of expediency/effectiveness and joined the Democratic Caucus, just as he did when he was a Congressman. And he did it as a matter of course. It was a foregone conclussion when he won election to the Senate even though nobody on the planet questions his dedication to being and remaining an Independent rather than joining the Democratic party.
Oregon needs a principled Senator who won't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 1, 2007 3:10:13 PM
his recent attacks of Merkley's vote in support of the troops
Isn't it a bit early to be forgetting recent history? It's been said time and time that we all support the troops (so much so, that it seems odd to have to vote on it). Criticisms of Jeff Merkley's vote which acknowledged "the courage of President George W. Bush" are valid. But to call such criticisms an "attack" and then to try to preemptively "swiftboat" Novick with this is wrong on several levels. I'll try to be brief.
As part of the initial pro-Merkley threads on Blue0 since the Speaker's announcement "the voice of BlueOregon" posted Merkley News Roundup. It was supposed to work like Miracle-Gro for Mandate's candidate but it had more the effect of poison. Curiously missing from Blue0's in the "news" was OPB's article Oregon House Speaker Merkley Joins Race For U.S. Senate. Steve Novick, who was already in the race, was also interviewed for the article. I suppose a Merkley supporter might want to play down two things that came out of the article; Novick's immediate call for joint appearances (elsewhere he ups the ante, calling for debates) as well as his answer to the reporter's question on HRes 2.
"It's a resolution that quote 'acknowledges the courage of President George W Bush.' You would not have found me saying that the war in Iraq is a reflection of the courage of President George W Bush."
The irony of the whole thing, is that this whole debate was brought to the readers of Blue0 by a current Merkley supporter. Lestatdelc was the first to spray the August 3 Roundup with Merkley's HRes 2 problem.
"What I find troubling is that Novick agreed with the BS GOP frame that Merkley voted 'for the Iraq war' which was pure spin. I am all for a competitive primary, but not one where either of our candidates throws GOP mud at the other."
Novick's campaign manager was quick to post openly the context of the OPB interview, but it seems Merkley's supporters found the truth inconvenient. They kept spinning and spinning until finally, even the Willy Week (yes, warts and all) weighed in, calling out Kari for.. well... best read it for yourself.
It's easy to make groundless attacks, Nick. I put a bit of time into this stroll down Amnesia Lane. If anyone's comeback is to simply be an insult, i hope at least it's a well researched insult and not something as tired (and bigotted) as "take your meds."
[Disclaimer: I've been out biking and my armpits stink.]
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 3:19:30 PM
Torridjoe leads with his chin: Supporting the troops is a platitude.
Tell that to a roomfull of veterans and let us know how well it went over.
Naturally, you'll be wanting to qualify what you meant. We know what you meant, TJ. Sometimes, and even most of the time, claiming to "support the troops" is or at least can be a platitude. I agree. But we both know that there are any number of ways of "supporting the troops" which in fact are not "platitudes" by any measurement.
But of course you didn't qualify your assertion. And you're the same guy trying to pin the "he signed a 2003 Oregon House resolution praising George Bush's courage for entering Iraq" tail on Merkley.
A half truth is a half lie.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 1, 2007 3:30:19 PM
"Support the troops" is a) platitude; b) a slogan; c) a faded yellow car magnet; d) some of the above; or e) none of the above.
[Disclaimer: i looked those words in a dictionary before posting.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 1, 2007 3:32:58 PM
EBT, my understanding is that lestatdelc is a Novick supporter. He has said so here repeatedly. He has a problem with this particular issue, but I have not seen any indication from him that he has abandoned his support of Steve.
It bears saying that a lot of us (including you, me, lestatdelc, and others) who support Steve have significant disagreements with him over one issue or another. One of Steve's strengths as a candidate is that he engenders a level of trust that enables us to move beyond the paradigm of seeking perfect agreement with a candidate on issues - instead, we support Steve because we agree with him on MOST issues, and we are confident that his values are well aligned with our own.
And Kevin, "supporting the troops" is a platitude. Like all platitudes, the proof of it is in the execution. And I know that Steve supports the troops in the most important way -- by wanting to get them out of harm's way as quickly as possible.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 3:40:44 PM
EBT: The irony of the whole thing, is that this whole debate was brought to the readers of Blue0 by a current Merkley supporter. Lestatdelc was the first to spray the August 3 Roundup with Merkley's HRes 2 problem.
Lestatdelc is on record as a Novick supporter, not a Merkley supporter. Are you calling him a liar?
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 3:45:41 PM
Stephanie: And Kevin, "supporting the troops" is a platitude. Like all platitudes, the proof of it is in the execution.
So you're saying that my telling my best friend from highschool that I hoped he'd make it back from Iraq (either time) safe and sound was just a platitude? IOW, an expression of sentiment as a means of lending heartfelt moral support is a platitude?
A half truth is a half lie.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 1, 2007 3:56:49 PM
Kevin, why so emotional?
"Supporting the troops" is a platitude because everyone says they do it and only some people actually DO anything in furtherance of their expressed support.
By providing emotional support to your friend, you transcended the platitude. If you baked brownies and mailed them to a soldier, or sent paperback books and Gold Bond powder, or even emailed with a soldier or soldiers to express that support, you transcended the platitude.
But when people who don't know any soldiers vote Republican and drive around in 15 mpg SUVs with yellow ribbon magnets on them -- well, that yellow ribbon is expressing a PLATITUDE.
And when politicians vote for resolutions that support sending those troops off into harm's way for insufficient reasons, but throw in a salute to their bravery, well, I consider that a platitude too.
Posted by: Patton Price | Sep 1, 2007 4:00:31 PM
East Bank Thom:
You trash-talk as only an anonymous teenager on the internet could. Do you honestly believe your own statements about Merkley? How do you reconcile your belief that he is some sort of congenital appeaser with his stewardship of the House Democrats' 2006 campaign effort or of the Oregon House itself during 2007?
I presume you are not personally effected by anti-gay discrimination, attempts to deny emergency contraception to rape victims, school funding, or any of the other issues on which Merkley led a tiny majority to aggressive victories, but could you really talk your shit to those who are with a straight face (that isn't hidden behind your super-hardcore hair)?
That you are personally introducing so much acrimony and bullshit to what ought to be a conversation between adults speaks poorly of you. I would say it speaks poorly of your candidate as well if did I not have the feeling that he probably also thinks you're a blowhard.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 1, 2007 5:22:32 PM
I absolutely identify with the desire to be represented by someone whose default isn't to compromise principles upon the alter of expediency. That value is a huge reason why I remain a dedicated Independent/NAV. But making the perfect the enemy of the good often equates to ineffectiveness, and Oregon needs effective representation.
That is where good judgment comes in to play, and Novick has shown he has that quality. Good judgment is like the alcoholic's prayer: Grant the serenity to accept what can't be changed, courage to change what can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
If Senator Bernie Sanders made a stand upon principle then as the lone honest-to-god Independent in the Senate he would forge his own path. I would admire such a principled stand more than the English language allows me to express effectively. But it would leave him utterly ineffective, both for his constituents and for the nation.
Sometimes doing the right thing and standing on principle appears ineffective in the short term, but it can pay off in the long term. Look at the struggles throughout history for independence and civil rights. The Founding Fathers, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. never sat down with their oppressors and cut some compromise deals.
The great danger with abandoning principle is that it can become habit forming and preparation for going down the national sewer.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 5:22:54 PM
Kevin, why so emotional?
Hmmm... maybe because I'm not making up the bit about my best friend from HS. Or maybe it's because Merkley's statements about that particular resolution at the time, and his vote, mirrored my understanding and sentiments at the time. But the truth is that it's a combination of the two.
And when politicians vote for resolutions that support sending those troops off into harm's way for insufficient reasons, but throw in a salute to their bravery, well, I consider that a platitude too.
Fair enough. Of course another way to look at that would be to say that would-be politicians who wouldn't have lent moral support to troops and their families unless it were pristinely framed just to their liking, but still want to be viewed as actually giving a damn about the lot of a soldier and his/her family, could reasonably have their alleged support for troops called into question.
If passing an ideological litmus test is more important than lending moral support to folks who have no say in their fate, some of whom won't survive it, then it seems to me that the issue of misplaced priorities is very much an open question.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2007 5:27:06 PM
That is where good judgment comes in to play, and Novick has shown he has that quality.
Ah... you appear to have the advantage over me. Could you please point me to Novick's legislative voting record so that I can assess this good judgement that you say Novick has shown he has?
Thanks!
PS: Half truths are half lies.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 1, 2007 8:01:35 PM
Ah... you appear to have the advantage over me. Could you please point me to Novick's legislative voting record so that I can assess this good judgement that you say Novick has shown he has?
Read Novick's bio. People don't build up a record like that by making dumb decisions. Good judgment on many occasions had to be a factor. If it was essential for people to have a legislative voting record before getting elected nobody would ever be able to run.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Sep 1, 2007 10:10:06 PM
despite the appearance of another circular firing squad (go Dems go!), i want to say this is one primary vote i am looking forward to. Steve is my guy in this, but if he loses, damn, i'm going to have someone great to support! i am so proud of how Jeff Merkley led the House after 16 years of abject, partisan failure by a succession of lunatic Rs. like holy water drives out the demons, Merkley's application of real democracy to that body has now driven out even more of the nasties.
Novick or Merkley, we are going to send Gordo back to his ranch so he can sit on the porch and shell peas as he stares into the sunset. we have two great options who have enough sense to use the debates & primary to demostrate why Smith has to go, and whoever prevails will have the unwavering, full-bore support of the other.
it's rare when you have two choices you can be proud of. let's enjoy it.
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 1, 2007 11:21:31 PM
"Tell that to a roomfull of veterans and let us know how well it went over."I think it would go over great. Supporting the troops is a platitude. ADVOCATING for the troops--that takes effort. Veterans know bullshit from action. Paying for flights home (ALL the way), full mental health care, equipment delivered as promised, stop losses rejected, one-on/two-off deployment schedules...I guarantee you that's what veterans care about, and I support ALL of it. My idea is actually a 100% tax exemption for households with a member in active duty overseas during at least 3 months that calendar year, and first 50K exemption for ALL other active duty, reserve and Guard personnel. And I believe high-paid Iraq mercenaries get what they signed up for. I bet they'll let me have the donuts at the VFW hall.
Naturally, you'll be wanting to qualify what you meant. We know what you meant, TJ. Sometimes, and even most of the time, claiming to "support the troops" is or at least can be a platitude. I agree. But we both know that there are any number of ways of "supporting the troops" which in fact are not "platitudes" by any measurement.Actually, I was pretty clearly discussing the resolution, what was a platitude and what was substantive--given that I addressed the two articles of the resolution. It seems you (and Jeff) still believe that the first article of the resolution was a sincere, honest attempt to praise the troops like you were praising your friend...as opposed to a naked attempt to use who-could-oppose-it language to entice otherwise rational Democrats to endorse the war language. Steve sees the resolution as Republican garbage, therefore: one part bait, one part bull. Why would you endorse either?Do you really think your heartfelt wishes for your friend is what Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis were feeling when they put that in there? Really?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 1, 2007 11:48:50 PM
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;
and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;
and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power;
and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
From here I'd have to say that it looks like three and a half parts bull, one and a half parts bait. But I'm with you, TJ.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Sep 2, 2007 9:46:34 AM
You'll notice here that "kevin" is the person who brought up the topic of the 2003 resolution, and like previous posters he keeps it front and center by his obstinate refusal to accept any inkling of an idea that there's a better way to handle GOP Bullshit than walking into it.
Kevin, an alleged Merkley supporter, is keeping this issue alive.
And as long as he is, let's make a point.
An equally... forthright statement would be if Merkley were to point out to a crowd that Novick has stated in no uncertain terms that he would not have voted in favor of supporting the troops going into Iraq.
As has been discussed repeatedly, it takes a real scumbag to use that Republican frame -- that you must support George W. Bush in order to support the troops. I certainly don't think Merkley is a scumbag. I think he's a long MF'ing way from that.
Some of his supporters, however, afflicted by candidate loyalty, have a problem with simple logic and honesty. And it doesn't reflect well on them or the candidate they are allegedly defending.
If you never demand more from your representatives than hiding from, or surrendering to, GOP tactics, then your never going to get anything better. I'm hoping -- no demanding -- something better. Why the rest of you aren't just demoralizes and befuddles me.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 2, 2007 9:57:01 AM
Do you really think your heartfelt wishes for your friend is what Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis were feeling when they put that in there? Really?
Do you really think my friend even knows who Wayne Scott or Karen Minnis are? Much less what their political goals were? Really?
Your problem (and Novicks) is that you're so caught up in partisan politics that you can't even begin to relate to a soldier who doesn't give a flying rat's backside about it.
At best... at BEST, my buddy probably heard a passing mention from one of his two brothers who still live in Oregon that the legislature had made some sort of statement of support for the troops. I'd bet my next paycheck that that's the MOST info he got and that it was very likely the extent of his brother's understanding of that resolution expressing support for their kid brother.
While you (and Novick) get all caught up in arcane partisan political maneuvering, a HUGE swath of the population just gets sound bites. That's just reality.
The sound bite that Dave (my buddy) would have heard about, if Novick had had his way, is that the legislature had considered and then REJECTED a statement of support for him and his fellow soldiers.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Sep 2, 2007 10:00:29 AM
One more time for kicks: If the republicans wanted to send moral support to the troops they could have crafted a resolution saying so without including all of the loaded partisan political garbage. The fact that they didn't indicates the true nature of this resolution: It was a trap to put Democrats over a barrel and make them vote for things they did not believe in.
There are many creative and honest ways to handle that trap. Walking into it is my least favorite.
But people like Kevin can't seem to cross that bridge and get beyond the hollow "support the troops" rhetoric that makes magnetized ribbon-makers in China wealthy and leaves wounded veterans recovering in mold-infested hospitals.
What you're really supporting Kevin, when you push the wisdom of voting for that resolution, is Bullshit. You're supporting the same type of Bullshit that put your friend in harm's way to begin with.
Wake the fuck up. Half truths and lies put your friend in danger. Half truths and lies that were supported by people who didn't have the courage or smarts to fight it. I'm calling for an end to that. You're enabling it.
Honestly, I think you're a Republican who's playing a wee game here.
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: Stephanie V | Aug 31, 2007 4:10:46 PM
Of key importance:
"I liked it," said Dale Thompson, who helped organize the picnic. "I thought it's encouraging to get anyone to come here. He made connections. He relates to the people really well."
Thompson said he was impressed with how Novick was able to differentiate himself from Merkley without attacking him and was impressed by how Novick presented himself.
Steve is a Democratic candidate who can distinguish himself without attacking his primary opponent, AND who can communicate effectively with rural Oregonians. Endorsements are great, and Steve has some for sure, but Democrats don't need to be about top-down establishment-driven candidacies.