Republicans, Novick press attack on Merkley
The Associated Press covers the attacks on Jeff Merkley by the Oregon GOP - pretending that his vote to support the troops in 2003 was a vote in favor of the Iraq War:
Ever since Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley announced plans to challenge U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith in 2008, Republicans have been trying to make campaign fodder of Merkley's 2003 vote for a state House resolution expressing support for U.S. troops in Iraq. ..."Merkley can't have it both ways," said Oregon GOP spokesman Shawn Cleave. "If he is going to build his campaign against Gordon Smith on this one issue, then he is going to have to explain his own vote on the Iraq war."
For the first time, Steve Novick also raised the issue - and agreed with the GOP's description of the vote.
"It is coming up as an issue," Novick said in an interview with The Associated Press in which he made it clear he plans to talk about the House resolution in the campaign's coming months."I think there will be a lot of Democrats who will want to vote for someone who loudly, proudly and at every opportunity expressed his opposition to the war," said Novick. ...
"A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.
The Merkley campaign, meanwhile, wouldn't attack Novick - and continued to point out that the 2003 vote was in support of the troops, and that Merkley opposed the war from the outset.
Merkley's campaign said it would have no direct comment on Novick's assertions about Merkley's vote on the House resolution."Jeff Merkley knows that the best way to help Gordon Smith get re-elected is for Democrats to attack each other," Merkley spokesman Jon Isaacs said. ...
Merkley, for his part, has said he was only expressing his support for U.S. troops in voting for the nonbinding state resolution.
Further, the Portland Democrat gave a floor speech the day the resolution was considered in which he said he was "not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources."
Read the rest of the AP story. Additional blog coverage:
Loaded Orygun channels Novick:
The Iraq vote was not a vote to "support the troops;" it was a baiting tactic to get Democrats on the record for the whole shitbag we all now hold. And instead of thinking "I don't want to be seen as not supporting the war," Novick's point is that the proper response is "This bill is a bullshit bill, and you don't vote Yes on bullshit, even if there's a lollipop hidden in the manure." So far, Merkley has only responded to the Republican argument; if he intends to treat the more salient argument as an attack, will he leave some voters wondering how they should view him when their questions turn "to the bill," as they say?
NW Republican repeats the GOP line:
The fact is that Merkley supported the war in Iraq before he opposed it. Much like Sen. Gordon Smith. So the Iraq votes will not be an issue if Merkley is the one to clear the Democrat primary. Smith is in essence innoculated from the issue.
Senate Guru calls this entire argument "dishonest and shameful":
Supporting the troops and supporting the war are two very different things - which is why it also bothers me that Oregon Republicans are dishonestly trying to turn Speaker Jeff Merkley's vote back in 2003 for a resolution in the Oregon House meant as a show of support for our troops into some sort of declaration of support for the war, as though it somehow exonerates Gordon Smith from his election cycle conversion on Iraq. Dishonest and shameful.
Discuss.
|
August 26, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (78 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2007 4:07:58 PM
Senate Guru is correct in being concerned, and here is why:
In Oregon, how many returning vets had job problems like the Sherwood Chief of Police losing the job he thought he had when he came back from active duty?
Can anyone involved in this debate give the number of Oregon casualties (killed or wounded) and what is being done to help the families of the deceased and the wounded veterans and their families ?
Is the Senate campaign going to be about what is best for Oregon or about silly games and symbolism?
Does Steve really want this to be as empty an issue debate as we saw in 1996 or as nasty as the 1992 primary? Those Senate elections are not what one would think Democrats would want to repeat.
Not every conversation about this debate (among those paying attention on a late August weekend) is necessarily "give 'em hell, Steve".
The conversation I had this morning about this was more along the lines of the problems staffers encounter when they first run for office, the fact that Merkley has actually held elective office while Steve has not, and someone who worked in the 2007 session saying "everyone likes Merkley".
My sense in seeing Steve speak in person some months ago was that he was aiming at a very specific target audience and didn't really care if he impressed anyone else. If that target audience is not large enough to win a primary, what else matters?
The voices of 2 old friends have come to mind as I have watched this story unfold. One friend who ran in a primary (but remained on speaking terms with the other candidates) made a statement about another primary--- that an elected official running against a staffer who had decided to run for office had an advantage because the 2 are very different roles.
The other is someone who ran a successful primary a quarter of a century ago commenting on the 2 candidates who would end up coming in 2nd and 3rd in that primary. They just tore each other up (think Dean and Gephardt in Iowa, 2004) and neither of them won the primary.
The friend said back then "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing" and said roughly a year ago when we saw each other again after many years that the sentiment was at least as true now if not more so.
Here is my message to Novick fans. Everyone knows he is very bright, and really cares about certain issues incl. the Iraq War.
But that isn't the question. The question is whether he will win enough votes. The young woman I took to the Novick speech was underwhelmed by him, and later told me she was glad Merkley was running against him. This is someone who is currently working 2 part time jobs while studying online to get the training for a job she really wants.
Is that the sort of voter Democrats want engaged in this primary?
Take it from someone who has worked on statewide campaigns, both winning and losing campaigns--the sentiment of a previous presidential campaign manager really resonates with me. According to this campaign manager, the most important poll question is the one which ranks candidates on the scale of "cares about people like me, understands my problems".
Novick seems to think that profanity on the House floor would have been preferable to the way Merkley voted.
OK, accept that premise for a moment. Suppose Merkley had stood up and said "this bill stinks, it is the stupidest bill I ever saw, and I won't vote for it".
Steve still has to answer these questions:
1) What would that have gained Jeff, the Democratic caucus, or Oregonians in general if he had done that.
2) "Steve, you have never held public office--why should we believe you know how you would have reacted had you been a state rep. that year?".
3) There are Oregonians without jobs (or underemployed), without health care, worried about making ends meet, looking for solutions to problems. How exactly does this symbolic spat solve any of those problems?
4) If this looks to anyone like Steve playing into the hands of those in the GOP who would love to run commercials about it against any Democrat, exactly what does that say about his political savvy?
About a dozen years ago I was at an event and introduced an old friend of mine to someone I had met as a result of the 1992 Senate primary campaign. She said "I stayed far away from that campaign---way too nasty".
Those of you who support Steve Novick might want to have a talk with him. What if Oregonians decide the same thing about this battle that my friend did about the 1992 primary?
Or don't you want to widen the circle of people who are interested in following the US Senate campaign because it is all an insider's game?
Isn't that how Gordon Smith got into the US Senate in the first place?
Isn't this sort of fight an opening for someone like John Frohnmayer to come in?
Posted by: MCR | Aug 26, 2007 4:22:32 PM
When David Reinhard is praising Steve Novick, it's gotta make you wonder...
Posted by: Taoiseach | Aug 26, 2007 4:51:30 PM
Cleave:
"If he is going to build his campaign against Gordon Smith on this one issue, then he is going to have to explain his own vote on the Iraq war."
It seems pretty clear to me that Merkley explained his vote before it was cast. The same explanation given today would make total sense. And because the Oregon Legislature has little control over the use of force in Iraq or the machinations of the U.S. Congress, a "Yes" vote didn't unleash any unintended consequences.
For that reason, if voters were looking towards State Representative Merkley to 'loudly, proudly and at every opportunity express[] his opposition to the war', they need to go back to 7th grade civics.
Posted by: oregonj | Aug 26, 2007 4:52:10 PM
This is a strong indicator that Merkley is positioned very well at this time. If Novick, Reinhardt, Gordo, and the Oregon Republicans are creating an attack point on such a flimsy basis, you know all these folks are seeing tough competition ahead. With a nice little stirring of the base in the primary, a bunch of cash from the DSCC, and an incumbent whose teflon is looking awfully thin these days, Merkley's chances are looking up.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 4:55:56 PM
I don't see Steve Novick attacking anyone here. I see a lot of people throwing that word "attack" around, but saying it doesn't make it so.
If asked a question by reporters, a candidate has a right and even an obligation to give an honest answer.
Further, in a primary where the two candidates are both generally within the same ballpark ideologically, small differences are where the clues are as to who would be a better nominee and eventually, a better Senator. Since when is it unfair or unreasonable for a candidate to characterize his views fully and truthfully in order to draw a distinction between himself and a primary opponent?
I thought the whole point of having a contested primary was to test the candidates' weaknesses by forcing them to compete with each other, to find the one with fewer exploitable weaknesses in the general election. If it turns out that this is a big weakness for Jeff Merkley, we are much better off finding that out now, while there is still time to nominate someone else. The Merkley forces don't want us to think that way. They want us all to assume that Merkley's nomination is a fait accompli. But it isn't, and it certainly doesn't have to be.
Remember: eventually, our candidate is going to be forced to deal with the issues the Republicans bring up. So let's figure out NOW which of our contestants is better able to do that.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Aug 26, 2007 5:15:04 PM
..."eventually, our candidate is going to be forced to deal with the issues the Republicans bring up"
Jeff Merkley as Speaker did this on a daily basis in the 2007 session. Almost everyday the House GOP would attempt to withdraw a bill from committee that had not been properly vetted. These were bills designed purely to get House Democrats to vote on a particular issue.
They included:
HB 3535, for state troopers
HB 3427, bogus 'First-Class Education' plan
HB 2550, redundant 'Legislative Audit' bill
HB 3554, redundant 'proof-of-citizenship' for state services
HB 3425, cut in capital gains taxes
HB 3430, cut in inheritance tax
The thing is, Merkley knows that voters can understand the difference between a procedural vote and a substantive one. As Speaker, he let the House GOP exhaust themselves as they lost battle after battle even as the more moderate Democrats failed to fall for their tricks.
Even before that, Merkley as House Minority Leader successfully overcame a 6-seat deficit to retake the Oregon House from the Republicans. He certainly dealt with the issues Republicans brought up; in fact, he was better at these issues than the GOP themselves.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2007 5:19:35 PM
Stephanie,
"I thought the whole point of having a contested primary was to test the candidates' weaknesses by forcing them to compete with each other"
and "If it turns out that this is a big weakness for Jeff Merkley" imply that the general population give a rip about a 2003 obscure legislative vote.
If Steve is asked about veterans health care, or health care for the general public, or the farm bill, or Lance Armstrong's cancer summit, or campaign finance reform, or Alberto Gonzales, or how he would vote in 2009 on presidential appointments, then saying of a 2003 legislative vote by his opponent
"It is coming up as an issue," Novick said in an interview with The Associated Press in which he made it clear he plans to talk about the House resolution in the campaign's coming months.
then the voters have the right to say that is a non-responsive answer.
If a voter walks up to Steve and says that there are some issues not being discussed often enough, then what Steve says about a 2003 legislative vote isn't really relevant, is it?
Are primaries about what we the people think is important (and 10 voters may have 10 different top issues they care about), or are we to be told by people whose lives revolve around politics that they will decide for us what is important?
And this does bring up something about Steve's background. Steve has mentioned working on the Bruggere campaign in his biographical information. Gordon Smith is in the US Senate because the nominee against him was Bruggere who didn't excite a lot of support (look at the number of voters who fled to 3rd parties).
Perhaps this is more of a test of Steve than he thinks. If Steve were asked what lessons he learned in 1996 that he will use to prevent making mistakes himself, what would his answer be?
Or aren't we supposed to ask that because the true believers are going to tell us from now until the primary that Steve is the best candidate and we shouldn't trust Merkley?
This should be about what ordinary people feel is important.
Stephanie, if you think this is the top issue, talk to your friends about it. And then report back to us how many of your friends think this is a winning issue for Steve.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 5:33:49 PM
>The thing is, Merkley knows that voters can understand the difference between a procedural vote and a substantive one. As Speaker, he let the House GOP exhaust themselves as they lost battle after battle even as the more moderate Democrats failed to fall for their tricks.
Even before that, Merkley as House Minority Leader successfully overcame a 6-seat deficit to retake the Oregon House from the Republicans. He certainly dealt with the issues Republicans brought up; in fact, he was better at these issues than the GOP themselves.
That's all beautiful, but that and $2.05 will get him from downtown to Gresham on the MAX.
In short, he may have avoided some other Republican tricks, but he fell for a really big one, even though he knew exactly what was going on. The Iraq resolution was a foolish, craven vote on his part, and he should not be surprised that he has to defend it. Unlike five other brave Democrats, he walked into a purely symbolic Republican trap with his eyes wide open.
Well, guess what? Not all Republican traps are symbolic. Some of them, like the Patriot Act, have real life consequences. But if you don't have the good sense or the courage or WHATEVER to avoid the purely symbolic trap, how on earth are we supposed to have confidence that he won't be voting for whatever ginned-up "emergency" legislation gets put before him in the Senate?
As for LT's points, I would only say, this is what primary campaigns are for. The voters get to decide what issues are important to them, and then they get to vote on that basis. I don't see anyone telling the voters how important this issue is. But it's fair to say that to some of us, it's very important. And I would encourage LT and others to ask Steve the questions that are important to them, weigh his answers with an open mind, and decide on that basis.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 26, 2007 5:35:34 PM
I don't see Steve Novick attacking anyone here. I see a lot of people throwing that word "attack" around, but saying it doesn't make it so.
I agree completely with Stephanie on this. No doubt there are people who would like to stir up some conflict, but I'm confident Steve Novick is not one of them. However, having said that, I believe it is legitimate to ask what Merkley was thinking of when he endorsed anything remotely referring to George Bush's courage. I believe fair-minded people will say Merkley goofed but will refrain from tossing him overboard to the sharks. On this particular issue, Merkley loses and Novick wins. Now let's discuss the many others that need to be resolved. As a Novick supporter, I'm confident he will win many of them without the distractions of a phony war. As for Reinhard, the less we get out of his garbage can the better.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 6:13:15 PM
I believe fair-minded people will say Merkley goofed but will refrain from tossing him overboard to the sharks.
How did he goof?
1. The resolution not only was non-binding, but it wasn't even legislation. It was an expression of sentiment! Nothing more.
2. Merkley clearly, publically and at the time made it clear that he didn't agree with the BushCo spin about Iraq.
Where's the goof?
And let's not fall for the "the GOP are trying to pin it on him" definition of a goof because we all know better. After seeing Kerry get Swiftboated and the outrageous lies before that about the Wellstone funeral, just to name two major examples, we all ought to know better than to let the GOP define reality for us.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 6:22:25 PM
The goof was in rising to the bait laid by the Republicans.
The goof was in casting a Yes vote on a resolution saluting the "courage" of a deceitful, foolhardy President and his cabinet.
The goof was in lacking the courage to vote his convictions (if, as his defenders say, they were his convictions at the time) that the invasion was wrong.
The goof was in trying to have it both ways. That's not leadership.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2007 6:23:44 PM
Stephanie and Bill,
Those of us who live downstate don't see Steve Novick all that often.
If you see him before I do, ask him why discussing a symbolic vote in 2003 tells us which federal legislation he supports/opposes.
It is a candidate's obligation to declare what they stand FOR.
And after the 1996 experience of having a couple of Bruggere staffers yell "STOP RAINING ON OUR PARADE" because I had the "gall" to walk up to Bruggere at an advertised campaign stop and ask "A member of your staff says you oppose the --- bill which Wyden co-sponsored, can you explain why? ", I'm not sure that all candidates are willing to answer questions.
Or maybe Steve can come on here and tell us what positive things he stands for, or if he expects those not already supporting him to support him because he brought up a 2003 legislative vote.
Steve has no voting record. How are we supposed to ask him about past actions?
Or are we supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt because he and some other people don't like that 2003 vote?
Some of my closest friends have been legislators who sometimes cast votes I thought were dumb. I let them know that personally, but I didn't make a public stink about it and say I was no longer their friend.
Maybe those who support Steve on this can complete the sentence "Novick would be a better nominee against Smith because he brought up Merkley's 2003 legislative vote for the following reasons....".
This does NOT make the case for Novick in my eyes, and even if I had an hour conversation with Steve on this issue, it still wouldn't complete the sentence
"If elected, Novick will support ______legislation and would be more likely to vote with Sen.----- than with Sen. _____".
If anyone here thinks this is the most important issue in the campaign, then by all means spend all your spare time volunteering on the Novick campaign.
I think this is a stunt, starting with the passive voice,
"It is coming up as an issue," Novick said"
Who brought it up as an issue? When? In what context? In what venue (print, blog, conversation, etc. )?
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 6:33:54 PM
The goof was in rising to the bait laid by the Republicans.
He didn't bite. Insinuating otherwise doesn't change that simple fact.
The goof was in casting a Yes vote on a resolution saluting the "courage" of a deceitful, foolhardy President and his cabinet.
It was also a resolution expressing support for our troops.
The goof was in lacking the courage to vote his convictions (if, as his defenders say, they were his convictions at the time) that the invasion was wrong.
If we are to accept your rational here then a "no" vote could only be seen as expressing zero support for men and women in uniform who have absolutely no say whatsoever over where the President sends them or what their job will be when they get there.
The goof was in trying to have it both ways. That's not leadership.
Assuming Novick et al actually did wish our troops the best, isn't he trying to have it both ways too? Or does Novick simply not support our troops? Can't you see how rediculous your argument is? It smears Novick and Merkley alike, just for different things.
This is an utterly absurd, contrived non-issue. Using it to grind a partisan axe cuts both ways whether you want to accept that reality or not.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 6:35:31 PM
Kari et al, can one of you close the italics tag I left open?
Thanks!
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 6:50:24 PM
LT, I don't know who first asked Steve about it, but perhaps we can all agree that it is OK for him to answer the question fully and truthfully? Nobody is saying or expecting that this problem of Merkley's should "make the case for Novick" in your eyes or anyone else's. It is just one piece of a large and complex puzzle (many of the pieces of which are not even visible yet).
If you take a look at Steve's website you will find considerable information about Steve's positions on issues and the philosophy of public service that has brought him to the point of becoming a candidate for the Senate.
He's got an email link on there and my experience is that he's pretty good about responding to email. The campaign phone number is on the site too.
When I look at www.jeffmerkley.com, I learn that he supports the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales. While I applaud his position, there is nothing else on the site that is the slightest bit useful or probative of his future inclinations as a legislator.
I disagree with Steve on a number of issues, and I fully expect that more will emerge. But I don't expect any public servant to agree with me 100% of the time. I do prefer to vote for those whose values are well aligned with my own, and from my observations of Steve's own statements and his earlier career I have found sufficient comfort to believe that they are.
Kevin, five Democrats had the courage to vote against that stupid resolution, and a couple of them placed statements into the record stating the reason for their votes. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a guy as smart as Jeff Merkley didn't do the same thing. But the fact that he didn't causes me to wonder, why not?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 7:02:53 PM
I'd like to take a moment to add here that the very title of this posting not-very-subtly slants the dialogue against Steve.
Steve Novick has NOT attacked Merkley. I can't speak about the Republicans, but to lump Steve and the Republicans together is an ugly little rhetorical trick and I hope it does not fool anyone.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Steve Novick for US Senate | Aug 26, 2007 7:05:29 PM
I am not going to pick up most of the substance of this thread because Steve will be writing a guest opinion for Blue O on it for tomorrow.
But I do have to take issue with you LT for saying, "Those of us who live downstate don't see Steve Novick all that often."
Steve was in Lane County today for the county Dems Chili cookoff. He was in Gilliam & Wheeler counties yesterday for a Democratic picnic. You can read more about that trip in today's East Oregonian (sub required):
Part of that strategy is attending small gatherings like the Wheeler County picnic, where Novick's message, both in a speech and in small talk, played well with the Democrats gathered for the three-hour event."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.
"I think he's really got his thoughts together. He's not doing this as a fluke," Thompson said. "I think he really convinces people that he has a chance."
We are running a campaign that connects with Democrats across Oregon and your asides only undercut your credibility.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 26, 2007 7:32:02 PM
Here's what the Novick campaign had to say the last time he remarked on Merkley's vote:
The Novick campaign did not introduce this argument or attempt to "use" it as the story stated. He was asked whether he would have voted for it and he gave an honest answer, highlighting specifically what he would have found objectionable. (He also objected to the fact that the resolution recited, as fact, the Administration's "weapons of mass destruction" rationale for the war.) Steve realizes, of course, that this resolution was deliberately manufactured by Republican leadership to put Democrats in a terrible position: either vote for a resolution reciting the Bush administration's rationale for war, or be accused of not supporting the troops.
So first he legitimizes the substance of the bill. Then his campaign acknowledges the bill was a false dilemma, but nevertheless piles on by saying the vote was about WMD in Iraq. Now Novick is expressing concern about what voters will think of Merkley ("I think there will be a lot of Democrats who," "A lot of Democratic voters ... feel," etc.). My initial assessment here is that Novick is being disingenuous and opportunistic. He's further legitimizing the "Do you love the troops and Bush or hate the troops and Bush?" resolution after having already acknowledged the absurdity of it. Claiming that Merkley should not have said Iraq had WMD by voting "yea" is just asinine because it pretends there's substance to the bill. By that damaged logic, the nays, and Novick, believe that our troops are not worthy of our praise. It's just flat daft to claim a vote either way is meaningful. I, personally, would most likely have voted with the majority, since at least that why my ham-fisted critics would be calling me a Bush-lover, something I could laugh at, rather than a troop-hater, something I could curse at. But that's just me. I have complete respect for the Democrats who voted either way. I think we all should.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 26, 2007 7:42:05 PM
Sorry but Merkley voted the right way on the non-biding resolution, stated he disagreed with the war but supported the troops when this bullshit resolution was brought up by the GOP 2 days into the invasion (before our troops even got to Baghdad).
Novick is fucking it up by legitimizing the GOP crap as even a legitimate disagreement. That there are alleged Democrats and "progressives" saying Merkley "goofed" on this is beyond pathetic. Way to do the GOP work for them.
The only proper reply Novick should have given is calling this for what it was, that this was a GOP trap BS bill and it is 100% fraudulent that the GOP think this immunizes him for throwing the lives away of the troops for pushing this war in the first place.
That Novick is giving tacit agreement that this is a legitimate "controversy" and that this is substantive difference in opposing the war (the implied narrative in the media) is bogus.
Merkely stated at the time invasion was not the correct policy for us to pursue, but was voting to support troops who were ordered to put there lives on the line is the exact opposite of a goof.
While I usually respect TJs take on most things, he is flat to wrong to try and spin that voting no in the resolution is the same as calling it an illegitimate resolution. It is a crap argument. Either the resolution has moral support for what it says or it doesn't. Merkely clearly (at the time) voted to give moral support for the troops in the line of fire, even though he disagreed with putting them in that situation in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to think otherwise, or claim that it showed poor judgement on Merkely part is a fricken idiot.
While it is far form a make-or-break issue, and Novick or Merkely would be a critical improvement over the jack-off that is Gordon SMith, Novick and his supporters trying to make hay out of this and not calling it a bullshit GOP stunt which it is, are showing they really don;t get it.
But hey, lets have the two candidates who hold the position form the get-go that the invasion of Iraq was going to be a mistake attack each other over a GOP stunt, instead of attacking the GOP jack-off who actually voted to get our troops killed. Way to go idiots.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 26, 2007 8:08:17 PM
what does "support the troops" even mean? it gets tossed around like it's this holy grail of statements, one that it is inconceivable to not be in complete agreement with, but what does it even mean, really?
does it mean making sure that they have a job when they get back? does it mean making sure they have adequate kevlar to wear over in iraq? does it mean making sure they're not driving around in humvees with plywood being the only thing between them & bullets? does it mean sending them care packages of goodies & magazines? does it mean making sure they're spouses are able to make ends meet & have adequate assistance with childcare?
does it mean not spitting on them?
what? i'm serious! everyone is all like "you can't expect jeff merkley to say he doesn't support the troops!!!1!!1!" but what the h&ll does that statement even mean, in a resolution like that, or even just on a bumper sticker?
i'm sorry, but i remember all too well gulf war v.1.0 and all the yellow ribbon crap that was foisted on us, and when noam chomsky's book "manufacturing consent", i was so grateful to find out that i hadn't imagined the whole friggin' thing. and here we are again.
this whole thing just screams "MANUFACTURING CONSENT" to me, and that bill was a manufactured consent bill. period. and jeff merkely walked into it and allowed his consent to be manufactured for him by the GOP. (IMHO and all that. and i realise i'm walking into a hornet's nest by making that statement, but it's late & i hate a crappy weekend, so am in a bit of devil-may-care mood)
now. there is no way i would choose a candidate based on this one issue. i'm not happy with the vote merkley made, but it isn't that huge of a deal to me, as far as issues go. this is so not going to decide who i vote for in the primary. i may well vote for merkely anyway, if all other pieces in the puzzle point in that direction.
what does bug me is the way that merkely supporters are accusing novick of attacking merkely, when i can't read anything anywhere that even comes close to being an attack. a disagreement? yes. is he being disengenous? possibly, i wouldn't rule that out. but attacking? puh-lease.
good thing i prefer to base my choice of candidate on the candidate themselves and not on his or her supporters, because the merkeley supporters here are making me a lot more sympathetic to novick than i would be otherwise.
'm just sayin'...
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 26, 2007 8:12:53 PM
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 6:50:24 PMKevin, five Democrats had the courage to vote against that stupid resolution, and a couple of them placed statements into the record stating the reason for their votes. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a guy as smart as Jeff Merkley didn't do the same thing. But the fact that he didn't causes me to wonder, why not?
Maybe because Jeff is smart enough and empathetic enough to realize that 2 days into an invasion it is more important to vote in support of our troops and their families during what for them is one of the most highly-stressful things they will face in life, even while disagreeing with the policy that put them into the line of fire. Perhaps it is more important to do that than it is/was to register a meaningless protest against wording that lauds Bush in a GOP stunt of a non-binding resolution.
Furthermore, since Jeff did have entered into the record that he disagreed with the rationale for invasion at the time, not sure why you see it as more commendable for the 5 who voted no (and would have, if running for the Senate, been attacked as voting against supporting the troops by the GOP spin-jockeys).
I certainly have more respect for Jeff voting for this and saying exactly what he was voting for and stating he disagreed with the invasion, than I do for those who voted no, even though I can accept why they voted no. But I do not have much respect for alleged Democrats and progressives saying this was a bad vote by Jeff. It wasn't. Furthermore Steve hasn't shown the best judgement as to how the media narrative gets devleoped and the GOP in pushing in this, and his earlier statements are validating it whether he sees it that way or not. Again, not a deal-breaker per se since I think Steve would make a great Snators (as would Jeff) but Steve needs to learn from this and see that the media will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative in order to get the Democrats to attack each other (conflict sells column inches). THis is what the problem is, that even though they both agree the war was wrong and should not have been launched, the narrative is levearaging his words to create Democratic confilct instead of the larger more subtantive point that Smith is the one who voted to get our troops killed over fictitious WMDs (the most meaningless of terms) in the first place.
Posted by: LT | Aug 26, 2007 8:35:07 PM
Jake,
I was not being snide. It was just that those who say "ask Steve about it yourself" sound like there is a chance of someone running into him in their daily lives. There are 36 counties and on any given day there are going to be residents of 35 counties who are not in the same county as Steve--I realize that.
I saw Steve speak to Marion Demoforum and took a young friend with me to hear him. Seems to me that if everyone here who supports Steve would take one non-political friend with them to an advertised Novick event (esp. a young person) that would gain more votes for him than posting on a blog.
No one here should act as if this is the first instance in history of some public figure saying something that others took the wrong way.
I am glad Steve will be writing a guest opinion about this tomorrow. THAT is what a smart candidate does.
I do agree with the above statement
"Steve needs to learn from this and see that the media will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative in order to get the Democrats to attack each other (conflict sells column inches)."
August of an odd numbered year is a better time to have a dustup like this than March or April of an election year.
And maybe this is a good time for Steve and Jeff to talk privately (or their staffs to talk privately) about scheduling a unity event sometime after the May primary.
I'm sure Steve recalls there was no such event in 1996. Neither was there one after the 1992 primary recount. I have been to such events as a volunteer on the losing side, and they smooth the way for the nominee.
Because whatever happens next May, let's be clear right now that the ultimate goal is a 2nd Democratic US Senator from Oregon. And that every volunteer for the losing candidate has the right to drop out of politics altogether or to choose another campaign (from legislature to statewide like AG to presidential)
The wise nominee reaches out to those whose candidate lost.
THAT is also a mark of character.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 8:43:44 PM
Where have you folks been the last six years? Have we not watched time and time again as Democrats find themselves bullied, shamed and tricked into voting on bills devoid of real meaning? Where they take seriously the nonsense the Republicans have spouted, and give compliance lest someone from the GOP say mean things?
We went to war, we signed the Patriot Act, we destroyed habeas corpus because Democrats took the bait from Republicans and made the safe vote they thought would avoid criticism.
But that's not why you vote for things.
Maybe because Jeff is smart enough and empathetic enough to realize that 2 days into an invasion it is more important to vote in support of our troops and their families during what for them is one of the most highly-stressful things they will face in life, even while disagreeing with the policy that put them into the line of fire.
Why is it more important to "vote in support of our troops?" That's the trap--trying to make Democrats vote for the resolution because they're afraid someone will say "they didn't support the troops." And so rather than reject the bait, most Democrats went along. When Kevin says "it's more important to say you support the troops," the game's already over, because at that point you've validated the legitimacy of the argument--that whether you support the troops or not is based on how you vote on a symbolic measure.
he is flat to wrong to try and spin that voting no in the resolution is the same as calling it an illegitimate resolution.That's not really what I said; what I said was that you can't vote Yes on a bill you consider illegitimate, without legitimizing it.
We've got a problem with how national Democrats handle the tricks and traps Republicans spend their whole legislative lives trying to set. We had some of the same issues in the state legislature, with Democrats repeatedly believing they could negotiate in good faith with Republicans--and getting screwed almost every time, and falling victim to the lame threats by voting safely. I for one, want a candidate who isn't prone to that kind of approach.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 26, 2007 8:47:17 PM
Trishka, if you think the part where the yeas "praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families" is meaningless, how can you then find meaning in the part where the yeas "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?" I think this whole resolution is a ridiculous thing to be making hay out of.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 8:49:21 PM
I do agree with the above statement "Steve needs to learn from this and see that the media will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative in order to get the Democrats to attack each other (conflict sells column inches)."
I think Steve probably sees that the media and the GOP will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative REGARDLESS of what they do. Which is rather the point--playing along with their reindeer games only feeds the narratives that play out poorly for Democrats. A Democrat of the strongest conscience sees that bill and says "this is a piece of junk. You think by throwing in 'supporting the troops' you're going to get me to sign onto Bush's courage and our righteous cause? Forget that--you want me to validate this war and I won't do it."
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 26, 2007 8:50:49 PM
The goof was in rising to the bait laid by the Republicans.
The goof was in casting a Yes vote on a resolution saluting the "courage" of a deceitful, foolhardy President and his cabinet.
The goof was in lacking the courage to vote his convictions (if, as his defenders say, they were his convictions at the time) that the invasion was wrong.
The goof was in trying to have it both ways. That's not leadership.
Well said, Stephanie. It won't have much success changing minds of people locked into what you responded to, but that's the way this sort of thing goes. We all have our minds made up on this issue and it is unlikely anyone will say anything to cause someone to change.
Now that this relatively modest issue has been worked over like a pinata, can we move on to more important issues? How about what will they do for vets when they return home? If one of them makes it to the senate will he take his oath to defend the Constitution seriously or will he do what Chuck Schumer and the DLC tell him to do? Like, maybe, if it comes to writing another blank check to go to war on Iran or Venezuela if the president might be so inclined? Will he, like Gordon Smith, calculate votes and agree to do what one group (say, farmers) wants and sacrifice another group (say, fishermen) to help get re-elected? What are their positions on health care, living wage, global warming, war profiteering, campaign finance reform, supreme court justices, making sure elections are honest and that all votes are counted, etc.?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 26, 2007 8:55:02 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 8:43:44 PMWhy is it more important to "vote in support of our troops?"
Because our troops are literally putting their lives on the line and 2 days into a military engagement deserve that more than lodging empty gestures and refusing to vote that Bush is "courageous". That people don't get this is baffling. I have been, and remain, staunchly against this war and the frittering away of our troops lives and bodies for a lie of a war. A war of choice which is the biggest strategic disaster in our nation's history I might add.
But agree or disagree with the policy, anything an elected representative to show moral and emotional support for those who volunteer to put their lives in harms way on our behalf (which regardless of the merits of any particular conflict is the very essence of military service) commands our respect and support.
Just like I may disagree with the validity of some laws or policies, and think that some cops are jack-offs, I can and do respect those who serve the public by putting themselves in the line of fire for the common good.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 26, 2007 8:59:06 PM
Torrid, now I think you're just being ridiculous. There is no relationship or slippery slope between a non-binding res like this and the voiding of the US Constitution.
Also, the only thing that transforms a silly resolution like this into a Catch-22 is the threat of being reamed from both ends. So you have the option: silly, or Catch-22?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 26, 2007 9:04:34 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 8:49:21 PMI think Steve probably sees that the media and the GOP will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative REGARDLESS of what they do.
Yes and no. If Steve had responded in a fashion of calling it out as a fraudulent resolution and a trap, THAT would not be anywhere near as spinnable AND would have been the smart and legitimate move. The "I would have voted no" line wasn't the smart move and frankly, a weak sauce line given the story in play.
Which is rather the point--playing along with their reindeer games only feeds the narratives that play out poorly for Democrats
Voting "No" which Steve said he would have done is playing their game too and strikes me as opportunistic to try and draw a difference between him and Jeff on an "issue" which is lame at best. And to put it bluntly, the claim that voting no is rejecting their "reindeer games" is bunk TJ. You honestly think that is a legitimate argument/defense?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 9:10:03 PM
>I can and do respect those who serve the public by putting themselves in the line of fire for the common good.
So, are you implying that Jackie Dingfelder, and Mitch Greenlick, and the other three D's who didn't vote for that resolution ... DON'T (or DIDN'T) support the troops? Nonsense. Of course they did, and do. They found a way to communicate their support of the troops without sucking up to George W. Bush.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 26, 2007 9:25:18 PM
Stephanie and Bill, I think the one who rose for the GOP bait here was Novick. The GOP crafted this to be a Catch-22. And the only way it becomes a Catch-22 is if the GOP attacks the nays and the Dems go all internecine and start attacking the yeas. So far, after four years, the only Dems I've heard who think this is an issue are the recent allies of Steve Novick, so I wouldn't really call this a Catch-22 yet, just campaign opportunity.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 26, 2007 9:32:21 PM
I respectfully disagree with both Lestatdelc and Stephanie. I don't think this resolution is either an indicator of whether a rep "respects those who serve" or is "sucking up to Bush," since the res is nonsense, along with attempts to score campaign points with it. There is also no "right way" to have voted here, because there is no "wrong way," because it's nonsense. Nonsense, you two. Respectfully, nonsense.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 9:39:55 PM
> the Dems go all internecine and start attacking the yeas
NO ONE IS ATTACKING THE YEAS.
(BUT, bonus points for elegant and proper use of the word internecine!)
However, some of us don't like the idea of the yea vote on this resolution, even though (or perhaps precisely because) it was symbolic in nature. This kind of trick is a favorite of the Republican Party. I'd like to elect a Senator who won't vote for this kind of symbolic resolution, and who also will be brave enough not to walk into more substantive Republican traps like the Patriot Act.
Others may not care about this issue. But the beautiful thing about democracy is, every voter gets to decide for himself/herself how important it is. I am not claiming that it is the defining issue of Jeff Merkley - only that it matters to me. By the same token, you don't get to say that it doesn't matter at all - only that it doesn't matter to you.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 9:42:04 PM
So, are you implying that Jackie Dingfelder, and Mitch Greenlick, and the other three D's who didn't vote for that resolution ... DON'T (or DIDN'T) support the troops? Nonsense. Of course they did, and do. They found a way to communicate their support of the troops without sucking up to George W. Bush.
So did Merkley! You can't have it both ways.
If voting FOR the 2003 non-binding, non-legislative resolution means that those who voted for it were in for every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it then by that EXACT same logic everyone who voted against it was against every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it. And it's impossible to spell military without crossing t's and dotting i's.
Which is it?!?
If Merkley can't have it both ways than neither can you.
Can't you see how patently absurd this is!!??
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 9:47:09 PM
Trishka,
I don't know about anyone else but to me "support for the troops" can be as simple as empathizing with the fact that they had/have no choice in the matter. They were being (and still are) into harms way without being asked whether they want to or whether they approve. All indications are that their Commander in Chief doesn't particularly care whether they agree with his rationale or not.
One can vehemently oppose a war and still empathize with troops and wish them well and hope that most of them make it home alive.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 9:48:00 PM
I guess what I'm saying, Kevin, is that offered a choice, I'd rather my elected officials found a non-legislative path to expressing support for the troops IF the legislative path goes by way of sucking up to George W. Bush.
YMMV.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 9:55:50 PM
"Torrid, now I think you're just being ridiculous. There is no relationship or slippery slope between a non-binding res like this and the voiding of the US Constitution."
There's no relationship between an illegal war and the voiding of the Constitution? News to me.
"And to put it bluntly, the claim that voting no is rejecting their "reindeer games" is bunk TJ. You honestly think that is a legitimate argument/defense?"
Yes, absolutely--we all know that "supporting the troops" is the trap set to get a Yes vote. So rejecting that ploy obviously means voting no. And again, in any case you can't claim a vote is illegitimate and then support it.
"If voting FOR the 2003 non-binding, non-legislative resolution means that those who voted for it were in for every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it then by that EXACT same logic everyone who voted against it was against every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it."
Nope. Voting for it means those who voted for it were either in favor of the war, or too politically afraid to be seen as not "supporting the troops" to vote against it.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 26, 2007 10:19:27 PM
Stephanie V wrote If asked a question by reporters, a candidate has a right and even an obligation to give an honest answer.
Yes, of course, he does. (Well, he can decline comment, but set that aside for now.) But the honest answer is this one: "Jeff Merkley and I both agree that going to War in Iraq is wrong. Oregon Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for conflating the support of our troops with supporting the war."
That's what Novick should have said. Instead, he bought into the swiftboating of Jeff Merkley.
Stephanie V wrote Steve Novick has NOT attacked Merkley.
Of course he has, Stephanie. Right here:
"A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.
That's a clear parroting of the Republican line that Jeff Merkley was somehow in favor of the war. He's against it, has been against it since the beginning, and no amount of wishing or hoping from NW Republican, the Oregon GOP, or Steve Novick will make it so.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 10:34:49 PM
>"A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.
That's not an attack. That's an observation.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 10:40:38 PM
And once again, here's the resolution. Check out those preambles, ladies and gentlemen! Read 'em and weep!
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.
Call me wacky, but I'd rather support a candidate who didn't vote for that.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 26, 2007 10:42:49 PM
Preambles don't count.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 26, 2007 10:52:46 PM
I think it's worth trying to figure out where people stand on the issue, but in political and substantive terms, I think trying to pin motive retroactively is a fool's errand.
Substantively, Democrats of good intention who opposed the war had two choices; take a consistent line against all acts, political and legislative, of the supporters, or oppose the war and try to support those who were compelled to fight in and die in it. In 2003, we weren't certain what would happen. I argued in my blog for months before the invasion that it was stupid, racist, and ridiculously misguided. But when the bombs started falling, I expressed hope that despite all these things it would work out--Iraqis might find unity and the US might accidentally make the Middle East a less divided place. Find that post, and you could argue that I was insufficiently antiwar, despite my constant opposition.
People also recognized that whatever the facts on the ground, Americans and Oregonians were dying. Their families were suffering. Offering a procedural show of support isn't a demonic thing.
Politically, I get why Smith and Novick find themselves on the same team--neither wants a Merkley win in the primary. Novick is making his play, but I don't think it will amount to anything; a vast majority of Oregonians supported the invasion and still find themselves in something other than a perfectly antiwar stance.
This isn't about to derail Merkley's campaign. Far from it; it actually demonstrates something essential about Merkley. He works to pass the most progressive legislation possible, and recognizes the value of certain gestures to create comity. You might ask which candidate, Novick or Merkley, is likely to actually be able to implement a progressive agenda. This issue helps shed light on that question.
It's also worth mentioning that Novick wasn't in office during these very difficult times. It is easy to play gotcha when you weren't in office.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 11:00:21 PM
I guess what I'm saying, Kevin, is that offered a choice, I'd rather my elected officials found a non-legislative path to expressing support for the troops IF the legislative path goes by way of sucking up to George W. Bush.
I both respect and agree with what you've expressed there, Stephanie.
From where I sit there is nothing substantively different about the path that Merkley took and the path that the 5 who voted against it took. They just went about it in different ways.
So instead of continueing to dance to a conservative's tune, how 'bout we put this behind us and find ways to change the tune to one that both benefits and better reflects Oregonians rather than semi-literate wanna-be Texans who we know don't care about what's good for Oregon?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 11:42:16 PM
That's a clear parroting of the Republican line that Jeff Merkley was somehow in favor of the war. He's against it, has been against it since the beginning, and no amount of wishing or hoping from NW Republican, the Oregon GOP, or Steve Novick will make it so.
You're making a conflation that isn't there--that being FOR something, and not being sufficiently OPPOSED as to show true leadership, are the same thing. It baffles me how y'all don't immediately see this as of the same piece as holding Clinton accountable when she validates the frame of Republicans being stronger on terror, or that impeachment is unwise because it might mess with Democratic chances for the Presidency in 2008, or that we have to pass a FISA castration because the administration warned us about chatter, and so we can't be seen as not supporting listening in on terrorists.
Democracy is hard. The Republicans seem to enjoy making it even harder. It is entirely valid to consider candidates based in part on how they might respond in such uncomfortable situations. It's not at all a matter of being FOR the war; rather that when called to comment on the justness and necessity of the Iraq conflict, most Oregon House Democrats in 2003 opted to endorse the bait of "support the troops" and swallow the bile pus that was the intended guts of the bill. Make no mistake, that's the part the GOP wanted you on record for. Some refused the bait and spoke their dissent--quite bravely given the times.
IMO it's possible to be right on an issue, but not "leadership right." Being leadership right is doing it when it might cost you, and fighting through the nonsense filters, particularly the "but this will hurt Democrats" filter. Feingold's first withdrawal bill was leadership right. Kucinich, whatever else I may think about him, is leadership right on Cheney impeachment. Maybe Wyden will turn out to be leadership right on FISA next month; he sounds like it and I hope so.
As Darcy Burner says, more AND better Democrats. Let's set the bar high.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 11:54:18 PM
"He works to pass the most progressive legislation possible, and recognizes the value of certain gestures to create comity."
1) Was that resolution the most progressive legislation possible, or to approach it differently--did he support decidely NON progressive legislation?
2) How much comity did it earn him in the 2007 session? How did all that cooperative spirit and goodwill work out for him once he showed a certain gesture to the House Republicans?
Comity got Democrats several months of wasted time while Republicans pretended at negotiation on M37, until finally the only thing left to do was make a bill and vote on it. That would have worked, had another effort at comity led one Democratic member to refuse to vote yes unless a Republican did too. Thus failed, we all get to vote on that bill as M49 instead. That's just one example of the value of comity this year.
I'm all for bipartisanship. But it's not a one-way street, and until some of that trust is earned back the adults have to take over from the wingnuts who refuse to govern. The country is demanding Congress to be much more assertive in its powers, but in the short term those powers will largely not come through compromise but via the wielding of the majority's authority, confident in the backing of the people to move aggressively.
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: Kevin | Aug 26, 2007 3:59:40 PM
I agree with Senate Guru - the entire thing is dishonest and shameful. It's a textbook example of a contrived issue.
Contrary to Torrid's assertion (and his advocacy of and for Novick is well established) there are two ways to deal with a "bullshit bill." One is to vote no. The other is to do exactly what Merkley did - very publically draw a stark line between the bullshit part and the nonbullshit part and vote your conscience.
Unless NWR has proof that Merkley ever supported W's Folly (aka Iraq War), and the 2003 resolution certainly isn't it... as even Torrid openly concedes, then reasoning and honest folk can draw the appropriate conclussion that he's lying. Personally, I don't pay any attention to what NWR has to say on any subject.