Steve Novick, the "Attack on Merkley," and "the Courage of President George W. Bush"
By Steve Novick of Portland, Oregon. Steve is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. Learn more at NovickForSenate.com
Hi. My name is Steve Novick and I’m running for the United States Senate. And I’d like to respond to Sunday’s post that described me as "attacking" Jeff Merkley.
As you know, I have focused my fire in this campaign on Gordon Smith, and will continue to do so. But this is a contested primary, and at the end of the day, Oregon Democrats will need to know that I am a better candidate and will be a better Senator than Jeff Merkley.
I think Jeff Merkley is a good guy, has been a good Speaker, and would be a good Senator. But I intend to be a great Senator. One of the reasons I will be a great Senator is that I will denounce Republican demagogic garbage, in no uncertain terms, at every turn, regardless of political risk. I think that many Oregon Democrats would like to have such a Senator, and such a candidate. I think that many Democrats, in Oregon and elsewhere, have spent much of the past six years fuming because too few of their leaders spoke out forcefully against Republican demagoguery.
In voting for the resolution reproduced below, Jeff Merkley missed a chance to show that he is the kind of guy who will denounce Republican demagoguery at every turn. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s a heck of a lot better than Gordon Smith. But it does distinguish him from me.
The full text of the resolution – and I do think it is important to look at the full text - reads as follows:
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; andWhereas 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 in the defense of freedom.
That is not merely a resolution ‘supporting the troops.’ That is a resolution reciting the Bush Administration’s rationale for the war and describing the war as the product of "the courage of President George W. Bush." Yes, it also happens to have a sentence praising the troops. But are we, as Democrats, going to take the position that it is OK to support any piece of Republican garbage, as long as it has a sentence saying "We support the troops"?
I know it was "only a nonbinding resolution." But if nonbinding votes on Iraq are meaningless, why did the 2007 House, led by Jeff Merkley, pass HJM 9 , opposing the troop escalation? If you take the position that that HR 2 was meaningless, you have to think HJM 9 was as well – which means that you think Speaker Merkley’s sponsorship of that memorial was a waste of the taxpayers’ time. Personally, I think that every vote, binding or not, is an opportunity to express your true beliefs.
So I say again: I think that the vote on that resolution was a test of legislators’ tolerance for Republican garbage and their willingness to speak out against Republican garbage. (And also, perhaps, a test of their gag reflexes. Be honest, wouldn’t most of you have vomited before voting for that resolution?) And you may disagree with me, but I think that if two candidates are otherwise equal, we’re better off with a candidate and a Senator with a lower level of tolerance for Republican garbage.
I will also say this: If I were hit by a bus tomorrow, you would continue to hear about this resolution, from the Republicans. They are going to raise it every time that Speaker Merkley says anything about the war. "But Mr. Speaker, you agreed that Saddam Hussein threatened the Middle East and the global economy with weapons of mass destruction, didn’t you, and that’s why you supported the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power, right?" "No, I didn’t. I didn’t think Saddam Hussein was a threat." "Well, dear me, that really puzzles me, because I could have sworn that you voted for a resolution that said exactly that. You wouldn’t have voted for a resolution that you didn’t believe in, did you?" Anyone who thinks that a decision by Steve Novick to avoid talking about that resolution would mean they’d heard the last of it has his or her head firmly in the sand.
|
August 27, 2007 |
guest column | Comments (105 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Patton Price | Aug 27, 2007 10:01:40 AM
I really don't understand the purpose of this post. Is the reader supposed to believe you will be a better Senator than Speaker Merkley because you will throw more of a fit about nonbinding resolutions?
I understand why Novick would not want to focus on substantive legislation--given Merkley's concrete history of sheparding a broad and aggressive legislative agenda that made Oregon better for Oregonians--but I don't understand why "vote for me and I will do a better job of raising a partisan stink" would sound like an appealing platform to someone with Novick's obvious intelligence and political judgment.
We all know that Novick has loads of policy smarts. Isn't it a little insulting to Oregon Democrats that he then chooses to use his time communicating with primary voters to focus on GOP gotcha politics?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 27, 2007 10:01:56 AM
Here is a transcript of then Rep. Jeff Merkley's floor speach on HR 2 during the 2003 Legislative Session.
Rep. Jeff Merkley
Floor Speech on House Resolution 2 (As Delivered)
March 21, 2003
Colleagues, I have not been and am 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. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day.
Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops.
I praise our sons and daughters – their courage, their professionalism. I pray now that the fighting will be brief; that the casualties on both sides will be sparse; that international aid to rebuild Iraq will be swift and abundant; that the terrorist repercussions will be few or none; and that there will be a new Iraqi government soon that will rule with wisdom and will provide the opportunity and freedoms for every Iraqi citizen to survive.
May that be the outcome.
###
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | Aug 27, 2007 10:04:15 AM
My question for Steve Novick (and for Jeff Merkley too, for that matter) is:
Do you support widening and broadening NAFTA, free trade agreements with Peru and Panama, and additional free trade agreements with other Latim American countries, without deal-killing environmental and labor riders, or do you, along with the Democratic candidates for President, ignore the mountain of economic evidence that such deals are good for all parties involved in your rush to pander to protectionist and anti-globalization demagogues and extremists within the Democratic party?
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 27, 2007 10:13:38 AM
Wow, U.P.L. You don't make it hard to guess what you think the "right" answer is, do you?
As someone who agrees that outright protectionism is bad, I wonder exactly what you consider a environmental and labor riders to be "deal killing". Killed by whom? Democrats? Or plutocrats?
I am in favor of free trade agreements that help push first world standards of labor and environmental protections into the third world. I am not in favor of free trade agreements that import third world plutocracy and misery into first world countries, like the United States.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 10:19:18 AM
I pray now that the fighting will be brief; that the casualties on both sides will be sparse; that international aid to rebuild Iraq will be swift and abundant; that the terrorist repercussions will be few or none; and that there will be a new Iraqi government soon that will rule with wisdom and will provide the opportunity and freedoms for every Iraqi citizen to survive.
This is why faith-based legislating just doesn't work.
Posted by: colin maloney | Aug 27, 2007 10:24:30 AM
Steve,
Thanks for clearing the air as to what your position is. I happen to agree with you, but I'm sure that there are those who disagree with you on this issue who will also appreciate the more fleshed-out explanation.
Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 27, 2007 10:25:14 AM
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of hearing about politicians who "support the troops" but "oppose the war"? That is the excuse used by our Democrat controlled Congress as they continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war. Money that could be used right here in the USA to build roads, bridges, schools, libraries, low income medical clinics and a thousand other things. I wish no harm to come to any American serviceman or woman, but quit spending my grandchildren's share of the American dream to support "the troops". Bring them home now, make it possible for them to have decent educations, family wage jobs, affordable health care, and decent retirements. That is my definition of "support".
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 27, 2007 10:28:37 AM
I don't understand why "vote for me and I will do a better job of raising a partisan stink" would sound like an appealing platform to someone with Novick's obvious intelligence and political judgment.
You don't see the obvious disappointment with a Democratic Congress that has refused to raise much of a partisan stink these last six years? Americans--not just Democrats, but as much as a fourth of Republicans--want Congress to fight administrative overreach and the triumph of lies. The resolution was a lie wrapped in a flag. I want to know which candidate can unwrap the flag and expose the box of shit underneath.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 10:34:00 AM
Sometimes there is just no substitute for raising hell.
I prefer to be represented by someone who knows when that is.
Posted by: This is totally weak | Aug 27, 2007 10:40:04 AM
Personally, I think that every vote, binding or not, is an opportunity to express your true beliefs.
That shows a real lack of experience in the legislative process.
Personally, I believe every floor speech or written statement is an opportunity to express your true beliefs.
Every vote is an opportunity to express the beliefs of the person who wrote the bill.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Aug 27, 2007 10:45:47 AM
Steve's is a weak argument, easily made well after the fact. He failed to mention that the resolution was made in March 2003, when the ill-advised invasion got underway. It is easy to say now, fully informed by 20-20 hindsight, that one would stand against the inevitable hurricane-force backlash due at the time to anyone repudiating the troops' mission.
I wish Steve well in his run, but I expect better than this.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 10:47:09 AM
As for "supporting the troops..."
A lot of this gratuitous posturing originates in the myth that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon. While it is certainly true that some veterans of any war will have a bad experience upon returning from the front, a 1971 Harris poll found that 94% of Vietnam veterans reported a positive experience at homecoming.
Everybody supports the troops. Some of us just wish they didn't have to BE "troops," so they could just be young Americans living their lives among their families and friends.
Posted by: LT | Aug 27, 2007 10:47:28 AM
Steve, as I understand it, you are saying that you would not have voted for a HR which 5 members voted against (and 11 were excused) and therefore you would make a better US Senator.
Not because of how you would vote or speak out on on federal legislation, Congressional resolutions, presidential appointments, treaties brought to the US Senate for approval--just how you would have voted differently in a charged political atmosphere in the Oregon House in 2003. You weren't there as a member, but by golly you know how you would have voted!
Brian Boquist gave a great speech on HJM 9 this past session in which he supported withdrawing US troops from Iraq, and said "support the troops" wasn't about rhetoric or car magnets, but such things as hot meals and cold drinks, equipment fit for the mission (not wide vehicles to patrol narrow streets, for instance), veterans benefits, etc.
There may be Republicans who try to bring up the 2003 vote as an issue, but will it resonate? There are many Oregonians who know someone who has been deployed overseas (once or more than once). Steve, how do you know that Boquist's speech doesn't resonate with those Oregonians more than the GOP consultants who try to use an old vote on a symbolic resolution? Can you really look into the minds of every Oregonian who is currently registered Dem. or might do so
before next May?
Or is it that you have defined your target audience and are only speaking to them?
And Steve, where do you stand on veterans issues? Do you support Cong. Hooley's efforts? Sen. Murray's efforts?
Or are you too busy trying to make a big deal about a primary opponent's symbolic vote to care about such real life concerns of Oregonians?
Too those looking for an effective problem solver in the US Senate, and not just someone great on rhetoric, why would such people be impressed by your statement,
" I will denounce Republican demagogic garbage, in no uncertain terms, at every turn, regardless of political risk".
I once had a prof. at WOU who said (more than 10 years after Morse's death) that he believed Packwood beat Wayne Morse in 1968 because Morse's rantings had become stale.
You may not believe that, and in a recount situation there could have been any number of reasons why Morse lost.
But the fact remains that not every registered Democrat is looking for someone who is more interested in denouncing than in solving problems.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 27, 2007 10:55:17 AM
This entire "controversy" is contrived, inherently demagogic and a rank insult to the intelligence of Oregonians. Merkley made his position crystal clear, as lestatdelc demonstrates, and it is flat out dishonest to insinuate that he didn't or that he somehow flip-flopped.
Please, feel free to disregard my point of view here. I am not a Democrat. I'm just one of those "nonaffiliated" voters which both parties have to have in order to win anything on a state-wide level. The stunningly self-evident display of partisan fratricide on display by Novick & company is indistinguishable from the kind of partisan fratricide I've seen Oregon Republicans practice as a matter of course. And it reminds me afresh why joining either party doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 27, 2007 11:08:29 AM
A lot of this gratuitous posturing originates in the myth that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon. While it is certainly true that some veterans of any war will have a bad experience upon returning from the front, a 1971 Harris poll found that 94% of Vietnam veterans reported a positive experience at homecoming. Everybody supports the troops.
Stephanie,
While I agree that spitting on returnees was rare to non-existent, we did not have a positive experience at homecoming. I doubt that you could find more than a handful of Vietnam vets that would say that today and I would question the content of that poll. Most of us would have shrugged and said, ya ok, to make the pollster go away. While being screamed at as baby killers was rare, it was common enough to make people dump the uniform as soon as we could. There were no parades, no welcome home events excepting small family gatherings. Some of us didn't even get that. Mostly we were just ignored.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 27, 2007 11:11:34 AM
"Merkley made his position crystal clear"
I'm baffled how "vote yes, explain no" is a crystal clear explanation.
Also---
"It is easy to say now, fully informed by 20-20 hindsight, that one would stand against the inevitable hurricane-force backlash due at the time to anyone repudiating the troops' mission."
Five of them did--and it appears they all survived the windstorm.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 11:30:19 AM
"Personally, I believe every floor speech or written statement is an opportunity to express your true beliefs."
Yup. kinda like how Bush 'splainifies with his signing statements...
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 11:53:10 AM
John, I certainly wouldn't dispute your firsthand experience as a returning veteran, but I think we agree on the larger point.
And TJ: yes, exactly. If the vote on the resolution had been unanimous, I would be much more receptive to the idea that it was somehow perceived as mandatory to accede to it.
And if it was, as everyone seems to agree, just a symbolic Republican gambit ... then, as a voter, I think I am within my rights to say I'd rather vote for someone who doesn't vote for that kind of thing, but instead calls it out for what it is.
Posted by: Faolan | Aug 27, 2007 12:31:05 PM
Whoever the coward who wrote under "This is Totally Weak" is, they share a fallacious opinion with anumber of other folks here on the boards and that is this:
"Personally, I believe every floor speech or written statement is an opportunity to express your true beliefs."
You guys are so totally wrong it's astounding that you pay attention to politics. Have any of you been really observing politics for the last 20 years?
NOBODY cares about the politician's floor statement as to why they voted one way or the other. NOBODY. The only thing that people give a damn about is whether you voted 'yes' or 'no'. period.
The fact is that Merkley voted 'YES' for something, giving a totally weak reason for doing so, that he AND EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT should have voted 'NO' on. All he had to say was that:
"of course I support the troops as does every one of my Democratic colleagues. To insinuate that we do not support the Soldiers, Marines, Seamen and Airman of our brave armed forces is ludicrous and in my opnion insulting. But I do not support this war nor do I support the policies of Mr. Bush .... etc. yada yada yada. and that is why I am voting against this measure."
No democrat who supported this invasion in any way should be getting a free ride. Not a single one of our democratic federal congressmen voted in favor of the invasion. Mr Merkley should have followed suit in the only vote that our State House made in regards to this disaster.
This whole vote was nothing but a manufactured republican hit job and any seasoned politician should have seen it for what it was and refused to play along.
Posted by: Jägermeister | Aug 27, 2007 12:34:45 PM
Steve, you've lit a fire in my heart.
Any chance you need campaign help?
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 12:44:16 PM
Some much cursive makes me want to curse. How to fixxy, fixxy? If only BlueO had an intern...
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 27, 2007 1:20:49 PM
Two points. This resolution was passed the day on March 21, 2003--the day after the US began the invasion. That date is not insignificant; the debate on whether it was right to go in or not was over. The procedural vote would have carried FAR different implications if it had been voted on a week earlier--and would make Novick's case a lot stronger. It sheds a different light on Merkley's floor speech and you can see the significance in the words "Today I rise to praise our young men and women..."
Second point: Novick has never served, so we can't know if he'd have joined Jeff Merkley if he'd been compelled to vote the day Oregon citizens were headed into battle.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 27, 2007 1:21:56 PM
Novick has never served as an elected official, that is.
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Aug 27, 2007 1:25:56 PM
I think we would see real courage if the Legislators would add one line to the infinite Supplemental Appropriations Bils that are funding this unending occupation and bloodbath:
"All (supplemental) funding for military and supporting actions in Iraq must be part of the Budget, and no part may be from borrowing from lenders"
OK, That came out sorta funny. I know that's a contradiction, Supp vs Budget, but the idea is no Supplemental spending for Iraq, all Iraq spending must be in the budget payed for by the people.
In real time.
Individuals and businesses.
According to ability to pay (OK I went too far there!)
If this is the defining action of our time, the battle between good and evil, lets put our money where our mouth is. And I mean our money today, not some future money from our kids and grand kids.
Steve Novick, Jeff Merkley, you are suddenly, magically now both US Senators. What say you?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 1:29:19 PM
>we can't know if he'd have joined Jeff Merkley if he'd been compelled to vote the day Oregon citizens were headed into battle.
See, I think we CAN and DO know. And I think everyone here who knows Steve Novick or anything about him knows to a dead certainty that he would never have voted for that thing.
Look at it again:
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 in the defense of freedom.
The Steve Novick I know would have choked on that, would have denounced it with wit and verve, and would have ridiculed the Republicans for serving it up. In fact, I would venture to say that if Steve Novick had been the Democratic leader in 2003, not only would he have provided actual leadership by voting no himself, but a lot more than five Democrats would have felt that they had sufficient political cover to vote no as well.
That's what leaders do. That's what leadership is.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 1:39:34 PM
(who knows? maybe if Steve had been the Democratic leader, even Merkley would have felt he had enough cover to vote against it)
Posted by: Miles | Aug 27, 2007 1:40:24 PM
As far as I can tell, Merkley supporters are saying "This is a manufactured controversy. Merkley explained that he didn't really support most of the resolution, so his vote doesn't really count." Do those supporters apply that to all legislative resolutions? What about Steve's point about HJM 9 -- does it matter how anyone voted on that? Can all votes be explained away with a floor speech?
I would actually have less of a problem with Merkley's vote if, like most Americans, he supported the war at first and then came to object to it over time. But it almost seems worse to me that Merkley spoke out against the war before this resolution, but then proceeded to vote for it. That's the mark of someone caving into Republican demagoguery.
Novick's main argument is a good one -- it is better to have someone in Washington who calls "bullshit!" when he sees it and votes accordingly. This is particularly true in trying moments, such as March 2003, when the political risk was at its greatest. That's when leadership gets tested.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 2:04:11 PM
Two points. This resolution was seen for what it was by five courageous legislators. Jeff Merkley was not one of them.
Second point: Merkley didn't support the troops with HRes 2.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 2:04:31 PM
Merkley didn't support the troops with HRes 2 without also acknowledging George W. Bush's "courage".
Whew! I almost misspoke.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 27, 2007 2:42:47 PM
TJ, Stephanie, et al... you win. Steve Novick utterly opposes the following:
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of freedom.
I accept your frame and it's logical conclussions. To wit...those who supported the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore supported all of it. The reverse being equally true, because logic demands it, those who opposed the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore opposed all of it.
Steve, thanks for dispelling any misperceptions that you might be capable of even the slightest empathy towards men and women who don't get a say over where the President sends them or what they have to do once they get there. Ditto for the family and friends (and I am one of the latter) of those very same servicemen and servicewomen.
Afterall, I'm simply accepting YOUR frame here.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 27, 2007 2:48:56 PM
Novick, what makes this non-binder "meaningless" is not its non-binding nature alone. If a res expresses a single, clear position, a vote one way or the other means something. Votes on gimmicky false choices do not. When they're non-binding.
Instead, no Democrat's vote expressed their true position. They all had to choose one bad way to vote, then explain themselves in a floor speech. To attack Merkley as someone who will abandon his principles for political reasons ("I think voters respect people who are willing to stand up for their principles, even when doing that is politically difficult.") feels like a desperation play, like you don't have anything substantial against the guy.
Posted by: Frank Wills | Aug 27, 2007 3:03:24 PM
Steve, do you support impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 27, 2007 3:08:33 PM
I accept your frame and it's logical conclussions. To wit...those who supported the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore supported all of it. The reverse being equally true, because logic demands it, those who opposed the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore opposed all of it.
Actually the logic doesn't demand it at all. A No response would be properly indicative in any case where you simply do not agree with all of it. The Republicans purposefully set up what is called in polling a "double-barreled" question: more than one concept is being posed, but only one encompassing answer (a Yes or No vote) is possible. To answer in agreement to the entire question, on a logical basis one has to agree with ALL parts, otherwise the only possible answer is No. If Vote = Y when A and B and C are true, then if any of A,B or C are NOT true, then Vote must = N.
"thanks for dispelling any misperceptions that you might be capable of even the slightest empathy towards men and women who don't get a say over where the President sends them or what they have to do once they get there."
Again, this interpretation makes the strange case that the GOP was actually serious in seeking "support for the troops," rather than just using a catch phrase as bait for nervous Democrats.
Posted by: BHamm | Aug 27, 2007 3:08:50 PM
Kevin, don't be trite. Both sides in this discussion have made valid points (both you and Stephanie). No one thinks that Steve was attacking that portion of the resolution.
However, Steve is simply pointing out that Speaker Merkley had an opportunity to voice opposition to the administration's bogus grounds for war and getting involved in a fight not our own. Merkley did not take this opportunity, but rather expressed reservations about parts of the resolution, while still voting for it. While Steve is not saying Merkley was holding hands with Paul Wolfowitz on the lead-up to war, he is saying that he missed an opportunity to really take a stand against the administration and their bullshit war.
I don't think Steve is attacking anyone. He's just making distinctions between himself and Speaker Merkley, and he's doing it in a tactful and professional manner. I hope that both of these candidates can keep this primary race upbeat and positive, because I would like to see one of them elected to the Senate. Whomever wins the primary should be the best candidate, and that should be decided through positive campaigning and issue-driven debate. Not money. Not mudslinging. Not media whoring.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 27, 2007 3:58:28 PM
To answer in agreement to the entire question, on a logical basis one has to agree with ALL parts, otherwise the only possible answer is No. If Vote = Y when A and B and C are true, then if any of A,B or C are NOT true, then Vote must = N.
Are you suggesting that this should be the rule for all legislative votes? That one has to agree with every single aspect of the entire bill in order to vote yes?
Certainly, there are plenty of situations where compromise has been reached - a little "I'll give you this, you give me that" - and a majority vote can be achieved.
Setting aside the HR 2 question for a moment, is this really the way we want to approach politics? That each legislator should vote against every bill that is not 100% exactly as that legislator would have written it?
I'm not sure we'd ever pass a bill.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 27, 2007 4:04:36 PM
Certainly, there are plenty of situations where compromise has been reached - a little "I'll give you this, you give me that" - and a majority vote can be achieved.Setting aside the HR 2 question for a moment, is this really the way we want to approach politics? That each legislator should vote against every bill that is not 100% exactly as that legislator would have written it?
Is that what it was now, a compromise? I'll give you "courageous George Bush" if you give me "support the troops?"
I never said a legislator should vote against every bill that is not 100% exactly as they would have written. What I said was that Kevin's logical construct doesn't hold water, because a Yes vote indicates affirmation of the entire bill overall, while a No vote indicates a level of disagreement with all OR part of it, such that agreement was not possible. Furthermore, you AND Jeff know as well as I do that the "support the troops" part of that bill held no meaning whatsoever beyond the ability to bait Democrats into voting for it. That was the sole purpose of it--to create a trap. Your position here seems to suggest that Jeff actually sat and considered the merits of the bill as if it were not a trap vote.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 4:08:26 PM
Kari, I would add this: no matter how you feel in your heart of hearts about each and every clause of the bill you are voting on, if you vote Aye, you are nonetheless accountable for each and every clause.
Legislators find ways to make their peace with that. But they are public servants and they know, or should know, that they are responsible for their choices.
Posted by: Jorrid Toe | Aug 27, 2007 4:56:28 PM
In voting for the resolution reproduced below, Jeff Merkley missed a chance to show that he is the kind of guy who will denounce Republican demagoguery at every turn. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s a heck of a lot better than Gordon Smith. But it does distinguish him from me.
That brings up a very important question: which is more important, to denounce demagoguery, or to denounce an illegal war of choice?
Torridjoe, Stephanie V, East Bank Thom, and you seem to have decided the demogoguery is the most important thing. It isn't to me, but I wonder if I am in the minority here. What do others think?
Jeff Merkley denounced the war that day in the very public setting of the Oregon House of Representatives.
So, I am curious Steve, where and when did you publicly denounce the war prior to March 21, 2003?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 5:19:19 PM
It's hard to credibly denounce a war when you are voting for a resolution that supports it.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 5:26:29 PM
Stephanie, maybe you just need to try harder to read between the lines of Merkley's floor speech?
Why isn't Speaker Merkley addressing this issue himself, now that the mainstream media has picked it up? Instead we've got Republican trolls flaming the issue and anonymous Merkley supporters (as well as those from his Machine - who quite naturally only speak for themselves) trying to taint Steve Novick personally with Merkley's foolish vote. It's looking more and more to me like the Merkley fans are trying to drag down Novick too... turn a negative 1 into a neutral draw. I hope that's not coming directly from Merkley's campaign.
I'm looking for Jeff Merkley to clarify this mess himself and not to remain AWOL. (Or is he content to just stand by his signing statement or floor speech or whatever?)
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 27, 2007 6:01:56 PM
EBT and Stephanie, if you really think that Merkely was voting to support the war you are deluded.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 27, 2007 6:09:12 PM
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 4:08:26 PMKari, I would add this: no matter how you feel in your heart of hearts about each and every clause of the bill you are voting on, if you vote Aye, you are nonetheless accountable for each and every clause.
So Novick doesn't believe the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of freedom is praise worthy (especially when the bullets are flying)...?
Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 27, 2007 6:16:55 PM
I think that it does not matter what Dem activists believe, or what nuances Mr. Merkley or Mr. Novick put on their respective statements or positions. For better or worse, Merkley has lost the "high ground" in challenging Gordo on the Iraq war as a result of his legislative vote. The 30 second sound bite war will make both Gordo and Mr. Merkley appear equal on Iraq. A lie to be sure, but that's the way it goes.
I assume the solution for Oregon Dems is either (a) elect Novick to challenge Gordo (my personal choice) or (b) fight the 2008 general election battle on issues other than Iraq. Certainly Merkley can talk about spending, or taxes, or education reform or health care. Unfortunately, those issues don't have the same traction with voters as the Iraq war, which may be a very good reason to vote for Novick in the primary.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 27, 2007 6:17:17 PM
Even TJ initially acknowledged that "trying to pin the war-supporter tag on Merkley (is) an absurd and pointless gambit."
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 6:25:52 PM
EBT and Stephanie, if you really think that Merkely was voting to support the war you are deluded.
Hey Mitch, why don't you pack up the straw men and take your act on the yellow brick road. I'm getting really close to registering (D) just to vote hook and spite you.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 27, 2007 6:39:03 PM
Stephanie: "It's hard to credibly denounce a war when you are voting for a resolution that supports it."
Lesta: "If you really think that Merkely was voting to support the war you are deluded."
EBT: "Why don't you pack up the straw men and take your act on the yellow brick road."
EBT, I'm confused. I'm assuming you disagree with Stephanie, but Lesta didn't build a straw man there.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 27, 2007 7:15:09 PM
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 6:25:52 PMEBT and Stephanie, if you really think that Merkely was voting to support the war you are deluded.
Hey Mitch, why don't you pack up the straw men and take your act on the yellow brick road. I'm getting really close to registering (D) just to vote hook and spite you.
How is it a "strawman"...? Stephanie clearly thinks, and specifically said that Merkely was voting in support of the war, despite the fact Merekly said that he didn't support the invasion on the floor of the state house.
I'm getting really close to registering (D) just to vote hook and spite you.
Wow. That will certainly teach me a lesson, considering I have been raising money for Novick's campaign. Go on, I double dog dare yeah to vote for Novick. I triple dog dare ya to contribute to his campaign as well.
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: Steven Maurer | Aug 27, 2007 9:48:44 AM
Steve, I certainly believe that the primary is the exact place where candidates should highlight their differences, so that Democrats can make their decision. So no complaints from me about your pursuing this, if you feel it's important to voters.
Yet I'm not sure this is exactly the strongest argument to make. Sure, the Republicans will try to bring this vote up. But if Mr. Merkley had voted "no", refusing to praise the "courage, dedication, professionalism, and sacrifices" of the troops, do you think they wouldn't bring that up? In fact, don't you think they'd bring it up even more?
It's perfectly within the bounds of the primary debate to make the argument that voters are unable see through this kind of GOP rhetorical gamesmanship. I'm just not sure I believe it.