Wahoo! I'm the Rogue of the Week!
Honey, put the champagne on ice, because we're celebrating! I'm the Rogue of the Week!
As everybody knows, you're not anybody in this town until you're the Rogue of the Week. I've been getting congratulatory phone calls all morning -- even one request for an autographed copy!
I feel bad, of course. My Rogueishness just doesn't seem to stack up with the high standard set by previous Rogues.
There can be only one explanation. All is well here in this Pacific Wonderland we call Oregon. The sun is out, the birds are singing, and the kids are all dreaming of summer camp.
Because when they're calling out bloggers for "bullshit" in the 43rd comment on a blog post, that must mean there aren't any scam artists, wetlands polluters, witness-intimidating thugs, salmon-killing congressmen, con artists, bottom-feeding lawyers, or guys named Alberto Gonzales that are really putting the hurt on Oregonians.
I'd like to thank the Academy, my parents, my lovely wife, my dog, all the people who've helped me along the way. And most of all, I'd like to thank all the readers here at BlueOregon, without whom, I'd have no one around to listen to my bullshit.
Now, where's that champagne?
|
August 29, 2007 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (125 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 29, 2007 9:34:32 AM
All right, this sucks. I thought I was the controversial one. Damn you and your fame.
(Can you imagine getting Rogue back in '04? Somehow blogs aren't quite as laughable as they once were.)
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 29, 2007 9:34:36 AM
Willy has gone off the deep end lately. Recently they nominated David Wu, because he didn't vote against the Iraq funding even though he took the same position as most Dems and has been solidly against the war. Meanwhile, Brian Baird announces a truly outrageous bait and switch position and he doesn't get the moniker.
Congratulations Kari. I too have been smeared by WW.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 29, 2007 9:36:03 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: W.W. sucks.
Every year that rag runs a "good", "bad", and "ugly" on our local state representatives and congressmen. But, as they use lobbyists to decide who is "good" and who is "bad", their ratings get a little off. Why, if you don't sell laws to the highest bidder, you just never make it above "ugly".
The W.W. sucks so much it's shared stalls with Republican Senators in a public bathroom.
So congrats, Kari! Maybe next you'll see N.W. Republican run an expose on how awful you are.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Aug 29, 2007 9:36:10 AM
Kari -- don't you ever learn?
In your post, you failed to capitalize "Champagne." Outrageous Rogue-ishness!
You must be flayed again! :)
Posted by: CBurr | Aug 29, 2007 9:37:47 AM
At least they didn't find out about your dog fighting ring and lewd encounter with Mike Riley at PDX. Wait, scub that.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 29, 2007 9:41:15 AM
Mazel tov!
I tried to say a few semi-kind words about you over at wweek.com to put it in some context. %^>
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 9:54:18 AM
"Meanwhile, Brian Baird announces a truly outrageous bait and switch position and he doesn't get the moniker."
Perhaps that's because the "Willamette" stops flowing once it hits the Columbia at the border, the other side of which being who Baird represents (not that they don't cover the Couv once in a while...)
Posted by: Ross Williams | Aug 29, 2007 9:54:24 AM
As everybody knows, you're not anybody in this town until you're the Rogue of the Week.
I hate to disappoint you, but WW "Rogue of the Week" doesn't even count toward your 15 minutes of fame any more. I'd say the standard has dropped but it has never been off the bottom more than occasionally.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 29, 2007 9:56:14 AM
Kari, i don't know if i would celebrate being associated with "scam artists, wetlands polluters, witness-intimidating thugs, salmon-killing congressmen, con artists, bottom-feeding lawyers, or guys named Alberto Gonzales" and i'm pretty sure your client, Jeff Merkley wouldn't.
You've talked recently about the credibility of Blue0. Perhaps you could put down the mimosa for a bit and address the concerns i laid previously regarding your tenuous relationship with accuracy. (Instead of just flippantly dismissing my queries as you did yesterday).
Posted by: Ben Hubbird | Aug 29, 2007 10:19:33 AM
I agree, Kari, you're far from a rogue. The real rogues here are the Republicans who put forward the original resolution in 2003.
That said, the coverage at BlueOregon has slanted decidedly Merkley-wards lately. Also, and more worrisome, the tone has been getting less and less friendly.
To be clear, I don't think Steve's supporters are entirely innocent, but it feels like the gloves are coming off on both sides, and you and Alworth have much bigger fists than TJ and crew. This is exactly what we all agreed we didn't want to have happen, right?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 29, 2007 10:24:31 AM
And don't forget the Rogue for Tina Kotek and Basic Rights Oregon - which they got in celebration for finally passing domestic partnerships! Woohoo!!!
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 29, 2007 10:43:56 AM
I would hope that and bulls--t accusation thrown up against Steve Novick by Republicans would get similar treatment in BlueOregon. I have no reason to believe that that it wouldn't.
Again, I think Steve's biggest argument is that he is (to turn it into a catch phrase) "something completely different". Buying into, and focusing on, Republican framing of a Reinhard/Republican framing just doesn't seem like it's a winning issue to me.
Oh, and my bulls--t alarm is clanging like crazy. It's only already committed Novick partisans who're trying to make a big deal out of this, while the people who pretend it's beyond the pale for Steve to even mention it are all committed Merkeley partisans. Nobody has actually changed their mind on which candidate to support based on it.
That's about the very definition of a political sideshow.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 11:12:22 AM
"Nobody has actually changed their mind on which candidate to support based on it."
I can recall at least four or five people who have at least claimed that their vote was strongly affected by this issue, both against and for Merkley. So I'm not sure that's right.
Posted by: Joe Baessler | Aug 29, 2007 11:37:25 AM
I’m so fucking jealous.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 29, 2007 11:45:00 AM
And Carrie can be relieved that she got billing (just slightly) ahead of your dog.
Pace yourself man. It's a long way to the finish line.......Many kudos and brickbats ahead........
Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 11:54:23 AM
I don't think WW particularly cares about what Kari said in a comment somewhere, it's just that the Rogue choice is the only place where WW can write much in the way of an editorial. They wanted to weigh in on the Novick/Merkley dustup, so they looked for a villain on the Merkley side to use as a hook. If you will.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 29, 2007 12:11:31 PM
There's been no actual change of opinion that I've seen, torridjoe. Only posts from people on one side or the other saying how much it validates their already held opinion of the candidates, and declaring their fervent belief that their side of the argument will bring more people to their way of thinking.
Maybe Jagermeister's "lit a fire" post might be a Novick switch (if only because it's a one-liner, so it's hard to tell who he supported before, if anyone). But even that's shaky. There have also been people affected by the triple-endorsement of Merkley, but that is a different issue.
I'm not Steve's campaign manager, but I still think that for him to have a chance against an established candidate, he needs to come out with bold proposals, funny ads. This excessive focus on why you shouldn't vote for the other guy - Smith, Merkley - just doesn't seem like it will work. Voters like positives.
All in my humble opinion, of course.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 29, 2007 12:12:31 PM
Kari,
You need a shirt that says, "I'm a Rogue. WHY AREN'T YOU?"
Posted by: D+D Joke | Aug 29, 2007 12:48:08 PM
Congrats Kari, on leveling up to Rogue 1. Enjoy the extra 1d6 of Sneak Attack damage.
You should really go for a second level though. Evasion is really nice.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 12:56:03 PM
"There's been no actual change of opinion that I've seen, torridjoe."
Throw in jagermeister (who I counted originally), and there are three people who say they have now made up their mind:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/08/steve-novick-th.html#c80814969
http://www.loadedorygun.net/showComment.do?commentId=773
Note that one is for Merkley now, the other for Novick. And there are others who were less explicit but seem to fairly strongly indicate that the issue has resonated with them one way or the other.
Posted by: CBurr | Aug 29, 2007 1:10:43 PM
And don't forget the Rogue for Tina Kotek and Basic Rights Oregon - which they got in celebration for finally passing domestic partnerships!
That one was interesting coming from a paper that endorsed Christian Coalition founder Bill Witt over Sierra Club chair Charlie Ringo in 2002.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 29, 2007 1:19:40 PM
First of all... congrats, Kari!!! And I absolutely enjoyed the way you wrote it up. Sarcasm applied with a very light hand is a thing of beauty. It's one of your better pieces of craftsmanship, IMO.
I would hope that and bulls--t accusation thrown up against Steve Novick by Republicans would get similar treatment in BlueOregon. I have no reason to believe that that it wouldn't.
I absolutely agree.
Posted by: Katy | Aug 29, 2007 1:29:48 PM
Seriously? WTF has happened over at WW? And what did they do to the Kari picture? You look so scary!!!
Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 1:32:26 PM
Purity tests definitely polarize leaners. The deciding factor is how valid you see the test.
I'm particularly curious about Lestatdelc. As he says, he was raising money for Novick, but was also the most passionate defender of Merkley here. Where does that leave him now?
I'm basically a swing voter whose swing got pushed pretty hard.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 2:00:29 PM
Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 1:32:26 PMPurity tests definitely polarize leaners. The deciding factor is how valid you see the test.
I'm particularly curious about Lestatdelc. As he says, he was raising money for Novick, but was also the most passionate defender of Merkley here. Where does that leave him now?
Basically the same place I was before this (though I question the wisdom and ability of some of my fellow Novick supporters to see the whole game-board and their criterion or litmus tests for assessing candidates).
That I think both Novick and Merkely would make outstanding Senators. This kurfuffle is not a deal breaker for me. But the adoption of GOP frames to cause internecine purity fights when both our candidate have and continue to oppose the staggeringly disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation and the person who should be getting politically skinned alive is Gordon Smith who full-throatedly voted to launch this war in the first place.
In my mind it is analogous to the GOP getting Democrats to start punching each other over the color of the drapes while Smith and the GOp go about setting the house on fire.
This is why well over a week ago (actually back when the GOP first threw up their desperate stunt about this resolution) I said that this was a misguided GOP initiated framing of a set-up which I hoped Novick would NOT take the bait on in order to try to differentiate himself from Merkely. Since it was intended by the GOP to sow division and try to inoculate Smith from being rightly kicked in the balls over being a party to getting hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered and their lives destroyed, including over 3,700 plus of them being our own military.
I still think Novick can be a great Senator, though I hope he and Novick supporters realize you can call GOP bullshit 'bullshit' without circling the elliptical firing squad. If Novick had acknowledged that the vote was a damned if you do, damned if you don't vote, that was being used as a desperate political stunt by the GOP to deflect attention and culpability where it belongs, Gordon Smith one of the real enablers of this unmitigated disaster which is the Iraq war in the first place. Not only would the fire be directed at the person who actually deserves it (Smith) ...but we ALL could have backed and supported it.
Of course it would have denied Kari his popping the bubbly for being such a rogue as per the morons at Willy Weak, but then I think all us progressives and Democrats would be better off for it.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 29, 2007 2:28:21 PM
Hmmmm....
Well I guess I just have to stand corrected about there being no one affected by this. I flat out missed the Warner one liner, and I haven't been chasing this thing around all the blogs, just B.O.
Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote.
The Larry Craig minor misdemeanor, however, is huge. And hilarious. All in all, I'd rather have this Merkley "scandal" to chew on than that one.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 29, 2007 2:38:49 PM
They wanted to weigh in on the Novick/Merkley dustup, so they looked for a villain on the Merkley side to use as a hook.
I think the WW wants to skate on Novick cred while they can (they had that wonderful article about him a few months ago), but 20 to 1 they endorse Merkley.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 2:40:54 PM
But the adoption of GOP frames to cause internecine purity fights...
How was voting for the resolution any less of an adoption of "GOP frames"? The "frame" was that you had to vote for all of the other garbage in the resolution to "support the troops". Couldn't someone have just said "I support the troops" without acceding to the rest of the frame?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 2:47:26 PM
First of all... congrats, Kari!!! And I absolutely enjoyed the way you wrote it up. Sarcasm applied with a very light hand is a thing of beauty. It's one of your better pieces of craftsmanship, IMO.
It was either sarcasm, or admit that pretending Novick is participating in any "swiftboating" was patently ridiculous, I guess....
If Novick had acknowledged that the vote was a damned if you do, damned if you don't vote, that was being used as a desperate political stunt by the GOP to deflect attention and culpability where it belongs,Isn't Novick's argument that it WAS a desperate stunt rather than a real bill? It's Merkley that apparently doesn't believe that, given that he has reiterated that he took the bill at face value and considered all parts seriously. And that was Novick's point: it was a garbage vote, and I would never have come close to validating it with a Yes.
Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote.As regards the 2003 Iraq vote, most likely. But the approach a prospective Democratic Senator might take when faced with the worst desperate BS the national GOP has to offer, will resonate with many Democrats in this election IMO.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 2:50:07 PM
"I think the WW wants to skate on Novick cred while they can (they had that wonderful article about him a few months ago), but 20 to 1 they endorse Merkley."
Or, they might just legitimately wonder why members of Team Merkley got defensive enough to call his opponent a swiftboater because he dared comment on Jeff's record when asked.
Posted by: LT | Aug 29, 2007 2:54:35 PM
Thanks, Steve for "The Larry Craig minor misdemeanor, however, is huge. And hilarious. All in all, I'd rather have this Merkley "scandal" to chew on than that one."
And thanks lestatdelc for saying
This is why well over a week ago (actually back when the GOP first threw up their desperate stunt about this resolution) I said that this was a misguided GOP initiated framing of a set-up which I hoped Novick would NOT take the bait on in order to try to differentiate himself from Merkely.......I still think Novick can be a great Senator, though I hope he and Novick supporters realize you can call GOP bullshit 'bullshit' without circling the elliptical firing squad.
In past decades there have been fights within the Democratic Party which basically were between ideologues and problem solvers. They got nasty and I was never sure what they solved. It has been my experience (and I once had a piece published in a local county newsletter about this) that the problem solvers who think for themselves win more elections than the ideologues who want everyone to agree with them----and then were not always around to do the thankless "grunt" work politics requires.
The problem solvers might have hotly debated issues or candidates while they put out a mailing, walked door to door, set up for (or took down) what was needed for an event. But by golly the work got done and very often the candidates we supported got elected.
Democrats have a choice to make: are they the party which I think Howard Dean envisions (inclusive, respectful to grass roots activists of all stripes who show up to campaign) or are they the party which tells people "here is what we believe and if you don't believe the same thing go elsewhere"?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:08:56 PM
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 2:40:54 PMHow was voting for the resolution any less of an adoption of "GOP frames"?
The GOP framed the resolution when it was before the house in Salem as a trap. You had to vote one way or the other. Vote 'yes' and you are 'praising Bush' and 'cheering the removal of Saddam', vote 'no' and you are 'voting against the support of and the professionalism of the military'. Then re-framing that vote four years later as it being about 'supporting the war'.
They are using that vote to claim that someone who voted and stated explicitly at the time that they were only voting in support of the military while saying and that they do not support the rationale for the war (which is what Merkely did at the time).. to now claim that they have no moral ground to rightly criticize those who actually supported the war is buying into the current framing.
The "frame" was that you had to vote for all of the other garbage in the resolution to "support the troops".
Close, there were two different frames, one then and one now. What you say above was the framing within the resolution, the frame I was talking about which you are referring to is the later one. That current frame being used by the GOP (and now some Democrats) is to frame that resolution as a "vote for the war" in order to fraudulently charge that those who opposed the war but supports the troops (and made that clear on the floor when they voted) are hypocrites or weak, in order to sow division and try and take the heat off of Smith (who actually DID support the war form the get-go). That is the current re-framing the GOP are desperate to employ and which I am referring to in that post.
Couldn't someone have just said "I support the troops" without acceding to the rest of the frame?
Which is what Merkely did, and which people are trying to discount. Merkely said he did not accept the rationale for the war, but was voting only to support the troops. Merkely is rejecting the current attempt to reframe it, Novick's (or more precisely some Novick supporters are) leveraging it in order to differentiate himself from Merekly.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:11:02 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 2:47:26 PMIt was either sarcasm, or admit that pretending Novick is participating in any "swiftboating" was patently ridiculous, I guess....
TJ, the cognrats on the sarcsim was about Kari's write-up on being named a rogue.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:15:11 PM
"TJ, the cognrats on the sarcsim was about Kari's write-up on being named a rogue."
Yes--and Kari's choices were to recognize that he was being called out for stepping over the line in a race where he has claimed several times to be seeking a clean primary...or to blow it off with sarcasm and let the allegation that Novick is participating in "swiftboating" stand.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:19:10 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 2:47:26 PMIsn't Novick's argument that it WAS a desperate stunt rather than a real bill?
The stunt is claiming that Merkely is a hypocrite for voting yes to support the troops as they were entering combat while stating at the time he didn't accept the rationale for the war. You are not saying that, but the GOP are, and the internecine fight is the result.
it was a garbage vote, and I would never have come close to validating it with a Yes.
You validate it by voting no as well TJ. That is the point you miss. You either vote yes and state what you don't accept in the resolution (the rationale for the war) or vote no and explain what you really do accept in the resolution (that you praise the courage and professionalism of the military).
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Aug 29, 2007 3:20:42 PM
Wow, that's the rougishest Kari comment they could come up with? The are slipping! ;)
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:29:45 PM
So TJ, you are not suggesting Merkely would be weak because he voted in support of the troops while stating at the time he rejected the rationale for the war, and that he might be a weak on the national level as a Senator?
Sounds like somewhat swift-boatish to me with that implied assertion from some.
Merkely is not a weak capitulating legislator which is what you seem to have been implying.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:31:30 PM
You validate it by voting no as well TJ. That is the point you miss. You either vote yes and state what you don't accept in the resolution (the rationale for the war) or vote no and explain what you really do accept in the resolution (that you praise the courage and professionalism of the military).
No you don't. You say strongly and firmly, "This is a bullshit vote designed to trap me into voting in support of this war. You can forget that, suckas." Then you sit down.
The mistake is in pretending that "support of the troops" was a valid, serious effort to poll Representatives on their support of the troops, rather than an empty platitude to trap Democrats.
It's very simple: what did the GOP want Democrats to do, to serve their own ends? Vote Yes. What is the smartest thing for a Democrat to do in that case? Vote No. Always.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 3:32:29 PM
That current frame being used by the GOP (and now some Democrats) is to frame that resolution as a "vote for the war"
Nowhere that I've seen has Novick said Merkley's vote was a "vote for the war". He's said it didn't strongly express opposition to the war but that's not the same thing.
Are you talking about some other "some Democrats"? Can you be a bit more specific? I think that Novick has clarified what he meant by his statements in much the same way as you claim Merkley clarified his vote. But one argument has more consistency than the other.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 29, 2007 3:33:08 PM
Isn't Novick's argument that it WAS a desperate stunt rather than a real bill?
Dude! It WASN'T a real bill. It was a freaking non-binding resolution.
It was either sarcasm, or admit that pretending Novick is participating in any "swiftboating" was patently ridiculous, I guess....
Torrid... take a deep breath, buddy!! As lestatdelc pointed out, I was commenting on Kari's witty post. There is a fundamental difference between writing style (ala "craftsmanship") and the substance of whatever is being written about. I obviously happen to agree with Kari about the substance, but my props were 100% about his good humor in how he responded to WW.
Not everything is about making some sort of anti-Novick dig... Lighten up!
Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 3:33:12 PM
Steven, you say, "Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote." I don't believe that's true. Anyone who first hears about this from the Rogue article would understandably come away believing Merkley supported the war. Even in the blogosphere, I found four people claiming Merkley was pro-war back then. That changes votes. And that, TJ, as well as other completely baseless conclusions people have drawn from Novick's "concern" about Merkley, is why people like Lestatdelc, who is on Novick's team, and myself, who is on no one's team, got so "defensive" in speaking out.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:34:55 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:31:30 PM
And the VFW mailers go out the next day pointing out you call supporting out troops as hey are deployed in combat a "bullshit vote".
Show me a single one of the 5 Dems that voted no saying what you said TJ.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:38:31 PM
"Merkely is not a weak capitulating legislator which is what you seem to have been implying."
Ah, and there lies the debate, does it not? In much the same way that you misapprehended Stephanie yesterday, however, do not confuse a weak, capitulative VOTE with the person who casts it.
Steve was asked about it, and said "No way I'd vote for that BS." I favor the candidate that takes such an approach.
I'm pretty sure you know what a swiftboating is--misleading or lying about an opponent's record, usually in an area where they have a purported electoral strength, in order to smear an opponent and force a timewasting defense. Since Steve has only talked about what HE would or would not do, and what he believes Democratic voters are looking for, the test fails at the first clause. If nothing else, the allegation is that Merkley voted yes on HJM2. Is that a lie?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:39:36 PM
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 3:32:29 PMAre you talking about some other "some Democrats"? Can you be a bit more specific?
Look through these threads. There are numerous Democrats and NAV progressives buying into it and saying that Merkely voted for a resolution in support of the war.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:39:41 PM
"Show me a single one of the 5 Dems that voted no saying what you said TJ."
Show me who is smearing them for not supporting the troops.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 29, 2007 3:40:56 PM
Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 3:33:12 PMSteven, you say, "Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote." I don't believe that's true. Anyone who first hears about this from the Rogue article would understandably come away believing Merkley supported the war. Even in the blogosphere, I found four people claiming Merkley was pro-war back then. That changes votes. And that, TJ, as well as other completely baseless conclusions people have drawn from Novick's "concern" about Merkley, is why people like Lestatdelc, who is on Novick's team, and myself, who is on no one's team, got so "defensive" in speaking out.
BINGO.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:42:05 PM
Torrid... take a deep breath, buddy!! As lestatdelc pointed out, I was commenting on Kari's witty post."So was I. His choice was to take the criticism seriously and either defend it or retract it; or to simply blow it off as pretty much a joke, failing to address the WW's editorial point at all.
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: Ben | Aug 29, 2007 9:30:52 AM
Personally, I was laughing at the sinister portrait of you they used in the article. It's a black-and-white version of the one you normally use, but it's all grainy and distorted. Your smile looks rather malicious in that light!
I love it! Congrats!