Jon Tester Endorses Jeff Merkley
Jeff Merkley picked up a major endorsement in his US Senate campaign today from US Senator Jon Tester. Tester announces and explains his endorsement in a letter on Merkley’s website:
I'm Jon Tester, Senator, and farmer, from Montana.Last year in Big Sky country we showed that people, not special interests, decide elections. Now in Oregon, you have the opportunity to show the Bush Administration and Gordon Smith the very same thing.
I am emailing you today because I am supporting a true progressive for US Senate: Jeff Merkley. I look forward to traveling to Oregon before the end of the year and for an event with Jeff. We'll get the details about my visit out to you soon. But today I'm asking for your help. We need another good Democrat in the United States Senate.
In the message, Tester calls out Gordon Smith on his record and asks for Oregonians to contribute to and volunteer for Merkley’s campaign:
Jeff Merkley is a man of the people, a proven progressive leader who has shown that he can bring strong positive change to Oregon. I look forward to serving with Jeff Merkley in Washington to work for good-paying jobs, affordable health care, quality education – and most importantly, to end this war in Iraq.Gordon Smith refuses to stand up to the Bush Administration, voting 90% of the time with the Bush-Cheney agenda. We must have new leadership from Oregon in the US Senate. Oregon deserves better.
But no one can do this alone. I put a lot of miles on my pick-up truck driving around Montana, visiting with folks in 2006. Everywhere I went, there was a call for change in leadership. Jeff Merkley needs your help to make that happen here like we did in Montana.
With each passing day, more and more Oregonians are joining this campaign. They have already shown that they're tired of Gordon Smith’s special interest money train by contributing to the Merkley campaign, volunteering their time and telling their friends.
The endorsement could be awkward for fellow candidate Steve Novick, who has previously run advertisements comparing himself to Tester:
So for the last couple of weeks we've been running blog ads saying "First Wellstone ... Then Tester ... Then Novick." We learned today exactly who was reading those ads: the editorial board of the state's second-largest newspaper. Here's what the Eugene Register-Guard said today:Novick will make the most of his status as a political outsider, and can be expected to wage an effective insurgent campaign modeled on those of Paul Wellstone in Minnesota and Jon Tester in Montana.
Read the rest of Tester’s endorsement. Will it have an impact on the Democratic primary?
Discuss.
|
September 27, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (112 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Not Impressed | Sep 27, 2007 5:22:45 PM
Why would Tester feel it is appropriate to step into Democratic party politics in Oregon, which is not the state he represents, before we have gone through our primary? His clear implication that a party establishment choice is more progressive than Novick seems to undermine his own credibility. It's unfortunate that Tester has chosen to throw his credibility in this way before he has even proven himself as a Democratic Senator. How soon they forget.
By the way, Tester voted for the gratuitous Cornyn amendment to attack MoveOn.org. Has anyone asked Merkley and Novick point blank how they would have voted on the Cornyn amendment? And if Merkley says he would have voted against it will he publicly criticize Tester for turning on the people this way? Seems like that could be an indicator of who is really a fighter for the people. Feingold voted against it, and I would like to believe Wellstone would have stood in the Senate Well and orated against it. I'm not yet a Novick supporter and I am not a member or financial suppoter of MoveOn.org, but these kind of cheap tricks are doing a lot to push me in that direction.
Posted by: anonymous | Sep 27, 2007 5:25:14 PM
Looks like Bill Bodden had exactly the same thought and posted while I was drafting my post. May we have a groundswell building on the question for Merkley and Tester at the DPO meeting? I think the DPO owes it to us Democrats to get an answer.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 5:33:27 PM
Anyone who thinks the MoveOn ad is anythign beyond a waste of electrons at this point, or at all relvant to the Oreogn Democratic race is beyond pathetic.
What next?
Where does Merkely stand on Freedom Fries?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 5:36:05 PM
Posted by: Not Impressed | Sep 27, 2007 5:22:45 PM
Merkely is solidly progressive. Even Novick acknowledges that there is no difference in their positions when it comes to policy. Stop being a friggin' idiot (or are you just a troll)...?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 27, 2007 5:43:14 PM
Those clowns in Congress who voted to condemn “any effort to attack the honor and integrity” of “all members of the United States Armed Forces“ have opened up a can of worms. What will happen now if some officers in the military decide to charge some servicemen with crimes (rape or robbery, for example) that would attack the "honor and integrity" of those servicemen? Will the majority of the senators and representatives pounce on those charging officers?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 5:54:45 PM
lestatdelc,
I am not sure you are accurately stating Steve's assessment of his and Merkley's positions.
I'm pretty sure neither candidate would say that there is "no difference" between them, and in particular, I'm pretty sure Steve has not said that.
I'm hoping he or Jake will show up here to clarify.
Posted by: bdunn | Sep 27, 2007 5:56:59 PM
(Though many of you are too old to know what this means) Awkward Turtle.
Steve has to be embarrassed by this one. Basically what the people above me are saying Steve Novick though Jon Tester was so awesome that Novick said he would model him and used that in a crapton of advertisements that now that he is endorsing Merkley he shouldn't be listened to? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Second what does the DPO have to do with this?
Third, Novick brings this on himself when he uses Tester in his ads and that gives Tester. I think Novick shouldn't use people in his ads that later endorse his opponent. Furthermore, why shouldn't Tester get to endorse whomever he wants. I like Jon Tester and think he is a man of integrity so its good to see that he approves of Merkley. Another reason to vote for him.
Posted by: colin maloney | Sep 27, 2007 5:59:59 PM
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 5:36:05 PM
Merkely is solidly progressive. Even Novick acknowledges that there is no difference in their positions when it comes to policy.
I don't recall Steve ever saying that. I think he's made mention that they're very similar in the positions they hold, but I don't think that a position of "no difference" has been made. If I'm mistaken, and you can provide some evidence to support the claim, I'd certainly look at it.
Posted by: anonymous | Sep 27, 2007 6:17:14 PM
I don't know where Bill Bodden gets his information, but Wyden was one of the the small minority of Senators who opposed the amendment condemning MoveOn. Further, I asked Wyden personally if he was endorsing a candidate in the Democratic primary and he said Novick and Merkley are both friends and he would not endorse, but would strongly support the winner.
What does Wyden have to do with Tester's endorsement?
Posted by: anonymous | Sep 27, 2007 6:21:27 PM
Bill, the link you provide even says clearly that Wyden voted against the Moveon resolution.
Ready, shoot, aim.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 6:21:28 PM
bdunn, are you old enough to vote?
I ask because there's something very, uh, youthful about the way you present online.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 6:29:20 PM
You know, this is funny... 'cause i just got this email from John Tester. (Yeah, he and me are like this /// crosses fingers ///)
Subject: Three Days Left: A message from Jon Tester From: "Senator Jon Tester" Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 3:01I'm Jon Tester, Senator, and farmer, from Montana.
I am emailing you today because I am supporting a true progressive for US Senate: Jeff Merkley. I look forward to traveling to Oregon before the end of the year and for an event with Jeff. We'll get the details about my visit out to you soon. But today I'm asking for your help. We need another good Democrat in the United States Senate.
It's funny, 'cause when when push came to shove, Tester folded on the recent GOP inspired anti-free-speech Resolution just like Merkley rolled over (hand in hand with other "progressive Democrats") on Minnis's pro Bush/troops resolution).
[Disclaimer: i know that mere mention of this historical fact causes some here to whine in protest. Let me just say this in advance. It's not that Merkley got fooled, like most of the Party insiders. It's his obstinacy - "no regrets" - (a la Hillary Clinton) which turns this one progressive off.]
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 6:30:56 PM
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 5:54:45 PM
I may be misremembering it, or perhaps I am conflating what you said about any ideological differences between Novick and Merkley are unlikely to be significant to voters, or what TJ said that the primary will likely be decided on style, not ideology. Jeff and Steve are pretty close on politics.. with what Novick said when he welcomed Jeff's announcement and proposed joint appearances around the state.
I find it ironic though that Novick found comparisons to Tester to be a good thing and something he lauded on his website and here we have posters like Bill Bodden up-thread calling out Tester as a clown over the MoveOn ad vote.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 6:37:52 PM
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 6:29:20 PM
Why should Merkley have regrets about voting for a non-binding resolution supporting the troops and their families as they were just two days into the line-of-fire while saying he was only voting for the resolution for that reason and saying explicitly he was voting only for that reason and disagreed with the rationale for the invasion?
I know some want to flog the resolution vote as some indication of Merkley being wrong or weak or having something he should apologize for, but it is bordering on pathetic that you and others keep trying to make it into something it isn't.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 6:39:07 PM
posters like Bill Bodden up-thread calling out Tester as a clown over the MoveOn ad vote
Lestat, are you defending Tester's vote?!
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 27, 2007 6:46:49 PM
I am certain Steve Novick doesn't think he and Jeff have identical positions on the issues. They may have great overlap, but Steve no doubt has different priorities, approaches, and positions. I do think the two have far more in common than they have differences over, but we shouldn't overstate the similarities--there is a reason both men are running for office.
This is a good thing for Merkley, but endorsements rarely sway too many votes. Are you going to base your vote on whom a freshman senator from Montana endorses?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Sep 27, 2007 6:50:40 PM
Merkely is solidly progressive. Even Novick acknowledges that there is no difference in their positions when it comes to policy. Stop being a friggin' idiot (or are you just a troll)...?
You like to call other people pathetic, lesatdelc, but while reading these posts I can almost see you stomping your feet and pounding your fists in the corner with tears shooting out of your eyes and steam rolling out of your ears like any toddler throwing a tantrum because he's not getting his way.
Yelling and screaming and absolutely insisting that people accept your flawed premise is just not very persuasive. Some would even call your repeated tantrums and name-calling kind of it pathetic.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 6:55:50 PM
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 6:39:07 PMLestat, are you defending Tester's vote?!
I am pointing out that you are attacking a grassroots supported non-establishment candidate who won, who Novick posted an editorial which made favorable comparisons between Tester and himself on his campaign website... with the ridiculous "guilt by association" circular firing squad non-think you are trying to stir shit up with here against Merkley.
I care about actual substantive votes like the Webb dwell amendment which Tester supported. I care about votes on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act which Tester supported, and the support he has given on damn near every substantive piece of actual legislation that has come up for a vote so far.
I will leave the frothing at the mouth and gnashing of teeth over the MoveOn amendment (which will change precisely nothing) to you.
And for the record, I personally agree with what Bill Clinton said about the MoveOn "controversy".
I simply refuse to attack solid progressives like Tester, Merkley and Novick over stupid shit like you seem to delight in.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 6:59:29 PM
Posted by: Pat Malach | Sep 27, 2007 6:50:40 PMYou like to call other people pathetic, lesatdelc, but while reading these posts I can almost see you stomping your feet and pounding your fists in the corner with tears shooting out of your eyes and steam rolling out of your ears like any toddler throwing a tantrum because he's not getting his way.
LOL. What a vivid imagination you have.
(scroll)
Posted by: anonymous | Sep 27, 2007 7:03:21 PM
Despite lestadelc's scattered arguments, the full story of the attack on MoveOn.org points to serious leadership and character flaws in the Democrats who voted for it.
Boxer offered a fair amendment which previewed the themes Bill Clinton raised on TV last night. When the Republicans blocked that amendment, the Democrats turned on their base rather than block the Republican amendment. In doing that, Democrats like Tester demonstrated a fundamental lack of integrity and leadership. Politics is first and foremost about conveying a sense you can be trusted to represent the values of those you represent (even if you can't be trusted). That is what the issue is here, and why the Tester vote showing he can't reflects poorly on Tester and now on Merkley who has sought his endorsement. MoveOn played a real role in helping get him elected, and he folded like an ingrate rather than stand up to completely disingenuous Republican attacks.
Time and again, it is Merkley who causes the questions about him to be about his character and whether he would be a trustworthy representative, and not about whether he purports to advocate certain positions. If one just looks at the current "Issues" page that (finally) has appeared on his website, it is a bunch of vacuous platitudes and taking more than his fair share of credit for what happened in the last session. Frankly, he has run his campaign so far like a high school cheerleader mainly talking about how popular he is.
He may not have fairly represented himself, but that is his choice, not the fault of the voters whose votes he wants.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 7:13:29 PM
Posted by: anonymous | Sep 27, 2007 7:03:21 PMTime and again, it is Merkley who causes the questions about him to be about his character and whether he would be a trustworthy representative, and not about whether he purports to advocate certain positions.
Somehow I think Merkley proven record of actually getting progressive legislation passed with a razor thin margin within the State Leg. speaks clearly that he can be trusted. I think that Novick can also be trusted even though he has not had to prove it in the an elected office, because of the advocacy he has undertaken in fighting against bad ballot measures, his record as a attorney at the DoJ and the work he has done as a legislative policy advisor in the State Senate.
The only "questions" are those being raised by the circular firing squad over non-substantive side-shows.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 7:28:23 PM
Somehow I think Merkley proven record of actually getting progressive legislation passed with a razor thin margin within the State Leg. speaks clearly that he can be trusted.
Should read:
Somehow I think Merkley proven record of actually getting progressive legislation passed with a razor thin majority within the State Leg. speaks clearly that he can be trusted.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 7:36:32 PM
>MoveOn played a real role in helping get him elected, and he folded like an ingrate rather than stand up to completely disingenuous Republican attacks.
What's that old saying about dancing with them that brung ya?
I think a lot of us would agree that the moveon.org ad was tactically stupid because it gave the Republicans a plausible distraction from the central issues it raised ... but Tester's vote for the Cornyn amendment reminds me of Merkley's vote for HR2 ... and not in a good way.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 27, 2007 7:42:07 PM
I don't know where Bill Bodden gets his information, but Wyden was one of the the small minority of Senators who opposed the amendment condemning MoveOn.
Thanks for the correction and my sincere apologies to Ron Wyden.
... we have posters like Bill Bodden up-thread calling out Tester as a clown over the MoveOn ad vote ...
I didn't name Tester specifically as a clown as this comment implies but was referring to all that voted for this amendment which as I said in a later post has probably opened up a can of worms. This amendment was clearly an attempt by the Republicans to squeeze some political points out of the MoveOn ad's title and the Democrats who voted for it supported those Republicans. I may have missed it, but other than an article in the Washington Post that critiqued the text of the ad there has been no discussion of the text of the ad. The WaPo's article basically agreed with most of the facts cited by MoveOn.
The problem with signing on to this amendment is that it is another of these broad brush statements that has not been thoroughly thought through. What happens if more despicable events like Abu Ghraib or some rogue troops raping a teenager and killing her family in cold blood should occur? Are they to be ignored because exposing them would be an “effort to attack the honor and integrity” of “all members of the United States Armed Forces.“ When I was in the military there was an understanding that unbecoming conduct by an individual reflected on the rest of the military. I recall a deck officer on a ship docked at an Army facility making a negative remark about the competence of Army stevedores loading the ship. The next day the ship's captain received a letter from the base commander saying the entire U.S. Army had been insulted.
One of the problems with people referring to the military since the pre-positioning of troops in the Gulf is the perceived obligation of all that they were to see no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil. An otherwise admirable representative in Congress felt compelled to say that everyone in uniform was a hero. The men and women in military prisons and naval brigs were in uniform. Were they heroes? Servicewomen were being raped in military academies and bases. Were the cadet rapists heroes? Were the officers who covered up their crimes heroes? Among the the problems with conforming to this behavior is that it is intellectually dishonest and opens up the possibility for a U-turn that will condemn everyone in the military for the sins of the few. Remember how the troops were treated during the Vietnam action?
In practically all communities of any size you will find the best and worst of people with most people somewhere in between. If we are to be honest, we must recognize that the military is no exception to this rule.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 7:46:15 PM
I simply refuse to attack solid progressives
Nice to see you've turned over a new leaf, Lestatdelc...
[Disclaimer: "solid progressives" don't vote to acknowledge the "courage of George W. Bush" in the very moment he's marching us off to a "pre-emptive" war.]
Posted by: Portland Dem | Sep 27, 2007 7:54:27 PM
Jeff Merkley picked up a major endorsement in his US Senate campaign
When does B.Boxer send out her mail piece endorsing Jeff?
Posted by: backbeat12 | Sep 27, 2007 8:22:50 PM
Tester showed his true colors by betraying the very people who supported his candidacy. Took netroots bucks from all over the country and then stuck it to us. This endorsement makes me tilt toward Novick, but we shall see.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 8:34:54 PM
You know, it's deeply ironic and rather humorous that Tester would get involved at this stage and endorse Merkley. Merkley's game plan right now (and that of his DSCC overlords) is to try to establish an aura of inevitability about him. It's ironic because of course if the DSCC had succeeded in creating an aura like that for Tester's own primary opponent, he wouldn't be a United States Senator today and no one in Oregon would give a rat's ass about his endorsement.
Posted by: Adrian Rosolie | Sep 27, 2007 8:38:33 PM
I'll refrain from jumping into the hullabaloo, but I would like to point out the interesting fact that earlier on in the campaign, Novick was using Tester's name in a lot of his advertising.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 8:50:12 PM
I'm not sure Steve has done "a lot" of advertising, with or without Tester's name. I remember that he did say semi-jocularly that after he was elected he would seek out Senator Tester to form the "Who Needs Ten Fingers Anyway" caucus.
I'm sure he still intends to do that.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Sep 27, 2007 8:51:17 PM
lestatdelc,
MoveOn is unlikely to have much role in the the Oregon primaries. As far as I know the local embodiments, which are developing an on-the-ground existence, have no interest in it. Their focus is on organizing against the war.
But the general election in 2008 may be another story. They may represent a resource for both the presidential and senatorial campaigns. According to discussions at a meeting and a rally I attended, the national MoveOn e-mail list for Oregon has 40,000 addresses. (The discussion was about whether or in what way or how much the local groups forming could get access to them).
MoveOn is a peculiar organization. They are at once widely distributed and highly centralized. Sometimes they try to use the web for kind of grassroots democracy purposes -- at one stage a few months ago they sent out a message asking if the should support the Democratic leadership on one of its measures, got a yes response, and did so. (Turned out after the fact that they hadn't mentioned some aspects that would have made me "vote" no rather than yes, reflecting something about the mixed quality of the democratic impulse, but never mind).
On this most recent ad, the central leadership acted off their own bat as far as the headline and content went. They asked for donations prior & said there would BE an ad, but didn't specify the content.
Personally I think it was a stupid ad politically, and I would not have supported it for tactical reasons if I had asked. Personally Im alson ot bothered by the attack on General Petraeus because I'm entirely uninterested in the Kabuki theatre of personality cults around generals and their honor. Petraeus is carrying Bush's water on the war, and in the end he is likely to get much worsr from Bush, Cheney and the Rs than he got from MoveOn, if the fates of General Shinseki, General Taguba and General Powell (ret.) are any indication.
I just wish MoveOn had had the sense to stay away from the Kabuki theatre.
I also think it is a waste of time, energy and electrons to spend more time trashing them for their mistake, and even worse to confuse the central leadership with the membership.
Don't buy the right-wing talking points portraying MoveOn as leftist extremists. As I mentioned, they endorsed one of the early & not terribly strong leadership "set a timetable" bills, which was rejected by virtually all of the other organized anti-war groups. MoveOn's membership is politically engaged liberals, by and large, and are people the DP should want to and should be able to mobilize against the R presidential nominee and whoever is opposing Smith.
Posted by: Jesse B. | Sep 27, 2007 9:04:51 PM
While I'm not quite sure about the Tester-Merkeley QED, I certainly would not be willing to say criticism of Tester over the MoveOn vote is unfounded.
After all, don't all or most of the Democrats who voted for this bill agree with everything else in that advertisement besides the three words, "General Betray Us."
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there
was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect
of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do
everything we can to build on that progress.”
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General
claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre
formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated
Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any
other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that
those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious
civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are
desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops
will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
Don't most Americans? MoveOn members and members of other Progressive organizations throughout the country donated money and time to elect leaders like John Tester with the understanding that they would stand up with us when Bush & Co. use their smoke and mirror tactics to claim "progress" in Iraq.
The fact of the matter remains that Republicans feigned outrage, news outlets reported three words out of a hundred, and most Democrats (Tester included) nodded along. How can we maintain and extend a Democratic majority with Democrats aiding Republican smear campaigns?
Posted by: Cynical Dem | Sep 27, 2007 9:42:32 PM
The first thing I thought when I read this headline was, "Oh, I guess the DSCC has started working in Oregon." I admit I scanned through the comments so I don't know if anyone mentioned that as a reason Tester would endorse so early. Both interesting candidates and I'm still undecided, but at least I'm clear on where DC lies.
And, if you vote to spank the Gen X and Y's on a Move On.org advertisment but can't see your way out of your office to vote for important things going on surrounding Iraq, S-Chip, its a problem for those of us who care about important things...Jon Tester. Dems in power and STILL rolling over.
Posted by: Cynical Dem | Sep 27, 2007 9:48:50 PM
Posted by: Cynical Dem | Sep 27, 2007 9:52:30 PM
This says it all...tales from america
Posted by: DW | Sep 27, 2007 9:56:55 PM
Stephanie V, I don't know where you're coming from, but keep supporting your losing candidates. Novick who leans on Tester and then detests him for endorsing Merkley. Kroger who wants the AG position but calls the entire DOJ "underachievers." Nice.
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 27, 2007 10:00:59 PM
"Why should Merkley have regrets about voting for a non-binding resolution supporting the troops and their families"
Because that's not what the resolution was for, and I think that was obvious to everyone including Merkley. The GOP were looking to lay bait for yes votes on the war, and that's what they got, for the most part.
Tester ran a great insurgent's campaign (although being Senate President surely helped), but he has sometimes disappointed since arriving in Washington. The straight talk is still mostly there, but it's not always translated into votes. Along with the bad vote on the MoveOn ad, there's the rejection of a timeline on withdrawal as represented by Feingold (90 days start, gone by June 08), and of course the continuing resolution on the war this summer. He's certainly better than Burns, of course.
In any case, I think the reference to Wellstone and Tester was as much about how they campaigned and won, as who they are. That's still true. One wonders if Tester really even knows much about who Novick even is, if he was simply asked by the party to write a fundraiser for Jeff. (I don't know the answer).
Posted by: carla | Sep 27, 2007 10:10:28 PM
How fascinating that when Novick leans on Tester and compares himself to the man--there's nary a cross word about Tester. Heck..Novick TOOK OUT BLOGADS comparing himself to the guy.
But when Tester decides to endorse Merkley...all of a sudden Tester just doesn't measure up.
You guys need to have a meeting and get your schtick together. Unless you enjoy appearing like raving hypocrites. Then by all means, carry on.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Sep 27, 2007 10:14:18 PM
in case anyone hadn't notice, Tester does not represent Multnomah County, Eugene or Corvallis. he represents Montana, and they are a different shade of blue there. his votes may disappoint some people around the country, but his job is to represent Montana. and the fact that he is doing that can help you understand why i am glad to have spent most of my life in Oregon (where i was born) and only 10 years growing up in Montana. but he is the best guy they've sent to the Senate since Mike Mansfield stepped down, and he'll be a strong supporter of whichever Democrat is elected president (coughObamacough).
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Sep 27, 2007 10:32:47 PM
I see a huge difference between comparing the type of candidate you are (such as not being an elected official before, amount of money raised at a certain point, etc.) and agreeing/disagreeing with the issues or positions one takes.
The comparisons that have been made between Tester and Novick have been very much rooted in the type of candidate they are, the situation they're in, the status of the campaign, etc. The comparisons were made to show that yes, a candidate like Novick does indeed have a chance of winning. People threw a fit whenever Wellstone was brought up, saying that was a one time thing. Tester is another example. It showed that you didn't have to hold elected office, have millions raised the more than a year out, etc. to win a race.
But just because you're in similar situations, doesn't mean that you're going to agree with the positions, votes, etc. the other makes. You may be in complete disagreement with the person on any number of issues and votes.
And it's a much different situation than endorsing in a race in another state. Many of the volunteers, activists, etc. that I've spoken with in the past few years are tired of people from outside of the state coming in and telling them how to run things. Or who the better candidate it. Or why they should vote a certain way.
Over there past few weeks, there has been a lot of complaining about people coming in from outside of the state to tell us how to vote on ballot measures, to spend money to defeat or pass a ballot measure, etc. And there's been a lot of agreement on that. But as soon as someone uses the same reasoning on keeping outside people from deciding our primary, suddenly this place erupts into a brawl. Novick supporters start getting attacked. Their loyalty to Democrats, the progressive cause, etc. gets questioned.
I don't know how many times during this process people have said that Novick supporters like me are likely to just go home if our guy loses. It doesn't matter that this is directly contradicted by the 60-90 hours a week I put in re-electing Kulongoski in 2006... after my guy (Sorenson) lost in the primary. And the work by others in similar situations.
And since I feel disclaimers are important, I wanted to note that I do work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site; however, I speak only for myself and not the campaign or the candidate.
Posted by: Enough Already | Sep 27, 2007 10:34:24 PM
Okay, people, it's time for you Novick supporters to be quiet. You guys are starting to sound like the crackhead Gravel and Paul supporters that spew verbal poo all over the blogosphere, trash-talking everyone who isn't as "enlightened" as they are, and spreading rumors of cover-ups by the mainstream media.
This is the problem with blogs--a vocal minority can give delusions of grandeur to flailing campaigns (I think Howard Dean learned this lesson well). The reason Gravel and Paul are being ignored is not a conspiracy, but because they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the nominations of their parties. It is the same with Steve.
Understand this: Merkley is the candidate that has the best shot at beating Gordo. I don't care if your cult leaders say otherwise, it's true. So stop crapping on a qualified candidate just because he is viable and, thus, has the support of respected leaders.
Peace out, homies.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Sep 27, 2007 10:47:33 PM
I also have to say that I take issue with sentences like this:
I am emailing you today because I am supporting a true progressive for US Senate: Jeff Merkley.
This makes it sound like in the primary race, which we haven't had yet, that Merkley is the "true progressive" and that other Democrats in the race are not.
- - - -
And as to what I said about Novick supporters getting attacked, I think the posting right after what I said makes my point.
- - - - - -
Volunteers and supporters of a candidate are pretty much free to say what they'd like. Sure, candidates hate it, since it can sometimes cause a lot of trouble and headaches. But it also helps to show support for a candidate and opinions on a situation from a lot of different points of view. Not a rehearsed "schtick" that comes from the campaign and is repeated over and over.
I work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site; however, I speak only for myself and not the campaign or the candidate.
Posted by: Nick Kahl | Sep 27, 2007 11:09:12 PM
DW,
I know John Kroger is the real deal because he would never say what you've attributed to him, but more I know that he didn't actually say anything of the sort. Well, in all honesty I can't know for sure because you haven't provided those of us reading this thread with a source, and I find it highly unlikely that someone with your obvious personal animus has exerted the effort to talk with John Kroger personally. Though, I can assure you that he would be glad to talk with you if you approached him, and more, I think that you'd vote for him when you'd finished conversing.
That aside, I assume your quote, if it can be called that, was taken from the Steve Duin's article "John Kroger and the power of ambition." In that article Steve Duin lambastes not only the 289 attorneys in the AG's office, calling them "underachievers" but he too takes to task Attorney General Hardy Myers. That said the worst that can be attributed to John Kroger from that article is:
"Unlike Rep. Greg Macpherson, D-Lake Oswego, Kroger did not enter the 2008 AG race praising the "long and impressive list of accomplishments" of the current officeholder, Hardy Myers."
Well he may not have praised Hardy Myers; but what does that inaction prove? Steve Duin seems to think that means he and John Kroger are of the like mind. To me it just says he understands that he has limited opportunities to be heard and that he's chosen to use those opportunities to address real issues and talk about real solutions rather than get mired in the pedestrian sycophancy that too often seems to supplant the real policy discussion. John Kroger is no sycophant, and I for one would like to hear Greg Macpherson on the record on the issues, but he'd rather uses his bully pulpit to curry favor with the political elite than address the issues that the average Oregonian faces.
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 27, 2007 11:12:44 PM
How fascinating that when Novick leans on Tester and compares himself to the man--there's nary a cross word about Tester. Heck..Novick TOOK OUT BLOGADS comparing himself to the guy.I don't actually recall the Blue Oregon post on Novick using Tester in blogads, with commenting available for people to talk about Tester. So I hardly think it's analagous. In any case, you could have asked me earlier this summer about Tester and I would have told you I was relatively disappointed then, too.But when Tester decides to endorse Merkley...all of a sudden Tester just doesn't measure up.
You guys need to have a meeting and get your schtick together. Unless you enjoy appearing like raving hypocrites. Then by all means, carry on.
But hey, great to see that Merkley campaign staff are calling other progressives raving hypocrites! Classy.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Sep 27, 2007 11:12:47 PM
DW, I confess that I'm not sure where you are coming from either.
"Detests" is a very strong word, one I have not seen any of Steve's supporters use, nor have I seen or heard Steve use it, here or elsewhere. So you are clearly projecting.
I freely cop to being disappointed in Senator Tester for the reasons I outlined above. As noted, I think the ironies are especially rich where he is concerned.
And as for John Kroger, I'm not sure what the hell he has to do with any of this, except that unlike Jeff Merkley and Greg Macpherson, Kroger is not a member of the Axis of Mandate Media.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Sep 27, 2007 11:23:39 PM
I don't actually recall the Blue Oregon post on Novick using Tester in blogads, with commenting available for people to talk about Tester. So I hardly think it's analagous.
Word. that was a helluva straw man. wow.
At this point I'm completely open, don't know enough about them yet. Lifelong Dem & Oregonian, but I must say right now the most attractive candidate to me is Frohnmayer. Teared up when he said universal health care is in the Constitution. This is a bad situation....gotta get smith out of there. Hard not to be cynical when they keep betraying us. Give me my red meat Dems!
Posted by: backbeat12 | Sep 27, 2007 11:25:02 PM
PS torridjoe,
It's late and in case i wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you. How was anyone supposed to react to a post that was never written?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 27, 2007 11:58:27 PM
Stephanie V wrote... You know, it's deeply ironic and rather humorous that Tester would get involved at this stage and endorse Merkley. ... It's ironic because of course if the DSCC had succeeded in creating an aura like that for Tester's own primary opponent, he wouldn't be a United States Senator today....
Yup, that definitely makes it ironic.
But given that, it's hard to imagine that Tester is a DSCC stooge, right?
Maybe, just maybe, Senator Tester is endorsing Jeff Merkley because he thinks he'll be a great U.S. Senator.
Whaddya think?
[Full disclosure: My company built Jeff Merkley's campaign website. We also built the BootBurns.com blog for John Morrison, Jon Tester's primary opponent. I speak only for myself.]
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 28, 2007 12:03:51 AM
TJ wrote I don't actually recall the Blue Oregon post on Novick using Tester in blogads, with commenting available for people to talk about Tester.
Not sure if there was a BlueOregon post; I don't remember one.
I do, however, remember two posts at Loaded Orygun that mentioned Jon Tester in relationship to Steve Novick -- one by you and one by Novick.
Then, of course, there's the post over at the Novick campaign blog -- not that the Novick campaign allows comments.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Sep 27, 2007 5:20:31 PM
Tester voted to condemn the MoveOn.org ad questioning General Petraeus. So did Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden.
This is from Think Progress (09/27/07):
"On September 20, 72 Senators voted for the highly politicized, “bait and switch” resolution that condemned a newspaper ad by MoveOn.org. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), expressly stated that the Senate would condemn “any effort to attack the honor and integrity” of “all members of the United States Armed Forces“:
(Cornyn amendment on the "sense of the senate")
"On his radio show yesterday, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked the “honor and integrity” of some members of the Armed Forces. Limbaugh attacked troops who hold a different viewpoint than his own as “phony soldiers.” Iraq war vet Jon Soltz writes that Limbaugh’s comments are directed at “the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq” because they “do not back the President’s failed policy.”
"For all the Senators who rushed to make political hay over an empty resolution, the spotlight is on them. Will they now enforce their “sense of the Senate” and condemn Rush Limbaugh?"
Let's hear what you have to say, senators.
And, since Jeff Merkley is being backed by Tester and, presumably, Wyden it would be interesting to know what his position is on the MoveOn ad and Limbaugh's comments.