Jon Tester Endorses Jeff Merkley

JontesterJeff 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.

Comments

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Not Impressed (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)
    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)...?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    (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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill, the link you provide even says clearly that Wyden voted against the Moveon resolution.

    Ready, shoot, aim.

  • (Show?)

    bdunn, are you old enough to vote?

    I ask because there's something very, uh, youthful about the way you present online.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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" <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 3:01 I'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.]

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    posters like Bill Bodden up-thread calling out Tester as a clown over the MoveOn ad vote

    Lestat, are you defending Tester's vote?!

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 6:39:07 PM Lestat, 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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Pat Malach | Sep 27, 2007 6:50:40 PM 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.

    LOL. What a vivid imagination you have.

    (scroll)

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: anonymous | Sep 27, 2007 7:03:21 PM 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.

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.
  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.]

  • Portland Dem (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Merkley picked up a major endorsement in his US Senate campaign

    When does B.Boxer send out her mail piece endorsing Jeff?

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Adrian Rosolie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Jesse B. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • Cynical Dem (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Cynical Dem (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This says it all...

  • Cynical Dem (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This says it all...tales from america

  • DW (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    "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).

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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).

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Enough Already (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

    <hr/>

    And as to what I said about Novick supporters getting attacked, I think the posting right after what I said makes my point.

    <hr/>

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

    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 hey, great to see that Merkley campaign staff are calling other progressives raving hypocrites! Classy.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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!

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.]

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    But given that, it's hard to imagine that Tester is a DSCC stooge, right?

    Well, the DSCC certainly wised up after Tester's primary and poured money into Montana to help him. It would not be too extreme to say that Tester owes his seat to the DSCC. You used the word "stooge;" I didn't.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If George Washington, himself, endorsed an Oregon Democratic Primary candidate I'd be entirely unimpressed, he's a Virginian and I'm an Oregonian. I have a list of 14 Democratic Senators who voted "aye" on the pre-recess wiretap enhancement, not one Oregonian, same in the Democratic US House, not one Oregonian. The fact that Senator "X" from State "Y" likes a candidate entirely underwhelms me and I've made no choice at this point. Those Senators on that list...are Democratic Senators.

    Would I like these non-entities to butt out? Yes. Is that politically realistic? Nope. Do I care? I think I made that point.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Sep 27, 2007 10:32:47 PM 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.

    Yeah, except for the fact that Tester was first elected to the Montana State Senate in 1998. He was elected the minority whip for the 2001 session. Then after being re-elected in 2002, he became minority leader for the 2003 session and in 2005 was elected President of the Montana Senate, and was the chief presiding officer of the Montana Legislature’s upper chamber.... before he ran for the United States Senate in 2006.

  • MCR (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Look, I know all the Novick supporters want to think that there is a race for the Democratic primary next year. Yet, the race all but ended the day that Merkley announced. It's over. Find something else to complain about.

    I'm also eagerly awaiting the 3q fundraising totals from both campaigns...should make it clear what is up.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When Merkley announced his candidacy, Novick challenged him to make a number of joint appearances in the state. Novick's goal was to let the voters hear from both candidates and then decide for themselves which of the two is best able to defeat Gordon Smith. It was a proposal worthy of a party that is truly "democratic." Not surprisingly, Merkley accepted.

    Apparently, however, some of his supporters in this part of cyberspace think that the nomination should turn on connections within the party machine, rather than based on the power and inspiring quality of their own words as candidates. I've noticed at least one post say that the race was over before it ever really started.

    Will Merkley honor his commitment to make plenty of joint appearances with Novick -- and thereby take the raison d'etre of his candidacy to the people? Or will he hide behind his connections with professional politicians? The answer may decide not just who is nominated, but whether the winner will be sufficiently battle tested to defeat the incumbent. If, in fact, Merkley turns tail and relies on his connections, this might be the break Gordon Smith has been waiting for.

    Those of you Merkley supporters who claim that there is no race here are doing both Democratic candidates a disservice.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Testy... testy... one... two...

    carla: you enjoy appearing like raving hypocrites.

    who knows?: they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the nominations of their parties. It is the same with Steve.

    Then you have nothing to worry about. :)

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Will Merkley honor his commitment to make plenty of joint appearances with Novick

    My hunch is that the Mandate/Merkley machine is still hammering out his issues. Their first attempt ("change is coming") this past Monday could literally fit on a cocktail napkin. (In his favor, Jeff Merkley could never be accused of having a wide stance.) What followed the next day (cutting and pasting from his resume') looked more like he's running still for the Legislature.

    Merkley's bots here get so easily overwrought as they swing and miss at softballs. I think the Speaker should stick to what he's better at... dodgeball.

  • jraad (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mandate/Merkley machine still hammering out issues?

    I am tired of hearing on these blogs that Merkley is not good on the issues. LOOK AT HIS RECORD AS A LEGISLATOR. I dont need to tell you what got done last session and which side Merkley was on. Here we have a proven progressive that has both legislative and executive experience (Director of Habitat for Humanity) and has the backing of other good progressives.

    I think there are too many people on here operating on the mindset that if something gets told enough times, it eventually becomes true.

    How is the downplaying of the endorsement going folks?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    3q fundraising totals from both campaigns...should make it clear what is up.

    Yes, yes, there is all the liklihood that Merkley and his monied establishment backers think they have purchased the nomination.

    I'm sure "progessives" everywhere are proud of that kind of he-with-the-most-monied-support wins attitude.

    Boy that's some real "progress." Haven't ever seen that kind of thing before in politics.

    hey don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the nominations of their parties. It is the same with Steve.

    EBT makes the best point here: Id Novick has no chance, why do so many insecure democrats get so freaked out by a little competition. Believe me, these "attacks" on Merkley are noting copmpared to what the GOP crew is going to throw at the nominee.

    The way you guys act, you'd think Merkley was made out of tissue paper and butterfly wings. And a person that delicate isn't going to beat Gordon Smith.

    That's why I think Stteve Novick has THE BEST CHANCE of routing Gordon Smith.

  • jraad (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The way you guys act, you'd think Merkley was made out of tissue paper and butterfly wings. And a person that delicate isn't going to beat Gordon Smith.

    That's why I think Stteve Novick has THE BEST CHANCE of routing Gordon Smith.

    Because of how some people on bo act is the reason why Stteve (sic) Novick has the best chance?

    weird...

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Because of how some people on bo act is the reason why (sic) Steve Novick has the best chance?

    My original post was poorly worded and contained a typo. Whereas the structure of your entire sentence is facacta. So ya got me, Hemingway.

    But now that so many here have decided Steve Novick can't win, I would expect the Merkleytrons to come forward and defend the solid progressive Novick from these vicious attacks by calling their authors mean names and throwing a fit. Mitch, ya got that anger loaded up for these people, too.

    They're attacking a solid progressive? Go git 'em, Mitch, knock 'em dead bdunn.

  • jraad (unverified)
    (Show?)

    the only people throwing a fit are the novick netters mad that Tester didn't endorse him.

  • (Show?)

    But hey, great to see that Merkley campaign staff are calling other progressives raving hypocrites! Classy.

    I calls them as I sees them. You know more than anyone that this is the case, TJ. I've noticed that you can't actually defend the substance of what I've been saying here and have chosen to go the route of finger waving instead. Classy indeed.

    Steve Novick ran a BLOGAD comparing himself to Tester. It was (I believe) the very first ad he took out. Yet now that Tester endorsed Merkley--you're down on Tester.

    You absolutely cannot rebut this--and you know it. So you have to go after me instead. You have no choice and we both know it.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    the only people throwing a fit are the novick netters

    Hey Jraad, you must routinely skip over lestatdilc's postings as do i. Don't miss these gems upthread from Merkley's most rabid supporter: "beyond pathetic" ... "Stop being a friggin' idiot" ... "you are trying to stir shit up" ...

    And don't forget "carla" upthread who is most likely the same Carla who is on Merkley's payroll. As with Blue0's chief cook and salad spinner, she could do a bit better job disclaiming her relationships.

    "You guys need to have a meeting and get your schtick together. Unless you enjoy appearing like raving hypocrites."

    So whose idea was it from the Merkley dream team to trot out the Tester endorsement precisely during the news cycle when he disappointed progressives by buying in to another GOP trap?

  • (Show?)

    I'm so sick of the constant attacks by certain individuals supporting Merkley. I've said this before (of both sides) that posters do their candidate a disservice by running their mouths on high speed (including slamming the fact that there is a third party candidate in other threads).

    While I haven't decided who I'm voting for US Senate, I think some of the people here hurt their respective candidate more then they help them. Some of the comments on Blue Oregon cause me to be so sick of the spew that comes out of certain people's mouths that I'll vote against a candidate (or issue) because of people's propaganda games.

    So much for progressive...

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    not sure i really want to wade into this, but here goes. i guess fits are in the eye of the beholder, because i've not yet seen one novick supporter tell a merkley supporter to shut & go home already.

    as far as tester's support goes, i was extremely disappointed that he voted condemn moveon.org and made note of it at the time. i don't know that it is enough to make me write the guy off, but, it is what it is.

    and as for novick's modelling himself after tester, i was thinking it was the campaign -- the fact that tester, like novick, was not the annointed son of the DSCC, but went on to fight a good fight & win anyway.

    that said, montana and oregon are very very different places, as t.a. above asserted. so i'm not sure how far the analogy would play.

    my biggest concern is, as others have said, that the merkley campaign appears to be so fragile that the likes of a steve novick (whom many claim to be a non-starter) can make them so defensive. i would think that they would welcome the practice sparring, as a training and warmup for what they will face from gordon smith. assuming the annointed son goes on to the inevitable win, of course, ::sarcasm/off::

    which really gets me to the point of my post, i guess. i went to the jeff merkley kickoff campaign event in my town, and he struck me as a very kind, decent man. his legislative record looks fairly solid, but there's not enough there to make me decide for sure to support him.

    what i really don't like about his campaign (not him, his campaign) is being told who to vote for. and that's what i feel like i'm getting from them - not "here's what jeff stands for and how he promises to go about making it happen" but - vote for jeff because we said so. and ted kulongoski said so. and now jon tester said so.

    these endorsements carry a lot of weight, but what else do you guys have? all i'm hearing is (a) state legislative record and (b) endorsements.

    you've got to get more together before you face gordon smith, or it will all have been a great big fat waste. and i will be more disillusioned with the democratic party than ever before in my life - if that's possible.

    t.a. - where in montana did you live? i was born & raised in glasgow, my family is all in missoula now. and i agree with you about mike mansfield. there was a man for montanans to be proud of.

  • Katie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This wasn't an endorsement, folks. Jon Tester didn't give the Novick Merkley race 60 seconds of thought. This was the Democratic party insiders maneuvering to hand pick our nominee for us. I'm a loyal Democrat, but I hate to see someone like Tester go from Maverick to Party Lackey overnight. It's not going to serve him well in Montana, and it certainly doesn't impress this Oregonian.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    the only people throwing a fit are the novick netters mad that Tester didn't endorse him.

    I'm not yet a supporter of Novick or anyone else. Tester, Wu, and the rest of the creeps that denounced moveon have shit in their own nest and THAT pisses me off. And as for who can stand up to Smith....at this point Frohnmayer has proven to not only be feisty ala Novick, but has far more gravitas than any of them.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Amazing that an endorsement can cause such a hullabaloo. It's simply a good thing for Merkley, and I'm sure that the Novick supporters have been thrilled at receiving Tester's endorsement. Since they didn't, we're hearing about how sour those grapes are . . .

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    these endorsements carry a lot of weight, but what else do you guys have? all i'm hearing is (a) state legislative record and (b) endorsements.

    It's great that Merkley has his state legislative record and endorsements to start his campaign with.

    you've got to get more together before you face gordon smith, or it will all have been a great big fat waste.

    There's plenty of time to 'get more together,' and I have no doubt that the Merkley campaign is working pretty hard on that. Merkley strikes me as a candidate who won't be caught unprepared. I have no concerns at all that it will all be a 'great big fat waste.'

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    chris, i hope you're correct.

    right now i have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomache that (1) the merkley campaign is going to use the democratic party machine to roll over novick in the primary and then (2) turn around and get their clock cleaned by gordon smith because they didn't bother to put together a campaign that would appeal to NAV's, disaffected republicans, independents, disaffected democrats, in other words anyone who isn't a democratic party faithful.

    but. i would love to be proved wrong, on either point. if and when either novick or merkley gets elected to smith's seat in the senate, you can point me back to my words here & i'll gladly eat them with a big pile of crow served next to them on the plate.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is a three way race, not a two way. Everyone seems to be avoiding that problem. That's what is making me sick to my stomach, particularly since presently I like the Independent the best. And that Indy may just seal it again for Smith.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    backbeat, the democratic primary is not a three-way race, unless you count candy neville. and right now, the democratic primary election is the one i'm focussing on, since it's the first one coming up. of course, frohnmeyer's role in the general election shouldn't be completely ignored by either novick or merkley in the primary.

    since you prefer the independent, what would you like to see happen now?

  • (Show?)

    LOL - it's amusing to watch the Novick backers jump all over this, trying to distract from the fact that Novick was comparing himself favorably with Tester.

  • (Show?)

    This wasn't an endorsement, folks. Jon Tester didn't give the Novick Merkley race 60 seconds of thought.

    You know this... how?

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The endorsement from Sen. Tester doesn't mean much to me as I've heard little about what he's done, but I'm questioning the soundness of Rep. Merkley's state legislative record being touted here. I object to the formulation of Measure 50 as an amendment to the State Constitution in order to circumvent the majority requirements to pass out a revenue bill, and as the Speaker it was his 'baby'.

    I concur that health care, especially that of children is an urgent, high-priority matter, but that does not (in my humble estimation) justify cramming what should be an appropriations bill into the State Constitution. There is damage of a lingering nature to the respect for the foundation of the rule of law (versus the power of interest groups) in using the legislative process this way.

    Now that Rep. Merkley aspires to the U.S. Senate, I have to wonder how his philosophy of Constitutional law will be applied to the U.S. Constitution, which has been under attack by the Bush Administration in pursuit of what it views as urgent, high-priority matters.

    Note that I have not decided whom I will support for nomination as Senator, other than replacing the wafflemaster incumbent.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's great to see that Senator Tester recognizes what a great candidate we have in Jeff Merkley.

  • (Show?)

    Unless something really odd happens, I expect to continue to support Merkley as much as I do now. That being said, I have a real problem with supporters of any candidate telling supporters of a rival to shut up and go home. How is that any different from the Republican shenanigans of the last 7 years? Democrats and progressives are suppossed to be trying to offer an alternative to that. Mouthing off in this way only gives credence to claims that nothing will change and that Dems are no differenct than Republicans. One of the reasons that I depend on BlueO as my primary starting point of the day's news is the overall respect that commenters treat each other with, even when in disagreement. The personal attacks and name-calling are what the anti-net folks use to discredit the impact of bloggers and undermine their credibility.

    One note...when speaking to either campaign about a debate at PSU, both campaigns have been equally vague and non-commital about that, saying they need to coordinate with the "other" camp. Both candidates and their campaigns will need to spend time strengthening their message and image to be ready to face Smith, and as far as I can tell, both candidates are more than capable of doing that.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Novick has "landslide loser" written all over him. His and his supporters' attempts to smear Jeff Merkley are shameful. Should Novick get the nomination, he'll probably lose every county in the state save Multnomah. Thankfully, it look like Merkley will cruise to the nomination; I'll be surprised if Novick gets more than thirty percent in the primary.

  • (Show?)

    M37 said, "That being said, I have a real problem with supporters of any candidate telling supporters of a rival to shut up and go home. How is that any different from the Republican shenanigans of the last 7 years? Democrats and progressives are suppossed to be trying to offer an alternative to that. Mouthing off in this way only gives credence to claims that nothing will change and that Dems are no differenct than Republicans. One of the reasons that I depend on BlueO as my primary starting point of the day's news is the overall respect that commenters treat each other with, even when in disagreement. The personal attacks and name-calling are what the anti-net folks use to discredit the impact of bloggers and undermine their credibility."

    Thanks for saying that as you put it much better then I could have. That's exactly what I was trying to say above in my post and what I said in an email reply to Kari when he asked me about my post.

    The Merkley/Novick supporters (again both past and present) have had some pretty nasty exchanges and there have also been some nasty exchanges on Measure 50 including one where everyone who was oppose to it was labeled a "troll".

    I can understand the frustration of Novick supporters (again I haven't decided who I'm supporting) at the appearence of this him being a the "DPO candidate". However, neither side helps their case with insults.

    When Blue Oregon becomes a place like they where insults trump discussion, it hurts the creditability of the blog as well. If I'm not mistaken, the blog was founded on the premise of being progressive. Maybe it's high time some either use this blog for what it's meant for or leave.

  • (Show?)

    Whoops..that intro should have said,

    Oregonian37 said

    My bad..

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm seeing a lot of posts from Novick supporters trashing Tester, but I haven't seen any word from the Novick campaign itself. Am I to understand that Novick's people support this sort of thing? Does the Novick campaign really agree with what's being said about a Senator that Novick was comparing himself to earlier in the campaign?

  • (Show?)

    I'm seeing a lot of posts from Novick supporters trashing Tester

    Please provide some links. I haven't seen anything like that.

    I and others have been critical of his decision to meddle in another state's primary (particularly in light of his own experience two years ago), or his vote in favor of the Cornyn amendment demonizing moveon.org. But he's a politician. How is it "trashing" to be critical of his political acts?

  • (Show?)

    "David" -- please use a secondary name to distinguish yourself from other Davids, esp. David English, who is right above you in this thread.

    I'd prefer a real last name, but an initial (David J) or some other identifier (David from Gresham) would be fine too.

  • (Show?)

    Same for Jim, Katie, Chris, and Kevin. Please, people. Help us out here.

  • (Show?)

    Shrieking in the electronic town hall here feels more like shallow opportunistic attacks. This is the closest our country has come to one-man rule with a complicit Congress, which has become nearly docile. Abolitions of the Bill of Rights, increasing survellance, illegal wire-tapping and the government keeping track of the books we read in airports..that's cause to shriek. Endorsement of a candidate? Come on! It's easier to bang on the walls, sling insults and present less than factual information than it is to write a reasoned letter, make a firm polite phone call to a congressional representative, or to march our fannies into a candidates office and go to work. Inform, discuss, show a bit of moral courage, BlueOregon is better than this. Candidates do not feel "helped" by mudslinging on their behalf. Save your wrath for how Gordon Smith or Greg Walden support policies that oppress our freedoms, support reckless spending and actually harm us.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    well then.

    that settles it i guess.

  • (Show?)

    There's another Kevin commenting at BO? From preemptivekarma.com?

    Typically I will add a distinguishing something to my moniker any time I find myself commenting alongside another Kevin. When there isn't then I figure the link back to my blog identifies me pretty well. No?

  • (Show?)

    Given how few people actually put an identifying link in, it would be helpful to consistently use something else.

    Kevin H. is fine.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Kari. What's up with all the spam attacks lately? Inquiring (and beautiful) minds want to know!

  • (Show?)

    Although I expect to vote for Novick in the primary, I don't have anything against Merkley & won't have trouble supporting him against Smith it that's how it comes out.

    I agree with the Merkley supporter who said that a strong legislative record is plus for JM.

    However, the pro-Merkley folks seem to be missing something here. There is a genuine strand of sentiment saying "I wish Merkley were campaigning better" that isn't just point-scoring.

    It would be good for you and for Merkley's campaign to take this seriously.

    Just listing what the legislature did last session in a laundry list isn't doing the trick. If that record is one of his strong suits, he needs to make better use of it. Or his supporters do.

    Pulling out key issues for depth might work in the primary and also fit the bill of preparing for the fight with Smith.

    Could be along the lines of "Senator is a legislative office. I've been a legislator and so has Smith. How do we stack up? On environment, Smith has consistently been one-sided in preference for corporate profits. In the Oregon legislature I paved the way for x,y,z for the environment, and helped forge compromises on b & c that protected legitimate interests while keeping environmental concerns in view. If you send me to the Senate I'll provide the realistic environmental leadership for Oregon that Gordon Smith has not been giving us."

    (Since I don't know the specifics of Merkley's accomplishments in this area and no one here has seen fit to go into such substance in supporting him, I have to use the letter variables.)

    That heuristic example probably is clunky, but I'm trying to get at structural points.

    1) Get away from the laundry list. Eyes glaze over (ever read Homer's "Catalogue of Ships" in the Iliad?).

    More importantly, it doesn't actually convey the significance of each item. Each new one buries the last almost before you have time to recognize it, never mind what it means. And if you do slow yourself down, the gives precious little on what anything means.

    It may work as shorthand for those who were following the play-by-play at the time, but not for the general voting public.

    2) Give a real sense of how Merkley thinks about the issue, of where his heart is and what the substance is.

    3) Define Smith and contrast to him -- here's why Merkley is a better choice.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is pretty pathetic: you said! no, you said!

    and in all probability the candidates themselves would disown you. Jeff & Steve are two different guys with different styles and certain differences in policies, you'd think they were Attila & Ghengis reading this.

    Carol, Dan, Scott, and I (in CD 02 race) were different Democrats, but with much more in common than differences, the same is true here. This heated Bullshit is just that. I suppose you people have to be allowed to vote, but maybe it's not such a hot idea...

  • (Show?)

    Actually, it's not true that many of us Novick supporters are just bitter because Novick didn't get Tester's endorsement.

    Personally, I would like to see those from outside Oregon stay out of our primary race and let the Democrats in Oregon choose our candidate. We have two really good candidates running, plus a third candidate I don't know a lot about. That's likely to be in, although we may very well end up with a few more lesser known people running as well. But it's most likely going to come down to Merkley and Novick. And I'd like to see that choice made by Oregonians, not people in other states, not the DSCC, etc. I'd like to see it decided based on the candidates' positions, their issues, what they've said, etc. and not on an endorsement from someone in another state.

    Coming in later is fine, since we know that there will be plenty of people from around the country coming into Oregon is support of Smith. But let's leave that until at least the day after the primary.

    Disclaimer: I work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site, but I speak only for myself - not the campaign.

  • (Show?)

    What's up with all the spam attacks lately?

    I believe TypePad is having some problems with their spam filter. Why?

  • (Show?)
    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...

    And the post of mine you linked to was an "attack" on Novick who I've been supporting?

    "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.

    And once again you misleadingly ignore what Merkely said at the time of the vote on what he was voting for (and only voting for).

    Posted by: Chris Lowe | Sep 27, 2007 8:51:17 PM

    I don't disagree with anything you said here.

    Posted by: Cynical Dem | Sep 27, 2007 9:42:32 PM 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.

    Which SCHIP funding votes did Tester miss?

    According to Thomas he seems to have been voting for SCHIP funding in every recorded vote.

    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.

    Stephanie V can more than defend herself, but I was certainly aware that the primaries are already over and Novick lost. In the only polling of the race so far, Novick was within the margin of error of what Merkley was polling at, and with almost the same name-ID. So not sure where you think Novick is "losing" with the exception of big-name endorsements.

    Posted by: Enough Already | Sep 27, 2007 10:34:24 PM Okay, people, it's time for you Novick supporters to be quiet.

    I am a Novick supporter and I, and I am sure most others will not "be quiet". My objection to a few of Novick's supporters are the wild-eyed slagging off of solid progressives like Merkely and anyone who supports Merkley.

    Posted by: MCR | Sep 28, 2007 2:07:13 AM Look, I know all the Novick supporters want to think that there is a race for the Democratic primary next year. Yet, the race all but ended the day that Merkley announced. It's over.

    Good thing we saved all that money by not needing to have a primary election at all. The race is far from over. There were plenty of elections last cycle where the presumptive DSCC frontrunner failed to win their primaries. The same person this BlueOregon endorsement news bit is about is but one example. Your arrogant BS is just that, BS.

    Posted by: jraad | Sep 28, 2007 7:25:43 AM I am tired of hearing on these blogs that Merkley is not good on the issues. LOOK AT HIS RECORD AS A LEGISLATOR. I dont need to tell you what got done last session and which side Merkley was on. Here we have a proven progressive that has both legislative and executive experience (Director of Habitat for Humanity) and has the backing of other good progressives.

    Exactly. Merkely or Novick are, and would be solid progressive Senators. For me it comes down to who can campaign better and take out Smith. I am still leaning for Novick (whom I have supported since he announced) but I am 100% comfortable supporting Merkley if things change and/or he wins the nomination.

    The blather coming from a few rabid (ostensibly) Novick bomb-throwers runs the risk of burning bridges with Democratic netroots activists whose support they will need if they want Novick to win in either the primary or the general. So far, I don't think Novick himself has burned any bridges despite the best attempts by "anti-establishment" hyperbolic turd-flinging I have witnessed in comments here on BlueOregon and over at Loaded Orygun.

    Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 28, 2007 9:00:17 AM Hey Jraad, you must routinely skip over lestatdilc's postings as do i. Don't miss these gems upthread from Merkley's most rabid supporter: "beyond pathetic" ... "Stop being a friggin' idiot" ... "you are trying to stir shit up" ...

    How do you manage stripped-of-context cut & pastes snippets if you skip my postings?

    Amusing.

    I love it when EBT continues to think I am a Merkley supporter despite the fact I continue to raise money for Novick. EBT and his bit-switch thought process in action. Mitch calls out bullshit of idiotic slagging-off of the most progressive legislative leader we have had in decades, so ipso-facto, he must be "Merkley's most rabid supporter".

  • (Show?)

    Ugh.

    Stephanie V can more than defend herself, but I was certainly aware that the primaries are already over and Novick lost.

    Should have read:

    Stephanie V can more than defend herself, but I certainly wasn't aware that the primaries are already over and Novick lost.
  • (Show?)

    In the only polling of the race so far, Novick was within the margin of error of what Merkley was polling at, and with almost the same name-ID.

    Got a source for that? Because there's no independent or credible polling out there that makes that claim.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I believe TypePad is having some problems with their spam filter. Why?

    'Cause we've been seeing a lot of stuff like below... a bit more off color even than most of the vitriol-trolls who lurk here! :)

    Posted by: aldara genital wart | Sep 28, 2007 8:14:03 PM

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

    We could add Kucinich to Gravel and Paul and ask what does it say about the American people. Kucininch, Gravel and Paul are people who lived up to their oaths to defend the Constitution. Others who voted for the war or supported it apparently didn't give a damn about the Constitution or politicians with little regard for it. And what does it say about Democrats who claim to be progressive that Kucinich is down in single digits on the polls and Hillary, corporate America's choice, is in the lead?

    As for the debate about Novick and Tester then and Tester now, it looks like we should give some thought to the probability that we are talking about two Jon Testers.

  • (Show?)

    it looks like we should give some thought to the probability that we are talking about two Jon Testers.

    There we go again, impugning the motives of a U.S. Senator.

    Is it possible - maybe, just maybe - that Jon Tester (the same straight-talking, truth-telling guy we know and love) just thinks Jeff Merkley is a great candidate who can defeat Gordon Smith, and will make a great U.S. Senator?

    Can Novick's supporters merely say they'll "agree to disagree" with Tester, without impugning his motives or suggesting that he's somehow gotten captured by the D.C. establishment?

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There we go again, impugning the motives of a U.S. Senator.

    Hear, hear, Kari! I think you should put a poll up on Blue0 where we can all condemn Bill's impugnacious remark. You could even get out-of-staters like Jon Tester to chime in, i bet!

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 28, 2007 6:23:51 PM In the only polling of the race so far, Novick was within the margin of error of what Merkley was polling at, and with almost the same name-ID. Got a source for that? Because there's no independent or credible polling out there that makes that claim.

    As I said, the only polling we have so far pegs them at almost the same numbers. That the poll was released by Novick's campaign should mean it should be taken with some grains of salt (just like any poll released by a campaign and not an independent third party established polling outfit). But again, since we don't have any other polling that includes Novick in the polling (Riley's joke of poll back in August being the only other one out there which didn't even include Novick) we go with the polling we have, not the polling we wish we had.... to paraphrase war criminal Rumsfeld.

    OT: can you site admins fix bad formatting when someone screws up a thread with a bad close tag when you see it (glares at cynical dem upthread)...? Makes it hard to post when the entire bottom half of a thread gets transformed into a bad link to another website.

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, here's a clip from that poll story.

    While 46 percent of voters know who [Novick] is, 43 percent have heard of both radio talk show host Jeff Golden and businesswoman Eileen Brady.

    I'm willing to bet a nice big fat bottle of wine that 43 percent of New Seasons employees don't know who Eileen Brady is -- nevermind Oregon voters.

    I said credible poll.

  • (Show?)

    And as I said Kari, such campaign polls should be taken with a grain of salt. But since there are no other polls released which include Novick, can only go with what we have (as suspect as it may be).

    People can dismiss it if they like, but there it is.

  • (Show?)

    The 46% name-ID for Eileen Brady requires more than a grain-of-salt. It's so absurdly laughable that it calls that entire poll into question.

    But it's old news, so whatever. Brady and Golden aren't running.

  • (Show?)

    Well, 43% not 46% but don't disagree that the poll isn't bullet-proof as far as polls go.

  • (Show?)

    Right. 43%.

    "Not bulletproof". Rather: full of holes.

  • (Show?)

    p.s. We're over 100 comments now. Everyone wins a chalupa!

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The 46% name-ID for Eileen Brady requires more than a grain-of-salt. It's so absurdly laughable that it calls that entire poll into question.

    Whoa, cowboy... Many of us grew up with the Brady Bunch, and what with syndication...

    Wasn't this the same argument Mike Riley used to add John Frohnmayer to his push poll? Even though most people would be thinking of his brother, he still has "name recognition."

  • (Show?)

    Yup - and it was just as stupid an argument when Riley made it. At least Phoney Frohnie was a Bush Cabinet official.

    It's simply laughable that 43% of Oregonians know who Eileen Brady is.

  • (Show?)

    "Phoney Frohnie"? I'd expect that kind of dialogue from a 10-year old, not a highly regarded media strategist like yourself, Kari.

    As for polling...

    The numbers I've seen show Merkley and Novick running basically even -- though support for both is pretty soft among Democrats and NAV's, and is non-existent among Republicans. Novick has slightly higher name-familiarity than Merkley in Portland, but it's within the margin of error.

    I suspect that a generic "D" would poll roughly comparable to either Democratic candidate at this stage of the ballgame.

  • (Show?)
    <h2>Almost forgot... I'd encourage anyone who wants to know what John Frohnmayer stands for to visit the web site, watch the videos, read the speeches, and the articles he's written, and make your own decisions about John's values and sincerity.</h2>
in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon