Smearing Jeff Merkley with GOP talking points
By State Representative Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) and State Representative Mary Nolan (D-Portland).
This past weekend Democrats in Oregon came together in Sunriver in the common cause of advancing progressive values. The energy was high, the passion was clear. And the harmony nearly lasted.
It is an unfortunate fact that political campaigns are often about airing dirty laundry in full public view. In Oregon at least, Democrats usually reserve their sharp barbs for Republicans. Unfortunately, what should have been a unifying experience turned ugly when Senate candidate Steve Novick went on the attack against Jeff Merkley in their Sunday joint appearance. He launched the same attack in an appearance on "Outlook Portland with Nick Fish," and again in his speech at the state AFL-CIO convention Monday in Seaside.
Instead of taking aim at Gordon Smith and his failed leadership, Novick used these occasions to smear one of Oregon's true progressive leaders. It is a crass attempt to turn Democrats against one another, an effort that serves only his selfish personal agenda. And what's worse, he based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party.
On March 21, 2003, just as the first American soldiers and Marines were planting their boots in the sands of Iraq, the Republicans who controlled the state House put forward a resolution filled with praise for those troops and President Bush, war-mongering against Saddam Hussein, and broad statements about the threat Iraq posed to civilized society.
Anyone who looks seriously at the resolution recognizes it for the rubbish it is. It was a blatant and transparent attempt to put Democrats in a bad future political position. The GOP calculation was this: if a Democrat votes against this bill, we'll say they don't support the troops; if a Democrat votes for it, we'll say you are a Bush-admiring war supporter. Either way, they've got you. It was a move right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
As legislators we had only two choices: yea or nay. We couldn't skip the vote. We couldn't vote "present." We couldn't even offer an alternative. So, five Democrats, including the two of us, said "nay." Others, like Jeff Merkley, said "yea." But whatever vote a legislator cast, there was no "right" choice.
There was, however, a right thing to do. And Jeff did it. Before he cast his vote for that resolution, he made a clear and unambiguous statement of disapproval for the war and for the resolution.
He stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and said forcefully:
I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. …… Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops. …
At a time when public opinion polls in favor of the war in Iraq approached 90 percent approval, Jeff Merkley stood up and spoke out against it.
Steve Novick is a bright guy and a good campaigner. He can take apart a ridiculous Republican talking point like no one else. He really should know better.
Attacking Jeff for his vote is the equivalent of attacking us for our vote. It is the same as saying we were not willing to support the troops. That is neither fair nor correct. Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech and his decision was to show his support of the troops by his vote. We felt voting no was our way of attacking the war, but we both certainly support our troops, especially when wrong-headed leaders send them to fight a foolish and unjust war.
Our passionate commitment to changing this kind of demagoguery and false leadership in Washington, D.C., is why we will be working hard to make sure Jeff Merkley is our next United States Senator.
We are with Jeff because he stands up for what he believes in, regardless of how politically popular it may be. He doesn't engage in petty backbiting of the kind Novick is all too willing to embrace. Jeff sees a problem, finds a solution, and works like hell to get it done. That's what Oregon needs in a United States Senator.
What we don't need is an opportunist so narrowly focused on a short-term political gain that he loses sight of what makes us proud to be Democrats.
When he went on the attack against Jeff on Sunday at Sunriver, the energy in the room immediately evaporated. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are tired of that kind of politics. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are ready for a candidate, and a Senator, like Jeff Merkley.
|
October 11, 2007 |
guest column | Comments (179 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Comments
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Oct 11, 2007 4:25:30 PM
Whichever of these fine candidates wins the primary, I will support. But this gets to the heart of my hesitance about Novick: by acting like every political compromise is a betrayal he implies he won't make compromises to gain accomplishments. Sorry, but compromise is the essential component to being effective. As the authors point out, there was no win vote this one, it had no bearing on the war, and Merkley made his own position crystal clear. I suppose we can thank Steve for giving Jeff a chance to refute these silly "charges" in the primary, but that's about all.
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:29:00 PM
With respect, there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause. So, assuming that Mr. Novick wants to present himself as an alternative to the DNC/Hillary war machine, how would you suggest that he do so, except by aggressively pointing out the differences between himself and Mr. Merkley?
Or is the point of this post that anti-war Dems should quietly lie down in front of the DNC/Hillary machine and allow themselves to be run over for the sake of party unity?
Posted by: Scooter | Oct 11, 2007 4:29:20 PM
Here's a talking point:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
What changed since then... Oh yeah, the inspectors were removed and the Oil for Food Program was corrupted.
Posted by: Patton Price | Oct 11, 2007 4:31:24 PM
Terry-
There was video of those remarks posted here like one or two days ago.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Oct 11, 2007 4:33:21 PM
No one is "attacking Jeff" whether "for his vote" or for other reasons.
However, many of us, including me, are criticizing that vote. This is our right as citizens, voters, Democrats, and progressives.
No one is criticizing your votes. In fact, I wish, as do many others, that Jeff Merkley had exhibited the amount of backbone you did that day.
From where I sit the "smearing" is all originating with the Jeff Merkley camp, and it's damned unattractive.
Here's a look at the resolution he voted for:
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;
and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President′s cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power;
and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
That's horrifying to me. It isn't mandatory that my Senator have a stainless steel left arm, but I insist on one with a little bit more steel in his spine.
Posted by: trishka | Oct 11, 2007 4:33:40 PM
this is so tiresome.
look, the only reason jeff merkley doesn't get accused of negative campaigning is because his entire campaign consists of "vote for me because X, Y, and Z prominent democrats say so" or "vote for me because of my record in the state legislature".
heaven forbid he put a little substance in his campaign, and, for example, talk about the differences between him and steve novick.
of course if he did that, he might get accused of negative campaigning (oh no!).
sheesh. the only reason his hands are clean is because he hasn't SAID ANYTHING yet. when he starts running a real campaign and stops hiding behind endorsements, then let's talk about who's being negative and who isn't.
sorry, jeff merkley seems like a really nice guy, but his campaign so far really sucks in my opinion. i'm seriously SERIOUSLY worried about what will happen if he wins the primary. if this is preview of what we can expect from a general election campaign, we all might as well save our energy and get used to another 6 years of gordon smith.
c'mon, you all can do better than this. i hope?
Posted by: colin maloney | Oct 11, 2007 4:37:17 PM
I wasn't in Sunriver, so please take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but I saw the video of the speech in question. Given the applause that followed Steve's speech, it doesn't seem to fit with the suggestion that the, "energy in the room immediately evaporated." The particular piece in the speech didn't get a lot of applause, but Steve (in general) seemed to get enthusiastic approval.
I think it's unfair to describe what Steve said as a "smear." I think it's fair to say that he used his interpretation of particular vote of Speaker Merkley's to emphasize a difference between the two of them. That is, after all, what primaries are for.
For an alternate take, I'd suggest reading Randy Stapilus' (over at Ridenbaugh Press) take on the moment. It seems he was there, and doesn't come anywhere near describing the remarks as a "smear."
Posted by: Kristin | Oct 11, 2007 4:39:58 PM
Negative campaigning vs. negative campaigning by proxy -- still the same thing. Of course, the Merkley campaign just knew NOTHING of this article. Gee. Running for Senate is the big leagues and you can't put a shadow over your past.
Posted by: jraad | Oct 11, 2007 4:43:21 PM
look, the only reason jeff merkley doesn't get accused of negative campaigning is because his entire campaign consists of "vote for me because X, Y, and Z prominent democrats say so" or "vote for me because of my record in the state legislature".
heaven forbid he put a little substance in his campaign
By the way, he got accused by Stephanie V upthread.A possible reason why the reasonable aren't accusing him of negative campaigning is because what you just mentioned are examples of, wait for it, POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING.
heaven forbid someone run on their record!
Posted by: unabashed Novick fan | Oct 11, 2007 4:44:28 PM
Steve is my guy, but . . .
Rep. Greenlick makes some good points, particularly when it comes to not parroting the Republicans' talking points. If Steve and his camp want to go on the attack, I hope they will stick to any policy positions where they truly differ. Everyone knows it was the Republicans and Smith's camp who originally pitched the House resolution story to the media when Merkley announced for the Senate, and while I support Steve, those are some strange and unacceptable bedfellows for most Democrats.
Debate over. Novick was anti-war, Merkley was anti-war. Next issue. What about global warming, reversing the Bush tax cuts, supporting veterans, health reform, etc.?
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 4:45:36 PM
With respect, there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause.
With respect, I flat out don't see the alleged similarities. furthermore, I submit that all of this has far less to do with what Merkley did in 2003 than it does the fact that he's not Steve Novick and stands in the way of what Steve Novick wants.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:28 PM
there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause....
Ayup. and a lot of them are Merkley supporters, like me. A lot of others are Novick supporters like you. Others probably support the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The difference here seems to be that Novick and many of his supporters (see above) are trying desperately to graft the Democratic Leadership Council ideology onto Merkley.
Reps Greenlick and Nolan are trying to move the debate to a little more.......shall we say.....intellectually honest arena.
I suspect that they'll have some trouble with this as it seems that this one instance is all you guys have and you will not easily give it up no matter how petty and inconsequential it seems to the rest of is.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:52 PM
DNC/Hillary war machine
The DNC that's led by Howard Dean - that noted anti-war candidate? I'm so confused.
Posted by: Ron Buel | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:57 PM
Steve Novick has never held public office. He doesn't have a voting record. He can be a forceful critic, which, incidentally, he is very good at.
But Steve loves a fight, he loves being on center stage, he loves being the ONLY ONE who is right.
It was not hard to predict on this website a month ago, which I did, that Novick would attack Merkley, and I am predicting right here and now that he will do so in his advertising.
Novick, when all is said and done, has two choices that he and his well-known advisers can see -- lose or attack the likely winner of the primary. Novick is on what he sees as a holy mission, one that centers around his own ego. He will attack, as we have seen. And the purist will lose anyway. And he just may help Gordon Smith in the doing, which is a real crime because it goes exactly against what he says he is doing -- running against Gordon Smith.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 4:50:24 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:29:00 PMWith respect, there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause.
Wait a second, are you trying to suggest that Howard Dean is part of the "war machine" and that you lump someone like Merkley as part of a the war machine because you are having trouble differentiating between them?
Are you serious?
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Oct 11, 2007 4:50:52 PM
Novick was anti-war, Merkley was anti-war. Next issue.
Thank you, UNF! Couldn't agree more. Next issue, PLEASE.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:14 PM
Posted by: Ron Buel | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:57 PM
I disagree with your negative assessment that this is about Steve Novick's ego. I think he is a forthright, honest, and yes, legitimate candidate who, like Merkely, is a solid progressive. I think your insutling dismissive attiude does nothign but show what divisive crap YOU (not Merkely or Novick) are throwing out there.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:30 PM
Debate over. Novick was anti-war, Merkley was anti-war. Next issue. What about global warming, reversing the Bush tax cuts, supporting veterans, health reform, etc.?
That's not the debate. Watch the video. In fact, Mr Greenlick and Ms Nolan spell out what the debate actually is, although they apparently missed it too:
"Steve Novick is a bright guy and a good campaigner. He can take apart a ridiculous Republican talking point like no one else."
...and the concern is that Mr. Merkley may not be able to.
As for "what about the issues," Novick has been WELL out in front of Mr. Merkley in articulating those issues, specifically. He did it again today, talking about the Senate's tabling of tax reform for hedge fund managers. What's Mr. Merkley's take?
I really like Mitch Greenlick, but this is preposterous stuff. Smear? Are they taking THEIR talking points from the campaign of John Morrison in Montana last year?
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:42 PM
My typo (DNC) should be (DLC) and is acknowledged.
They did not teach typing in law school, but that does not excuse my stupid mistake.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 4:57:46 PM
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:52 PMThe DNC that's led by Howard Dean - that noted anti-war candidate? I'm so confused.
Beat me to it. BlueNote's unhinged rant made me do a double-take.
Posted by: LT | Oct 11, 2007 5:00:54 PM
What we don't need is an opportunist so narrowly focused on a short-term political gain that he loses sight of what makes us proud to be Democrats.
When he went on the attack against Jeff on Sunday at Sunriver, the energy in the room immediately evaporated. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are tired of that kind of politics. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are ready for a candidate, and a Senator, like Jeff Merkley.
Thanks for the simple, positive, declarative statements.
There are 2 kinds of "negative" campaigning. One is the intelligent sort, as depicted by Tom Friedman. If he were running on a higher gas tax or a carbon tax, and an anti-taxer went after him, he said he would welcome that.
He'd just say "My opponent favors a tax, he just doesn't call it that. There is a price to be paid in the form of high energy costs paid to foreign countries. He wants US money to be sent to countries like Saudi Arabia to pay for energy. I want Americans paying for energy to be paying the money into American coffers".
That sort of rhetoric is issue based and proposes a solution to a problem.
Then there is the other kind, which implies all good people think the same way. For instance,
"everyone should vote for Steve because Jeff voted wrong on a 2003 resolution".
First of all, Steve and his supporters are basically saying "if you don't think the 2003 election is a major factor in who should be the 2008 nominee, we don't want your vote". They may believe all Oregon Democrats think like they do, but are they willing to gamble the primary on that?
Or is it that they don't have specific solutions, so they are building a campaign on someone who has never held elective office attacking the voting record of someone who has held elective office? (Worked real well for the Bruggere campaign, didn't it--Steve should remember that.)
That kind of "gloves are off, all is fair in war and politics" attitude can have unpredicatable results. Phil Keisling and Mary Wendy Roberts were primary candidates of equal quality a decade and a half ago--that was until early 1992 when they were competing for the OEA endorsement. In proof of what my friend Julie might describe as "if they act like that, you know they know they are losing", Mary Wendy launched an attack against Phil. By golly, she had copies (which her campaign was eager to pass out at Democratic gatherings) of something Phil had written years before when working as an E. Coast journalist--about the poor quality of DC schools. That was supposed to show why he "didn't support teachers" or some such rot. Actually, it was a reason why some of us who knew both of them wondered why she should get our primary votes if that was how she intended to campaign.
A few years before that, I was at a Democratic Platform Convention and there was more than one hotly contested statewide primary going on. A friend running in a statewide primary was speaking to a luncheon audience. It was the kind of banquet room with circular tables, and the people whose seats were not facing the podium had turned their chairs around to face the podium.
I was shocked when my friend started saying things against an opponent. At that point, the sound of chairs scraping the floor showed that people who had turned their chairs around to face the podium decided to turn their chairs back around to the table and finish eating.
Turned out what what my friend said was accurate, but how many votes did it gain him? That didn't help him win the primary. Too bad, he might have been successful winning the general if he'd had a better primary strategy.
For those on LO and elsewhere who say negative campaigning is a fact of life:
It didn't work in the 1992 US Senate primary. AuCoin ran ads which might now be described as Swift-Boat nasty. There were people who refused to get involved in the primary because they had better things to do than get involved in such nastiness. Once AuCoin won the primary (in a 330 vote recount), people he had alienated didn't work on his general election campaign. Bill Clinton running for president had a hopeful message and was a more attractive candidate.
Not only that, don't let anyone tell you that the bitterness of negative campaigning is wiped from everyone's memories by the end of the election year. A member of PCOL said he was still angry (to the point of wanting physical punishment) about a particularly nasty Republican attack on a Democratic incumbent in 1990.
And there are those who believe AuCoin's failed nomination to the Forestry Board a few years ago failed partly because people who wondered why Heffernan shouldn't remain on the board were joined by people AuCoin had alienated at some point in his life.
This was on Counterpunch as part of that debate. http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03232005.html
I thank the legislators for writing this column. For the Merkley folks, please stay positive and talk about specific issues.
For the Novick folks, yes we know you are offended by the 2003 resolution. Do you plan to go door to door saying "Vote for Novick in the Senate primary because he would have had more sense about the 2003 House resolution than Merkley had"?
Won't people who hear that ask "who cares about a 2003 resolution?" or "why elect a newcomer when we can have a presiding legislative officer to run against Gordon who got elected to the US Senate as a legislative presiding officer?" .
I know this is long. I also know that for many years I have been nagging friends who said "But you see, negative campaigning works" by asking
"in which recent race?".
Sometimes in the short term in very specific circumstances, a candidate employing nasty tactics wins. But even then, does everyone agree to support everything that candidate does, or demand they prove they are worth taking seriously?
Sometimes it blows up in their faces. Like the push poll "Suppose I told you the incumbent has been arrested for drunk driving 3 times" which accidentally called the radio commentator who happened to know the incumbent had been stopped once, never arrested. So the next day, the push poll was the subject of a radio commentary, and the incumbent won re-election.
Or the time I was going to vote for one candidate for St. Supt. but after hearing a nasty radio ad I voted for my second choice instead.
I could go on. Like the "voice of Hitler " ad (on top of the "Mike Kopetski is so liberal he is hip" ad) which resulted in Mike Kopetski defeating Denny Smith in a year only 5 incumbent congressmen lost.
Let me end this way. Some campaigns are absolutely sure of their target audience, and aim at that audience as if they know it will be a majority of voters. If it is not a majority, they wonder why they lost.
Steve Novick, the last time I looked (few days ago) has only one line on his website about veterans. Yet, we are supposed to be so angry about the 2003 resolution we will forget that.
I will be watching for which candidate first starts talking seriously about veterans issues. And if it happens to be John Frohnmayer, all the screams about "you can't even look at anyone other than Jeff or Steve or else Gordon will get re-elected!" will fall on deaf ears as far as I am concerned. There are those of us who believe individuals make voting decisions, and they may not be made in ways campaigns predict.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 5:01:16 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:42 PMMy typo (DNC) should be (DLC) and is acknowledged.
So you are saying that Merkely is hard to differentiate with the DLC?
That is even more divorced from reality than your "typo" (funny the L key is nowhere near the N key).
Neither Merkley or Novick are anything like the DLC. Quit while you are behind.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Oct 11, 2007 5:02:36 PM
> parroting the Republicans' talking points
I haven't seen anyone "parrot Republican talking points" in the ten weeks we've been discussing this issue. Personally, I have stated my own strongly held opinion on this vote.
We can all predict what the Republicans will say and do about it, however, if we give them a chance, and that is one good reason for an undecided Democratic voter to consider supporting Steve. Because Jeff Merkley, in voting for HR2, handed the Republicans a weapon to use against him. Don't we all want to beat Smith? How is it that it is somehow wrong or improper to point out that the other candidate in the primary is not vulnerable to that weapon? I want the Democratic nominee to win. Isn't that what we all want here? If Merkley is damaged goods due to the HR2 vote, isn't it better to find that out now, while we still have an alternative? How is it better to stick our heads firmly into the sand and keep repeating to ourselves, "it's not an issue!"
Ultimately, is it all about beating Smith, or is it all about protecting Jeff?
Mitch and Mary, with all due respect, you can't wish this away or flatly deny its importance and pretend that that is the end of the story. It happened. Votes have consequences. Merkley is a legislator and can be held accountable for that vote or any other that displeases the Democratic primary electorate. He will also reap the benefits of other votes he cast that make the primary electorate happy. That's how it is with legislators.
Your loyalty to Jeff is understandable and laudable, but this post is not your finest hour.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 11, 2007 5:03:39 PM
Mitch Greenlick writes, "Anyone who looks seriously at the resolution recognizes it for the rubbish it is."
So apprently Jeff merkley looked at it seriously, determined it was rubbish and then put his stamp of approval on it by voting "yes."
That's pretty silly, Mitch (Greenlick).
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 5:09:55 PM
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 11, 2007 5:03:39 PMThat's pretty silly, Mitch (Greenlick).
Thank you for the parenthetical distinction there.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Oct 11, 2007 5:11:03 PM
Please, people, we're talking about elected officials here.
Repeat after me:
Representative Greenlick
Representative Nolan
Speaker Merkley
Adding these titles will make all of those 'with all due respects' above actually seem respectful.
Posted by: colin maloney | Oct 11, 2007 5:11:40 PM
BTW, if anyone wants to make their own decision about how to interpret Steve's remarks, they can see the speech in question on Google Video right here.
(Steve starts at about 17:15 into the video)
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 11, 2007 5:12:43 PM
There has been a lot of unnecessary candidate bashing from both sides, as Novick and Merkley can both be considered progressive Democrats. I'm not choosing a favorite in the primary but it's clear that Merkley's vote for HR2 would weaken his ability to criticize Smith on Iraq adventure. I do not know that this would be a fatal weakness, but it would be significant.
Posted by: Jamai Vu | Oct 11, 2007 5:13:13 PM
Gordon Smith voted for the war. Jeff Merkley voted for a resolution supporting the troops sent to fight it.
Which decision do you suppose swing voters will be more likely to care about? I tend to doubt they'll care about either. The question of "what are you GOING to do" in D.C. will matter more.
I would add to LT's very good post that launching personal attacks on Gordon Smith is also likely to fail. If Steve wants votes he needs to show he won't take that bait. This is not a good start. Our candidate will need to answer any "swift-boating" right away, but initiating it will show one thing: more politics as usual. If you stand for politics as usual, the voters have less reason to throw out the incumbent.
Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Oct 11, 2007 5:15:36 PM
Rep. Nolan & Rep. Greenlick,
I was in that room with you and share your feelings about Candidate Novick's comments.
I am a huge fan of Steve's but am having an increasingly more difficult time matching the Steve I know and the candidate Novick I see and the attacks from his campaign and its supporters.
Posted by: Purple | Oct 11, 2007 5:21:09 PM
If this is the best Merkley can do when attempting to avoid a steel left hook....how low is he gonna sink when $4 million dollars of the Gordo machine are bearing down on him.
To me this shows how weak both candidates are: Novick in his backpedaling on "campaigning against Smith" and Merkley and his staff not having the competency to handle an issue as minute (in the grand scheme of things) as a resolution that was voted on in 2003.
As Stephanie V said, this has been discussed for 10 weeks. Smith is included in a Wash Post piece involving Cheney and Klamath Falls and we hardly hear about it anymore, yet Merkley is still haggling ove a ridiculous resolution cause he cant seem to properly answer it and let it go away?
Things dont look good.
Posted by: john f. bradach, sr | Oct 11, 2007 5:27:35 PM
B.S.
Today's Iraq death count of Americans is 3821.
I stand by my posts in late August, when Merley said he had no regrets on the vote:
*****
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | Aug 28, 2007 9:57:11 PM
I don't buy it!
The text of the Resolution is below.
Jeff Merkley suffers HILLARY'S AFFLICTION, no regret at having cast this vote.
The Resolution, 2003 HR-2 enhanced the fraud which launched the War, making us all party to an international war crime and violation of our treaties. The premise was pretext.
The Website I use to track the Iraq deaths says 3732 Americans (including one of my family) are dead as a result, as of today. It always lags, so we know the toll is higher. God knows how many Iraqis and others, and the wounded and the Trillon Dollars, just because those elected, who watched the Bush Administration's incredible marketing campaign in the fall of 2002 and early 2003 were afraid to stand in the road and say, "Bullshit".
________________
72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session
Enrolled
House Resolution 2
Sponsored by Representative KROPF; Representatives KNOPP,
RICHARDSON
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq; and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now,therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power; and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and
sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
----------
Adopted by House March 21, 2003
----------------------------------
Chief Clerk of House
----------------------------------
Speaker of House
*****
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | Aug 30, 2007 8:26:20 PM
I am remembering that Bush demanded Saddam document his disarmament, and Saddam produce 50,000 pages. As near as I can tell, Bush did not have them read before he pulled the trigger that killed so many.
It makes me wretch each time I read the Merkley Resolution, "Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet ***."
Posted by: David English | Oct 11, 2007 5:28:59 PM
LT said, "I will be watching for which candidate first starts talking seriously about veterans issues. And if it happens to be John Frohnmayer, all the screams about "you can't even look at anyone other than Jeff or Steve or else Gordon will get re-elected!" will fall on deaf ears as far as I am concerned. There are those of us who believe individuals make voting decisions, and they may not be made in ways campaigns predict."
Where you said veterans issues I wanted to insert (or any other) in terms of my own opinion in at least considering a candidate (including Frohnmayer).
I'm sick of these DP sponsored columns about (or defending) Merkley (otherwise referred to as the "Merkley lovefeast") on BO.
In terms of the arguments about whether the vote was relevent or not, I think it should be discussed. It seems to me like the overall attitude is lay down in the road and vote for Merkley. Sorry..I'm just not buying it.
(Disclosure: I have not decided who I'm voting for and do not support a particular candidate).
Posted by: David English | Oct 11, 2007 5:31:07 PM
meant lovefest...that was a typo.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Oct 11, 2007 5:36:19 PM
Sorry, but compromise is the essential component to being effective.
That's a rule and is often valid but like all rules it has had its exceptions throughout history. Gandhi and MLK, Jr are two of the good guys who didn't compromise. Lenin and Hitler were a couple of the not-so-good guys who knew when to dig their heels in and not compromise. Compromise has its virtues, but you also need to know when to draw the line otherwise you become a patsy.
Posted by: genop | Oct 11, 2007 5:42:21 PM
Not having a dog in this fight, pointing out the weakness is healthy for the eventual goal. Defeating Smith. If we are talking about it imagine how the dark side will drool. This is a modest blip, but needs to be dealt with. Thanks for the elaboration, now I would like to hear the issue neutralized by Jeff Merkley so we can move on.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Oct 11, 2007 5:58:55 PM
I appreciate the Representatives sharing their thoughts on this issue, but I must respectively disagree with them on several points.
First, as has been argued ad nauseum on this site Steve’s criticism is not a repetition of GOP talking points. The matter at hand is a question of judgment – not the GOP line about whether Speaker Merkley truly opposed this war from the beginning.
But if echoing GOP talking points is the crime at hand, it is hard not to see this vote as an endorsement of the false GOP talking points for the Iraq War. Merkley supporters seem to want to elide the plain language of the resolution (and I appreciate others who have already posted it above), but lets look at the text of HR 2:
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq; and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now,
therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious
removal of Saddam Hussein from power; and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
The fact is that this vote is difficult to reconcile with Jeff’s statement that he opposed the war from the beginning and raises questions about his judgment in being willing to stand up to GOP tactics. This vote will trouble Democratic voters in this primary and will be used against him as long as he is running (irrespective of whether Steve Novick is in the race or not).
A few additional points for consideration:
- If this resolution is simply “rubbish” and “political positioning,” as the authors contend, does that mean that votes this year by Republican House members against HJR 9 (a resolution calling on President Bush to begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq) are also meaningless? Representative Greenlick, as a co-sponsor of that resolution, what do you see as the difference in the two cases?
- The authors also assert that Jeff Merkley offered a “clear and unambiguous statement of disapproval for the war” on the floor and that “Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech.” Based on the transcript previously posted here by the Merkley campaign, I see Mr. Merkley stating that he is “not today persuaded” that Iraq is a threat to the United States. I see no attack on the war, nor any mention of George W. Bush. Perhaps there is additional comment after the transcript, but I haven’t seen it.
- Finally, I must say that I am surprised by the language used by two senior members of the Oregon House in this post. You indicate Steve is driven by “short-term political gain,” that he is “crass,” and driven by a “selfish personal agenda.” Steve Novick entered this race when elected officials across Oregon were giving it a pass. He took on Smith because he couldn’t live with himself if we allowed Gordon to have another six years in office. He didn’t need the promise of millions in financial support to induce him to run and he has taken on the challenge at a substantial personal and financial cost to himself. I would have expected better.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Oct 11, 2007 6:04:51 PM
Finally, I must say that I am surprised by the language used by two senior members of the Oregon House in this post. You indicate Steve is driven by “short-term political gain,” that he is “crass,” and driven by a “selfish personal agenda.”
Mr. Weigler, elected officials are in fact capable of speaking the truth.
Posted by: dannyk | Oct 11, 2007 6:19:33 PM
we need an informed public. if steve doesn’t do it who will? karl rove?
thanks steve.
p.s. are you the right or the far left barrel?
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 6:22:12 PM
I'm not choosing a favorite in the primary but it's clear that Merkley's vote for HR2 would weaken his ability to criticize Smith on Iraq adventure. I do not know that this would be a fatal weakness, but it would be significant.Thank you. I know at least for stephanie and myself, and I'm sure many other Novick supporters who I won't speak for, this is really all that's being said.
It does not make Merkley a war supporter.
It does not make Merkley a liar.
It does not make Merkley a flip-flopper.
It IS, however, an issue to consider.
What it does is muddles the best issue Democrats have against Republican incumbents next year. THE best. And for myself, I worry it is emblematic of his style, and if so I have a style preference for someone else.
This, apparently, is a smear. Your post and my response. Take THAT to your grave, pal! :)
Posted by: M.Anon | Oct 11, 2007 6:26:54 PM
I do not want to see any most posts like this from sitting elected Dems.
You are handing a load of talking points over to the RW blogs on a silver platter.
Dumb. I don't like it.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 6:30:00 PM
"If Steve wants votes he needs to show he won't take that bait. This is not a good start."
I beg your pardon? The implication here is that Steve has already laid personal attacks on MERKLEY. What an extrapolation from "Merkley has a problem here" to personal attacks against Gordon Smith. It's meme creep, and I'm not going to let it pass unchallenged.
Posted by: M.Anon | Oct 11, 2007 6:30:09 PM
If this is the best Merkley can do when attempting to avoid a steel left hook....how low is he gonna sink when $4 million dollars of the Gordo machine are bearing down on him.
Exactly. Jeff can come here and defend himself as he deems necessary. This post by the two of you poisons the well of our party. And it really pisses me off.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 6:41:08 PM
I know at least for stephanie and myself, and I'm sure many other Novick supporters who I won't speak for, this is really all that's being said.
So if two sentences from Tom is all you've been trying to say for the past two-and-a-half months:
A. We should have gotten Tom in sooner as I'm sure that you and your candidate are eager to move on to actual issues and policy.
B. Since team Novick has been beating this horse (or puppy as the case may be, TJ) so repetitively, and completely disregarding the responses from Merkley's camp; Now that Reps Greenlick and Nolan have stepped in to try to clear up your confusion, and you've got Tom finally stating your own argument succinctly, can we assume that the Steveminions are finally going to give it a rest?
My guess is that having found only one needle in the haystack, you will continue......er........needling.
Just guessing though.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 6:43:39 PM
"Mr. Weigler, elected officials are in fact capable of speaking the truth."
Of course they are. And ironically both did so proudly and with principle on that resolution. Today I think mostly they're covering a colleague's butt. Which they could have done POSITIVELY, as to more properly defend Mr. Merkley's decision if they wished. Again with irony, as someone pointed out upthread, the tack chosen was to be negative, personally so. Petty opportunist, et al? Shall we add that to the pile on one side, along with raving hypocrites and assholes?
Classic projection--they are smearing Steve here by accusing him of the same. Now THAT is dirty pool in anybody's book.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 7:02:01 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:42 PMMy typo (DNC) should be (DLC) and is acknowledged.
I'm not sayin' that I'm brighter than anyone else here but... it seemed self-evidently a typo to me and I responded as if you'd not made the typo.
That said, I stand by my earlier comment. I flat out don't see the alledged similarities. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it seems to me to be more the product of equal doses of conflation and wishful thinking than the product of reality.
Posted by: Galen | Oct 11, 2007 7:08:01 PM
I would love for the good Representatives to answer this question:
If Speaker Merkley wins the primary, do you think his 2003 vote will make the general election marginally more difficult for him, relative to if he had casted the opposite vote, or had not faced that choice at all?
Other Merkley supporters, by all means, feel free weigh in on this one too. It's really a simple question.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 11, 2007 7:10:33 PM
Please, people, we're talking about elected officials here. Repeat after me: Representative Greenlick ...Representative Nolan
Taoiseach makes a good point. Unlike Merkley, Both Greenlick and Nolan rejected this "rubbish," yet they are sitting representaives -- walking talking proof that Merkley could have rejected this rubbish as well and still win an election.
It should not go unnoticed that in their attempt to "defend" their Man from this alleged smear, they manage to accuse Novick of being "Crass" in service of "his selfish personal agenda."
No unnecessarily negative smear there?
And what's worse, you say Novick "based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party." That's an argument that already earned Willamette Week's Rogue of the Week.
A cynic might get to thinkin' that your sensibilities about negative smears are, uh, situational, to put it gently.
By the way, Mitch and Mary, that sounds like a great name for a 70s folk group. You guys otta git some instruments and take this act on the road, 'cause it ain't sellin' here. Voters are a little smarter than you think.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 7:19:16 PM
but it's clear that Merkley's vote for HR2 would weaken his ability to criticize Smith on Iraq adventure.
That echoes the GOP/Novick meme which seeks to artifically divorce that vote from it's context. Context which Greenlick and Nolan pointed out in the post.
The reality of the matter is that voting No was every bit as much of a playing the GOP game as voting Yes because the entire thing was framed by the GOP.
Anyone who thinks that, should he win, Novick wouldn't be taken to task by Smith for opposing the troops (he says he'd have voted no...) has frankly taken leave of their senses. And you know what? It'd be EVERY BIT AS VALID as whatever Camp Smith would try to do to Merkley for voting yes should he win.
I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted by partisans with a patently obvious partisan axe to grind.
Posted by: Purple | Oct 11, 2007 7:31:34 PM
What, exactly, is Jeff Merkley's response to this? (if anyone has a transcript of what his stance on this is, I would love to read it).
I would presume that if the answer was sufficient enough, he wouldnt need other people doing the dirty work for him and going 'negative' on Novick. I seriously doubt these folks posted such a message without Jeff's conscent. Which begs the question, attacking another candidate's character and using words as craas and the such would constitute as negative, correct? Even if you send others to do your dirty work.
The Merkley campaign needs to get their stuff together if they plan on making a dent on Gordo, cause this is nothing compared to whats ahead, and I think we all know that.
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 11, 2007 8:29:23 PM
As legislators we had only two choices: yea or nay. We couldn't skip the vote. We couldn't vote "present."
Actually Greenlick and Nolan, you betray your pathologically overblown narcissm with this lie. In truth, absolutely nothing but your narcissim stopped you from doing the right thing and refusing to vote, even if it cost you your seat. Illegal war and opposing it any and every way you can is that important.
Despite what you are arrogantly arguing here, the reality is that few people except those in the circle of synchophants and self-important Democrat leaders would ever even miss you if you had walked out --- precisely because you don't have the quality of character to have actually done it. Here is another truth for you: There are plenty of people out there who would be far better elected representatives than you could ever even hope to be. It is irrelevant whether they have stepped up to leadership. You are the one here making unbelievable pathetic excuses for YOUR utter incompetence and failure to demonstrate principled leadership. You and Merkley have been in office too long and it has gone to your head.
Merkley has demostrated that he is same kind of excuse-making leader who in fact has not distinguished himself in any way except how much he can back-slap. His entire campaign to date has been an insult to the intelligence of any Democrat worthy of that name who actually cares to what is happening in our state and country. All he has done is brag about how many self-important, washed-out leaders like you support him. He has yet to even set forth a clear statement of his positions on the issues.
Anybody who calls Merkley a progressive is demonstrating how that term, as it has been self-applied over the years, has included a lot of leaders who frankly have looked down their nose at people they did not consider to be their "equals". It's clear that Greenlick, Nolan, Merkley, and many prominent "progressive" Democrats who spout here are odious representatives of that disreputable strain of progressivism.
You won't find me amongst Novick's campaign workers, contributors or advocates right now because I'm really not a fan of his. However, if Merkley and his supporters continue to be the utter and arrogant jerks they have been to date, and like Greenlick and Nolan have been in this post, I'll be voting for Novick simply as way to vote not only against Merkley, but also against that arrogant, incompetent segment of the Democratic leadership represented by the likes of Kulogonski, Greenlick, Nolan, and the rest of the elected embarrasments to the DPO that have endorsed him.
One last thing - my comment is nor more or less anonymous than my vote. That's all they care about, and the cost to them of smugly asserting they have a right to it, as they've in fact done here, is hearing why they won't get it because they aren't even close to deserving it.
Posted by: Kristin | Oct 11, 2007 8:33:37 PM
Here, here Purple. Seriously. How quickly can I type "backlash?" Oh wow, kinda quickly.
This post is perhaps the most troubling thing I've seen from the Merkley campaign. Novick has the hook, the guts, the whatever, to stand up in a crowded room and bring up an elephant. Sorry, Mr. Merkley, campaigns sometimes make you come face to face with something you may have done wrong. Bringing out your friends for some CYA is just SUCH an incredibly bad trait for a United States Senator.
Mr. Merkley, you made a decision that was not so popular. Are you going to actually own up to it, explain it, justify it, make us think, realize, that heck, you really hate this war? Take the heat, or, you know, exit the kitchen. Or are you going to make your friends stand in front of the cannon for you?
Posted by: Rep Chip Shields | Oct 11, 2007 8:52:57 PM
I wasn't in the legislature in 2003, and I believe Steve Novick has good intentions. But not enough has been said about Speaker Merkley’s important role in passing House Joint Memorial 9 in the last legislative session. This was an Oregon House resolution that called for a timetable and an exit strategy from the war in Iraq. Jeff backed me on the resolution, and encouraged me to negotiate the resolution’s language with Republican Rep. Brian Boquist, the House’s foremost military expert. And thanks to Jeff’s leadership, we got it passed, and we were able to send a strong, bipartisan message to Congress and the President, that our troops have done their job, and it’s time to bring the troops home. Gordon Smith got us into this terrible war, and we need Jeff Merkley to help get us out.
See the release from his office the day it passed
here.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 9:08:41 PM
Thanks, Chip, and before anybody jumps once again on the "if HR2 was bullshit, how come HJM9 isn't bullshit?" meme... here's your answer:
HR2 was bullshit because it was a classic catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
HJM9 was an honest, forthright, straight-up declaration of the Legislature's will.
Posted by: LT | Oct 11, 2007 9:19:17 PM
Kristin, do you have non-political friends, or are all your friends politically active?
I challenge you to talk with 10 or more friends who are not intensely involved in the US Senate primary. Describe the 2003 resolution in any way you see fit, then ask them if it will decide their 2008 primary vote for US Senate. The people I know are more interested in the future. If Steve's campaign is only interested in people upset by that 2003 vote, he may find the like minded voters are less than 50% of the electorate.
Posted by: Jamai Vu | Oct 11, 2007 5:13:13 PM had a very interesting comment. And I will add that in the fall debate in 1992, AuCoin tried to complain about Packwood's negative campaigning and Ol' Slick Bob had a "perfect squelch" retort:
"After what you did in the primary, YOU are calling ME negative?".
DPO sent out an email with the link to the US Senate candidates at Sunriver. I listened with interest with both. Will someone please get Jeff some voice coaching? People without perfect hearing vote, and Jeff has that annoying habit of sometimes dropping the decibel level of his voice so that I needed to turn up the volume on my computer. If people don't catch every word, how will they know what he stands for? (I come from a family where some members are professional musicians and have either had voice lessons themselves or know people who taught or took voice lessons.)
Steve even with a cold has perfect diction and a great speaking voice.
Matter of fact, I was impressed by most of his speech.
Then he spent a minute on the 2003 resolution, and I wanted to scream "Enough already on the 2003 resolution--if I don't agree with you on that, do you want my vote?".
Someone above mentioned HJM 9. If either candidate was appearing somewhere (esp. in the mid Willamette Valley) and were asked if they agreed with Boquist's speech on that HJM, esp. his definition of the true meaning of "support the troops", would either candidate be able to answer that question?
Or are the campaigns just talking about symbolic resolutions in general terms and not what people said in the speeches when they were voted on? That strikes me as very Karl Rove--he tried to sell the idea "your speech doesn't matter, but we will remind you of your vote every day you disagree with us". Is that the kind of trap Democrats want to fall into?
It was good to see Steve say even some Democratic consultants don't believe that voters can handle the truth. That is why some voters and esp. some activists don't trust consultants.
And there is a line between wit and bad jokes which cause people to groan. I'm not sure everyone even in a Democratic gathering would have found the "germ warfare" joke funny.
On one of these topics there was some debate on whether the air went out of the room or whatever when Steve hit the minute about the 2003 resolution in his Sunriver speech. I had the volume way up so I could hear the reaction. I didn't hear any audience reaction from the time he finished the 2003 resolution part of the speech until near the end of his Busload of Faith section. THAT is a great positive line, and I think Steve would do better if he'd use that as a theme from now on and drop the "agree that the 2003 resolution is a problem" talk.
Yes, I understand the 2003 resolution vote is a single issue for some people--but do they only want the votes of those who agree with them? I don't think my friend who voted for Gordon in the past but might be open to voting for someone else (knowing him, more likely Frohnmayer or Merkley than Novick) will vote for Novick or any other Democrat based on a 2003 legislative vote.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 11, 2007 9:57:21 PM
Kevin,
You might hear an echo in my statement, but to tell the truth, I have not heard the Republican statements on the issue, and neither have I heard what Novick has said on it, beyond what I've read here. And as I wrote, I am not picking a primary favorite, I'd be happy with either Steve or Jeff, and believe that whoever wins the primary will stand the best chance of beating Smith. My only partisanship is pro-Democratic.
As for HR2, of course it was a Republican setup. Of course, Merkley had a nuanced position. If he were going to run for state rep again, failure to vote to "support the troops" may have been the bigger problem. Instead, he is running for US Senate against an incumbent whose greatest weakness is his support [strong and now wavering] for Shrub's Iraq invasion and occupation. In this campaign, the one Merkley has chosen, voting to accept the trumped up WMD fears and praising Shrub's courage is a problem. When Merkley criticizes Smith's Iraq record, Smith will quote the parts of HR2 that HE chooses in rebuttal. Context means diddley squat in modern sound-bite campaigning.
I'd rather both candidates talk about Smith instead of each other, but that's just my own take on running primary campaigns. But if Democrats are going on the attack in the primary, I just hope they keep to that strategy in the general. I've seen too many Democrats ravage their primary opponent and then turn into wimps during the general election campaign.
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 11, 2007 10:07:39 PM
Sorry Shields - but you might want to go back and read your comment from another viewpoint. You may find it does neither you nor Merkley any credit. You do deserve some credit for introducing this measure and working to get it passed, but apparently maybe not as much as might be the case. You are as much as saying here that even though the country had decisively turned against the war by sometime in early 2006, you and Merkley were only capable of leading on the issue safely when the Democrats had the majority.
Merkley (and all of the other Democratic elected officials who are supporting him) had plenty of opportunities starting in the 2005 session to introduce legislation and speak out against the war, as well as against any number of other Republican attacks on our democracy, instead of weasling around until the 2007 session when it looked like crabbed opposition to the war would be his best career move.
True leaders would demonstrate very different character than Merkley, Greenlick, or Nolan. As a voter, frankly my advice to you is that you may want to spend some time thinking seriously if you have just shown you make poor choices in selecting political mentors.
Here's another one for you Shields - Can we depend on you to tell Merkley your support for him depends critically on him, starting tomorrow AM, publicly and aggressively denouncing all his potential Democratic colleagues in the Senate, including his DSC puppetmasters, for this (remember it only takes 40 Democratic votes out of 50 to stop it - and maybe only 1 Senator to place a secret "hold"):
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/11/not-ready-to-make-nice/
Well this gets a big, fat “hell, no” from me. Via e-mail from Liz Rose of the ACLU on the draft Senate version of the FISA bill, which is not yet publicly available and not being widely shared for review either:
…the Senate bill (Committee draft) does contain immunity/amnesty for the telecom companies…Including retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years.
Anybody know what Ron Wyden is going to do, since he is on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is tagged as one of those who has not made his intentions clear?
Posted by: unabashed Novick fan | Oct 11, 2007 10:17:06 PM
I've got a very sick feeling after reading these posts, and here is why: The Smith guys are reading every one of these posts and LAUGHING THEIR ASSES OFF. Why? Because their strategy worked. They planted the story, served it up to Steve's campaign on a silver platter, and are now sitting back and enjoying every minute of it.
Why do I have a sick feeling? Because it begs the question: why does Smith want to weaken or defeat Merkley?
Again, I'm a Steve fan. Much of Steve's speech at Sunriver was brilliant. (Jeff's was pretty darn impressive, too.) But I would have a better feeling about Steve if Smith were trying to help Merkley beat the guy with the hard left hook. That would tell me that Steve, not Merkley, is the one Smith should fear most.
Posted by: Purple | Oct 11, 2007 10:23:43 PM
Here is my problem, Chip: Why isnt Merkley the one talking about this....why doesnt he call the resolution what everyone else is seemingly calling it: a catch-22. And why isnt he making the other measure a focal point of his rebutal. Its like bringing this up isnt fair and people want to whine about it....but seriously, if you cant handle the criticism and the desire to hear the candidate speak, and we arent even going up against Gordo...whats gonna happen when he goes on the big stage.
And Kari: whats the difference between what Merkley did with the resolution in 2003 and the one in 2005 and what Gordo did with his flip flop last November? These are the types of questions he needs to get out of the way now, or else they will come up when he is up against the big dog...and Merkley needs to do it himself, not through "spokespeople."
Someone needs to tell Mitch and Mary that Novick is running against Merkley, not Gordon, why would he need to campaign against him now? Its bush league for them to come here and stump for Merkley with the kinds of preposterous comments in that letter.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 10:33:43 PM
"We should have gotten Tom in sooner as I'm sure that you and your candidate are eager to move on to actual issues and policy."
Move on? My candidate has been hitting actual issues and policy with specific bills he would support and oppose, EVERY WEEK. We STILL have yet to see specific positions at Merkley.com.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 10:34:33 PM
Purple... Jeff has talked about this.
"I wanted to stand up and say I disagree completely with the decision to go to this war, but I honor the sacrifice and the dedication and the courage of our troops," Merkley said Monday.The Portland Democrat also said that having U.S. troops in Iraq "is not helping" that country and he would advocate bringing the troops home, "starting immediately."
"I don't think our troops will or should have a significant role in the country," Merkley said. "Our troops need to get out."
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 10:37:08 PM
"Anyone who thinks that, should he win, Novick wouldn't be taken to task by Smith for opposing the troops (he says he'd have voted no...) has frankly taken leave of their senses."
The problem with that theory is that almost no one believes anymore that being against the war means you don't support the troops, if ever they did.
Steve is an expert at handling GOP BS. Mtich and Mary admit that, and you might be able to get Bill Sizemore and Howard Rich to agree. You've touched on exactly the point. I'm not worried at all about how Steve would handle himself against Smith's attacks. On the other hand...
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 10:49:31 PM
With all due respect to Chip Shields, who I respect greatly and who was the REAL force behind HJM 9, it took from very early January, after Bush announced the escalation, to late March to get that bill through. It was not made a strong priority (immediately the thought was to put it off until March 19th, the anniversary), and spent quite a while with legislative counsel. While Brian Boquist's additions to the memorial made it a more informed and detailed bill, 31 votes should have been (and were) a lock even without it. For all the attempt at "bipartisanship," it got what--2 GOP votes?
And as someone has pointed out, Mr. Merkley knows how to vote for a good bill, that's obvious. It's knowing what to do with the bad ones we're concerned with here.
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 11, 2007 10:54:00 PM
Here's the answer for "unabashed Novick fan" (and frankly I'm dubious UNF is being honest).
If the Democrat primary were not heavily contested, Merkley, as the DSC puppet with access to lots of cash, would be a problem for Smith simply because Merkley would have access to lots of cash from the party establishment and he could depend on a generally unified and committed Democratic electorate (only about 1/3 of the votes). It would not be because Merkley would actually be the more formidable political competitor or biggest vote-getter in the general compared to the other primary candidates. Do you actually think Smith would be able to turn off Merkley's voters in the general with the claim that Merkley had supported the war and now doesn't?
Now, if Novick makes it a race and he wins, Smith actually faces even a bigger challenge (assuming that the DSC and what it sure seems will be sore losers on Merkley's side don't prove to be as churlish as they have been so far and sit it out.) In that case, Novick will have won BECAUSE he is the more formidable political competitor.
It's pretty obvious Smith is just playing smart politics and taking it one step at a time. It's not valid to read much into the nature of the general from the conditions of the primary. However, it is worth observing that this is precisely what the Merkley supporting contingent of the Democratic Party and leadership would like the rest of the voters in the Democratic primary to do.
Posted by: paulie | Oct 11, 2007 11:09:15 PM
Expanding our base of Democratic voters is crucial to winning 2008. The amount of microscopic analysis of the two Democratic US Senate candidates isn't the issue,the issue is to support them both, then vote in May. Either one of them is substantially better than Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith must be removed from the position of US Senator. The pettiness on this thread needs to be elevated. Think about the responsibility we are asking Novick and Merkly to take on, the committment we want from each to be good leaders, they need our support.
Posted by: James Barta | Oct 11, 2007 11:09:58 PM
Here's my proposal for a functional definition of negative campaigning for this primary: Supplying a quote to Gordon Smith that he would otherwise not have been able to use.
First compare quotes.
Novick hits Merkley for a vote for a 2003 resolution arguing, "He [Merkley] can't use the war in Iraq as an issue against Gordon Smith."
Merkley's fellow representatives call Novick's action in the campaign "crass" and "an effort that serves only his selfish personal agenda" while Novick himself is an "opportunist".
Which quotes can now show up in Republican advertising that didn't exist before? So which side is being negative? (He asks rhetorically.)
I have tremendous respect for everyone participating here, especially for Representatives Greenlick and Nolan. We all know that whoever wins this primary will have the support of the primary opponent. (Right?) Let's elect the person who best represents Oregon and has the best chance of beating Gordon Smith.
Make sure we don’t make next fall’s task more difficult.
Posted by: interesting | Oct 11, 2007 11:17:40 PM
Has anyone noticed that few of Mr. Merkley's supposedly progressive critics, including Jake, here have addressed Merkley's words in opposition to the war that were spoken on the House floor that fateful day, a time when 90% of Americans supported the war. It took as much courage for Merkley to stand on the House floor and call bs, as it took to silently vote no from other safe Portland districts. And TJ, how many bills passed after March 19th as did before? Oh, and perhaps it was the Speaker of the frickin Oregon House was leading his chamber towards voting on contraceptive equity, establishing a real Rainy Day Fund, passing domestic partnerships and anti-discrimination language. Perhaps it was because he was fighting desperately to pass a 36% cap on consumer loans in Oregon, to to add car title lenders to similar payday lending restrictions. Oh, maybe it took the House until March 19th to pass this because the Speaker was also building support for passing one of the healthiest K-12 budgets Oregon has seen for decades, or reversing decades of cuts to the Oregon State Police. For TJ or anyone else who says Merkley hasn't taken any significant policy positions, you must not have paid any attention to the 74th legislative session. Ask his colleagues about Jeff's progressive credentials, and his incredible grasp of complicated policy initiatives. Oh, I guess we just did, and Greenlick and Nolan just answered.
Posted by: interestingII | Oct 11, 2007 11:28:37 PM
Sorry about the numerous typos. I am so angry that Steve, who I deeply respect, and others like TJ and Jake, who have contributed a ton to progressive causes cannot see the forest through the trees. Call Jeff and insider--hell he is the Speaker after all. Call Steve an outsider--he has never held office before. Say that an outsider is the only one who can be someone as slick as Smith. Fine. But cut out the crap...the repeating of R talking points; cut out questioning Jeff's progressive credentials and his amazing record of accomplishments both in securing a House majority as caucus leader and as Speaker who held a fragile majority of 31 together to pass more progressive legislation than any legislature has in 30 years; and don't criticize Jeff on his lack of significant policy positions because his website is a little thin. Do you want to know what Jeff will fight for? Look at the last session: advances in labor rights (card check, Employee Free Choice, paid family leave); helping working families (payday lending legislation etc); investing in our economy through forward looking environmental legislation (biodiesel, a renewable energy standard, bottle bill expansion, and e-waste recycling); education investment (significant improvements in K-12, head start, and higher ed funding). Do any of you think that all Jeff did was call role at the start of a session day? Ask those who were there about his role in leading Oregon forward last session! Rosenbaum, Greenlick, Nolan, the Governor all have endorsed him because of his record, and to dismiss that is either naive or simply mean-spirited.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 11:49:05 PM
Anonymous wrote:
If the Democrat primary were not heavily contested, Merkley, as the DSC puppet with access to lots of cash... It's pretty obvious Smith is just playing smart politics and taking it one step at a time.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a Republican troll here. I'm giving $5 to my favorite Democratic candidate right now.
Posted by: colin maloney | Oct 11, 2007 11:50:31 PM
...a time when 90% of Americans supported the war.
Not true, support for the war with Iraq was never that high. See, for example, this link.
As the war began, Americans overwhelmingly approved of U.S. action against Iraq; 69% said the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action (the highest level of support in our polls for the war). Support for the war waned in 2004.
69% is still high, and probably terrifying to the average Democratic officeholder but I've never seen polling that put the number at 90%. (Bush's approval rating briefly hit the upper 80's after 9/11, but the war/invasion never did.)
Also, many of us who are Novick supporters have gone out of our way to say that in terms of "policies," we don't really have problems with Jeff Merkley.
Do you want to know what Jeff will fight for? Look at the last session...
This, among other things mentioned in this post, is also getting old. I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again before the Primary is over: No one member of the Legislature, not even the Speaker, deserves all the credit for the accomplishments of a session.
Public interest groups, legislative staff, experts who come to testify before committees, deserve a lot of credit for what happened in the last session. Ordinary Oregonians who wrote letters, called their representatives and worked their butts off to elect the Democratic majority deserve the most credit.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 11:54:16 PM
For TJ or anyone else who says Merkley hasn't taken any significant policy positions, you must not have paid any attention to the 74th legislative session.
Is it really so? Is it the intent of Merkley to run a campaign for federal office based on being first among 31 on statewide issues from 18 months ago, as their statement of policy?
While Mr. Merkley seems to view his past votes as his best selling point, I'm dying to know about future votes. We are still at a point where Mr. Novick publishes a policy position on a PENDING FEDERAL ISSUE at least once a week and usually more, while Mr. Merkley, at last check, continues to maintain a current issues page marked "Change coming soon." How soon is now?
By the way, if you can find me a poll showing 90% of America backing the war shortly after the invasion (not the troops, the idea of going to war), I'll send Merkley 10 bucks. That's gilding the lilly, one of several rather loose assertions, IMO.
The more I read this, the more surprised I am.
Posted by: Bdunn | Oct 12, 2007 1:45:19 AM
There is an exceedingly large amount of absolute crap on this thread so I will try to be judicious on what I address.
1 Rep. Chip Shields is someone I deeply respect. TJ when you for political reasons say that Chip lied about what happened with HIS BILL, I find that insulting.
2 I would like to support Taoiseach's comment's about officials. Its not Mr. Merkley, TJ, it is Speaker or Representative Merkley. If you take the time to add Mr. you can easily go with Rep. Just be respectful.
3 TJ keeps pointing to the issue pages. Novick needs one because he has never been elected. Speaker Merkley doesn't, why? because the best predictor of future success is past action. How bout we talk about health care and how Novick says he supports 5 different health care plans all of which contradict themselves?
4 It seems that there is a lack of memory. How was Smith last beaten? It seems to me that Sen. Ron Wyden - a traditional politician - made a huge deal about positive campaigning. Seems like Merkley is positioning himself just right. Negative campaigning like Novick is doing strips from him his greatest asset, his outsider status, by becoming what most people think a politician is, a negative, backbiting, self promoter.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Oct 12, 2007 2:13:26 AM
What a ridiculous topic this is.
Novick isn't "smearing" Merkley by pointing out a vote that Merkley cast that Novick wouldn't have cast. He's pointing out a possible difference between them. A "smear" involves rhetoric -- ridicule, sharp language, etc. Novick has smeared Smith, to be sure, but never rhetoric.
The mere use of the word "smear" applied to Novick is more of a smear against him than anything Novick has done to Merkley.
Would Merkley's supporters please just confine their arguments to the substance of the campaign? Tell people why we should vote for Merkley, not why you're pissed at Novick.
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 12, 2007 2:41:29 AM
Anonymous wrote:
If the Democrat primary were not heavily contested, Merkley, as the DSC puppet with access to lots of cash... It's pretty obvious Smith is just playing smart politics and taking it one step at a time.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a Republican troll here. I'm giving $5 to my favorite Democratic candidate right now.
Actually Kari, you and Jeff proved long ago you are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. But if simple commentary about the mechanics of politics that happens to show your boy Merkley really is a pathetic candidate gets you to give lots of money to Democrats, that's fine with me.
I'll even repeat it if that will make you spend more money:
If the primary were relatively uncontested, Smith would see Merkley as his biggest challenger during the primary season because Merkley would be the presumptive nominee and would have DSC support and money. Now that the primary is contested, if Novick wins Smith will see Novick as a more formidable competitor than Merkley would have been in a relatively uncontested primary because Novick won the contested primary. Unless, that is, the DSC and what it sure seems will be sore losers on Merkley's side prove to be as churlish as they have been so far and sit it out.
Please send five more dollars to whatever candidate your prefer. And please re-read this comment once an hour right up to primary election day and send five more dollars each time so I don't have to repeat it.
...a time when 90% of Americans supported the war.Not true, support for the war with Iraq was never that high.
Colin Maloney is right, but that isn't even the half of it. First of all if you look here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq15.htm
and keep going back to March 20, 2003, you'll see none of the polling about Iraq at that time broke support down by party. There is a pretty good circumstantial evidence of reporting at that time, including constituent calls to Congress, that there never was a majority of Democratic voters, Merkley's base, supporting the war.
In that light, Merkley's combination of his vote and his speech is the epitome of his weasly political style. He wanted to make sure there was no vote on record that he would have to defend, not that he would have the backbone to do it. At the same time he wanted to be sure he could point to ineffectual and meaningless words of opposition in the official record when today came. He, Greenlick, and Nolan really are the face of that peculiar cowardice we see in the Democratic party. It almost seems they have all become too enamored with their office and status. For sure, they no longer are credible advocates of what we stand for as Democrats.
Merkley had his personal moment of truth, and he folded. All evidence supports the claim that it was because he was worried about his political career. No amount of dancing by his supporters can ever change that fact, and it's actually quite sad to watch them try. We'll have to see whether it was a good strategy by Novick to make this part of his campaign strategy. My guess is that by itself it won't be enough, but Novick can break it open by fastening on to one or two other issues (the polls suggest health care would be a good one) that Merkley also is weasly about. Which to date actually would be just about every issue, as already noted.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Oct 12, 2007 3:16:17 AM
I'm a Novick voter who thinks this tactic is a mistake that is muddying the waters about him more than anything else it is doing.
This is not going to be an effective issue for Gordon Smith. His biggest hypocrisy and flip-flops about the war have all occurred within the last 6 months. They are much different than a symbolic gotcha vote.
I regret that Reps. Greenlick and Nolan used some of the extreme character-assassination language that they did toward the end of their piece. It undermines their main point. But I wish my fellow Novick supporters (and his campaign person) would look at what these folks who voted no say: that this was not a character vote, it was a smear trap either way. If the vote meant what you are saying it did, these people who voted no wouldn't be willing to support Merkley.
I don't know Mary Nolan's record but "anonymous" is just wrong about Mitch Greenlick.
What Steve should do is say: this is how I will be approaching the occupation/war question in Iraq, and call on Jeff to do the same.
Getting out of Iraq is going to take the votes of a hell of a lot of Dems who gave it much stronger backing than Jeff's vote on this nonsense.
If Smith tries to use this vote, he will look desperate. It makes Steve look desperate now. He should hang it up and get back to his strengths, which are willingness to fight for substance. Here he's shadow boxing, and steel left hooks do very little to shadows.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Oct 12, 2007 4:22:50 AM
Here is the thing that I find most offensive in this whole discussion: how dare anyone tell me that I am not allowed to be concerned about the implications of Merkley's vote for HR2?
I don't know about the rest of you, but this is not performance art for me.
This is a place where I express my sincerely and deeply held opinion. I care a lot about HR2 and all I see is Merkley supporters accusing Steve of the basest reasons for bringing it up. It is a wholly legitimate issue, both because of what it says about Merkley's inclination to get rolled, and because it is a weapon for the Republicans to use against him.
Merkley's supporters really seem to care more about denying this issue and protecting him from it (if necessary, by attributing the basest possible motives to those who feel differently) than about maximizing the Democrats' chances of winning the general election. That is a fatally flawed strategy since even if Steve Novick were hit by a bus tomorrow, Jeff Merkley would still have to answer for this issue to other Democratic candidates and (assuming a primary victory) in a general election campaign.
Posted by: Not Pollyanna | Oct 12, 2007 5:13:12 AM
If talking about a vote is "going negative", then what do you call suggesting that Novick is "a false leader", "a demagogue", "an opportunist", and a "backbiter" for bringing up Merkley's voting record?
Merkley may be hiding behind Greenlick and Nolan, but this piece is coming straight from his campaign, and it stinks way worse than anything Steve has said about Jeff.
Are Democrats only allowed to discuss Jeff's good votes from now on?
In my view, Novick is right to raise the Iraq vote as issue during the primary because that vote is going to have an impact on Merkley's viability as a candidate against Smith in the general.
Anyone who doesn't think that voters in Portland and Eugene will be treated to a steady Smith-fed diet of ads saying that Merkley "spoke out against it before he voted for it" is sorely mistaken.
Better that Democrats know about it now so that they can elect a nominee who is not vulnerable to that particular line of attack.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Oct 12, 2007 7:11:24 AM
There should be no confusion about whether Jeff Merkley's vote on the resolution supporting the war will be an issue in the general election if he is nominated. Of course it will, and it should be.
Daniel Webster, as quoted by John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage, put it best: "Inconsistencies of opinion arising from changes of circumstances are often justifiable. But there is one inconsistency that is culpable: it is the inconsistency between a man's conviction and his vote, between his conscience and his conduct."
Gordon Smith changed his mind about the war. Merkley, while speaking against the war, voted to support it. Voters will be asked to decide which man they trust to represent them in the United States Senate--the one who votes his conscience, or the one who votes his political calculation.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 12, 2007 7:19:46 AM
And there you go folks. That's the spin from the GOP.
Straight from the mouth of a former candidate for Governor and the last Republican to win statewide office.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Oct 12, 2007 7:57:09 AM
Posted by: interesting | Oct 11, 2007 11:17:40 PM
Has anyone noticed that few of Mr. Merkley's supposedly progressive critics, including Jake, here have addressed Merkley's words in opposition to the war that were spoken on the House floor that fateful day, a time when 90% of Americans supported the war. It took as much courage for Merkley to stand on the House floor
You missed it...
"I see no attack on the war, nor any mention of George W. Bush." - Jake
Merkley himself exaggerates the courage profiled in his "floor speach." The claim that "Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech" is pure political spin. Read for yourself.
I am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources.
Far from attacking Bush, Mr. Merkley couldn't even come up with cogent criticism. He couldn't even say for certain if launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq was the best way to fight Al Qaida. It's just like when he showed up at the Hawthorne bridge peace vigil. He gave his speech and left. Merkely's so worried about saying the right thing (and even bungles that), at least on the issue of the war, he's not doing the right thing.
The authentic swiftboat style smear is originting from the Speaker himself. There was a "wrong" vote on HRes2 and Merkley made it. First we saw his surrogates try an level the field by crying foul against Novick simply for noting this fact. Then Merkley's staffers got in the act and the Mandate Machine hasn't stopped since.
"Republicans, Novick press attack on Merkley" (brought to you by the "neutral" voice of BlueOregon)
When they failed to make the "attack" meme stick, they dug deep and now have his political friends piling on the swift-bandwagon.
This is what turns me off most about politicians as usual.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Oct 12, 2007 8:01:20 AM
Correction: ". . . and the last Republican other than Gordon Smith to win statewide office."
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 12, 2007 8:26:13 AM
It is a wholly legitimate issue, both because of what it says about Merkley's inclination to get rolled, and because it is a weapon for the Republicans to use against him.
It is a wholly illegitimate issue.
1. He didn't get rolled by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I would submit that Merkley is on an exceedingly short list of legislators who smartly side-stepped the GOP frame and thus proved his mettle to be our next junior Senator. Novick, by his own admission, would have played precisely the role that the GOP wanted.
2. Simply being alive will be used against him... DUH!! If not this than something else. The same would go for Novick were he to win. You make is sound as if a Democratic candidate could somehow insulate themself and prevent any GOP attacks by voting a certain way. The real world simply doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 12, 2007 8:26:27 AM
True, Jack. Though I usually don't include the federal offices in "statewide office". Either way.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 12, 2007 8:30:00 AM
The problem with that theory is that almost no one believes anymore that being against the war means you don't support the troops, if ever they did.
By your own admission you don't believe that Merkley supported the war and that his statements at the time demonstrate that fact. So what makes you think that Smith would only twist one side of that resolution vote but not the other?
This is exactly what I mean about having my intelligence insulted.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 12, 2007 8:38:35 AM
As for HR2, of course it was a Republican setup. Of course, Merkley had a nuanced position. If he were going to run for state rep again, failure to vote to "support the troops" may have been the bigger problem. Instead, he is running for US Senate against an incumbent whose greatest weakness is his support [strong and now wavering] for Shrub's Iraq invasion and occupation. In this campaign, the one Merkley has chosen, voting to accept the trumped up WMD fears and praising Shrub's courage is a problem. When Merkley criticizes Smith's Iraq record, Smith will quote the parts of HR2 that HE chooses in rebuttal. Context means diddley squat in modern sound-bite campaigning.
Of course Smith will, regardless of who wins the Dem primary. This is precisely what Greenlick and Nolan are saying - everything about that resolution was deliberately set up to be cannon fodder for future election campaigns. Smith could every bit as easily quote the parts of HR2 that HE chooses in framing Novick as hating the troops... and it would be no more or less legitimate than what he'll do to Merkley.
The stunningly nieve assumption by some Novick supporters, and apparently by Novick himself, that Smith would only play dirty pool with Merkley (visa-vis HR2) should give Oregon Democrats pause when considering who to choose in the Primary.
Posted by: Shane Dixon Kavanaugh | Oct 12, 2007 9:04:38 AM
Both Merkley and Novick are great folks, they are both great candidates, and either one will serve as a formidable challenge to Gordon Smith in the general election. Calling Novick's criticism of Merkley "petty backbiting," and Novick himself "oportunistic" and "narrowly focused" only serves to perpetuate the ongoing pissing match between both camps. Thanks, Blue Oregon, for providing the forum for Greenlick's and Nolan's hatchet job! Are we all feeling even now (and a little more politically divided)? Can we move on to more important topics of discussion?
Posted by: trishka | Oct 12, 2007 9:13:41 AM
way back upthread, jraad responded to my post by asserting that merkley relying on his legislative record is an example of positive campaigning. i agree with this. i also recognize & acknowledge that for some voters, this is all they need to know in order to cast their vote for merkley. for some of the rest of us, it's encouraging, but not enough by itself. the fact that his campaign is not coming out with anything more of substance, like we're seeing consistently come out of steve novick's campaign, is why i have switched from undecided to supporting novick.
however, i also think that chris lowe's has a point that continuing to bring this up may hurt novick more than it is helping him. i don't know about that. but it is worth considering, purely from a political standpoint. this isn't saying that it is not a legitimate issue, just thinking smart politics here.
thirdly, i agree with others who have pointed out that the language used by greenlick and nolan in the original diary entry far outstrips anything that novick has said in terms of negativity. in calling out his (supposed) negativity, they are raising the ante by resorting to namecalling like they have. and either merkley's campaign needs to denounce it or they are worse than novick, without a doubt.
which brings me to my last point. i have decided to support novick in this election, but i'm also hedging my bets because i know it is going to be a contested race & because of the power of the democratIC (<---see, not a troll) party machine behind him. and my biggest concern right now is not whether or not novick can win the primary, but that everything that i'm seeing from the merkley campaign suggests to me that, should he win, he will LOSE --->BIG TIME<--- to gordon smith.
this post is not partisan bickering or snarky backbiting. this is coming from a sincere progressive who is consciensously concerned about regaining this senate seat for a progressive. if merkley wins the primary, you (his campaign), and we (democrats) have got to do better in the general. the campaign that i see from merkley relies, so far, on three planks:
1. endorsements from prominent elected democrats
2. his legislative record
3. slamming steve novick
and this may be enough to steamroll over novick in the primary, but i'm telling you - it ain't gonna fly in the general election!!!!
and i swear to all the gods, goddesses, flying spaghetti monsters and disco balls in the universe, that if the democratic party, of which i have been a lifelong member chooses merkley in the primary and he goes on to lose to smith, i will be done with it.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 12, 2007 9:16:43 AM
HR2 was bullshit because it was a classic catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
HJM9 was an honest, forthright, straight-up declaration of the Legislature's will.
The other difference: Merkley voted to acknowledge the courage of George W. Bush when 69% of people supported the war. He voted for HR9 (to bring the troops home when) 70% of the country opposed the war.
You're right, Kari, they're not the same thing at all. It brings up the legitimate question: Is your Man a leader or a follower?
Posted by: anonymous | Oct 12, 2007 9:19:31 AM
East Bank Thom is correct in identifying the Merkley campaign is the one engaged in character attacks. They are following the Rove textboock of negative campaiging right down to every period and comma:
1) Make sure your candidate NEVER gives a clear statement of his or her position, much less stand up and commit to action, on any actual issue so he or she can never be pinned down.
2) Get a lot of cheerleaders to make sure the campaign is only about how popular your boy or girl is: Modern media folks and bloggers, generally being easy to distract with shiny objects, will love it. Preferrably do that with unverifiable encomiums about he or she was personally and single-handedly responsible for EVERYTHING positive that EVER happened in close political proximity, and how he or she is just congenitally incapable of even possibly being responsible for any of the manifest failures.
3) Throw in a few safe, posturing positions that your leader would never actually even have the chance to act on. But make sure he or she never takes a forceful, unambiguous position that would require action. (See the link above on Senate Democrats proposing to retroactively grant immunity to telecoms for criminal acts collaborating in domestic spying.)
4) Attack your opponent where he or she is stronger than you to keep the spotlight off the fact you have little substantive or principled to actually say or offer --- make the campaign seem like a junior high spat over offended egos. In this case, the point is his weasly position on the war and failure to stand up in the only manner that would have mattered when his time came. In that way, Merkley demonstrated himself to be indistinguishable from that whole group of Democrats who got us into war and allowed right-wing neo-fascists to tear up our constitution, and who have proved uninterested and ineffectual since then in repudiating and rolling back what they bear major responsibility for creating.
And Kari, regardless of whether Jack Roberts is a living breathing example of how Republicans really don't have much to offer the state or the country anymore (and he is that), he at least demonstrates some factual about politics, personal character, and leadership that Merkley and his attack snakes like Greenlick, Nolan and you, apparently don't.
There must be at least three or four comments in there about the moral bankruptcy of fellow Democrats around Merkley that you can't answer and therefore will slime as evidence of a Republican troll. Please send another $15-$20 to the Democratic candidates of your choice.
Posted by: Not Pollyanna | Oct 12, 2007 9:24:57 AM
You're right, Kari, they're not the same thing at all. It brings up the legitimate question: Is your Man a leader or a follower?
Totally unfair, Pat. You know as well as I do that Merkley was instrumental in getting Gonzales out when he called for Gonzales' resignation a week before t happened. I mean, without that press release my man Alberto would still be in charge of the DOJ.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 12, 2007 9:37:33 AM
"So what makes you think that Smith would only twist one side of that resolution vote but not the other?"
I didn't say that. What I said was that the argument Smith might try to make against Novick is not believable on its face. "He doesn't support the troops because he didn't back the war" doesn't wash with anybody except the folks who still follow Mr. 27%. But it's much more believeable to accuse Merkley of "supporting the war," based on a reading of the resolution and his Yes vote.
Merkley will have to (again) explain the bill, what he was thinking, and which parts he did and didn't support. Most Oregonians have no opinion on the resolution, likely not even having heard of it. But they have an opinion already on whether being anti-war is equal to being unsupportive of the troops.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 12, 2007 9:37:43 AM
Would Speaker Merkley's inclination to "support the troops" no matter what that support was wrapped in have led him to vote for the "sense of the Senate" resolution a couple of weeks ago that condemned MoveOn.org for their "General Betrayus" ad? That was a similarly toothless measure put up by Republicans to wave their flags and show how unpatriotic Democrats were. A lot of Senators fell for that one. How would Speaker Merkley have voted?
What if the stakes were real? What if it came to a choice to end a war in Iran by cutting off funding for the war or continuing bombing under the next administration? I got a call from a DCCC fund-raiser last spring who was quite adamant about how cutting off funding would leave the troops literally starving in Baghdad. How could someone who couldn't even vote against a "rubbish" resolution that promoted the Iraq war and praised George Bush because there was a single line in there praising the troops bring themselves to take the heat for bringing a war to an end through a funding cut-off?
If the Republicans can insert some line of yellow ribbon into even odious legislation, will Speaker Merkley feel honor-bound to support it? That's not a Republican talking point, that's a matter of judgment. It's not going to be something that's going to appear in social spending bills, but "support the troops" is going to be a theme in almost any Middle East foreign policy matters over the next six years.
Posted by: Galen | Oct 12, 2007 9:49:10 AM
I read this piece again this morning, and I'm still sick to my stomach. This is nothing more than drive-by character assassination.
Do Representatives Greenlick and Nolan have enough respect for this audience and this venue to come back and answer questions posed in this thread and respond to the handful of factual inaccuracies?
I'm holding out hope.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 12, 2007 9:55:50 AM
Galen, I'm more interested in whether Mr. Merkley's campaign will either back his colleagues or disavow their truly personal attacks. And yes, I call him Mr. Merkley because that's fully appropriate. No one bitches when the NYT calls the President and a sitting Senator Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry. Also, will Mr. Merkley be presiding in Salem next Februrary? I'm not sure it's been explained how he will handle the short session and his primary campaign at the same time. Maybe he hasn't realized he has to RUN a primary campaign yet...
Posted by: Terry | Oct 11, 2007 4:21:19 PM
So why couldn't Merkley have voted no, like you did, Reps. Greenlick and Nolan, and then given the speech explaining his reasons?
It's puzzling to hear Novick described as petty and opportunistic without hearing just what he said in his so-called "attack" speeches on Jeff Merkley.
Perhaps you might provide the sordid details. Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that the only negative campaigning is emanating from the Merkley camp.