Les AuCoin endorses Steve Novick
Former Congressman Les AuCoin endorsed Steve Novick for the U.S. Senate today.
"Gordon Smith is a very talented traditional politician. To beat him, you need somebody different," said AuCoin, who currently lectures at Southern Oregon University in Ashland. "In this critical election, the choice for me is clear. Steve Novick meets my test as a candidate, and will be a great United States Senator." ..."After 231 years, America has been hijacked by a Republican Party that would destroy our freedom to save it. Hijacked by willful people who believe that, in the face of a dangerous world, we need Big Brother government. People who in the face of global competition, have given up on the Made-in-America label. People who, in the face of dwindling carbon fuel supplies, believe in environmental destruction. And in the face of terror, believe in wars of choice, not necessity—against foreigners who have done nothing against us," said AuCoin. "In this epic fight, I believe Steve Novick to be the shrewder, tougher, better fighter against this galloping madness, this clear and present danger."
AuCoin served 18 years in the U.S. House, representing Oregon's 1st Congressional District. In 1992, he ran for the United States Senate, losing narrowly to Senator Bob Packwood. Today, he teaches at Southern Oregon and is a regular contributor to BlueOregon.
AuCoin was joined by Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten and Multnomah County Commissioner Jeff Cogen, who had previously endorsed Novick:
"When I am in need of an infusion of backbone, when I need some substantive analysis, when I need anything to figure out what do next in a tough situation, Steve Novick is the person I always call on," said Sten. "I think what Oregonians have always supported is authenticity and a sense of 'this is a real person.' This is person that whatever question you ask him, he's going to have a thoughtful, pointed and pragmatic response of what can happen now. And I think that is what we need against Senator Smith right now."
Visit Novick for Senate to learn more. Discuss.
|
December 3, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (121 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 3, 2007 2:26:40 PM
It's all about defeating Gordon Smith. Les AuCoin is a very smart guy who has been immersed in Oregon politics for a long time. I've been waiting to see what he would do and I'm thrilled to see this endorsement.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Dec 3, 2007 2:28:40 PM
Responding to Kevin, during the time that AuCoin was in congress, timber dominated OR, the Woodworkers (and similar unions) controlled the state AFL-CIO, and the OR delegation voted pro timber- end of story. Harry Lonsdale was the first statewide candidate I can think of who favored the environment over never ending logging, and his nearly successful campaign over Hatfield in 1990 probably was a contributing factor to the strength of the environmental movement in OR politics, especially in the Democratic party.
That, along with the spotted owl, also contributed to the great demise of the Democratic party in rural OR and helps explain why AuCoin lost to Packwood in 1992 and why we haven’t' had a Democrat elected to the state legislature since the early '90s (unless you count Bob Jenson who quickly switched parties.)
Jeff and Steve both grew up in timber dependent communities and Jeff often mentions that his father was a millworker in Douglas County. Steve has talked about the job losses he saw in rural Lane COunty. I'm glad to hear this discussion from Democrat candidates. I grew up in Wheeler County, which, since the closing of the mill town Kinzua in 1978, has had the lowest population and highest unemployment rate of any Oregon County. To say that we have cut down all the trees and will now shift to high tech jobs doesn't cut it in rural Oregon
Posted by: Onlurker | Dec 3, 2007 2:31:31 PM
Not being a Democratic partisan (as a long-time NAV), I'm curious how Novick's Democratic supporters square AuCoin's years of voting with Republicans on logging old-growth forests as well as his later years as a Timber Industry lobbyist with their criticism of Senators Schumer and Clinton.
You attempt to paint Aucoin as a Republican sympathizer, yet you think of yourself as "non-partisan"? Would you have criticized Aucoin's endorsement had it gone the other way? Hey Kevin, here's a secret: you don't have to be a member of a political party to be a partisan hack.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 3, 2007 2:54:45 PM
Harry Lonsdale was the first statewide candidate I can think of who favored the environment over never ending logging, and his nearly successful campaign over Hatfield in 1990 probably was a contributing factor to the strength of the environmental movement in OR politics, especially in the Democratic party.
Didn't Lonsdale lose the Dem primary to AuCoin in 1992? And if memory serves correctly, after losing to Packwood in '92 didn't AuCoin go on to become a Timber Industry lobbyist for a couple years?
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Dec 3, 2007 3:02:43 PM
Onlurker Would you [Kevin] have criticized Aucoin's endorsement had it gone the other way?
I don't know about Kevin, but I would have been less surprised. Steve Novick is supposed to be the "movement" candidate in this race. Until now, no pragmatic compromises were acceptable. Remember the whole thrust of his critique of Jeff Merkeley with regards to the Praise The Troops (and Bush) resolution?
Now we have Stephanie saying that the reason why being endorsed by a pro chop-em-all-down Congressman is because it's "all about defeating Gordon Smith."
I happen to agree with that sentiment. I'll take a winning 90% Democrat any day over a 100% Democrat who goes on to lose to a 90% Bush Republican. But it's definitely news that Steve is now leading his supporters in this direction.
Posted by: phoot | Dec 3, 2007 3:03:19 PM
AuCoin worked for and represented Aaron Jones, the Eugene timber baron who bankrolled not one, TWO recalls against Gov Barbara Roberts. The recall efforts were launched at the same time Sen Frank Roberts, Barb's husband, was dying of cancer. What a wonderful ethical, decent, honest guy Les is, eh?
Also AuCoin helped (behind the scenes of course) Democrats For Hatfield during the 1990 Lonsdale campaign.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 3, 2007 3:11:03 PM
yet you think of yourself as "non-partisan"?
Do you know what NAV stands for?
Not being a Democratic partisan means simply that. One can be a partisan of a particular candidate without being a partisan for that candidate's political party.
For example, I was a big McCainiac in 2000 and not once did that lead to me defending his political party or wishing to join it. Far from it, I remained a harsh critic of the GOP even though I wanted McCain to win. In 2004 I was a big Deaniac (still am) and didn't therefore wish to become a Democrat or defend the Democratic Party.
Do you see how that works?
AuCoin's voting history is a matter of record. If my pointing out some of it offends you then perhaps politics isn't something that you're cut out for. Likewise, the fact that he went on to be a lobbyist for the Timber Industry is also a matter of record.
You may or may not be successful in painting me as a "partisan hack," but AuCoin's record will remain the same either way.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Dec 3, 2007 3:12:03 PM
Phoot- Are you sure you're not confusing AuCoin with Neil Goldschmidt? I know that Neil G. lobbied for Jones in the '90s, but I wasn't aware that AuCoin did- in fact didn't know that he was a lobbyist. I've only been aware of AuCoin's teaching and I think he ahd a radio show or column.
Kevin- Yes, AuCoin narrowly defeated Lonsdale in the '92 priamry. Packwood, who had been viewed as an "environmentalist" of sorts, ran a hard right on timber at that time that solidifed his support in timber communties in OR. That helped give him a solid lead that AuCoin could never break, although he came close at the end.
Posted by: Miles | Dec 3, 2007 3:14:20 PM
So what do all you AuCoin haters have to say about Sten and Cogen (two endorsements that I find more compelling because they're currently in office)?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 3, 2007 3:15:43 PM
Just for the record, I don't consider Les AuCoin to be a "pro-chop-'em-all-down Congressman," but even if he approached that standard, I would still welcome his support and that of other non-100%-pure Democrats in electing Steve Novick to the US Senate (which necessarily involves winning the Democratic primary).
Hell, I'd even welcome Kevin's support, even if he can't vote in the primary. %^>
I'm quite confident that Steve has not made a secret deal with Les thart involves deforesting swaths of the state in order to secure his endorsement.
I would also echo what has been said earlier about the changes that have been wrought in the Oregon economy in the past 15-25 years.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 3, 2007 3:30:48 PM
Miles,
I personally am not an "AuCoin hater." Nor am I fan of his. Mark me down as agnostic.
Personally, I find the Leonard endorsement easily the biggest feather in Novick's cap. Sten to a lessor degree and the others are largely irrelevant due to the fact that almost nobody other than political junkies even know who they are. Which isn't meant to be a diss against them. I think it's just reality. But Leonard and Sten are politically useful endorsements for Novick, IMO.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Dec 3, 2007 3:33:20 PM
Batman Endorses Robin in Boy Wonder Race
film at 11.
Actually I think it's just fine that AuCoin is endorsing an old friend and fellow traveller who is a frequent commenter on his blog.
He's been all over the map through the years and has supported Goldschmidt (during and after the breaking of "The Story"), opposed Harry Lonsdale in the '92 primary, (and as noted earlier put in some time for some big opponents of Barbara Roberts back in the day.
But hey, Rupert Murdoch is doing fundraisers for Hillary Clinton her hubby is breaking bread with Richard Mellon Scaife of Weekly Standard and NewsMax fame, and Dennis Kucinich came out last week saying that he'd be willing to team up with Ron Paul for the presidential bid, so I guess if you're in politics long enough, the whole Strange Bedfellows thing is pretty much inevitable.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 3, 2007 3:44:01 PM
It's probably news when someone of AuCoin's stature endorses a candidate, but here's a question: will this move even a single vote? Will Erik Sten's (Novick) or Sam Adams (Merkley)? What about Ted Kulongoski (Merkley)? If Kitzhaber endorsed one, would even that affect any votes? Perhaps in the aggregate these things matter, and perhaps organizations matter (unions particularly), but while I'm interested to hear about these endorsements informationally, I think the political advantage is nil.
Posted by: bdunn | Dec 3, 2007 4:09:23 PM
Just for the record, I don't consider Les AuCoin to be a "pro-chop-'em-all-down Congressman," but even if he approached that standard, I would still welcome his support and that of other non-100%-pure Democrats in electing Steve Novick to the US Senate (which necessarily involves winning the Democratic primary).
I didn't know that Novick supporters accepted anything less than 100%. How can you support the DSCC bashing if that is your position?
Additionally, I have a post up on Forward Oregon about the endorsement battle.
Posted by: phoot | Dec 3, 2007 4:10:30 PM
AuCoin and Goldschmidt have both had professional, business dealings with Jones.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 3, 2007 4:19:52 PM
I share Kari Chisholm's high opinion of Les AuCoin:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/05/smith_08_les_au.htmlSmith '08: Les AuCoin is out.
Kari ChisholmA couple of times in recent days (both on this blog and in person),
people have mentioned the idea of asking former Congressman Les AuCoin
to run for the Senate against Gordon Smith.After all, he's a former nine-term Congressman - and he's run for the
Senate once before (in 1992, losing to Bob Packwood). His record of
policy accomplishments is strong and deep. He continues to be an
active contributor to the public dialogue - both on his own blog and
here at BlueOregon.Les, however, isn't interested in another run for the U.S. Senate.
He's authorized me to post here what he told me last month when I
asked him about it. He said, paraphrasing from memory, that he's
perfectly happy blogging about politics, working on a novel, and
splitting his time between his homes in Oregon and Montana - and that
it's time for others to take up the charge.In my conversation with him, Les was actually surprised that I would
suggest that he oughta run for the US Senate again. Personally, I
think he'd make a great candidate and a great Senator.But, like all the great heroes of the American West, he knows when
it's time to ride off into the sunset. (But keep on blogging about it,
Les.)
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 3, 2007 4:35:24 PM
Accepting the support of non100% dems and being angry that the DSCC is getting involved in a contested primary are two completely different things.
The DSCC is welcome to get involved in defeating Gordon Smith. They can do commercials, ads, whatever about Smith and the truth behind his record. They can do research. They can raise funds to be given to the nominee. But what they shouldn't do is get involved in a primary race where we have two really great candidates. When they get behind a candidate, it makes that candidate appear to be the party chosen candidate.
It makes it appear that the other candidates must not be viable, must not be serious candidates, must not have a shot at winning, etc. It doesn't matter what the truth is - it's all about perception. And the average Dem who isn't heavily involved in politics would be more likely to believe that support from the Democratic Senate Committee means the party is supporting that candidate and they should too.
When I run for city council next year, I'll be happy to get endorsements and support from people I don't agree with 100% of the time. That helps show I have a broad base and that those people believe I'll do the best I can for the city, even if they don't necessarily agree with me about what that is. But that doesn't mean I'd compromise my beliefs or my stances just to get that support. And it doesn't mean Steve will either.
Since I know someone will say something about there being no disclaimers from me anymore... My part on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site is done, which means I'm just a supporter of Steve's, not a paid worker. Which means of course I only speak for me and not the campaign.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 3, 2007 4:36:51 PM
I share Kari Chisholm's high opinion of Les AuCoin:
I do have a very high opinion of Les AuCoin. It's quite the coup for the Novick campaign to have landed his support.
Do I agree with every position that Les AuCoin has ever taken in his 18 years in Congress and the 15 years since? Surely not. Do I expect Steve Novick to agree with every position that Les AuCoin has ever taken in his 18 years in Congress and the 15 years since? Surely not.
By the same token, I don't expect Jeff Merkley to agree with every position ever taken by every one of his endorsers.
Remember, it's Les AuCoin endorsing Steve Novick - not the other way around.
So - when Jon Tester and Chuck Schumer and Ted Kulongoski endorse Jeff Merkley for the U.S. Senate, I hope we can all remember that. Jeff Merkley isn't responsible for everything that those three men have ever said or done -- just like Steve isn't responsible for everything Les AuCoin has ever said or done... whether positive or negative.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 3, 2007 4:37:35 PM
And oh yeah... I built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak here only for myself.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 3, 2007 5:36:00 PM
Endorsements probably mean something to people who can't form their own opinions about candidates based on their records, positions taken and how they deal with issues. On the other hand, endorsements can be a kiss of death and turn people off. Witness Bernie Kerik's endorsement of Giuliani. It's not that bad with Chuck Schumer endorsing Jeff Merkley which suggests that Schumer figures that Merkley will be a team player with the DLC, but it causes me to have strong reservations about voting for Merkley. There are positive reasons why I'm for Steve Novick. The Merkley-Schumer connection just reinforces my choice.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 3, 2007 5:42:38 PM
"will this move even a single vote?"
Was it intended to, directly? Like the Kulo/Roberts endorsement early on, I think the intent is to move dollars and insider opinion, not so much voters. As you say, and as Pew noted in survey results recently, few voters are swayed by an endorsement. But it matters inside donor circles--particularly in a situation where the establishment has mostly lined up on one side, and someone prominent comes out to suggest that it's OK to buck the system and back a different person.
Oh, and Kari: Jon Tester and Chuck Schumer aren't just anybody; they're active members of the club Merkley and Novick want to join. I don't think it will affect his cmte assignments or future fundraising help if Novick goes against AuCoin's wishes while in the Senate, I imagine.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Dec 3, 2007 5:49:51 PM
The AuCoin endorsment is about as good as any for a Democrat. Any single endorsement doesn't necessarily mean a lot, but an underdog like Novick needs endorsements like this, just like Kroger for AG needed Kitzhaber's support to help keep him viable in the eyes of the press and voters.
Posted by: LT | Dec 3, 2007 6:02:28 PM
As someone who first met the AuCoin family back in the 1970s when he was a legislator and his kids were young, I have to say I was a fan of Les until 1992. The tone of the ads he ran against Lonsdale would, in 21st century parlance, be called "Swiftboating. The tone of many of his supporters was that it didn't matter if Harry Lonsdale had gotten the same percentage as the great Wayne Morse when running against Hatfield, by golly Les was the choice of the establishment and how dare anyone support Lonsdale.
There were a number of people who were not impressed at famous Democrats on the "Democrats for Hatfield" mailer, which some who supported Lonsdale in 1990 kept and showed around to their friends in 1992. Certainly, no one on that mailer (the supporters were listed on the mailer) ever has the right to say "support the nominee and don't ask questions". What is Steve's view of that 1990 effort?
I was quite active in that campaign in a number of ways, from co-hosting an event where we had about 60 people listen to Lonsdale speak (incl. people not involved in politics who came at the invitation of a friend) to being a volunteer recount observer. For those who don't know, the final margin was that Les had won by 330 votes statewide. Had there not been a 3rd candidate in the primary, Harry might have defeated Les.
But did the AuCoin campaign decide they should have a unity event and try to win over the people they had offended during the primary? NO!
It was as if he was owed the support of all Democrats because he won the primary in a recount.
The slightly less than 6,000 of us who wrote in Harry in Nov. 1992, not just people like me but also people like my friend who was a Republican and said Packwood had been there too long. Les only got just shy of 47% of the vote as I recall, so those of us (less than 1/2 of one % ) who wrote in Lonsdale can't be blamed for re-electing Packwood.
Whatever anyone thought of Packwood, he was sometimes good with a one-liner. In a fall debate, his opening statement came after AuCoin's. AuCoin said Packwood was going negative, and Packwood shot back,
"After what you did to Harry Lonsdale, YOU are calling ME negative?"
This is why I have said from the beginning that this 2008 primary should be a positive campaign, and before the end of 2007 both Jeff and Steve (or their staffs) should put together plans for a unity event for the supporters of both campaigns--maybe in early June. I have lived through nasty primaries and primaries where a unity event was planned before election results were counted. The second has a smoother fall campaign than the first.
I realize this all may be ancient history for younger voters--people under 30 certainly are unlikely to know this history.
But it did come back to haunt Les when he was appointed to the Oregon Forestry Board to replace Heffernan, who many people thought was doing a good job--had been named Forestry owner of the year or something like that. Never did Les's supporters publicly say "AuCoin would do a better job than Heffernan because....", and from what I have heard, Les didn't invidually ask Senators for their votes (as common sense would seem to dictate) but had the attitude of "Ted appointed me, and you owe me your vote or else! "
In the end, he or his supporters sent out an email with that tone, unfortunately misspelling the name of a major Senate committee chair, and then wondered why they couldn't line up the votes.
This was one of the CounterPunch postings about all that, written by one of my fellow 1992 recount observers.
http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03102005.html
A wonderful Oregon Journal reporter said many years ago that endorsements are "an excellent 19th century strategy". As for the other endorsements:
Randy Leonard is an old friend, and his endorsement is a point in favor of Steve.
But he and Sten are Portland endorsements, and I don't live in Portland.
It will now be Steve's responsibility to show he has learned from the mistakes Les made in 1992. Will he inspire people around the state to have events for him in their homes and elsewhere? Will he debate actual issues with Jeff?
Or will he be nitpicky about Jeff but refuse to address questions about his own words and actions?
One of AuCoin's attacks on Lonsdale was that he shouldn't be discussing a part of Les's record, and that it only came out because his opponent dragged it up.
Except that it was about a vote which was totally opposite a speech he had made to Portland City Club. When pushed by someone he encountered at an event who wouldn't take vague sound bites for an answer, Les finally admitted he had looked at the bill, taken it to the relevant lobbying groups, and from what they said decided he could support a defense bill after giving a speech about peace breaking out with the Russians.
All this had happened before Lonsdale came to public attention with his 1990 Senate run, but somehow it was all Lonsdale's fault that AuCoin's voting record had become public? If that "the groups said it was OK, so why should voters complain?" attitude was common among members of the Democratic majority in the early 1990s, it is no wonder they were thrown out of majority.
Bottom line: voters are individuals. If they decide to vote for the person they like, trust, find inspiring and/or against the person they dislike, don't trust, find offensive for any number of reasons, then no amount of money, endorsements, or the work of famous consultants is always going to change their minds.
And please, no one tell me this is a site for insiders and ordinary voters don't matter. More elections than some would like to admit were a contest between insiders who "knew" the right way to win an election and the campaign which impressed ordinary voters.
Some might say that is how Gordon Smith got elected to the US Senate in the first place.
So if you admire Steve and/or Les, by all means get out there and campaign for Steve. The world is a better place when people who admire a candidate campaign for that person. But don't expect people who Les has alienated in his long career to vote for Steve just because Les has endorsed him.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Dec 3, 2007 6:18:21 PM
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 3, 2007 5:36:00 PMIt's not that bad with Chuck Schumer endorsing Jeff Merkley which suggests that Schumer figures that Merkley will be a team player with the DLC, but it causes me to have strong reservations about voting for Merkley.
Chuck Schumer is the head of the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) but has never been a member of, or affiliated with the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) though it's worth noting that David Wu and Darlene Hooley are. You can criticize Schumer if you like, (and on some issues or actions he has done, I would agree that criticism is warranted).
Not sure where you get the idea Schumer is part of the DLC.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 3, 2007 7:04:32 PM
Lestadelc, thanks for the link to the DLC. Schumer may not officially be a member of the DLC, but for most practical purposes he may as well be.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Dec 3, 2007 8:25:32 PM
bdunn, this putting words in the mouths of Novick supporters is juvenile and getting old. If you're going to take anyone to task, do it on real issues.
And Kari,
I agree wholeheartedly. I support Steve Novick for the United States Senate. Does that mean I support everything Steve supports? No. We differ on several issues. For instance, Steve wants Jackson to be replaced on the Ten by Sitting Bull. I think it should be Langston Hughes.
Just because you support someone doesn't mean you agree with that person 100% of the time. That's what leads to detrimental, partisan politics.
Posted by: Sally | Dec 3, 2007 8:32:23 PM
Good for Steve Novick to grab Les' endorsement.
Now, if Steve could only get the King's approval, then this race would be over. So, when is Goldschmidt going to announce his endorsement, and do you think that Steve will get it?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 3, 2007 8:32:46 PM
along with moving the money, as TJ points out, the main thing that Merkley's endorsements does is re-inforce his creds as the name candidate. next April & May, when the people who are not paying attention now (the vast majority of Dem voters) start reading the Voters Pamphlet and other campaign materials, they'll see all the "big" Dems behind Merkley and that will indeed gain him votes galore. name recognition was always going to be Novick's biggest hurdle. the more endorsement Merkley piles up, the higher that hurdle becomes.
if he did not get these endorsements, the legitimacy of his candidacy would be severely undermined. but he's getting them. and that just makes him stronger.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Dec 3, 2007 10:22:16 PM
Go Steve! And thanks Les.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 3, 2007 10:23:38 PM
Perhaps in the aggregate these things matter, and perhaps organizations matter (unions particularly), but while I'm interested to hear about these endorsements informationally, I think the political advantage is nil.
I disagree. Endorsements matter - especially in primary races. In general elections, ~90% of voters will vote for the nominee of their favored party. But for that last 10% - and for most voters in a primary - they look to cues that separate the crackpots from the serious candidates.
Endorsements are much more important to Steve than to Jeff. After all, Jeff is the Speaker of the House. People know that's a serious job. But Steve's resume? Harder to decrypt for the totally uneducated voter. That's why those endorsements are critical for him.
Today was a good day in Novick Land.
Posted by: bdunn | Dec 3, 2007 10:56:08 PM
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Dec 3, 2007 8:25:32 PM
Dude chill out. I took a quote and asked a very legitimate question. Unlike your previous assertions at LO AuCoin was opposed by rural Democrats, conservationists, and most notably Vicky Walker when he was denied appointment to the State Board of Forestry. Furthermore, I don't see how Novick supporters can claim with a straight face that bashing on the DSCC with claims that Merkley must cave to Schumers' positions is different than getting in bed with someone who was in the less than a friend to the environment during his time in office. The only differences I see are that one is going to be much more useful, and you don't hear the other side whining about not being the favorite.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 4, 2007 1:33:22 AM
I don't see how Novick supporters can claim with a straight face that bashing on the DSCC with claims that Merkley must cave to Schumers' positions
I don't either, because I don't think any of them have claimed it with any sort of face, straight or otherwise. If you believe otherwise, present it. Your record on substantiation.
But I'll humor you with a question in response: what specific ways does AuCoin have to pressure Novick to do what he wants once Novick is in office? Now ask the same question of Merkley and Schumer. Compare the piles.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 4, 2007 1:35:20 AM
The last sentence of the 2nd para should say "Your record on substantiation [like my record on sentence fragments] is poor."
Posted by: edison | Dec 4, 2007 1:55:24 AM
Jeff Alworth: "It's probably news when someone of AuCoin's stature endorses a candidate, but here's a question: will this move even a single vote? "
Bill Bodden: "Endorsements probably mean something to people who can't form their own opinions about candidates based on their records, positions taken and how they deal with issues"
Yeah, both of these comments make sense to me. And primary voters may indeed be a bit more susceptable to endorsements. But in the end, it will come down to the candidate who can energize the voter(s).
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Dec 4, 2007 1:56:22 AM
Well, Bradley,
I see Steve reconciling his positions (and proven record) on environmental issues with his AuCoin endorsement much more effectively than Merkley reconciling his Schumer support, while he denounces an AG appointment that Schumer voted for.
Who's really going to have more 'splaining to do?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 4, 2007 3:30:17 AM
One more time: When some Famous Person endorses a Candidate, it's the Famous Person supporting the Candidate - not the other way around.
Just because Chuck Schumer supports Jeff Merkley doesn't mean that Merkley support everything that Schumer supports. Same for AuCoin and Novick.
For example, in his role as a protector of the New York economy, Senator Schumer has defended the absurd tax treatment of private equity fund managers. Jeff Merkley has the opposition position. From his liveblog Q&A:
In addition to closing the corporate loopholes, those who make their living managing private equity funds, who are currently allowed to pay taxes on their salaries at a low capital gains rate, should pay the same rate as the rest of us.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 4, 2007 8:50:11 AM
Now ask the same question of Merkley and Schumer. Compare the piles.
This illustrates what certain Novick internet supporter's strategy is here. As a friend of mine recently put it, "same wall, different shit."
Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin. These Novick supporters know this as well as anyone. Indeed several of them were participants in the Merkley Q & A that Kari refers to above, including the one I just quoted. But the thing about inconvenient truths is that they are inconvenient for those more interested in hoisting shit on a wall to see what might stick.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 4, 2007 9:03:11 AM
Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin.
Could be true, but I wouldn't be as concerned about AuCoin as I would Schumer.
From above: "For example, in his role as a protector of the New York economy, Senator Schumer has defended the absurd tax treatment of private equity fund managers. Jeff Merkley has the opposition position."
And let's not forget Schumer's cretinous vote along with DiFi to approve Mukasey for Attorney General and their votes for Bush's blank check to wage war on Iraq. AuCoin may have skeletons in his closet, but I suspect none of that degree of shame and betrayal.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 4, 2007 9:57:41 AM
Yes. And perhaps equally relevantly, AuCoin is not a member of the Senate and has no future ability to influence Senate votes. Schumer is a member of the Democratic leadership and has some power over the career options of a new Senator.
Posted by: LT | Dec 4, 2007 10:09:39 AM
Right on bdunn--the joke about AuCoin losing the Forestry Board job was that the coalition against him went across the political spectrum (Ferrioli on one end, a member of the Green Party on the other end, lots of people in the middle) thus "the AuCoin battle proved this state is not as polarized as some people would have us believe".
Kari, you made a great contribution:
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 4, 2007 3:30:17 AM
I was just telling a friend that this primary leaves me cold: too little debate on issues and too much of what seems one group of insiders battling another group of insiders.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate on issues.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Dec 4, 2007 10:10:50 AM
In other breaking news:
Gordon Smith announced today at a press event with several prominent fascists, multinational corporations, and drug companies to announce Big Evil's endorsement of Smith's reelection and his policies in the Senate.
Who's ready to party?!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Dec 4, 2007 11:11:13 AM
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 3, 2007 7:04:32 PMLestadelc, thanks for the link to the DLC. Schumer may not officially be a member of the DLC, but for most practical purposes he may as well be.
What nonsense. There are certainly some votes and positions he has taken I disagree with, but he is not a DLC officially or otherwise. Unless you foolishly equate any Democratic elected Senator who is in leadership as being the same thing as being in the DLC.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Dec 4, 2007 11:16:42 AM
Posted by: LT | Dec 4, 2007 10:09:39 AMI was just telling a friend that this primary leaves me cold: too little debate on issues
Well in a way that is a sort of a good thing since both the Democratic candidates are rock-solid on the issues and are both decidedly progressive. There is not a really big difference on issues between Novick and Merkely. They are both great on policy and both would make outstanding Senators. In a perfect world we could give one of them to our neighbor to the North as a replacement for Maria Cantwell (who actually is a member fo the DLC) and thereby getting more and better Demcorats in the Senate.
Posted by: colin maloney | Dec 4, 2007 11:48:30 AM
Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin.
While I'm pleased with the endorsement, I think there's a very measurable difference in terms of "institutional support" between Chuck Schumer & Les AuCoin.
Schumer is the Chair of the DSCC. They've already spent just shy of $100,000 in an effort to help Merkley win the Primary. While I think that DSCC involvement is quite appropriate in General Elections, I (again) take issue with their involvement in the Primary.
The number of donor organizations increases in a General Election, so any one organization's pull with a successful candidate is weaker in a General Election. In a Primary Election, however, when fewer people are paying attention, an organization like the DSCC can play a critical (and overly influential) role.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 4, 2007 12:35:27 PM
"Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin. "
Of course? In what way would Novick's career as a Senator be directly affected by what Les AuCoin thinks? Now compare that to going against one of the senior members and leaders of the Democratic Senate caucus--particularly speaking, the one who paid for you to get there. If you think quid pro quo isn't the most important Latin phrase in politics, you may need to take a refresher in how Congress works.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Dec 4, 2007 12:37:17 PM
Yes Debate the issues...wait, don't we need to get both candidates in the same room for that?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 3, 2007 2:06:50 PM
Not being a Democratic partisan (as a long-time NAV), I'm curious how Novick's Democratic supporters square AuCoin's years of voting with Republicans on logging old-growth forests as well as his later years as a Timber Industry lobbyist with their criticism of Senators Schumer and Clinton.