Exegesis of a Session: Why Merkley Matters
Jeff Alworth
Riddle me this, BlueOregonians: what is the narrow-point for progressive legislation in Salem; in the House, with a two-vote majority, or the Senate, with a seven-vote majority? The question arises in the aftermath of the one-month tester session, where the bill drawing the most attention was Ben Westlund's defeated mortgage reforms proposal. It failed to get traction in the Senate when Westlund introduced it, but House Dems reintroduced a pared-back version that went on to the Senate only to die in the Rules Committee without even getting a floor vote on the floor.
The failure to get the bill through the Senate has been the subject of a lot of ink in the days since the session ended, standing in as a metaphor for the session and the leadership. (The O's coverage has been so unremittingly harsh toward Speaker Merkley that even Novick-backing LoadedOrygun took notice; meanwhile Nigel Jaquiss's story highlights the real victims of the Senate inaction--mortgage-holders who would have been helped immediately by the legislation.) But the paradox of the House's success, despite the bare Democratic majority, isn't a metaphor--it's just one of many examples of how Merkley managed to push very progressive legislation through his chamber with the barest of margins for error.
As it happens, the mortgage bill wasn't the only House-passed bill to go to die in the Senate. There were three others::
- Rep. Mitch Greenlick's HOPE initiative, which would have sent an initiative to the ballot declaring health care a "fundamental right" of citizens. It also died in the Rules Committee.
- Rep. Arnie Roblan's somewhat controversial plan to redistribute transportation funds so that rural counties received a greater share.
- Rep. Sara Gelser's developmental disability abuse bill, which would have created a database of caregivers accused of abusing their DD patients.
And then there was House Bill 3631, which would have immediately prohibited retailers from selling recalled toys. In its initial incarnation, the bill would have prevented the sales immediately. Merkley successfully guided it through the House, but when it got to the Senate, industry lobbyists managed to get it watered down so that retailers would have 30 days before removing the recalled stock--allowing them time to try to sell the toys before the bill took effect.
And those are just examples from this session. Dig back into last session, and there are more House-passed measures littering the cutting-room floor. In particular, the Merkley-led House managed to get a number of bills passed that would have helped working Oregonians:
Disappointments for labor included the death in the Senate of bills to ban state contractors from using tax dollars to fight unionizing campaigns among their workers and outlawing captive audience meetings; the last minute defeat of a bill that would have provided a modest paid family-leave benefit; and failure to raise the corporate minimum tax — Oregon corporations that don’t show a profit on their books will continue to pay only $10 income tax per year, regardless of their size and revenue....
“It is strange, isn’t it?” said Oregon AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain.” You have 31 Democrats in the House who by and large pushed through a pro-labor agenda, and then only a small bit got through the Senate, where the Democrats have 19 to 11.”
The difference is leadership--which doesn't mean just last-minute horse-trading. I spoke to Rep. Paul Holvey, who was the prime architect of the revamped mortgage bill to find out how it had passed the Senate. Holvey is the chair of Consumer Protection Committee that Merkley started in 2007--which he points to as an example of how Merkley created political momentum for progressive legislation like last session's payday loan bill.
"For the first time in a long time, we had a committee focused on consumer protection issues," Holvey said.
From there, it's hard work in negotiation and finding common ground. "He's a master at negotiation," Holvey said. "He has an ability to bring both sides to the table. He listens to both sides." On the mortgage legislation, the Dems lost three votes, but managed to convince three Republicans to join them--keeping the bill alive and making it a bipartisan effort.
I wasn't able to track down what happened in the Senate--no one was willing to go on the record. But even the murkiness of that failure is illustrative. In the House, Merkley was prepared to lead and take a chance on legislation. He's willing to spend political capital to get bills passed, even if it means failing from time to time and taking the heat for it.
Even on this score, Holvey, who worked to re-draft Weslund's bill, was a little mystified. "The media kept say 'Merkley's watered-down bill'--well frankly, it was my bill, based on what I thought we could support." Folks in the Senate dodged the blame when it didn't go to a vote; Merkley wound up as the target of the Oregonian's barbs.
Coming out of the past two sessions, media and progressives alike have been impressed with the amount the Democrats managed to get done. Look closely at how the process unfolded, and Jeff Merkley gets a huge amount of the credit. He managed to push legislation through a very narrow majority, and the legislation he passed was surprisingly progressive. Needless to say (though I will say it!), that's exactly the skillset we need in the US Senate.
_________________
Disclosure: I've been a backer of Jeff Merkley's campaign since the summer--since the last session ended, really. However, I am not associated with the campaign in any way except as an avid supporter and blogger. Obviously, I'm persuaded by Merkley's campaign, but not because I'm paid to be persuaded--just like you, I've come to this conclusion based on the data as I see them.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
3:53 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Uh, I took no notice of any "harshness;" thank you--I only noted their unremitting-ness. That is to say, there certainly was REASON for the stories to be published. In comments you seemed to want to draw some sense of unfairness out of me; I didn't find any.
Also, this seems odd:
Considering he lost members of his caucus and the interest groups who wanted him to bring up the bill in the first place, calling the bill as passed through the House "very progressive legislation" seems counterintuitive--in point of fact, it failed in part because it was not progressive ENOUGH. And I'm not sure how threatening your colleagues that you'll hold up all Senate bills unless they vote on yours, stands as an example of "negotiation" and finding common ground. Sounds more like bargaining from weakness and then pitching a fit when it doesn't go your way.
If you're looking for metaphors...!
3:54 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Uh, I took no notice of any "harshness;" thank you--I only noted their unremitting-ness. That is to say, there certainly was REASON for the stories to be published. In comments you seemed to want to draw some sense of unfairness out of me; I didn't find any.
Also, this seems odd:
Considering he lost members of his caucus and the interest groups who wanted him to bring up the bill in the first place, calling the bill as passed through the House "very progressive legislation" seems counterintuitive--in point of fact, it failed in part because it was not progressive ENOUGH. And I'm not sure how threatening your colleagues that you'll hold up all Senate bills unless they vote on yours, stands as an example of "negotiation" and finding common ground. Sounds more like bargaining from weakness and then pitching a fit when it doesn't go your way.
If you're looking for metaphors...!
4:00 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Now dammit--I specifically did NOT post a 2nd time. I copied and saved the text, came out and attempted to make sure the comment did not post the first time, by reloading this page...and seeing nothing, re-sent it. :mad"
4:10 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Jeff just can't win with you, can he, TJ?
4:25 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Jeff, there was also retiring Senator Gordly's single allowed Bill which was shot down. She wanted to establish a task force to develop a system offering mental health and addiction treatment services for seniors, people with disabilities and others in underserved racial and ethnic communities.
Besides Pulitzer Award-winning Nigel Jaquiss' piece, other Oregon newspapers were far less harsh with Merkley than The O was.
4:28 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
But he's the only one giving Oregon the full story. Well, he and the other Novick partisans. The rest of us are just deluded. Haven't you figured that out by now, Ben?
;-)
4:50 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
How did Merkley's performance in the legislature this year surpass that which would have been expected from any Democratic Speaker? I mean, we've all praised the legislature for some very good work this biennium, but what in particular did Jeff Merkley bring to the Speakership that made his performance head and shoulders superior to that we would have seen from another Democrat in the Speaker's chair?
5:09 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
but what in particular did Jeff Merkley bring to the Speakership that made his performance head and shoulders superior to that we would have seen from another Democrat in the Speaker's chair?
Stephanie, that's exactly what the post was about. I know you're a Novickian and God bless you (Steve's cool), but you identify the reason I'm supporting Jeff. The answer is: look at the Senate. I don't want to spend time badmouthing members of the Democratic party, but when you have a margin of seven votes, it should be pretty easy to pass legislation. But if the Senate Dems balk at progressive legislation under the pressure of special-interest lobbies, it should be that much more difficult for the almost-deadlocked House to build majority coalitions. The reason they do: Jeff Merkley.
I know it's a not-compelling "process" argument--Jeff gets things done in committees and in conversations--but that's how politics happens. A candidate's view on policy is an important piece of the puzzle, but the ability to turn those policy positions into law is another, equally important piece.
I am backing Jefff not because I think Steve Novick lacks that element, but because I know Merkley has it. And it's damn rare.
Feb 29, '08
Stephanie, after 16 years in the wilderness, there was no guarantee that the first Dem. Speaker in a decade and a half was going to preside over a session where things ran smoothly.
A former Dem. Speaker got so angry at speeches on the floor debating the meaning of a single word that all of a sudden the Speaker was recognized, pulled out a hardback book and began to read--first the title and edition of the dictionary being used, then "this is what the House adopted as the official dictionary of this session", then the definition read out loud. That was followed by the book being slammed shut and the statement that there would be no more discussion of the meaning of that word!
I don't recall any such incident in 2007 or this month.
I know the Novick partisans are loyal to their guy. However, a question like "How did Merkley's performance in the legislature this year surpass that which would have been expected from any Democratic Speaker? " does not answer a more important question,
"Complete this sentence---Novick would be a better US Senator than Merkley because.......".
If Novick wins the primary there will be the task of convincing those who campaigned for Merkley that they should volunteer on the US Senate campaign, not another statewide campaign or congressional campaign or legislative or local campaign. Most folks have a concrete number of hours a month of free time available to do any sort of volunteer work. They are not required to use that time on any campaign, no matter what the campaign partisans might wish.
I'm sure anyone with Steve's experience realizes this. However, there may be Novick supporters who have not lived through a hotly contested primary before, and they may not understand this.
Perhaps a conversation with Steve (or for that matter AuCoin who endorsed Steve) would be in order. Steve worked on the Bruggere campaign, AuCoin won the 1992 US Senate nomination in a recount (330 vote margin statewide). Unlike other past contested primaries, the AuCoin and Bruggere campaigns were lacking in outreach after the primary. They should be examples of how the "we won the primary, you owe us your support" attitude didn't work -- in those 2 instances and in general terms.
Personally, I admire Speaker Merkley's job as presiding officer having lived here long enough to see several Democratic Speakers. I certainly wouldn't have the patience for some of what happens in the House, but Merkley ran the House in the opposite of the Minnis dictatorial style (no, not every Dem. Speaker in the last 30 years operated that way).
Steve has widely admired witty commercials. But those don't tell us how he would react in the sort of difficult situations Merkley has faced as Speaker and before that as a member of the minority. That statement doesn't make me a "Merkleyite", just someone who sees more positive reasons to support Merkley than Novick, although neither has yet inspired me to support them in the primary. I may well wait until April or early May to make my decisions on that and the other contested primaries.
6:34 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
This is rather a rewriting of history; the primary reason the Senate gave was that the bill as written failed to do much of anything, and in any case was likely to be trumped by federal changes coming soon. It was, as I said, NOT progressive ENOUGH.
And it's kinda weak to blame the Senate Dems for balking under the pressure of special interest lobbies--since that's exactly what Merkley did in watering down the original Westlund bill.
Finally, it was pretty dumb to brag one's fundraising emails that you "got legislation passed" that didn't actually pass.
7:31 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
This is rather a rewriting of history; the primary reason the Senate gave was that the bill as written failed to do much of anything
Source?
7:31 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
It was, as I said, NOT progressive ENOUGH.
Well, that is indeed what Senate Dems said about this piece of legislation. Watchers of the session can make their own conclusions--I'm not going to get into the blame game. But your version is, of course, a version. And it doesn't explain the evidence I gave you in all the other legislation I mentioned--knowing as I did that you'd squall if there wasn't abundant evidence.
And it's kinda weak to blame the Senate Dems for balking under the pressure of special interest lobbies--since that's exactly what Merkley did in watering down the original Westlund bill.
Now you're rewriting history. The Senate couldn't pass Westlund's bill. We don't know if it would have passed in the House because it never got there. But you do bring up a point that further demonstrates Merkley's great leadership. In order to even bring up any version, Merkley had "stashed" a version that they did consider in committee just in case. Again, great leadership.
Finally, it was pretty dumb to brag one's fundraising emails that you "got legislation passed" that didn't actually pass.
Having ignored the bulk of my post, you bring in something irrelevant to stain Merkley. What's your point? I've written thousands of words about this campaign in posts and comments, and I haven't seen fit to say a single negative word about Novick. You can't even rouse yourself to give Merkley the credit he's due.
(And it seems like you didn't even read the post. It wasn't Merkley who "watered it down." [Also an inaccurate characterization.] It was Holvey's re-write. Merkley used his leadership to try to get it passed.)
I don't mind that you back and admire another candidate. But here's a novel request: would you care to explain how the evidence I've offered here isn't accurate and doesn't show strong leadership? He's been an impressive leader. Why slag him?
7:51 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Source? Sure.
8:00 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Jeff:
Well, they couldn't pass the version with all the teeth taken out of it, either--so what's all that impressive about fighting a losing battle over half a loaf? Mitch Greenlick got killed in the Senate too; did he ratchet down his bill to make health care "a right, kind of, when you get around to it" because there was opposition?I didn't think it was irrelevant at all--it points to the habit of self-aggrandizement, something that came up once again in the mortgage tussle, where colleagues felt he may have been grandstanding for his political career rather than homebuyers. There is a pattern here of discussing what a masterful leadership job was done--but it's hard to spin a defeated bill as mastery, I'm sorry. It's the overselling of his amazing coalition building process, when he's threatening his colleagues after they've said No a couple times already.
At some point I assume the Speaker informed Rep. Holvey that the bill was going down as written, and needed amendment, correct? If you wish to claim the semantic victory, that's fine. Merkley owned the watered down version, quite clearly.
9:51 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
Thanks for this post Jeff. The more I find out about Merkley's determination and legislative skill the more I support him. I think he and Wyden would make a hell of a team for us in Washington.
Go Jeff!
10:38 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
LT,
What if I just really want to know the answer to the question? Because I haven't seen one.
Why do you have to make it about Steve?
Feb 29, '08
Stephanie:
Are you saying you want to know how Speaker Merkley rated compared to previous Dem. Speakers from Katz to Myers to Kerans to Dick Eymann and the others whose names escape me at the moment?
You asked "How did Merkley's performance in the legislature this year surpass that which would have been expected from any Democratic Speaker? ". None of the presiding officers in the time I have lived here were like "any other Democratic Speaker". They were unique individuals.
Times are different. Merkley didn't have open rebellion from a group in his caucus as Lang did, he didn't have the contentious Sen. Pres. Fadeley that Kerans had, so what exactly is it you want to know? My guess is that there are lots of Oregonians who don't remember those Speakers. I admired Katz, Myers, the legendary Dick Eymann,and others. It was admirable how quick on his feet Speaker Kerans was and reportedly he said if he disagreed with his caucus but a majority were on the other side of an issue, he'd go with the majority.
In a session which didn't last a month, I don't think Merkley encountered any of these situations.
If that isn't clear enough, you'll have to ask a more specific question.
10:57 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
I just re-read LT's last, and it actually kinda ticks me off: we don't know how Steve reacts in difficult situations?? Hello? Have you got two shin bones? Did your junior high close while you were attending it? His whole LIFE is difficult situations overcome...but Karen Minnis represented the trials of Job for Merkley? Who is Mitch McConnell to Steve, compared to what he's taken on already? There may be things you might question about Steve...but determination and overcoming difficulty aren't on that list, by a long shot.
Feb 29, '08
TJ, you are saying that Steve should be nominated and elected because he is physically disabled and his jr. high closed when he was attending.
He's never been elected to public office but that doesn't matter because he has overcome hardships. His life story should be so inspiring (and his commercials are so memorable) so we shouldn't worry that his oratory isn't inspiring and we should just trust that he will vote the way Oregon Democrats want him to vote as he has no previous voting record.
I've known Steve for longer than BO has existed, and I base my opinion of him on that experience plus how the campaign has been run.
It seems to me that TJ and Stephanie are so devoted to Steve's campaign that they can't stand anything nice being said about Jeff or any questions asked about Steve.
Sorry, that doesn't earn my vote--I am still undecided (what if someone files on the Dem. side in this race on March 10?).
If Steve wins the primary, good luck finding volunteers for the general who didn't volunteer in the primary. Or will a victory so inspire all Democrats that they will contribute more time to the US Senate campaign than any other campaign? Sorry, I've been involved in too many campaigns over the decades to believe that.
What I'd like to ask Steve is what he learned from the Bruggere defeat which he has used to run a better campaign than the one he worked on in 1996.
Yes, Steve has overcome a lot in his life---more than Jeff in many ways. But if you want that to be the basis of the campaign, say "Vote for Steve, he has overcome more in his life than Jeff has", don't just make snide remarks when someone says they admire how Jeff handled the special session. Dealing with the House Republicans is not like what Steve has overcome in his life, true. But for that reason no one should say a nice word about Jeff?
11:24 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
LT,
That has nothing to do with what I'm getting at. I will rephrase my question.
If Jeff Merkley had not been Speaker for this last biennium, someone else would have been Speaker. Maybe it would have been Dave Hunt, or Peter Buckley, or someone else. My point is: some Democrat was going to be Speaker for 2007-2008. So let's call that placeholder Democrat X. How was Jeff Merkley's speakership more distinguished or otherwise superior to the speakership we might have expected from Democrat X?
11:52 p.m.
Feb 29, '08
"TJ, you are saying that Steve should be nominated and elected because he is physically disabled and his jr. high closed when he was attending."
Not at all--what I am saying is that it's ridiculous to wonder about how Steve might respond in difficult situations, as if he's never been tested. It's entirely false of you to say I can't stand to see Novick questioned; in the very comment you are quoting of me, I discuss the validity of questioning his positions. But it's just absurd to worry how he might function under adversity. How much evidence do you need?
I didn't make "snide remarks;" I questioned the accuracy of the narrative, using sourced accounts to back me up.
12:34 a.m.
Mar 1, '08
I'll take a moment to make my question even more specific, in case that helps.
What in particular about Jeff Merkley and his performance during 2007-2008 represents a level of performance in the speaker's chair superior to that which we would have enjoyed if Dave Hunt had been in the speaker's chair? or if Peter Buckley had been in the speaker's chair? or if [your favorite Democratic legislator's name here] had been in the speaker's chair?
I am trying to understand the mysterious cult of extraordinary performance that seems to surround Jeff Merkley (well, at least on BlueOregon). Because to me he seems like a perfectly solid and above-average guy, smart and competent but not the brightest bulb on Broadway, nice as hell for sure, likable, but not really special. I also see a guy who holds mostly middle-of-the-road "progressive" Democratic positions, nothing unusual or particularly bold. Moreover, I see a guy who is running (or is having run for him) a really lackluster primary campaign (despite having had immense advantages in terms of early support and endorsements). I would like his supporters (or knowledgeable observers) to take their best shot at explaining why they consider him to be so special. Even if I don't accept their explanations, perhaps I will at least be able to understand.
8:13 a.m.
Mar 1, '08
Stephanie, are you ignoring my response to your question for any particular reason?
Mar 1, '08
First of all, there wouldn't have been a Democratic speakership without Jeff Merkley. Simple as that. As House Minority Leader, he worked overtime to show how House Republicans would abuse their power against the interests of everyday Oregonians, from payday loans to civil unions to contraceptive equity. He even gave up his day job to make it happen. His opposition--party leadership led to the takeover of 6 seats in two cycles (unprecedented, especially in an offcycle year), giving the Democrat the majority.
Jeff Merkley was critical in the development of the Roadmap, which is basically a manifesto or agreement with the voters--put us in power, and we'll get this done. In his first session as speaker he mastered the tools of the office to run a highly productive, highly progressive session. A lot of this involved working with House Republicans to move beyond party-line votes; however, Merkley didn't compromise when the GOP locked up on crucial issues like stem cell research and affordable housing.
Perhaps the best contrast to Merkley's leadership style is Peter Courtney, the Senate President. Courtney didn't seem to much care about truly progressive bills, especially for unions (see Tom Chamberlain above), and wasn't willing to stick his neck out to accomplish tough issues where he might lose a vote. The best evidence of this is the February 2008 session, where the Greenlick bill died despite Courtney's written agreement that he'd do everything to pass it. The mortgage bill died simply because Senators didn't want to take a vote on it, and Courtney was too concerned with adjourning to make any effort on it.
That's why Jeff Merkley's leadership has made a difference. That's why his colleagues elected him speaker, and why he's delivered a much better record of progressive policy than the Senate.
Mar 1, '08
So, I don't have a dog in this fight, not being a Democrat and all (and frankly, expecting Smith to win in November regardless of who ultimately gets the nomination).
But something doesn't quite add up for me in your argument, Jeff.
First off, in the same post that you claim Merkley's proof of "leadership" because he passed bills with a narrower margin in the House that couldn't pass the Senate -- you talk about the important ability to turn policy positions into law. In these examples, the policy positions weren't turned into law. So, on a superficial level at least, isn't this a demonstration of an inability to ultimately get things done?
Second, if legislation is ultimately failing because of the "pressure of special-interest lobbies" as you claim, then it seems to me the partisan margins in both chambers aren't really relevant. In other words, the number of Republicans isn't the issue, it's more a matter of how many members in each chamber are more easily influenced by those special interests. Based on that, then, is it true that Merkley had a narrower margin in the House for those items that he did pass, but which were defeated (or killed) in the Senate? I honestly don't know. The margins would likely shift depending on the issue and the special interests involved, on a case-by-case basis.
Anyhow, it just seems odd to me for Merkley supporters to be crowing about how "effective" he is as a legislator, offering as proof the number of items which he passed in the House but which failed one way or another in the Senate. Ultimately, that's not effectiveness, that's futility.
Which isn't necessarily a reason not to vote for the guy. It's just not a particularly compelling argument in favor.
7:11 p.m.
Mar 1, '08
"Purity Trolls". These are trolls from the left. Otherwise known in reallife as drama queens. No matter how pure your position is, their position is more pure. No matter how compassionate or informed or skeptical or vigorous your opinion is, theirs is more of it."
8:39 p.m.
Mar 1, '08
David:
You have a well articulated point and I thank you for avoiding the Novick purity trolls, instead focusing on issues. I disagree with your take on the issue however.
The Senate was dead set against passing any mortgage reform. Whether it was the Holvey watered down version or the stronger Westlund bill. The same special interest groups exerting pressure in the Senate exerted pressure in the house. The fact that Merkley got anything passed by building a coalition despite a smaller margin is impressive.
I think Jack Murry above does an excellent job of taking my State Senator Peter Courtney to task for failing to get the Hope Amendment, Sara Gelser's bill that would make public care givers that abuse disabled people as well as the inability to pass either of the mortgage reform bills. The end message I think coming out of the special session is what an Oregon legislative body with and without the leadership of Jeff Merkley can accomplish. The House despite all of there disadvantages was able to pass some truly important and meaningful legislation because of the leadership of Jeff Merkley. The Senate without Merkley failed to take up and pass some of the most important bills of the session despite having a much more favorable margin. It just goes to show how important having a leader willing to fight for the most important bills is to success. This special session Peter Courtney was not up to the task, Jeff Merkley was. That is one among many reasons why he has my vote.
Mar 1, '08
This discussion is getting out of whack if someone is blaming Merkley for not passing a bill which in reality was a Senate bill---what does House Speaker have to do with bills that don't pass the Senate?
And OK, let's imagine Peter Buckley had been majority leader, had played a major role in the Roadmap, had given a speech for a state rep. candidate's fundraiser which impressed the people in the room (like Merkley did--and I was one of the people in the room for the speech). Using that hypothetical, why would Steve be a better US Senate candidate than Rep. Buckley?
Or are there more important things would could be discussing?
I really admire what Steve has on his website about veterans:
Taking Care of Our Veterans
Millions of Americans have honorably served our country in Iraq, Afghanistan and other points across the globe – trying to protect us from harm and make the world a better place. But this Administration has let them down – first dispatching them to a wretchedly conceived and poorly planned war and now extending tours of duty and sending members to serve a second, third or even fourth tour in Iraq. But regardless of the wisdom of this war, we must never turn our back on the men and women who have served so bravely and sacrificed so much. It is my pledge that as Oregon’s next U.S. Senator I will fight every day on behalf of our service members and their families. It is the least I can do to repay the debt we all owe them.
A candidate out making public speeches, or airing commercials, or posting on a blog about that issue would win my respect.
But a candidate whose blog supporters seem to have their nose out of joint because anyone would admire the Speaker of the House when Steve is the greatest candidate of all time is not a campaign which seems to be gaining momentum. And "HOW DARE Greenlick and Nolan write a Blue Oregon column which offended Novick supportersx because free speech does not extend to anyone questioning the great Novick" sounds like "if they act like that, you know they know they are losing, NOT a candidate who wants my vote.
So there you have it--a reason I could support Steve and a reason I'd leave the ballot blank before voting for someone whose campaign attracts bloggers who strike me as juvenile. Call me any name you want, but if we don't HEAR (not just issues section of the website, or speeches to small groups of people) more public pronouncements on serious issues, you can call me any name you want and I can still wait until May, mark my ballot in private, and never tell anyone whether I voted for a candidate or left that line on the ballot blank.
I think TJ, Stephanie, et al. are not doing Steve any favors with comments like "I am trying to understand the mysterious cult of extraordinary performance that seems to surround Jeff Merkley (well, at least on BlueOregon). Because to me he seems like a perfectly solid and above-average guy, smart and competent but not the brightest bulb on Broadway".
Stephanie--is that your best shot in favor of Steve, "vote for Steve because Jeff is a nice guy but not the brightest bulb on Broadway"?
The late Wm. F. Buckley was more gracious to political opponents than that!
10:55 p.m.
Mar 1, '08
LT, it isn't about Steve. It's about Jeff. I truly don't get what is so exceptional about him. Why am I not allowed to ask?
1:36 a.m.
Mar 2, '08
It seems like that has much more to do with your refusal to look rather than anything to do with Jeff Merkley.
12:55 p.m.
Mar 2, '08
Stephanie,
You're asking the wrong question. It's not a matter of you not being allowed to ask. God knows you've asked and asked and asked, over and over and over. Seems pretty clear that you, in fact, are allowed to ask and have taken full advantage of every opportunity - and created more than a few as well. Likewise, folks who believe you are barking up the wrong tree are allowed to challenge you, over and over and over if that's what they want.
Acting the victim when the street is very clearly a two-way street just makes you look unhinged and more than a little bit desperate.
This is not the first time where you've complained about not being allowed to ask, with literally hundreds of examples of you asking (without asking if anyone wants to read them...) interspersed inbetween your complaints. Nobody is buying your "victim" routine. You're allowed to ask. Deal with that fact, or not, as you see fit.
1:01 p.m.
Mar 2, '08
Now that we've disposed of that red herring... I've got a question to ask of you, Stephanie.
Why doesn't this example of torridjoe being a Purity Troll apply to you as well, since the both of you have been using that same basic line of "reasoning" for a long time now?
Here's a bonus question for you: How does Gordon Smith not benefit from said Purity Trolling?
9:38 p.m.
Mar 2, '08