OR Senate Race - The OEA Endorsement
I'll add my voice to the chorus giving props to Steve Novick for having gained the OEA endorsement on Saturday in such stunning fashion. Although I am somewhat perplexed by it. Specifically by the criteria, whatever it was, used by the OEA delegates. Over the last couple months much has been said here and elsewhere about two issues that have historically been of particular interest to the OEA - No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Charter Schools. Presumably both would seem to be obviously relevant criteria for just such an endorsement.
I don't know what role, if any, it played in the OEA delegates decision, but it's hard to ignore the timing at least of the recent story broken by Willamette Week over a 2004 parental decision by Jeff Merkley and his wife Mary Sorteberg to consider a nearby charter school for their kids. As the piece points out, "it deals with one of the most contentious issues facing the statewide teachers union."
If that story did influence the OEA endorsement then that begs several questions. Such as...
Why is Novick's 2003 job as the Oregon Department of Education's Legislative Liaison (technically a Deputy Superintendent position) conspicuously missing from his campaign resume and his Wikipedia and Congresspedia pages? It's a particularly compelling question in light of the fact that a Novick staffer was caught doctoring Jeff Merkley's Wikipedia page.
Some partial answers at least were surprisingly easy to come by via Google.
(Note: they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. good though they may have been, and that's understandably a subjective judgement call all on it's own, the road is nevertheless headed to hell.
Jake Weigler's critique on my characterization of SB 124, immediately following this note, appears to me to be correct. I accept full responsibility for the mischaracterization and hereby retract everything between this note and the end of the Portland Trib quote - Kevin Kamberg.)
For example, Legislative Liaison Steve Novick testified in favor of Senate Bill 124. What SB 124 did was to allow proposed charter schools denied sponsorship by the local school district a means of bypassing the district's rejection and appeal directly to the State Board of Education which can then force the district to reconsider the charter school's application. Why that might not be viewed favorably by the OEA is explained in an old Portland Tribune piece:
The law expects local school boards to sponsor the charter schools. But the charter schools can draw students and thus state education money away from the sponsoring districts. So school boards, eyeing that potential money drain, can’t be objective judges on the potential value of a charter school, charter advocates say. - The 'other' public school - Portland Tribune, November 14, 2003
And then there is Steve Novick's January 2008 press release on NCLB:
"It is no secret that in the past six years, many educators, administrators, parents and politicians have complained long and loud about the implementation of No Child Left Behind. What remains a mystery, to me at least, is why so few members of Congress had the courage and the sense to vote against this law when it was first proposed," said Novick. "For it is, and always should have been, fairly obvious that NCLB was, from the beginning, the domestic policy equivalent of the war in Iraq - a proposal sold on blatantly false pretenses, to fulfill an agenda that had little or nothing to do with the Administration's stated rationale." - emphasis supplied
Let's spot Novick the first year of that "past six years" he mentioned. Five years ago when Steve Novick, along with federal D.O.E. members Ken Meyer (Novick's federal counterpart) and Scott Jenkins, was a participant in an ODE basement meeting of the Quality Education Commission, he doesn't appear to have found the courage to speak out against NCLB even after having had a year to assess it's "fairly obvious...blatantly false pretenses."
Why wouldn't the guy with "a strong left hook", whose supporters and endorsers say will "speak truth to power" or be "the kind of guy who follows his convictions--damn the consequences", not have done in 2003 what he now, in 2008, says that he's mystified why so few members of Congress were willing to do in 2002 - go on record as opposed to NCLB?
In 2003 the OEA wanted Governor Kulongoski, for whom Novick was "policy director" just the year prior, to challenge NCLB in court. State School Superintendent Susan Castillo publically opposed doing so. In fact, as Betsy Hammond of The O described the situation in late 2003, "Oregon Schools Superintendent Susan Castillo, long a staunch supporter of the federal No Child Left Behind law, switched gears Thursday and blasted some of the law's toughest school accountability measures as unfair and demoralizing to educators." Whether that was before or after Steve Novick left the ODE, I don't know. But it was roughly around the same time. Prior to that Castillo supported NCLB, afterwards she opposed it. Oddly enough, Kulongoski doesn't seem to have been opposed to it until around the same time as well. And Steve Novick himself apparently didn't have the courage in 2003 to speak out against NCLB that he portrays himself as having now in 2008.
"I know the voters can handle the truth" - Steve Novick speaking at the DPO Summit this past October.
We voters absolutely do want the truth and firmly believe that we can handle the truth. The question is, Mr. Novick, are you willing to tell us the truth?
|
March 9, 2008 |
Kevin Kamberg | Comments (105 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 9, 2008 11:57:57 PM
this is quickly turning into a black eye for Blue Oregon. What we have here is a one sentence, half hearted attempt to validate as rational the choice of the OEA, despite questioning its process--and then a full on speculative rant that appears to be no more than a recycling of allegations that have brought only crickets in their non sequitur appearances as comments to other threads. He opened his time a contributor by breaking a cardinal rule of exclusivity, to which Kari kinda shrugged and went "huh. " And now a nakedly dressed hit piece.
Kevin has been hyper-vigilant about disclosure. I was curious to see Novick's LTE reprinted first at PK, as it's not Googleable. Somebody needed to dig that up, meaning the Merkley campaign. What is Kevin's relationship to the Merkleu campaign, and did they feed him oppo research, namely the Nader letter?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 10, 2008 12:22:55 AM
That didn't take long.
Let's see, Kari took a raft of sh*t when he posted this type of stuff on BlueOregon because of his professional connections to the Merkley campaign.
Next thing you know, the most shameless Merkley flak machine in the Oregon blogosphere is granted access to BlueOregon's front page at the same time the Merkley campaign decides to start getting really ugly.
Well, we asked for more transparency. I think this move is pretty transparent, only not in the good way.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 10, 2008 1:08:24 AM
Huh. I'm pretty sure that Kevin's not a flak for the Merkley campaign. After all, I'm pretty sure the Merkley campaign would like to put the OEA thing behind 'em, rather than bringing it up more.
For the record, Pat, BlueOregon doesn't have a page 2, a back page, or any other place to post besides the "front page". This isn't a diary site.
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 10, 2008 1:14:51 AM
p.s. I'd suggest arguing the merits of Kevin's post or ignoring it, rather than assembling conspiracy theories.
We added Kevin to our stable of writers because he's a good writer (though I'd say this post isn't his best work). My only request for him was this: Don't write exclusively about Merkley/Novick.
And please note that we also added Chris Corbell and Dan Petegorsky at the same time. I'm hopeful that we're going to have a few more to announce very soon (and hopefully not all white males next time.)
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 10, 2008 1:19:52 AM
Oh, i think the clothes are pretty fully off the emperor now, kari.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 10, 2008 1:23:46 AM
Kevin,
you've been hinting darkly for the past week or two about Steve's time in the Oregon Education Department, alleging or implying that you had dug up some dirt using your mad Google skillz.
But all you ever do is ask suggestive questions and drop more dark hints. WTF?! If you think you've got something damaging, your timing is now very bad, since the OEA endorsement process is over, but for God's sake spare us the suspense and just drop whatever little stink bomb you think you've got, and let's see what it is.
Put up or shut up.
Posted by: bdunn | Mar 10, 2008 1:25:55 AM
Torrid Joe: Are you saying that you never getting tips from campaigns is wrong and that you have never gotten any from the Novick campaign?
I seem to remember several instances where you have gotten them.
Pat Malach: Novick has been attacking Merkley non stop since October, he has the right to hit back. Hell Novick supporters like you torridjoe and Stephanie V/Portlandia/Vard were even complaining that Novick was being ignored by Merkley. Appears like you cant even stand a little bit of heat, if thats so maybe you should get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: colin maloney | Mar 10, 2008 1:29:17 AM
We voters absolutely do want the truth and firmly believe that we can handle the truth. The question is, Mr. Novick, are you willing to tell us the truth?
About what, Kevin? I don't see a clear question in your article.
Here's something we know Steve did do as part of the DOE. He challenged (and beat) the Oregon Lottery which was unfairly diverting money away from schools and towards bar owners. From a post by Stacey Dycus here at BlueO:
In 2003, as the legislative liaison for the State Department of Education, Steve led the charge for Legislative scrutiny of the Oregon Lottery’s huge giveaways to the taverns that house video poker machines that were taking money that should have gone to schools. If you Google “Steve Novick” and “video poker” you will see how dogged Steve was in pursuing that cause, in 2003 and later years. Ultimately, Steve encouraged the education unions to file a lawsuit arguing that the Lottery – under the leadership of Gordon Smith’s state director, Kerry Tymchuk -- acted illegally in deciding to give away vast sums. In December of 2006, the State Court of Appeals ruled that Steve was right. The Oregonian had an editorial praising the court’s decision. Again, Novick wins.
Oregon is a better place because Steve Novick has been, for years, behind the scenes fighting for it. It'll be an even better place with him fighting for us in the US Senate.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 1:37:21 AM
I seem to remember several instances where you have gotten them.Pat Malach: Novick has been attacking Merkley non stop since October, he has the right to hit back. Hell Novick supporters like you torridjoe and Stephanie V/Portlandia/Vard were even complaining that Novick was being ignored by Merkley. Appears like you cant even stand a little bit of heat, if thats so maybe you should get out of the kitchen.
I'd love for you to recount those instances where I published tipped information (ie, broke news). I was given official results on Saturday, but that's hardly a tip (it's a very nice courtesy). And I DISCLOSED that. Which is why I asked MY question, Mr. Not-the-person-I-asked.
And equating Novick's attacks on policy differences like NCLB, HR2, Social Security, wage equality, impeachment, marriage equality--with Merkley's sad little wave of a 10-year old LTE...is that what you've got? Oi.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Mar 10, 2008 5:18:50 AM
Pathetic little hatchet job. How gracious of the author to congratulate Steve in this manner.
The Merkley campaign is starting to resemble the Clinton campaign. If you guys win, before this is over, you'll have fellow Dems voting for Smith, just as the Clintons will have fellow Dems voting for McSame.
Posted by: anon | Mar 10, 2008 6:40:26 AM
Notice how the Novick mob doesn't actually defend his record?
Kevin wrote a piece, with linked evidence. If you think what he's written is incorrect, go after the substance. This gang attack/slash and burn of the Novick mob is pathetic.
And tossing around "Hillary" like it's some sort of f-word is stupid.The inferences here are that the Merkley campaign handed this info to Kevin. Are you saying that Kevin is too stupid or too inept to look stuff up that is obviously available on the internet? More personal attacks from Novick people--no actual addressing of the issues.
And for Torrid Joe to go after anyone else's credibility on the Novick/Merkley coverage is the biggest joke of all. He's turned what used to be an interesting, informative blog into a shill for the Novick campaign. His own blind association with Novick has wrecked his sandbox.
Why are people not allowed to question Novick's record? Is it really so weak that it can't handle some scrutiny? This is the guy that's supposed to be the great defeater of Gordon Smith?
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 10, 2008 7:56:32 AM
My only request for him was this: Don't write exclusively about Merkley/Novick.
That'll be the easy part. The hard part will be finding the time to work on the others. Already have two more post topics in the works. Both are utterly unrelated to either of these first two as well as to each other.
Posted by: Troll Spotter | Mar 10, 2008 7:56:52 AM
Interesting how this post matches the criteria of a troll: First Troll Kamberg starts out pretending to be supportive: "I'll add my voice to the chorus giving props to Steve Novick for having gained the OEA endorsement on Saturday in such stunning fashion.". He then goes on to actually attack the endorsement using the Rovian tactic of stringing together non-facts in a way there is nothing to rebut. For instance, Troll Kamberg: Have you been party to every conversation Mr. Novick has had with OEA members?
Then again, it's Merkley and his ilk are the ones who always talk about how they "have to work, though, sort of the behind the scenes, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the legislative world ...". Oh, did I confuse Merkley with someone else?
Anon: No need to defend a record that hasn't actually been attacked. Troll Kamberg pulled the Rove trick of citing a negative which he can't prove, so the thing that is appropriate to be criticized are the intellectually dishonest comments of trolls like you and him.
Mr Spiro is right on point: Merkley and Clinton are two peas in a pod because they are the boy and girl of the DSCC and the DLC. And we now know what kind of a Democrat Wyden is. (Looking forward to 2010 to vote out yet another of the poor excuses for Democrats we've seen this decade after the true Democrats in Oregon do their part to repudiate Merkley and Clinton.)
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 10, 2008 8:31:38 AM
Posted by: colin maloney | Mar 10, 2008 1:29:17 AM
About what, Kevin? I don't see a clear question in your article.
Well, Colin, let's take NCLB. Which does Steve Novick want Oregon Dems to base their decision on - his actions in 2002/03 or his words in 2008?
I don't see any evidence that Mr. Novick was coerced into characterizing NCLB as he did in that press release. So it seems eminently fair to ask why when he said "what remains a mystery, to me at least, is why so few members of Congress had the courage and the sense to vote against this law when it was first proposed" shouldn't call his own apparent lack of courage a year later into question.
Stepping back and looking at the whole context, one is left to wonder if Novick is about talking the talk or walking the walk?
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 8:34:25 AM
I resent being called a shill for the Novick campaign, when I am also quite clearly a shill for the Kroger campaign. In any case, I make no pretense at neutrailty. BlueO has struggled mightily to maintain that aura, and these non-charges Kevin speculates about (oh my God, he's testified on behalf of his boss!) belie his position as Merkley attack dog. I reprint what Novick says, whereas Kevin appears to be getting his right from the campaign. Or can you tell us where you got the Nader letter, Kevin?
Posted by: Ben | Mar 10, 2008 8:37:09 AM
It takes more to dismiss questions of fact than merely asserting the author's a morally-bankrupt campaign flak, guys. Why don't we all take a deep breath, pause for one second, and come back when we want to discuss matters of fact.
Okay. I'm ready.
What Kevin has done is bring up several interesting questions about Novick's education record. No one denies him the strength of an OEA endorsement, or what it means for the Novick campaign. What he is after is asking this fundamental question concurrently: how can the Novick campaign address the perceived gaps in his record?
At the same time and on the other side, Speaker Jeff Merkley has his own record of accomplishment. Given the would-be controversy over his family's charter school "application," his record as Speaker is strong. I'm particularly impressed by the wide variety of his legislative accomplishment, from head start to community colleges, and from research to financial aid/budget work.
Okay, now this final point: enough with the character assassination, either of a candidate or our fellow bloggers. We're going to have to close ranks soon enough, so we had better not all hate each other when it comes to that point.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 9:06:20 AM
why would the Novick campaign address Kevin's "perceived gap'"? What's the question being asked, that has any substance? Why did Novick do his job as directed, is that the question?
Merkley didn't file an "application," it was an actual application according to the paper, no dismissive quotes needed. And he filed TWO, which he still hasn't explained why he hid that info and forced his spokesperson to lie to the media.
And it's awfully rich to launch nothing BUT character attacks on Novick, and then beg for calm. As soon as Merkley agrees to get out of the gutter, we'll talk. On second thought, that Nader thing is working so well for him...keep at it, jeff! Right up til May!
And we still needto hear from Kevin on his connection to the campaign: where did the Nader letter come from, kevin?
Posted by: backbeat12 | Mar 10, 2008 9:06:37 AM
Dear Senator Schumer,
Get offa my lawn and out of my state!!!
Look at what you have wrought. The teacher's union picked the Other Candidate. Why not stay out of Oregon until WE THE PEOPLE OF OREGON, NOT NEW YORK, select our nominee. Then we'll happily take your DSCC money. You won't get a dime from me, Schumer. Now go back to DC and keep shredding our constitution with your new BFF Mukasey.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 10, 2008 9:10:48 AM
My goodness, the ad-hominems are flying. Used to being the poo-flingers, the Novick hyperpartisans are aghast when they suddenly find themselves on the receiving end.
And in the end, that's what ALL of this is: stupid shit almost nobody cares about. Gee, Mr. Novick held a job in which he did what he was asked, even if it might not have absolutely always been a pure progressive party line? Fan me, I might faint. Speaker Merkley has some position that in a minuscule detail differs from what non-Democratic hyper-leftists like torridjoe would prefer? Heavens to betsy! I'm getting the vapors! The next thing you know, both of these progressive candidates will slapping on swastikas, because as we all know, 99% adherence to progressivism just isn't quite 100%!
Now admittedly, I do draw the line myself when Democrats start repeating and validating Republican talking points. That's why both Senator Clinton and Mr. Novick are not my preferred candidates. But the degree to which this race has become bogged down in a purity wankfest makes me fear that we're going to lose the best opportunity we'll ever have to moving the Senate in a badly needed direction.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 9:21:25 AM
only in merkley world is accurate criticism for being against tax equality and fixing social security "poo-flinging," while bogus, decade old attacks are real issues to discuss. Is Steve Duin's intern a non-democratic hyperpartisan too, for saying Merkley is unmemorable while being evasive? For that matter, is DeFazio a hyperpartisan for holding the same position Merkley attacks as bogus?
To say there's no problem with SS is appallingly ignorant. You'd think the Speaker would bebetter informed.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 10, 2008 9:42:26 AM
i would address the issues in the post, only i had trouble finding anything concrete to address.
the only thing that seems worthy of responding to is kevin's question: "Why is Novick's 2003 job as the Oregon Department of Education's Legislative Liaison conspicuously missing from his campaign resume and his Wikipedia and Congresspedia pages?"
i don't know why it's not there but it's hardly "conspicuously" missing. those sites are open and completely transparent (unlike blue oregon), anyone can add information, and look through a page's history to see if information has been removed. kevin, you have been harping on this issue for a couple weeks now, you could have added it yourself, and checked to see that nothing had been conspicuously deleted, too. but why would you? that would give you one less attack point.
Posted by: Kris Alman | Mar 10, 2008 9:51:50 AM
I am looking for a Senate candidate who will have a backbone to challenge the status quo and demand progressive change. Early last summer, I jumped on the Merkley campaign train, feeling he was most "electable." I went to a house party and didn't get a palpable sense that Merkely assuaged the Washington County Ds hammering him for progressive charge. No harsh words about NCLB; no new ideas. Feeling cognitive dissonance (the goal is to beat Smith, after all), I contributed more money, again feeling that Novick just wasn't electable.
Ready to have a house party, I asked a friend to join me in drawing in higher income friends who could bring in the minimum $2500 I was expected to raise. This friend, employed by a Washington County corporate behemoth, told me she was supporting Novick.
I paused. I considered. I challenged the campaign as I heard that Merkley was soft on capital gains. So I emailed their campaign office and got the response below.
I switched horses.
I do not think Merkley can beat Smith. I believe his political platforms are R lite. I believe that both he and Courtney let Oregonians down this last legislative session. It is reprehensible that our D majority legislature did not have the votes for Westlund's bill to reform mortgage lending.
Novick can win. Novick will help bring democracy back to D.C.
Hi Kris,
Sorry for the delayed response. Jeff is willing to accept a marginal difference between the capital gains rate and the income tax rate. He wants to make sure that people who own capital have an incentive to buy and sell it because that's what keeps the economy strong. He believes that working families should not have to pay twice the rate that those who make their living on a spreadsheet do.
I hope this is helpful.
Thanks,
Courtney
Courtney Thompson
Deputy Campaign Manager
Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate
Office: 503-274-4439
Cell: 503-569-9483
www.jeffmerkley.com
Posted by: pam | Mar 10, 2008 9:56:13 AM
Who is State Superintentdent Susan Castillo backing for the Democratic nominee for state senator?
Posted by: anon | Mar 10, 2008 9:57:18 AM
What I found interesting about this story -- The OEA endorsement of Steve Novick, as told by The Oregonian, was the absolute omission of the controversy surrounding, Jeff Merkley's wife's application to a charter school for the family's child.
The story had substantial and appropriate prominence, but was empty of any real political content. There was no reason given for picking Novick, by the teacher's union. "He [Novick] made a good presentation (paraphrase)." This hardly counts as a politcal reason and frankly, buried the real story.
What the story does reveal is several things: First, the Oregonian newspaper didn't want to put out the dirty laundry on the OEA endorsement criteria (charter schools are political poison); second, that the Merkley family had applied for charter school enrollment; and, third, that The Oregonian is in the tank for Merkley and for the OEA, both, at the same time.
Why do I say this?
A majority of Oregonians believe in school choice. Yet, the teacher's union, OEA, opposes "choice" because it weakens the OEA's political control, and ultimately financial bargaining power.
These reasons if held up to the glaring political spotlight of the broader Oregon political community are unattractive.
The Oregonian has given favorable treatment to the OEA's agenda, but have been pushing Merkley, it's an establishment newspaper, after all; therefore, this endorsement and the story around it, put the paper in a bind.
But aren't all these facts relevent, and wouldn't they be interesting to the readers? And don't journalistic standards suggest these parts of the story should be brought out?
Now we know why The Oregonian is having financial trouble: They won't tell the real story to the reader.
And The Oregonain has been doing it for years.
Can you say Packwood? Can you say Goldschmidt?
How sad.
Posted by: pam | Mar 10, 2008 10:01:42 AM
Interesting...State Superintendent Susan Castillo endorsed Jeff Merkley.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 10, 2008 10:09:47 AM
I guess Kevin and others who decry the OEA's decision think the teachers too ignorant and uninformed on education matters to be endorsing candidates or something.
Not to mention that stupid Kitzhaber guy. What a Novick tool!
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 10:11:17 AM
pam, are you saying the Merkley campaign has STILL not
corrected their page? Castillo's is a dual endorsement. They've been asked multiple
times to correct the record.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 10, 2008 10:21:45 AM
torridjoe: [O]nly in merkley world is accurate criticism for being against tax equality and fixing social security "poo-flinging," while bogus, decade old attacks are real issues to discuss.
Where Mr. Novick lost me wasn't in this last revealed episode anti-Democratic activism, Mark. (Although, quite frankly, it doesn't surprise me in the least.) He lost me a long time ago when he started repeating right wing talking points about the GOP pro-troop resolution with the bullshit lauding of Bush built into the preamble.
And mind you, Mr. Novick was explicitly endorsing GOP framing: 'How can he possibly be against the war when he voted in favor of hoping U.S. troops remain safe?'
Now sure, hyperpartisan apologists will always fail to see why attacks validating opposition framing are a problem. I really didn't expect anything else from you, or from diehard Clintonistas for that matter. But to those of us who think just a little more broadly have a big problem with the "I'm not loyal to you, but you have to be loyal to me" mindset.
If I'm not going to take that from the DLC, I'm certainly not going to take it from a non-Democrat. Or a Democrat who ever bought into Nader's bullshit tweedledee/tweedledum framing of Bush and Al Gore.
Posted by: bdunn | Mar 10, 2008 10:24:06 AM
Im sorry maybe I missed something but what is inherently insidious/evil/underhanded/hatchet-like/darth vader-esque about asking why Novick left out one of his longest employers this millennium on his resume during his Senate campiagn?
Furthermore, if a candidate decides to not disclose something like their taxes for example, doesn't the public have the right to speculate as to why that disclosure is not forthright?
Finally, if as Torridjoe says that Novick's support of NCLB was merely following orders, why does he criticize other for doing the same? If he was so opposed to the measure why didn't he refuse to support it while he was at the Department of Education, or was it not worth whatever the cost to Novick was?
I think these are all valid questions despite the attacks that TJ and others vomit all over the thread.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 10, 2008 10:35:44 AM
'How can he possibly be against the war when he voted in favor of hoping U.S. troops remain safe?'
Steve Maurer, I'd like to challenge that quotation of yours. Can you please provide a citation? To the best of my knowledge Steve never said anything like that, and it is inconsistent with (a) his beliefs, and (b) everything I have ever heard him say about HR2 and the Iraq war.
Further, I fail to understand how a 10 year old letter to the editor and a 12 year old protest vote can be characterized as "anti-Democratic activism." Steve Novick has vigorously supported Democrats and Democratic candidates and was willing to put himself out there as a Democratic standardbearer in the path of Gordon Smith's campaign machine at a time when other Democrats (Jeff Merkley included) were too timid to do so. It's a lot easier to stick your neck out for your party when you've got Chuck Schumer whispering sweet dollar signs into your ear.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 10, 2008 10:38:09 AM
"I'd suggest arguing the merits of Kevin's post or ignoring it"
Actually, my comment was quite specifically about the "merits" of this post.
Hey, here's some fun. Check out this e-mail I sent to some media friends two nights ago.
"Interesting to see that Kevin Kamberg (I hope for his sake his middle name isn't Kyle or Kurt) is now a contributor at BlueOregon with front-page privileges.
"I guess we'll have to wait and see if he's going to be BlueOregon's new Merkley attack dog -- since Kari takes so much shit when he tries it. I'd be pretty shocked if that's not what's going on here."
Even a broken clock ... ... ...
"For the record, Pat, BlueOregon doesn't have a page 2, a back page, or any other place to post besides the "front page". This isn't a diary site."
For the record, Kari, I can't see what that kind of non-sequitur, left-field response has to do with anything anyway, except to add more bullshit to distract from my having called your BS. It's called flak.
Did you forget about the comment section? Kevin's "special" view of this primary used to be limited to the comments section at BlueOregon. Now it's splashed across the front page. See how that's different?. And here I thought you were a blogosphere expert.
Posted by: Chris Andersen | Mar 10, 2008 10:46:08 AM
"Purity wankfest" is a good way to describe it. I've pretty much learned to filter out most of the candidate advocacy stuff in blogs in the last few months (really hard to do on DailyKos though) simply because most of the supporters for various candidates are doing harm to their candidates by their over-the-top advocacy. If I want to find out where a candidate or their opponents stand the last people I will listen to are ardent supporters or detractors.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 10:48:15 AM
bdunn, who has Novick criticized for following orders on NCLB?
And where is Kevin's disclosure?
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 10, 2008 10:50:48 AM
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 10, 2008 10:09:47 AM
I guess Kevin and others who decry the OEA's decision think the teachers too ignorant and uninformed on education matters to be endorsing candidates or something.
Soooo... I take it that nobody wants to defend Novick's apparent double-standard on NCLB? While it's true that he was an "employee," albeit a very highly placed one, while at ODE, he was "policy director" for Kulongoski - meaning that it was pretty much his job to advise against it if his current claim is accurate.
"For it is, and always should have been, fairly obvious that NCLB was, from the beginning, the domestic policy equivalent of the war in Iraq - a proposal sold on blatantly false pretenses, to fulfill an agenda that had little or nothing to do with the Administration's stated rationale." - Steve Novick
Not to mention that stupid Kitzhaber guy. What a Novick tool!
Don't be dissing my man, Kitz. I'm proud of the fact that I always voted for him.
Posted by: Miles | Mar 10, 2008 11:05:47 AM
I actually tried to find some substance in this post, but there isn't any. Kevin is saying there is a contradiction in Novick's criticism of Congress for passing NCLB while he failed to criticize NCLB at a meeting he attended in 2003. But the contexts are completely different:
1. In 2003, NCLB was federal law, the debate was pretty much over, and the state was required to follow the law. It appears that Novick, in his role with ODE, was doing exactly that. There is nothing in those minutes where Novick praises NCLB.
2. It would be inappropriate -- and probably illegal under state ethics rules -- for a state employee to use a meeting with federal education officials to lobby for his own personal views. The role of any legislative coordinator is to present and support the state's official view, and the Governor and State Superintendent were at that time supporting NCLB.
Kevin, you've provided no evidence that Novick was supportive of NCLB or pushing Gov K or Castillo into supporting it. All you have done is speculate that because you can't google anything where Novick speaks out against NCLB, he must by inference have supported it. That's pretty weak.
Posted by: colin maloney | Mar 10, 2008 11:09:58 AM
Posted by: pam | Mar 10, 2008 10:01:42 AMInteresting...State Superintendent Susan Castillo endorsed Jeff Merkley.
pam, Castillo is effectively neutral in the primary as she has given her endorsement to both candidates. You can see her on name (plus "dual endorsement") on Steve's website.
Kevin, you wrote:
Well, Colin, let's take NCLB. Which does Steve Novick want Oregon Dems to base their decision on - his actions in 2002/03 or his words in 2008?I would make the presumption that because in 2003 the ODE was in favor of SB 124, their Legislative Liaison would probably not be opposing it before the Legislature. The bill also appears to not have been such bad news after all.
You may have missed this, but the OEA supported this particular bill. (It says so in one of the PDFs that you linked to.)
Laurie Wimmer-Whalen.Oregon Education Association (OEA). Testifies in favor of SB 124A. Refers the committee to a packet on expansion of charter school laws (EXHIBIT B).
I'm not sure why you think testifying for a bill that the OEA supported would cause the OEA to think twice about their endorsement of Novick.
Additionally, I'm not seeing where Novick is demonstrating support for NCLB in any of these articles or documents. They don't seem to illustrate him having taken a personal position on NCLB at all. (And none of the documents linked to have Novick making any statements about NCLB, period!) I don't see that his position has shifted at all. Can you point to statements made by Novick outside of an official capacity, anywhere, where he's backing NCLB?
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 10, 2008 11:22:35 AM
The reason I put it in single quotes, Stephanie, as opposed to doublequotes, is because while that is a pretty damned accurate summarization of the BS GOP frame on that issue, very few would actually state it so baldly anymore - not even most of the GOP.
That's because progressives defeated the: 'Support the Troops means Support the Iraq War' frame. No real thanks to Mr. Novick.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Mar 10, 2008 11:24:31 AM
Don't be dissing my man, Kitz. I'm proud of the fact that I always voted for him.
Darrell's was very obviously a facetious statement, and a funny one at that. Either you're being disingenuous, Kevin, or that floated right over the top...
I'm not going to rehash things that have already been said, but I'm guessing that kitchen sink must be tied up at the post office. I'm sure it's on its way.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 10, 2008 11:33:23 AM
They don't seem to illustrate him having taken a personal position on NCLB at all.
Exactly my point. Steve was characterized by "The Nose" in 2003 as being "the kind of guy who follows his convictions--damn the consequences", a characterization which has been cited by the current campaign BTW.
If, as Steve says, the problems with NCLB were so obvious six years ago, then why can't we find any evidence of the "damn the consequences" guy vis-a-vis NCLB? Not even as "policy director" of Kulongoski's campaign in 2002? Not to mention that surely a "damn the consequences" kinda guy would have SOME record of having been at least critical of NCLB in 2003.
It's real easy for him to take potshots at 2001/02 members of Congress for not doing anymore than he was willing to do even a year later. But at some point it needs to be asked whether Novick is about talking the talk or walking the walk.
And again, it's curious that neither Castillo nor Kulongoski seem to have really had a big problem with NCLB until around the time Novick left the ODE and long after he was done being policy director for Kulongoski.
Mind you, there is lots and lots of evidence on the webs of many educators and even governors complaining loudly and publically about NCLB back in 2002 and 2003. I found newspaper reprints from literally all over the nation.
Where's the evidence of that "strong left hook" we keep hearing about? When was he going to use that "damn the consequences" attitude and at the very least speak out in support of the OEA's call for the state to file suit against it? Talk is cheap, afterall.
Posted by: hubbird | Mar 10, 2008 11:38:37 AM
Is this the same Kevin Kamberg who is arguing, 10 years later, that people should be held to the things they wrote 10 years ago?
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Mar 10, 2008 11:44:05 AM
See, the Internet has plenty of substantive policy positions from Steve Novick. Enjoy, Kevin.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 10, 2008 11:48:01 AM
Soooo... I take it that nobody wants to defend Novick's apparent double-standard on NCLB?
You haven't provided any evidence of a double standard.
Nor does that statement have anything to do with your apparent mistrust in the members of the OEA to make decisions for themselves. Do you seriously think the leadership of the teachers union didn't know he was working for the Department of Education five years ago?
Posted by: LT | Mar 10, 2008 11:51:15 AM
This is a federal election, so for all the good work Steve did challenging the Lottery, Sizemore, et al, exactly how is that relevant to federal issues?
The Kitzhaber nomination should not shield Novick from any further questions. After all, as Senate President and Governor, Kitzhaber was one of the more approachable public servants.
(Those who imply only one side has to answer questions and the other side is infaillible risk sounding like the Bruggere campaign's claim that their guy had rich and powerful friends, so no one should question his campaign---and yes, I do believe that 1996 campaign was one of the worst I have ever seen which is why I registered NAV after that primary and stayed that way for 6 years!).
OK, let's see what we have here:
Kari said................
"p.s. I'd suggest arguing the merits of Kevin's post or ignoring it, rather than assembling conspiracy theories."
Do any of Steve's blogging supporters (does Steve?) believe conspiracy theories will win over those who look at the OEA endorsement and say with a sigh, "Gee, that's no way to reward someone who did so much good work for education in the legislature!"?
Or don't they matter because Steve will win the nomination due entirely to his true believers in Portland?
And then, of course, there is this:
The post said:
"Why wouldn't the guy with "a strong left hook", whose supporters and endorsers say will "speak truth to power" or be "the kind of guy who follows his convictions--damn the consequences", not have done in 2003 what he now, in 2008, says that he's mystified why so few members of Congress were willing to do in 2002 - go on record as opposed to NCLB?
In 2003 the OEA wanted Governor Kulongoski, for whom Novick was "policy director" just the year prior............................
"
Gee, we should discusss what Merkley did in 2003 as an elected official but not what Novick was doing in 2003 as a staffer?
OK, folks, here is a proposal which might turn this campaign in a more productive direction. Let's declare a moratorium on discussing anything which happened before 2006. Let's discuss CURRENT issues.
For instance, did any of you notice how Huckabee's "radical" education ideas would have annoyed the Minnis/Scott/ Richardson types in the Oregon legislature?
Or that the "last man standing" on the Republican side was the most cheerful and issue oriented? That presidential primary is over. What if some of those folks in Oregon are so fed up with the GOP, what if NAV decide they want to be involved in a primary, and register DEM? Aren't Democrats supposed to be the party of ideas? The electorate who will be voting in the May primary will not be known until the registration deadline.
I'm not talking about whether Huckabee believes in evolution, but striking at the core of attitudes which probably lost the Oregon House R's the majority. Use the Blue Oregon Google window to search the posts on Minnis and OEA, Richardson and North Korea (he made a despicable charge and Stand For Children called him on it).
Huckabee was asked in an interview if he was as against teachers unions as are other Republicans, "because you know they are an ally of Democrats". He was asked what Arkansas did about failing schools.
Huckabee replied that in Arkansas when he was Gov. the state took over a failing school, they fired the superintendant and got rid of the school board---in other words, blamed management rather than teachers. He said their biggest problem with teachers was burnout in the first 5 years because of how little support teachers were getting in their jobs.
Not only that, he was so well known as an advocate of art and music in schools that some people said he believed NCLB stood for No Cello Left Behind. Gee, could music education matter more esp. to parents than all the action behind the scenes action on NCLB and charter schools?
We deserve a better US Senate primary than we have seen so far. Kari had a statistic the other day about how many people view BO vs. how many actually comment. I know enough people of the "what is a blog?" variety who vote regularly to believe they will be voting on who they believe is the most serious candidate.
So let's discuss actual issues, OK? How many people realize that during this decade in Salem one of the reasons there was great unrest with the school district, almost a teachers strike, a new Supt. and a school board election where no incumbents were running was disgust with school district management actions? That the district management (supt. and school board) proposed doing away with elementary music without much notice to the public? That was SOME board meeting--overflow crowds came to testify and someone tried to lock the overflow out in the parking lot---which didn't work, and they were required to set up a procedure where even those who couldn't fit into the meeting room would be able to testify.
THAT, folks, is the reality of most people---not who did what in a meeting, the legal status of charter schools, etc.
Now if you folks here want to continue this whole thing which sounds like the way some people want us to view politics (give unquestioning support to your team in a spectator sport, but don't ask difficult questions any more than you would question why a sports team took a particular action), go right ahead.
The rest of us, meanwhile, will go about our lives and decide how to vote based on that famous poll question which ranks candidates on the scale of
"Cares about people like me, understands my problems".
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 11:53:48 AM
kevin's asking a lot of questions, but avoiding a direct one:
Where did you get the Nader letter? What is your relationship to the Merkley campaign? As a contributor you're honor-bound to disclose any of that. Or is disclosure only for political opponents?
Posted by: LT | Mar 10, 2008 11:58:53 AM
TJ, how is Nader relevant to this discussion?
And before you ask, I am not involved in this US Senate campaign. I have worked on previous Senate campaigns which were a lot more inspiring and relevant to the lives of ordinary folks, hence my long comment.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 10, 2008 12:34:39 PM
Posted by: hubbird | Mar 10, 2008 11:38:37 AM
Is this the same Kevin Kamberg who is arguing, 10 years later, that people should be held to the things they wrote 10 years ago?
Yes it is! I had a BLAST debating first Cre/Ev and then Protestant theology (got banned from one fundy site!) and then politics when I first got onlne. Call me a glutton for punishment but I loved the hardest challenges.
I've even got a PhD from a spoof diploma mill called By Bayou University created by my old cyber buddy and retired scientist, "Gallo." He never divulged his real name but everyone knew who Gallo was.
Hey, check out the "mission statement" of BBU!
We at By Bayou University strive to give our custom students the highest quality diploma at a reasonable price, while maintaining a constant inflow of beer money. The quality of our diplomas meets or exceeds that of diploma mills operating out of the basements of churches anywhere. We require no statement of faith or oaths of fidelity. While we offer degrees at the Associate, Bachelor and Master level, you may skip these and go directly to the Doctorate.
ROFL!!!!!
Thanks for reminding me of how much fun I had with those guys and gals way back then, Hubbird.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 12:48:01 PM
"TJ, how is Nader relevant to this discussion?"
Because this piece is written by a contributor who may need to disclose an affiliation with the Merkley campaign. That's standard practice.
Unfortunately, allow he continues to return here and comment, he also continues to avoid that which he so heavily demands of Novick--disclosure.
It's a simple question: where did the Nader letter come from, Kevin? And what is your relationship with the Merkley campaign? The silence is damning.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 10, 2008 1:01:00 PM
BTW, Hubbird... I hope you didn't have to track that down via Google. If so, you could have saved yourself some time and just searched the archives at my blog. I've mentioned in there more than once. In fact I've linked to my BBU degree there more than once.
Oh... wait... you thought that I'd be ASHAMED of my stuff back then? ROFLMAO!!! You poor, poor soul... I'm proud of it. In fact you might not want to dig around there too much, if you want to maintain a bad image of me, because while I was criticized for any number of things by the scientists there, they uniformly lauded me for my honesty.
Oh, and the "distinguished graduates" list at BBU lists more opponents of creationism as having a doctorate in creation education than it does creationists with the same degree. In fact, one of them is a very well known Professor of Geology. Suffice to say that a person had to have a sense of humor to get a degree from BBU!
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 10, 2008 1:05:40 PM
How many replies will you make before addressing the question, Kevin?
Post a comment
Posted by: Galen | Mar 9, 2008 11:46:07 PM
Jesus. Can we rusticate Kevin back to his own blog, please?