Rob Brading vouches for Jeff Merkley (video)
After the 2006 cycle, I called Rob Brading the "Man of the Year". While he didn't win his campaign against Karen Minnis, then the GOP Speaker, his effort was crux of the entire statewide campaign to take back the Oregon House.
By running hard against Speaker Minnis, he pinned her down in her district, and forced her to spend a million dollars defending her seat, making it the most expensive legislative race in Oregon history. Without Brading's campaign, there's no way we would have flipped four seats in the Oregon House.
As I wrote then:
A million dollar onslaught. No one knows just how many pieces of attack mail were delivered, but it was well over 40 different hit pieces from the Minnis campaign. Tens of thousands of robocalls. Months of television advertising - including broadcast TV in the closing weeks. A smear campaign that dragged Rob, his family, and his reputation through the mud.Imagine for a moment that Minnis's million dollars instead was $250,000 more against Chris Edwards, and $250,000 more against Brian Clem, and $250,000 more against Jean Cowan, and $250,000 more against David Edwards. Could we have won all four of those majority-making seats? Not very likely. Maybe one, maybe two. But not all four. ...
Next spring, when the Democrats pass ethics reform, thank Rob Brading. When the Democrats expand health care programs, thank Rob Brading. When the Democrats increase funding for Head Start, K-12 schools and higher education, thank Rob Brading. Every time a bill goes from a majority vote in the House, to a majority vote in the Senate, to a signature on the Governor's desk... thank Rob Brading.
The very first comment on that post was written by Steve Novick:
RIGHT ON, KARI! That needed to be said. And my guess is that Karen Minnis steps down after this next session; we need to beg Rob to come back and take the seat in '08.
Rob isn't running again in 2008 (and who can blame him!), but he's seen Jeff Merkley's leadership up close and personal. He's seen Jeff Merkley take on Karen Minnis, take on the GOP, and take 'em down.
Jeff Merkley may come across like a mild-mannered policy wonk, but he's got a spine of steel. I've seen it myself and I've said it here before, but don't take my word for it - listen to Rob Brading. Listen to the guy who ran head-first straight into the GOP buzz-saw.
(Oh, and Ben Cannon is in the video too!)
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak here only for myself.]
|
March 29, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (68 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: carla | Mar 29, 2008 1:19:58 PM
Jeff's been very clear why he didn't run again: He's ready to take his formidable skills at coalition building and passing incredible progressive legislation to the U.S. Senate.
Leaders like Jeff Merkley--who refuse to back down to the bullying tactics of Republicans like Minnis, but can still find a way to get Republicans on board to pass amazing progressive legislation, are what I think we need more of in the Senate. It's one of the reasons I chose to go to work for him.
In 2006, I was blogging consistently on Rob's race (and the races of lots of other Dem House challengers). I saw firsthand how Jeff worked with these people (literally walking their districts with them, for example). I wrote at length about the dirty campaigns run against them by Minnis and Scott and Chuck Adams. Jeff took them all on..and kicked ass.
When the Dems took over the House, I wrote about and paid close attention to the 2007 session. Jeff's leadership was pivotal to its success. One of the main reasons I chose to work for Jeff's U.S. Senate campaign is that I know, after watching Jeff work, that his unique ability to fight Republicans and their policies while still being able to bring them on board for progressive legislation are exactly what we need in the Senate.
Our country is in very serious trouble. We need leaders who can cut through the BS and make change happen. That's what Jeff Merkley is all about.
Every member of the Oregon Dem House delegation that I've spoken with personally (and there's a lot of them) consistently says the same thing: Jeff is the guy who did the work time and again to get the progressive slate of legislation passed. And every one of them believes that Jeff will do that and more as U.S. Senator for Oregon.
Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon
Posted by: LT | Mar 29, 2008 1:49:23 PM
Kari,thanks for posting this. But as I have told friends, this statement is not universally believed, esp. by downstate activists:
"his effort was crux of the entire statewide campaign to take back the Oregon House."
Brian Clem would not have won? If it hadn't been for the well-supported Brading campaign for St. Rep, Salem residents would have re-elected Dalto? Which other 3 candidates would not have won?
The fact is, for multiple election cycles the balance of power has been decided in many cases by people without strong partisan attachment. Look into the number of state rep. races decided by less than 1000 votes. It is generally several--well more than the margin of majority (if the majority was 35, it was 6 or 7--something like that).
This is the divide between Portland activist folks and activists in the rest of the state. Kari, I know that what you said is an article of faith in a certain segment of the party, but there are others who were offended with what looked like Brading getting more support than any other 2 candidates. And in a previous cycle, wasn't he one of the "why support someone who doesn't have a chance?" candidates?
It didn't hurt the overall effort that other "entrenched" incumbents ended up having to fight for their own seats--in the Willamette Valley, not just Donna Nelson, but Alan Brown, Vicki Berger, even Brian Boquist.
In order to truly bring change in this state, it will take 36 friendly legislators--Democrats, independent thinking Republicans, maybe someone who isn't strongly connected to either party.
Last time I checked, voters in individual districts choose their legislators. Sometimes they vote for the guy down the street (or against, if they don't like the guy they know very well).
What happens if a district elects a legislator who is so independent that the caucus leadership gets annoyed with refusal to adopt "the party line" and votes according to the merits of each bill, regardless of pressure from caucus or others? As I recall, back in the 1990s there was a "tip credit" bill which was killed because a downstate legislator made his own decision regardless of pressure----and then someone presented him with a large type quote from Wayne Morse about using independence of judgement on each issue.
As a US Senate campaign video, this is excellent.
But as a reflection on how legislators are elected in this state (before 1993, Future Pac didn't exist and "back in the dark ages" people actually voted for local legislators who ran local campaigns based more on shoe leather and local connections than massive fundraising--esp. outside big cities) the old saying applies. If 10 people watch or listen to something, they may have 10 different points of view.
Posted by: LT | Mar 29, 2008 2:11:16 PM
Another blog linked to this, and I think it is very interesting in the general scheme of things.
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=84690&sid=1&fid=1
“I would stress that, if you are either a Republican or a Democrat, if you expect to win statewide elections in the future, you are going to have to win the votes of independent voters,” Portland political analyst Tim Hibbitts said. “There just aren’t enough members in either of the major parties to win elections.”
From January 2004 to January 2008, the percentage of all voters in the state who are registered Republicans dipped by 1.3 percentage points, to 35 percent. Over that same time period, the combination of nonaffiliated and minor-party registered voters rose 1.2 percentage points — from 24.8 percent of all registered voters four years ago to 26 percent this year — while the Democratic Party increased its overall percentage by a sliver, to 38.9 percent of the state’s voters.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 29, 2008 2:24:14 PM
I promise you, LT. Rob Brading is every bit the hero he's been called. And I say this not as someone from Multnomah County, but from Washington.
Lupita and I went to canvass once for the Brading campaign. The money that Minnis was spending on herself had to be seen to be believed - massive billboards, TV ads... one door I knocked on a lady showed me GOP lit she literally couldn't hold in two hands.
Now even though Rob lost, think about even some of that money being dropped into your touchy campaigns. I can tell you that Jean Cowan on the coast pretty directly owes he seat to the fact that all the money was being spent to save Minnis's own ass. And really, you need to go ask Brian Clem himself if he would have wanted an additional $50,000 dumped into ads against him or not, before you discount Rob's efforts.
I admit that Rob's campaign was not mistake free. That last minute hit piece on Minnis (that Jon Isaacs championed) flat out backfired. It probably sank his campaign. But the overall effect Rob had by tying down so much GOP money nearly certainly made the difference between a GOP and Democratic majority this last session.
Posted by: pam | Mar 29, 2008 2:45:12 PM
Sorry LT, but Jeff Merkley is widely admired in my part of the state too. His ability to find common ground is well known. He's able to tackle very tough issues without offending other's. He's a tough negotiator while remaining mannerly, a quality I think is necessary to be successful in the Senate.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Mar 29, 2008 2:49:21 PM
Jeff's been very clear why he didn't run again: He's ready to take his formidable skills at coalition building and passing incredible progressive legislation to the U.S. Senate.
I've heard him speak on it early on, and he didn't sound so convinced then. But by now one would hope he'd feel more certain. Still one can't help wonder what he'll do when Steve wins.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 29, 2008 2:56:55 PM
LT, you read more into my comments than I actually wrote. I did NOT say that without the Brading/Minnis campaign we would have lost Clem/Dalto.
Try reading it again:
Imagine for a moment that Minnis's million dollars instead was $250,000 more against Chris Edwards, and $250,000 more against Brian Clem, and $250,000 more against Jean Cowan, and $250,000 more against David Edwards. Could we have won all four of those majority-making seats? Not very likely. Maybe one, maybe two. But not all four. ...
A quarter-million dollars against each of those four Democrats would have likely pushed at least one of them.
And, frankly, given how much of a blowout Clem/Dalto was, it's possible that the GOP might still have abandoned Dalto, and pumped $333,000 into the other three.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 3:38:36 PM
I like and admire Rob Brading tremendously.
I have worked with him on library issues in Multnomah County for years, and I contributed to his campaigns.
I'm selfishly very sorry that he isn't back for a third bite of the apple because I think he could clearly win this time, and I loved the idea of him in the legislature, but he owns his own life and gets to decide what his priorities are.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 29, 2008 4:20:10 PM
LT: Brian Clem would not have won?
Carla played a small roll in Taking Dalto down too. She wrote extensively about it at Loaded Orygun and I think most astute observers would agree that she got Dalto's attention - a pretty good indication that he'd felt the political effects.
There are very good reasons why L.O. is but a shadow of it's former self. Those would be many of the same reasons why P.K. is a shadow of it's former self when she still wrote there - mostly just the fact that she no longer writes there. Traffic at my blog is but a small fraction of what it was when Carla wrote there. I'd bet good money that LO has had the same dramatic downturn in traffic.
Jon Isaacs once bluntly told me that Carla was the single best hire the Merkley campaign has made. Those of us familiar with her and her writing know that Jon was simply stating the truth. Undoubtedly Steve Novick would agree too since he had also tried to hire her for his campaign.
You are of course free to discount what she said upthread.
Every member of the Oregon Dem House delegation that I've spoken with personally (and there's a lot of them) consistently says the same thing: Jeff is the guy who did the work time and again to get the progressive slate of legislation passed. And every one of them believes that Jeff will do that and more as U.S. Senator for Oregon.
But I doubt that Dalto and Minnis would agree with your skepticism.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 29, 2008 4:22:53 PM
You know, I should probably do another disclosure: In 2006, I built the websites for Brian Clem, Chris Edwards, and Jean Cowan -- but I speak only for myself.
Posted by: Rev. Chuck Currie | Mar 29, 2008 5:44:38 PM
Wow. You’re using comments left on Blue Oregon – a site for all progressives? – as fodder for a primary campaign you’re involved with. Well, I suppose there is nothing unethical about that. It’s just typical politics. You know, the kind that turns people off from the process altogether. Now the next time I think about leaving a comment here I’ll have to ask: Is this going into Kari’s database so that if I’m ever on his wrong side he can use it against me? Will my comments be turn up in a Merkley push poll down the line?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 29, 2008 5:54:34 PM
Um, it's not a database. It's a blog. All the old comments are available to anyone that wants to look around.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Mar 29, 2008 6:02:13 PM
Um, it's not a database. It's a blog.
Little bit of a debatable point in that there's searchable storage, perhaps not as sophisticated as another...but any since of outrage is a bit ridiculous.
On the other hand there's definitely a flavor of opportunism. Isn't all fair in love or politics?
Posted by: Rev. Chuck Currie | Mar 29, 2008 6:20:52 PM
I was just thinking how I was able to endorse Steve Novick without saying anything bad about his opponent. Politics ought to be about building about the community (how naïve of me…). But Jeff has chosen a different path and armed with push polls and surrogates he’s waging one of those nasty efforts that make people wonder about him and what kind of a senator he’d make (and not in a good way). Blue Oregon is clearly one of surrogates. That’s ok. This is a political site after all. It’s just that political always leaves me disappointed. It brings out the worst in good people. Thankfully we’ve got role models like Steve – or even Barack Obama – who don’t go down that road.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 6:22:51 PM
If there were ever any evidence that Kari was editing or otherwise tampering with past posts or comments, that would be far beyond the pale and would probably be the end of Blue Oregon. To the best of my knowledge no one has accused Kari of that.
Maybe I'm just more cynical than Rev. Currie, but I fully expect that every intemperate online comment I have ever made on blogs or even on closed systems (like well.com, river.org, echonyc.com, etc.) could come back and bite me in the ass someday. The rest of you (including Steve and all present and future candidates for office) are in the same boat.
Anyone with a lot of patience or a few interns could do it. It's likely that Kari as the site owner has access to search tools that the rest of us don't have, which reduces the amount of time and effort needed to get the job done, of course.
But that too is presumably part of the package of services that Mandate Media is offering.
When I first started reading and commenting here, the commercial role of Mandate Media was far less front and center than it is now -- nothing like a few hotly contested primaries to bring all the conflicts of interest into sharper focus -- and it's good to remind ourselves about it from time to time. But it's a fact of life.
Posted by: Masterpiece | Mar 29, 2008 6:52:55 PM
I just looked at this post again after reading Rev. Currie's comment. I'm curious, where is the negative comment about Steve Novick?
I also did a search for comments from Steve Novick using the search window at the top of Blue Oregon. I found lots of them. I have no special access to this blog. In other words, this seems like another attempt by a Novick partisan to make some sort of black helicopter conspiracy out of nothing.
And push polls? Since Jake Weigler admitted that Steve was doing very similar polling as Merkley, is the Rev. Currie going to blast Steve too? Or will he blast Steve's "surrogates" who have spent hours trying to tear Jeff Merkley down?
Politics doesn't have to bring out the worst in people. But if you are going to seek out the worst in one group while blithely ignoring it in a willful way in another, then credibility goes out the window.
This week I read Steve calling Jeff "intellectually bankrupt" because Steve disagrees with Jeff on Social Security. I hear no outrage from Rev. Currie on that very nasty and personal comment from Steve.
There was nothing ugly about Steve Novick in this post. There was nothing wrong with citing his positive comment about the hard work done by Brading and those who worked to elect him.
No one forces Novick partisans to come here and comment. No one forces them to mine the depths looking for perceived injustices where none exist. But it does make for a fine bunch of martyrs.
Posted by: LT | Mar 29, 2008 7:09:00 PM
First of all, to the extent that this US Senate race is descending to the nastiness level of the 1992 US Senate primary, we are all poorer for it. That one should have been a lesson.
There is another lesson from that campaign---years afterwards I ran into an old friend at a social event and introduced her to someone I met because of that campaign. Her response, "Sorry, never got anywhere near that campaign---too nasty."
I don't know all the ins and outs of who has done what, but contrary to what some have said elsewhere, my guess is that there are tons of people who could not match the first names Jeff and Steve with the last names Merkley and Novick, much less know anything about their stands on issues or all the insider battles.
With regard to the other issue---the role of Rob Brading in the 2006 state rep. results, he may have been the determining factor in one or more state rep. contests--I have no clue.
I do know that with the website and all the other good things going on for the Clem campaign, and all the problems Billy Dalto ran into (people just plain losing patience with him, the story about him hiring his unqualified mother, the way he personally insulted some people who even just wrote letters to the editor in favor of Brian or against Billy), I am not of the opinion that whether Billy and the Republicans had access to tons of money would have made a major dent in the results.
But what do I know---I was only one of many canvassers in the most amazing field operation ("ground game") of a state rep race Salem has seen in decades. Seldom has their been such a grass roots effort in any legislative race in recent years. And all those who were canvassers were also telling their friends that Brian would be a better legislator than Billy because.....
I am glad Kari clarified what he meant. People here in this area where sending out too many mailers (as has happened in some legislative elections) convinces some people to vote against the candidate loading their mailboxes with junk mail. Commercial TV (even with all the money in the world) is not generally used in legislative races here--although there is some coverage by local cable access. Radio is sometimes used, but that depends on voters listening to a particular station to hear the ad--and then the ad may or may not change or gain any votes.
Newspapers are a medium for both news coverage and ads, but the thing about a newspaper ad is that someone can cut it out, save it, show it to a friend with comments of approval for a positive ad, disgust with a negative ad.
Lawn signs are big here.
This comment (opinion, not fact) is more accurate than what many have said on the subject,
"A quarter-million dollars against each of those four Democrats would have likely pushed at least one of them. "
Yes, it COULD HAVE made a difference---but no one can prove it would have been determinative.
And every district is different, something some of us have been saying for years when confronted with a template that all campaigns should have the same organization, raise the same amount of money, contact the same number of people door to door. That's the interesting Ben Cannon comment which seems lost here--rather than asking such questions, Ben says "Jeff wanted to talk about policy". What a concept--issues rather than just mechanics of a campaign!
Finally, thanks for the tip about LO. I only live here, and had not been aware of this posting on LO:
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2006/08/loaded-orygun-makes-waves.html
Democrats and liberal bloggers are attacking state Rep. Billy Dalto, R-Salem, for hiring his mother -- a Latin jazz vocalist from New York City -- as his legislative aide last summer, just as she was experiencing financial woes.
The issue could pose a problem for Dalto's re-election race against Democrat Brian Clem. It widely is considered one of a handful of House races that could tilt control of the chamber in November.
So let's all take a deep breath here, folks. There are people on both sides of this who feel they have been wronged. That is always a danger in contested primaries. This is why I had an email exchange with Steve last December. In response, he said,
"As to outreach to primary opponents, I think you gotta give people time to lick their wounds, but you don't wait long."
There are people who like the ideas of one or both of the candidates. There are people who have had a bad experience with one of the other candidates or their campaigns.
Saying someone has to like 100% of the other campaign or they aren't real Democrats and don't really want to defeat Gordon Smith (seriously, whether they realize it or not, there are campaign people/ blog supporters who shall remain nameless who have said something very close to that here) is not going to motivate people to volunteer on a general election campaign for the US Senate nominee, talk to their friends who have voted for Gordon in the past, etc.
Stephanie, were you on BO during the 2006 Gov. primary?
Seems to me that Kari was tougher on those of us who didn't think Ted deserved a glide path to the nomination without appearing with the other candidates multiple times than he has been on those who back Novick over Merkley. I know, I was one of those so angry at the arrogance of my old friend Ted that I noticed the bias. Kari may well remember.
I'd be careful of charges like "conflict of interest", though. Your past comments sometimes sound like an assertion that unless things meet your standards it isn't that your point of view is biased, it is that the other side has done something wrong or sneaky.
Next Friday is the 40th anniversary of the shooting of Martin Luther King, for Pete's sake! Can we have a more elevated discussion here? Those of you who are partisans would do well to aid in the debate prep activities for the Portland City Club debate which will also be broadcast on OPB.
If one of the Senate candidates were to say something so memorable it was the talk of the political world (in person and on blogs), make a slip they didn't catch in time (Kroger gets points for his "did I say utilities?" save at Friday's debate) or offends anyone in the audience, if someone says something so brave or thought provoking it changes the tone of the entire Senate primary, that will be about the real world, not about blogs.
Posted by: Phil Barnhart | Mar 29, 2008 7:27:48 PM
Kari, Interesting you should mention Chris Edwards… You will recall that he took on Debi Farr and beat her. Chris was and is an excellent candidate. He deserved to win, but a number of things had to come together for that to happen.
Yes, 2006 was a great year all over for reasons we all know. But it is also true that we were ready. The Democratic House Caucus was organized and ready. We recruited some great candidates, including Chris. We worked hard to raise money. We set up the campaign support system to maximize our chances. We had a winning strategy that gained us two seats in 2004 when the smart money thought we would lose two.
The engineer of these victories? Jeff Merkley. It was Jeff’s vision of how to do it that got us to the majority in two cycles. He hired Jon Isaacs and kept the campaign team together during session so that we were ready. He devised the strategy and guided all the important turns in our tactics. We all worked very hard, none harder than our great candidates, but there is no question at all that the leader and guide was Jeff Merkley
Chris Edwards deserved to beat the incumbent. But he probably would not have won had the Republican caucus spent a couple hundred thousand more, money that Brading tied down in District 49. I think the same thing is clear in District 10. Jean Cowan deserved her win, but she beat a popular veteran legislator who could have benefited from some of those dollars Minnis spent in her own race because Brading very nearly beat her.
I have always believed that politics is a deadly serious team sport. It takes very bright hard working candidates, consultants, campaign managers, lots and lots of volunteers and donors, but most of all it takes a great leader who has a great plan and the ability to motivate everyone else and focus their energy productively on the goal. We have been very fortunate to have Jeff Merkley because he has been that leader.
There were two heroes in 2006. Rod Brading is the public hero who worked very hard and ultimately sacrificially to tie down Karen Minnis and eat up her treasury. Jeff Merkley was the hero behind the scenes whose leadership was crucial to allow us to take advantage of the chances that Republican errors, Democrats’ energy, and circumstances allowed us.
Jeff has been endorsed by ALL of his Democratic colleagues in the House. It is easy to think of us as a monolithic block. Not true. We all have our own priorities and concerns. Yet, Jeff held us together through the 2007 and the short 2008 session to pass some important progressive legislation. And he has the deep respect of all of his colleagues after all of it.
Jeff Merkley will become a very productive United States Senator. He has demonstrated in spades the skills that a legislator needs to get things done. As we get his story out, I expect the excitement to grow. He will beat Gordon Smith and then use the skills he has demonstrated to move progressive legislation through the Senate.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 29, 2008 7:47:20 PM
Reverend Currie, you have a number of misapprehensions about the nature of BlueOregon, blogs, and the current primary nomination.
First, BlueOregon is not just a blog, it's a forum. Forums, made of different people with different people, simply cannot have a single opinion. So the only way to interpret your comment that "Blue Oregon is clearly one of [Speaker Merkley's] surrogates" is to read it like this: "I see comments on BlueOregon that I do not like; therefore, despite the large number of Novick supporting fans posting here, it must be a surrogate for the man I don't want to vote for".
This kind of thinking is exactly the way conservatives convince themselves that the media is "liberal". A single "liberal" voice in an otherwise overwhelming conservative publication makes it, in their mind, "liberal". The important thing for people who think like this isn't to hear many opinions, many voices. Rather it's the opposite: to censor everything they don't like.
I am always disappointed by progressives who adopt this kind of black and white thinking. Regardless, I'd venture to say that if you're looking for BlueOregon to be your censor, you are bound to be "disappointed".
Second, your belief that Steve Novick hasn't attacked Speaker Merkley is so absurd, it's flat out delusional. For 6 months Mr. Novick has issued a constant stream of attacks - adopting Republican talking points - not only from his direct campaign surrogates, but from Novick himself. In person.
Only recently has the Merkley campaign decided to give Mr. Novick a slight dose of his own poo-flinging tactics. One can always debate whether "staying above" (ignoring) or "being a fighter" is the better response to gutter tactics, but Speaker Merkley wouldn't have to make that choice if Mr. Novick hadn't, early on, decided to adopt them.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 7:49:29 PM
No, LT, I wasn't reading Blue Oregon regularly during the 2006 primary season. During 2006 I was deeply involved in the campaign to pass the Multnomah County library levy, and did not have much involvement in any candidate campaigns.
An aside: it happens that my now-husband and I went out and bought our marriage license the morning after Election Day that November, didn't tell anyone, and were married at the Multnomah County Courthouse about ten days later. When people asked us why we bothered (since we had been together for 26 years already), I always enjoyed telling them that the explanation was residual giddiness from the midterm elections. %^>
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 29, 2008 7:56:40 PM
"with different people" -> "with different opinions"
Wow. Must be more tired than I thought.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 8:00:25 PM
To Steve Maurer I would just say: there's a difference between disagreement/criticism and personal attacks.
It's obvious that neither you nor your candidate has any idea what that difference is.
All of Steve Novick's criticisms of Jeff Merkley had been based on their respective positions on issues of concern. But when Merkley started telling lies about Novick, Steve had to respond. The "pants on fire" rejoinder was far nicer than most alternative scenarios would have been.
I wrote a whole diary over on LoadedO about what a nice guy Jeff Merkley was, even though I disagreed with him about a couple of issues. I am beginning to wonder if I gave him too much credit.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 29, 2008 8:00:42 PM
Posted by: Rev. Chuck Currie | Mar 29, 2008 6:20:52 PMI was just thinking how I was able to endorse Steve Novick without saying anything bad about his opponent.
Politics ought to be about building about the community (how naïve of me…).
Community building... You mean like the other day when Steve Nader said that Jeff Merkley is "intellectually bankrupt" and equated him with Gordon Smith?
Wow... you must have been so... um... proud of Steve for not saying anything bad about his opponent, just like all those months before when he kept taking shot after shot at Jeff while Jeff was focusing on taking shots solely at Gordo.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 8:01:58 PM
To Steve Maurer I would just say: there's a difference between disagreement/criticism and personal attacks.
It's obvious that neither you nor your candidate has any idea what that difference is.
All of Steve Novick's criticisms of Jeff Merkley had been based on their respective positions on issues of concern. But when Merkley started telling lies about Novick, Steve had to respond. The "pants on fire" rejoinder was far nicer than most alternative scenarios would have been.
I wrote a whole diary over on LoadedO about what a nice guy Jeff Merkley was, even though I disagreed with him about a couple of issues. I am beginning to wonder if I gave him too much credit.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 29, 2008 8:03:45 PM
Thank you, Representative Barnhart.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 29, 2008 8:07:55 PM
Perhaps Masterpiece is only imagining the race is as ugly as he or she believes...given the misstatements about what Steve and his campaign manager have said. For instance, it now seems like the predilection of Merkley backers to moan about Steve calling Merkley "intellectually bankrupt" and calling it a personal attack--personal like the series of non-substantive attacks Merkley and his surrogates have pretty much built their competitive strategy on. Yet, that's not what Steve said. What he ACTUALLY referred to was "intellectual bankruptcy of both Gordon Smith's and Jeff Merkley's approach to federal finances." In other words, Jeff's position lacks smarts and understanding of the problem. A strong attack, but an entirely fair one if Merkley really believes we'll suddenly stop raiding Social Security to pay for tax cuts and the war. And it says nothing about Merkley personally, only his misguided view of finance.
This is similarly distorted:
"And push polls? Since Jake Weigler admitted that Steve was doing very similar polling as Merkley,"
First, no one is doing any push polls, either Merkley OR Novick. These are real polls with negative tests in them. But Wiegler admitted no such thing; he said they were using the same technique--but were concentrating on substantive differences between the candidates, whereas clearly Merkley is looking to the GOP for such creative attacks as "tax and spend Democrat" and "Communist."
At least be accurate in your attacks, please.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 29, 2008 8:20:29 PM
"Community building... You mean like the other day when Steve Nader said that Jeff Merkley is "intellectually bankrupt" and equated him with Gordon Smith?"
You've certainly got a lot of gall to whine about personal attacks when you devolve back to your GOP roots and do things like say "Steve Nader," Kevin. Not to mention lying about what Steve said. He never called Merkley intellectually bankrupt, as the record makes clear.
Steve Maurer, give one example of a personal attack from Steve on Jeff, please. I'll match it with two from Jeff or his surrogates. And I won't have to limit myself to March, when Jeff realized he was losing and began playing dirty like he did in 2006. And he certainly hasn't made any arguments the GOP would make! Unless you think the GOP will criticize Merkley for being their patsy on the war, or that Jeff doesn't appear to understand Social Security very well.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 29, 2008 8:42:42 PM
I'm getting really tired of people saying Novick uses Republican talking points. It's just not true. You can talk about the same issue without using "Republican talking points."
I happen to be concerned about Social Security. I don't agree with the changes Republicans want to make to it. As many can tell you, I helped put together a rally at Gordon Smith's Portland office on the issue of Republican changes to Social Security and was one of a handful of people who actually were able to get up into his office. But that doesn't mean that changes don't need to be made. It's solvent through 2041 only if we make payments back into the system. What about after 2041? I turn 63 in 2041 and my husband will be 74. Obviously, I'd like to see Social Security around when I'm older, just as it is now.
I disagree with Merkley's vote on HR2. I think he should have voted against it, as others did, and then state for the record that he was voting against the portion praising Bush and that he supports the troops 100%.
But just because some of us disagree with Merkley on these items doesn't mean we're using Republican talking points. Saying such is just absurd and does nothing but push people away from the Party.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 29, 2008 9:07:07 PM
The engineer of these victories? Jeff Merkley. It was Jeff’s vision of how to do it that got us to the majority in two cycles. He hired Jon Isaacs and kept the campaign team together during session so that we were ready. He devised the strategy and guided all the important turns in our tactics. We all worked very hard, none harder than our great candidates, but there is no question at all that the leader and guide was Jeff Merkley.
That is what Oregon needs and deserves in the U.S. Senate. No Naderite equivocating Democrats and Republicans as the same. No coopting GOP talking points to tear down other Democrats. Someone who a) knows how to beat the GOP and b) knows how to get progressive change actually enacted and c) can do so without poisoning the well. There is only one person in this race with those demonstrated abilities and skills - Jeff Merkley.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 29, 2008 9:14:36 PM
I'm sorry, but voting for Nader as a protest vote in an election where it was obvious that Clinton would win without problem does not make you a Naderite.
And Novick definitely doesn't see Democrats and Republicans as being the same. If he did, he wouldn't have spent as much time as he has electing and supporting Democrats.
This crap is just utterly ridiculous.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 9:21:00 PM
>knows how to beat the GOP
I'd prefer somebody who knows how to beat Gordon Smith.
The Republicans in the state legislature are the minor leagues compared to Smith, who will eat Jeff Merkley for breakfast if he gets the chance. And could you name a single smart, tough Republican who has ever been defeated by Jeff Merkley, please? Offhand I can't think of any.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 29, 2008 9:24:03 PM
And while we're talking about that spine of steel, was it in the shop on March 21, 2003? Because it was not in evidence, and didn't seem to do anyone any good that day.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 29, 2008 9:56:27 PM
It's great to see Rob Brading and Ben Cannon joining the long and growing list of progressive organizations and individuals who know that Jeff Merkley is the individual Oregon needs in the Senate.
In so doing they are joining a constantly growing chorus to reject the nattering Naderesque nabobs of negativity who accuse progressives of "intellectual bankruptcy" for taking mainstream progressive policy positions. They know that one candidate in this race stands head and shoulders above the rest. That candidate is clearly Jeff Merkley.
In what we all fervently hope are the waning days of the Iraqi Occupation it is reassuring to know that only one Senate candidate in the entire state has a strong and growing coalition of military veterans solidly backing his candidacy. That Gordon Smith has no apparent veteran support base isn't surprising. Neither is the lack of any apparent veteran support base for any other candidate.
Those veterans understand perhaps better than those of us who aren't veterans why the Council for a Livable World gave Jeff Merkley one of their exceptionally rare endorsements (Jeff is one of only seven Senate and a total of just fifteen candidates nationwide to recieve the Council's endorsement). The Council summed up Jeff thusly:
Merkley will be an important progressive leader in the Senate. His background on nuclear weapons, his knowledge of national security issues and his political experience clearly indicate that we need him in the U.S. Senate.
When Jeff Merkley endorsed Darcy Burner's A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq he was joining with a fellow candidate to have recieved a coveted endorsement from the Council for a Livable World.
These are all but a small handful of the reasons why Oregon progressives are flocking to the Merkley campaign. We are joined by the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, AFT, ONA, ANA, IBEW, OSAEW, ILWU, the Sierra Club, the Council for a Livable World, Citizens for Global Solutions and many others.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 29, 2008 10:24:12 PM
... Naderesque nabobs of negativity ...
Are you sure you want to appropriate lines associated with a disgraced former vice president who had to resign from office a year before the president he served also resigned underthreat of impeachment? Or from William Safire, who actually wrote the line?
Seriously, could you make your support for Merkley look any more Republican?
Posted by: LT | Mar 29, 2008 10:32:41 PM
What is ridiculous is that the subject of Nader even came up in this race---an insider's issue if there ever was one. Anyone mentioning the name Nader this year made a mistake.
So, will some here now understand I am not one of those who sees one candidate as infallible and the other candidate as evil? ANYONE who brings up side issues like Nader is making a mistake, and making it harder to convince people in the general election to replace Gordon Smith. Or had some people forgotten that is the ultimate goal?
I have friends supporting both candidates--hard as that may be for some to understand. Not surprising, on a contested primary (or for that matter a ballot measure and sometimes a general election) it is not uncommon for my diverse group of friends to have differing positions on political issues.
For those who wonder how people can dig up quotes from comments on BO from a long time ago, there is no secret. There is that wonderful little Google window at the extreme right hand top of the page.
Stephanie, Steve has never beaten Gordon Smith. He worked for the guy Gordon defeated to be elected to the US Senate in the first place. Steve has never explained what he learned from that experience. And if he can't complete the sentence "Mistakes made by the 1996 Bruggere campaign which I learned not to repeat are..." that is not Merkley's fault.
Interesting WW piece from Jan. 2007. I would find that Steve Novick an appealing candidate. Problem is, that isn't the Steve we have seen running. (Where's the obscure 2003 HR, where is the reference to beer bottles to be opened with the hard left hook, where is the acerbic streak which led to "pants on fire" being a featured video on the Novick for Senate website? That is a SERIOUS piece, unlike some of what we have seen in this primary.)
And you don't help your cause with your other link. Is Steve's debate strategy to bring up a 5 year old Oregon House Resolution if asked at the Portland City Club debate what actions he would support regarding Iraq from 2009 forward?
Recently on Charlie Rose, I saw 3 great interviews: Gov. Rendell (D-Penn.) and Senators Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel. Whether or not I agreed with any of them, they were mature adults discussing serious issues.
The disappointing thing about this whole US Senate primary has been the lack of that seriousness. It is as if we are being told, "Shut up and just choose between the guy with the clever beer commercial or the guy who cast a questionable vote on an obscure, symbolic resolution in 2003".
Do you people not get that in timber dependent communities like Jackson County there is sometimes double digit unemployment and people have a hard time selling their houses (that is if the home hasn't been foreclosed already)? That no one wants to discuss the strain on the military due to deployments---it is all about how the war started or "we can't leave until the job is done"? Not to mention other serious debates which Sen. Wyden, Sen. Webb, Sen. Biden, Sen. Hagel and many others would be able to detail.
Some time ago, Joe Biden said in an interview that the greatest damage from the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 was the polarization: with us or against us, good people can't disagree or they aren't good people. He called it "defining civility down".
In the recent interview, Sen. Hagel was asked about McCain's statement that we have a moral duty to Iraq. He said we have some responsibility, but "A moral obligation to send those young people back for 3 and 4 and 5 fifteen month deployments? I think my friend John crossed the line on that one".
How would Steve respond to that? How would Jeff respond?
But this Senate primary can't feature talk about the reality of multiple deployments of 2008 Oregonians because we are stuck in a debate where someone who has never been elected to office says he was personally insulted by those who criticized his attack on Merkley for a 2003 vote?
I have friends who support Novick, and that is fine. It would be exciting for them to be able to be at the big election night party in Portland, whatever the result.
BUT, when we talk face to face about this and I say, "I'm sorry, but a 2003 legislative resolution just doesn't seem like an issue we should be discussing in a federal election in 2008", they look startled. Which tells me it is NOT the cornerstone of the campaign some here seem to think it is.
There are also those of us who would like to see a SERIOUS Novick ad, like the poverty video he has on his website. Saying the ad where Steve takes the top off the guy's beer bottle doesn't rise to the level of seriousness of the poverty video is not an attack.
Biden said when he was first elected to the US Senate, there were still segregationists serving there. "But back then, we debated policy, not motives". But there seems to be a lot of that here.
Using the BO Google window, I found this comment. All partisans should take it to heart.
http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/10/smearing-jeff-m.html
Posted by: paulie | Oct 11, 2007 11:09:15 PM
Expanding our base of Democratic voters is crucial to winning 2008. The amount of microscopic analysis of the two Democratic US Senate candidates isn't the issue,the issue is to support them both, then vote in May. Either one of them is substantially better than Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith must be removed from the position of US Senator. The pettiness on this thread needs to be elevated. Think about the responsibility we are asking Novick and Merkly to take on, the committment we want from each to be good leaders, they need our support.
The point I don't think some people understand is this:
Suppose Steve wins the primary without running a serious ad (as described above). What then? Even if it were a blowout, the shelf life of the 2003 resolution ends in May. Why should the people who don't drink alcohol (of any or no party registration) vote for Steve in the general election? If someone asks if Steve in the general plans more thoughtful, intelligent ads and public discussions than we saw publicly in the primary, what would happen? Would they be sternly told that defeating Gordon Smith is the most important thing and they must give more attention to the US Senate campaign than to any other election?
Even if Steve won the primary in a blowout, in a free country anyone is allowed to say either that they don't have the free time to campaign for anyone, or that any campaign from president to Congress to local/ legislative races is a higher priority for them.
My worry is that there are some people here who don't realize that.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 29, 2008 10:39:56 PM
Here's something that you won't find on Gordon Smith's campaign site or that of any other candidate for Senate:
Veterans for MerkleyCo-Chairs: Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak (Ret.), former Air Force Chief of Staff Jim Rassmann, former U.S. Army Special Forces Officer Paul Evans, Oregon National Guard,Afghan and Iraq War Veteran
Larry Armstrong, Corporal, U.S. Army
Kat Bell, SPC, U.S. Army
Daniel Davis, Cpt., U.S. Army
Marv Doty, U.S. Navy; Present Commander Beaverton American Legion Post 124
Bruce Freeman, PO2, U.S. Navy
Darvel Lloyd, LTJG, U.S. Navy
Joel Haugen, Sgt., U.S. Army
Wilson Johns, HT3/DV2, U.S. Navy
Mac McFadden, Sgt, U.S. Air Force
Mat Millenbach, 1Lt., U.S. Army
Donald N. Morris, 1Lt, U.S. Army
Angel Pilato, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Richard Riggs, Lt. Commander, U.S. Navy (ret.)
Dave Roussel, SP4, U.S. Army
William Russell, Major, U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Ronald Sandlin, former U.S. Navy Combat Aircrewman
Dick Springer, LTJG, U.S. Navy
Gary Thompson, SSG, U.S. Army
Robert Thornhill, EN2 (SS),U.S. Navy
Marshall Wilde, Lt. Colonel, Oregon Air National Guard
Jon Zall, Colonel, U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Incidently, both General McPeak (who is Obama's national co-chair) and Colonel Zall advised Howard Dean's 2004 campaign.
My fellow Dean Meet-Up veterans may recall having heard Colonel Zall give a stirring speech at a Portland regional Meet-Up in early 2004. Those who did know that there is no more passionate advocate for veterans or stronger critic of the Bush/Cheney NeoCon cabel than Colonel Zall.
Colonel Zall, like me, comes from a Republican background and was convinced by the objective facts to become a staunch progressive, which even a casual reading of his blog (Voice of a Veteran) clearly reveals. Deaniacs wanting to revel in nostalgia might enjoy perusing the archives in his old Veterans for Dean blog too.
Posted by: LT | Mar 29, 2008 10:40:02 PM
Suppose for just a moment that one of the questions asked in the Friday Portland City Club debate (or any other scheduled debate) is based on the issues in the article currently on top of the Washington Post website. Would the candidates (either/both) be able to come up with an intelligent responsive answer? Or doesn't that matter because all that matters is what is being discussed here?
Here's the link and the opening to that article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902060.html?hpid=topnews
Long Fight Ahead for Treasury Blueprint
Consumer Groups, Agencies Criticize Regulatory Overhaul
By David Cho, Neil Irwin and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 30, 2008; Page A01
Lawmakers and regulators said yesterday that an ambitious plan by the Treasury Department to revamp the nation's decades-old financial regulatory structure could require congressional action stretching over several years and would not help the economy out of its current credit crisis.
Battle lines are already forming over Treasury's major proposals even though top officials have just begun to digest the 200-page regulatory blueprint, which was released to them late Friday night.
Posted by: troyb | Mar 30, 2008 1:57:06 AM
I'd feel pretty good about BlueOregon if somehow we could get Kari Chisholm to stop posting. I'm sick of this old style politics. Hopefully better options will pop up.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 30, 2008 1:58:14 AM
I fully expect that either of them would have a good response to such a question, but that Steve's would have a little more detail.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Mar 30, 2008 7:12:17 AM
I do not expect Merkley and Novick to agree on this important question, and I expect the debate will define their differences.
Posted by: Masterpiece | Mar 30, 2008 9:16:02 AM
Perhaps Masterpiece is only imagining the race is as ugly as he or she believes...given the misstatements about what Steve and his campaign manager have said.
No Torridjoe, I imagine nothing. Honestly, you'd have better success getting people to see your side if you didn't post comments that appear to be talking down to people. Maybe I'm not as smart as you are. Maybe I don't have as much money. Maybe I don't read as much or get to gladhand candidates. But I'm an informed voter. I would appreciate it if you stop talking down to me.
For instance, it now seems like the predilection of Merkley backers to moan about Steve calling Merkley "intellectually bankrupt" and calling it a personal attack--personal like the series of non-substantive attacks Merkley and his surrogates have pretty much built their competitive strategy on.
Yes, yes, I see that you and the other Novick supporters are all bent out of shape for perceived injustices. I read the comments from Rev. Currie and saw exactly what his were. Nonexistent. I've read your blog Torridjoe. You lost the moral high ground on this months ago for me.
Yet, that's not what Steve said. What he ACTUALLY referred to was "intellectual bankruptcy of both Gordon Smith's and Jeff Merkley's approach to federal finances."
That reads to me that Novick is equating Merkley to Smith and calling them both "intellectually bankrupt". I'm not an idiot so stop treating me like one.
In other words, Jeff's position lacks smarts and understanding of the problem. A strong attack, but an entirely fair one if Merkley really believes we'll suddenly stop raiding Social Security to pay for tax cuts and the war. And it says nothing about Merkley personally, only his misguided view of finance.
Its not a fair attack to any objective observer. When Novick disagrees with Merkley, why not just state the nature of the disagreement? Why go out of his way to attack Merkley personally? Don't pee on me and then tell me its raining, Torridjoe. Its an insult to both of us.
This is similarly distorted:
"And push polls? Since Jake Weigler admitted that Steve was doing very similar polling as Merkley,"
And so you make my point. Both campaigns are testing negative messages. For anyone (Rev Currie, for example) to come here and blast Merkley for doing exactly what Novick is doing: message testing, is absurd.
First, no one is doing any push polls, either Merkley OR Novick. These are real polls with negative tests in them. But Wiegler admitted no such thing; he said they were using the same technique--but were concentrating on substantive differences between the candidates, whereas clearly Merkley is looking to the GOP for such creative attacks as "tax and spend Democrat" and "Communist."
Given both Weigler and Novick's propensity for personally attacking Merkley, I find that part of their statement less-than believable. They've yet to actually attack Merkley on substantive policy differences because they can't. There really aren't any. Before you start wasting bandwidth to rebut me, don't bother. I've seen the ss argument, the income tax argument and the dubious gay marriage argument. They lack substance and have left a bad taste in my mouth.
At least be accurate in your attacks, please.
One more time, if you want to bring people to your way of thinking, talking down to them and treating them badly won't do it. I don't like bullies. Most people don't respond well to that kind of treatment.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 30, 2008 9:53:05 AM
Wow... I just noticed over at Senate Guru that another prominent veteran and progressive is in Merkley's corner: former Senator Max Cleland. Here's what he has to say on his ActBlue page for Merkley:
I’ve spent my entire lifetime fighting for this country. As an officer in the Vietnam War, I sacrificed just as our men and women in the Armed Forces do every day. When I returned from Vietnam in the late 1960s our nation was torn apart and I was compelled to act. I dedicated my life to public service – working in the U.S. Senate to advocate for my fellow veterans, to fight for affordable health care, and to create good jobs for families. Six years ago George Bush, Dick Cheney and the national Republican Party teamed up with special interests to lie about my record and distort my lifetime of service. This is the Karl Rove playbook. When Democrats stand up to deliver change, Republicans and special interests spread falsehoods and lies to defeat them. I am disappointed to see the same thing happening in Oregon. Jeff Merkley is the right man for the U.S. Senate. He has dedicated his life to serving his country and fighting for hardworking families just like his own family. He opposed the Iraq War from the very start and will bring our sons and daughters home immediately. Now Gordon Smith and the national Republican Party are attacking Jeff’s character and misleading voters about his plans to change Washington D.C. for the better. Republicans like Gordon Smith will stop at nothing to win. We must help Jeff defeat the Republican attack machine once and for all. Sincerely, Senator Max Cleland
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 30, 2008 9:53:58 AM
I don't like bullies.
But apparently dissemination is OK, 'cause you do a lot of it there no-name fella.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 30, 2008 9:55:58 AM
Excuse me, that world should be dissembling
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 30, 2008 3:28:16 PM
He opposed the Iraq War from the very start...
How does Max Cleland know that? Has Cleland been provided information that Jeff Merkley hasn't provided the voters of Oregon?
Was the opposition public? If so, has anyone else seen where Merkley was first on record expressing opposition to the war (as opposed to ambivalence)?
Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 30, 2008 5:19:33 PM
Boy, Mr. Chisholm is sure going to the mat for his client. Every visit to Blue Oregon these days (frequently far less than previously) sees yet another pro-Merkley piece from Mr. Chisholm.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 30, 2008 5:57:36 PM
I'd also like to point out that despite his service in Vietnam and his apparent interest in military affairs, as a Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland was one of the 29 Democrats who voted to give authority to George W. Bush to use force in Iraq.
So excuse me if I take his endorsement as to Jeff Merkley's bona fides on the Iraq war with a spoonful of salt. I'm sure Cleland's a nice guy, but he made a monumental error of judgment on one of the biggest foreign policy and military issues of the day, and for him to be used as a touchstone for some sort of "right from the start" credibility is simply bizarre.
From Thomas Ricks's Fiasco:
Despite his misgivings, Cleland felt under intense political pressure to go with the administration. "It was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them a victory," he said in 2005. Even so, he now considers his prowar choice "the worst vote I cast."Waiting to vote, Cleland looked over and saw Byrd, who had been in the Senate for forty-four years. "I knew he had been through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I knew he wanted me to show some political courage."
Clelands's name was called. "Aye," he said. He glanced again at Byrd, who, he recalled, "got up and walked away."
He also lost his seat, even though he voted for the war.
This is an ironic endorsement to be touting on this particular topic, given concerns from some quarters that Merkley would be more susceptible to voting for something incredibly stupid because of political pressure.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 30, 2008 6:42:12 PM
You figured it out, Darrel. It's all just a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep Mr. Novick down. Max Cleland, the Sierra Club, Governor Roberts, the SEIU/AFSCME/AFL-CIO/AFT/ANA/ONA/IBEW/OSAEW, Citizens for Global Solutions, General McPeak, Oregon veterans, every Democrat in the state House, scores of other elected Democrats, the Council for a Livable World, Kari Chisolm, Rob Brading, Ben Cannon, etc., etc., etc.
They all know that Merkley is a scumbag who might vote for something incredibly stupid because of political pressure. Undoubtedly they all know that he is intellectually bankrupt too. Governor Kulongoski must surely have diabolically twisted their arms to get them to back Jeff Merkley. What a bunch of sell-outs!!
Yep. It has to be a conspiracy! And you've uncovered the whole dastardly plot. And to think that many of us actually believed that any one of them were free agents willing and capable of making their own choices for their own reasons!!
How ever did you manage to uncover it?
Regardless of how you managed it, we sure are in your debt for withstanding the concerted onslaught while we lazily abdicated all critical thinking responsibilities to... well, I guess it's all Kulongoski's fault? That seems to be your pal's scapegoat d'jour. Personally, I'm a little hazy on exactly whom to blame for it all. But you've convinced me that Merkley couldn't possibly be smart enough to have pulled this off on his own - let us never ever forget that he's "susceptible to voting for something incredibly stupid" at any moment.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 30, 2008 7:04:24 PM
"One more time, if you want to bring people to your way of thinking, talking down to them and treating them badly won't do it. I don't like bullies. Most people don't respond well to that kind of treatment."
I have no idea of your education or your socioeconomic status, so where you're going with that I don't know. What I do have before me is your view of the facts in the race, and they're simply inaccurate. You attempt to rebut them essentially by saying "nuh uh," which doesn't really convince. If you want to equate having an intellectually bankrupt position on a very specific issue to being a generally intellectually bankrupt person, then no wonder you think I'm talking down to you, since your position here is without intellectual merit and I pointed that out.
To SS, gay marriage and the workingman's penalty (to which you similarly give no actual rebuttal except to deny reality that even Merkley has acknowledged), add NCLB, guns in national parks. And why is a guy who worked for Habitat stuck with his pants down when it comes to an anti-poverty plan? Months after he was asked, we're still waiting for one.
PS--I think Kevin would like us to acknowledge in some way that veterans seem to like Jeff Merkley. He's getting antsy.
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: Robert G. Gourley | Mar 29, 2008 12:29:28 PM
So why did Jeff decide to not run for re-election? Seems like that would have been a good choice according to the above. Jeff's even said he was looking forward to serving with a strong Democratic majority.