The damage caused by Novick's anti-Obama rants
I'll give Steve Novick some credit. The guy sticks to his guns.
Even when it looks like the better part of valor might be to apologize for some rash comments about Barack Obama, he stands by his comments.
According to Politicker, his campaign manager defended the comments thusly: "He consistently offers an honest assessment of people and issues..." and "These are comments he made in past and he stands behind them..."
Here's a recap of the comments:
On December 6, 2006:
"Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?"
And a few weeks later:
"That is the mark of a complete sellout to the military-industrial complex. And of a politician sorely lacking in fiscal responsibility. ... [Obama] shows a stunning degree of fealty to the military-industrial complex, and/or unjustifiable political timidity.
Of course, this is all a bit awkward for me - since these comments were made right here at BlueOregon, where Steve was a contributor until he ran for office. And I was a participant in some of those discussions - often praising Steve for his broader themes (supporting both Al Gore and John Edwards for President.)
But the specific comments he made about Senator Obama are bound to come back and hurt him. If Steve wins out and becomes our nominee, will Oregon get the national support we need from the Obama for President campaign that we need to win the Senate race?
Especially if Oregon shifts from swing-state to blue-state late in the election (as it has with quadrennial regularity), will the presidential campaign shift its resources to another state - leaving Novick to fend for himself?
To defeat Gordon Smith, we need every Democrat in Oregon on board -- and we need national Democrats, especially the presidential campaign, to be 100% committed to helping us win, even if (especially if) Oregon moves off the big board.
As AFSCME's Joe Baessler told Politicker:
"It is this kind of disregard for consequences of what he is saying that makes it harder and harder for us to even be friendly anymore," Baessler lamented. "It’s hurtful when things like this get thrown around."
I just don't know how we can win the Senate race without the support of our presidential nominee. And unless Novick is prepared to eat a little humble pie, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
(There's more coverage from Jeff Mapes, Preemptive Karma, Senate Guru, and Willamette Week.)
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak here only for myself.]
|
March 20, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (155 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 20, 2008 11:23:47 PM
Pete, did you read the whole thing in context? I ask because it's almost impossible for me to believe that you would have this reaction if you had.
Posted by: LT | Mar 20, 2008 11:24:40 PM
Kari, I am sure people will jump on you for this.
But I have to agree with Joe.
"It is this kind of disregard for consequences of what he is saying that makes it harder and harder for us to even be friendly anymore," Baessler lamented. "It’s hurtful when things like this get thrown around."
It is legendary going back more than 20 years that some primaries cause friendships to fray--some can be reknit afterwards, some never are.
A legislative primary back a couple decades ago involved 2 people running against each other who were friends before the primary, during the primary, and even after the primary when one of them won (in a 3 candidate field).
They were admired for maintaining that friendship, even if some of their supporters went after "the other side" in ways worse than anything seen here.
Bottom Line:
I had known Steve since long before Blue Oregon existed. Bright guy, not my favorite person in the world, but then I was never fond of the acrebic types. A college friend once said of a very sarcastic professor "he's such a sarcat, everyone else is a sarkitten in comparison".
We need such wit in the primary this year!
Steve Duin wrote a column with a headline saying humor is more useful to Novick than anger. Does that make Duin a "Merkleyite" because all good people think Steve is infallible? Can you not recognize constructive, more in sorrow than in anger advice?
For those of you who think the candidate of beer, clever ads, and supporters who are passionate to the point of verbal attacks on anyone who doesn't see things their way, a word of advice. There are tons of interesting campaigns this year. If Novick or anyone else inspires you, knock yourself out campaigning for that candidate!
But as JFK said there is a free marketplace of ideas. Also of how to use spare time. And if someone thinks their local legislative race or any other campaign is worth more time than the US Senate primary, that is what they will choose to involve themselves with and pay attention to.
(And yes, the grammarians will go after me for that last sentence. But as one of my high school English teachers said, saying one can never end a sentence with a preposition "Is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put!")
Posted by: George | Mar 20, 2008 11:25:50 PM
There is such a thing as freedom of speech and a right to an opinion. But if Oregon is worried about repercutions, then what does that say about Obama??? I admire Novick for being candid about his opinions and sticking to his guns, refreshing in a politician.
Incidentally, I must have been missing something...when did Obama become president??
Posted by: Paul B. | Mar 20, 2008 11:26:26 PM
No. I think Steve is right. And what's wrong with "calling it like it is?" Besides, it's funny. It's only "spiteful" because you're supporting Merkley. I mean, c'mon.
Bottom line here: I'm supporting Clinton for the nomination. If Obama is our guy, than I'll be over in his camp, lickity-split.
I will FULLY expect from Sen. Obama that he will be supportive of Steve in the general.
If this is the best you can do with Steve, pulling out old blog statements that frankly are TRUE then Merkley is in more trouble than I thought.
Posted by: LT | Mar 20, 2008 11:35:12 PM
Stephanie, is this the context you mean?
"And, according to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?"
Because that is the only mention of Obama I saw (did not read word for word, just skimmed) in that long post. And if that is the context you meant, I think Joe's comments stand.
I have known Steve long enough to imagine how his voice would sound if he was saying those words. It would be a sarcastic tone of voice. Those words in print or spoken would not impress the people I know who are active Democrats but do not live in the Portland area.
The national convention I attended, the US Senate nominee was a member of the delegation. Just like Steve, this nominee was known for strong views, sometimes snide remarks, and being very sure there was only one legitimate point of view.
Also for not going around to each delegate while at the convention, shaking hands, asking for votes. That would have taken maybe 30 seconds per delegate, and by not doing so there was conversation about the nominee being clueless, lacking people skills.
No one then said all good Democrats owed the Senate nominee our unquestioning obedience and putting all other campaigns secondary to US Senate.
Now, if I worry that a nominee Novick might be very similar, and might not make a positive impression on Obama delegates at the national convention, do I have a right to that concern?
Or does even hinting that Steve is not perfect, not a better US Senate candidate than Ron Wyden or anyone else in my lifetime, does that make me a "Merkleyite"?
Or just someone with 30 years experience in politics who has some serious worries about this year's Senate primary?
Posted by: LT | Mar 20, 2008 11:43:16 PM
Paul, there is nothing wrong with "telling it like it is" if that means "Vote for Steve Novick because he told off Obama for being a midwesterner supporting the sugar industry".
But will that really gain the votes in the primary from the folks who stood in line to get Obama tickets?
There is a right way and a wrong way to say things--sometimes described as "a scalpel is more effective than a chainsaw".
Many of us grew up with grandmothers or others warning "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
Barry Goldwater famously said "You catch more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head---he "told it like it was" but as he got older learned the value of diplomatic language. You would know someone was being told off, but the barbs had some wit in them--just like Wm. F. Buckley.
Now, if you are proud of a candidate who believes a chainsaw is more effective than a scalpel, that vinegar and hitting people over the head are more useful than diplomatic language, then by all means vote for Steve.
Just don't expect those who admire diplomatic language and like the saying "Any large farm animal can knock down a shed, but it takes a carpenter to build a shed" to vote for Steve.
As long as this is a free country, the individual has the right to make the decisions
Who to associate with
What is admirable
What is offensive.
Posted by: Pete F | Mar 20, 2008 11:53:02 PM
Stephanie, yes...I did. I don't see how the fuller context makes the first one any more defensible -- if anything, the opposite. Things that Kari did not highlight: first, it was not a mere "comment," it was a blog post, which means he had plenty of time to think over what he said and how he said it. Second, it was a question he was suggesting that other people ask of Earl. It would seem to me that the sharpness of the point is something that's really up to the questioner; suggesting the most confrontational and insulting possible formulation strikes me as gratuitous.
Look, I like Steve's politics, I've talked with him a bit, and from what I've seen he has excellent judgment and people-skills. I'm not writing him off based on this one statement, but a failure to acknowledge that it was ill-considered baffles me.
I could say similar things about Merkley: I've heard him speak to several groups, and chatted with him a bit. I am very impressed with his command of Oregon issues, and his ability to speak persuasively to different types of audiences. But what I can discern of his campaign strategy lately makes me wonder.
I'm convinced that either one of them has what it takes to be an excellent Senator, but I'm still waiting for them to demonstrate convincingly that's the direction they want to go.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Mar 21, 2008 12:17:11 AM
And unless Novick is prepared to eat a little humble pie, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Well, the other option is quite obvious, Kari.
If Novick refuses humility, we Democrats still have the option of voting for Jeff Merkley. Heck, many (if not most) of us were planning to do that anyway.
What's more, by voting for Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate, we can be sure that Oregon won't face any retributive action from the Obama for President campaign. Why? Because Jeff Merkley has whole-heartedly endorsed Obama.
Novick, in addition to his extreme statements that doubt Obama's judgment and leadership capacity, has only tepidly endorsed Obama (in a back-handed complimentary way).
Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 21, 2008 12:25:46 AM
Kari, as usual, is going to the mat for his clients! Good on you Kari... nice to see blind capitalism at work!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 12:28:12 AM
I should note here that George makes a good point: I'm assuming that Barack Obama will be the nominee. If he's not, then I'd assume that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. But Steve has problems there too -- calling her a "coward" and a "traitress" (which is presumably a weird Steve-ism for a female traitor.)
And yes, Obama appears to be a forgiving sort and while I'm certain he'll support whoever our nominee is... that's a far cry from committing substantial financial and human resources to a state.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 21, 2008 12:32:45 AM
Not sure where Chisholm lives, but he might not be venturing out into true Blue Oregon (east side)... over here, there's like 10 to 1 in terms of Novick - Merkley signage.
Posted by: Miles | Mar 21, 2008 12:35:04 AM
So Steve Novick used harsh language to elucidate a truth about Obama. He then followed this up 15 months later with an unusually honest endorsement of Obama, one where he clearly explained his hesitations about the man that he earlier criticized. And this is supposed to make me vote against him? On the contrary, this is a powerful example of exactly what I like about Steve Novick.
Kari, your criticism of Novick is based on your belief that Obama is a spiteful, vengeful man who would take the 2006 blog postings of a Senate candidate so personally that he would sacrifice the Democratic party's ability to take a seat from the Republicans. In fact, the entire premise of your post is based on a strong critique of Obama's character and his inability to think strategically. It's the necessary corollary to your entire argument, so you've parked yourself clearly in the "critical of Obama" camp.
The Democratic party needs critics. In case you haven't noticed, we're not winning voters based on the strength of our ideas, we're winning them based on the corruption, incompetence, and mendacity of the GOP. I wish there were dozens more Democrats like Steve Novick who are willing to turn the spotlight inward in order to exact change. As Thoreau might have said, "The party unexamined is not worth joining."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 12:35:57 AM
Give it a rest, Peter. We've made a decision here at BlueOregon that it's interesting and useful for insiders to comment here. Your inane badgering isn't going to change that.
Frankly, the presence of people like Charlie Burr, Leslie Carlson, Jon Isaacs, Les AuCoin, Randy Leonard, Karol Collymore, Lew Frederick, Chuck Sheketoff, Jonathan Poisner, and others make this a much more interesting place. Even when they're talking about their work.
I suggest you read Jeff Alworth's excellent post - Toward Ethical Blogging. Here's a key excerpt:
When we have an affiliation, we say so. This is an important point for a site where many of the writers are actively involved in politics. For example, Kari Chisholm is a strategic consultant and designs web strategies for many of Oregon's liberal politicians and causes. When he's writing a post or comment that involves one of his clients, he flags it.We ask other writers to be as careful when they comment, too. If this were a newspaper, we'd probably have to be far more careful about restricting speech from some of these folks--they're obviously far from objective. But blogs provide people the opportunity to engage in conversation with the actual politicos who run campaigns and design and implement policy. This is actually one of the great boons of blogs--where else can you talk to Randy Leonard, say, about the policies he's considering on the City Council?
The bottom line remains: There's no gun to your head forcing you to either read BlueOregon, nor my posts here. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Now, can we put the meta to rest a bit?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 12:37:42 AM
Miles, looks like we were typing simultaneously. I'll refer you to the answer I gave at 12:28.
Posted by: colin maloney | Mar 21, 2008 12:38:23 AM
This is almost a perfect example of a "non-issue."
Novick was criticizing a Democratic (GASP!) Senator who held a position he disagreed with. That Senator currently happens to be the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President.
Since then Novick as become a candidate for elected office and his prior statements have come under the magnifying glass. Fair enough. THANK GOODNESS that someone in the race has the gravitas to standby a DISAGREEMENT that they had with someone they (overall) decided to endorse as the better of the two current candidates.
2008 is not 2006. Between Clinton and Obama, Steve prefers Obama as the Democratic nominee. That's clear. Does he think that Obama is a perfect human being or candidate? Clearly not. I'm proud to back someone who is willing to look at a candidate's flaws, criticize them publicly, and still say they think that they're the better candidate (as opposed to the Second Coming).
Any disagreements on policy would have factored in to an endorsement for a person like Steve Novick. He made the criticisms, and he made his endorsement. Period.
As to "fallout," I'm sure that whoever the Presidential nominee happens to be, probably Obama, realizes that having a "friendly" Senate will be helpful in pursuing their agenda. As it stands, I still think, strongly, that Novick has a much better chance at beating Smith than Merkley does.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Mar 21, 2008 12:49:53 AM
I guess this whole exchange matters very little to me. What damage has been done? I don't hear Obama or Clinton talking about the Oregon Senate Race. They're too focused on their own race.
When I started reading this post, I started thinking about the Morse-Kennedy tepid relationship. At the end of the day it is critical that Obama (assuming he is the nominee)helps get as many democrats elected to congress as possible. He'll need them to pass his agenda in congress. If Steve is the nominee, then I believe Obama will support him.
Morse and Kennedy needed each other much more than they might have disliked each other or felt uncomfortable around each other. I assume there are plenty of candidates who would be in this position if either Clinton or Obama are the nominee.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 1:01:23 AM
My apologies. It turns out that "traitress" is a real word. Go figure.
Posted by: Miles | Mar 21, 2008 1:03:58 AM
Miles, looks like we were typing simultaneously. I'll refer you to the answer I gave at 12:28.
To wit: And yes, Obama appears to be a forgiving sort and while I'm certain he'll support whoever our nominee is... that's a far cry from committing substantial financial and human resources to a state.
Yes, we were typing simultaneously, but your 12:28 post reaffirms my point. You're suggesting that Obama will let his ego get in the way of sound political strategy, that he'll refuse to commit substantial resources based on a 2006 blog post. If you believe that, it's a devastating critique of our party's soon-to-be nominee, arguably on par with Novick's original post.
Although I disagree with you about Obama's character, I respect you for standing by your harsh criticism. What other character flaws do you think Obama has?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 1:12:35 AM
Cute. I'm saying no such thing. Rather, I'm arguing that campaigns have limited resources -- and they're more likely to spend them to support candidates that are supportive in kind. If you're the Obama campaign, would you be more likely to spend $5 million in field resources in a state, say Oregon, where the candidate has called you a "special interest fraud" and a "sellout" -- or in a state, say Colorado, where the candidate is behind you 100%?
I'm not, btw, arguing that dissent isn't OK. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't hold our leaders' feet to the fire. I'm arguing, though, that those disagreements should be kept on policy -- not namecalling like "fraud" and "sellout" and "coward" and and "traitress."
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2008 1:23:26 AM
Two things jump out at me here:
1) Has Jeff Merkley EVER made an argument against Steve Novick on policy? He does disagree, but does he ever discuss his superiority over Novick to voters in terms of how he would handle matters, specifically? He put out a press release attacking Novick for (I guess) excessive language or not being enough of a team guy. To borrow (gasp!) from LT, does this attack address anyone's health care needs or education situation or job retraining or stop lossed brother, et al ad infinitum? No. It's same old politics. If you feel it slipping away from you, all you have left is to start trying to bring down your opponent personally so you can eke out ahead in a damaged landscape.
2) If Jeff Merkley's argument is that all Democrats--particularly the ones we're most hyped about at the moment--should be publicly beyond reproach, how does he back up claims to be a fighter or someone who "won't back down" as they've claimed? The problem there is that Novick is expressing what a great many Democrats, especially, are thinking. Did you not hear the commercial? We're not satisfied with the way Democrats have handled themselves in Congress against Republicans and the President. We're fighting tooth and nail just to keep things like the 1st and 4th amendments in the Constitution,whether torture should be legal, if we need to adhere to treaties or things like Congressional subpoenas, and whether our end game in Iraq is 5 years or 100. There's something wrong in the systems of power, that has removed a true check and balance...on a minority, and a hated one at that. Shrinking from facing that head on, "even if it ruffles some feathers" as the Merkley campaign has said in the past, would be a dereliction IMO.
I don't think a majority of Oregon Democrats will weep tears of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. I think some number of Obama supporters will take offense at any denigration (as they are wont to do, just ask any Hillary supporter), but not for nothing are there groups dedicated to open-eyed followers of Obama. Cult preventists, if you will. So Steve's criticisms--policy-based, as usual--are both valid and called for. War supplication is a fair tar of Hillary Clinton, and protectionist captive of a local industry is a good way to describe how Obama has voted on crops important to Illinois and the breadbasket. Voters say they want leaders who don't offer themselves up to fear or nativism or the highest bidder or the expedient way out, and yet we can't be critical of those things when we see it?
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2008 1:28:50 AM
Cute. I'm saying no such thing. Rather, I'm arguing that campaigns have limited resources -- and they're more likely to spend them to support candidates that are supportive in kind. If you're the Obama campaign, would you be more likely to spend $5 million in field resources in a state, say Oregon, where the candidate has called you a "special interest fraud" and a "sellout" -- or in a state, say Colorado, where the candidate is behind you 100%?
Is your argument that Steve shouldn't have said that in 2006, because it might hurt Oregon's chances 2 years into the future? Is this like reproaching Steve for backing Nader in 1996 because of what he was going to do 4 years later?
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2008 1:31:42 AM
By the way, you're speculating about the damage it MIGHT cause, which is fine. But why is the headline in the past tense, as in the damage ALREADY caused by Novick? Sort of a presumptive premise.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 1:37:47 AM
And that about sums it up.
Jeff Merkley's political career has been about bringing Democrats together to get things done. The pundits didn't think he could hold together an ideologically diverse 31-seat majority to achieve anything at all, much less the most progressive legislative session in a generation.
Steve Novick's political career has been about being a witty and biting political commentator, willing to slam Democrats for not hewing to his view of the Truth.
I've certainly cheered Novick from time to time as he's issued his sharp critiques and witty ripostes. He's often amusing, usually insightful, and always edgy. Personally, I'd love to see him take Lewis Black's slot on The Daily Show.
But that's a far cry from the skill set that's needed on the floor of the US Senate to actually get things done.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2008 1:39:12 AM
Is your argument that Steve shouldn't have said that in 2006, because it might hurt Oregon's chances 2 years into the future?
No, it's about what he does today. Read the post: Even when it looks like the better part of valor might be to apologize for some rash comments about Barack Obama, he stands by his comments.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2008 2:30:36 AM
He described the context as tongue in cheek, self-effacing directly of his own heritage moments later, and also took pains to note the growth and maturity of the Obama campaign, as well as his endorsement of the man to be the leader of the free world. If you're suggesting that he apologize for criticizing his sugar policy, or that he pretend he didn't really mean to say Obama was a captive of the aggro lobby on sugar, I doubt that would be either warranted or something Obama himself might respect (not that I could speak for him).
Hey, here's an actually relevant question for a change, rather than idle speculation about what Barack Obama might do to us if we criticize him: what's Jeff Merkley's position on sugar tarrifs? Steve Novick says: insane. Not hard to parse that, is it?
Go Kari Go! Go Jeff Go! This strategy will work, I double promise! ;)
Posted by: Katy | Mar 21, 2008 5:47:36 AM
Kind of interesting that everyone seems to be overlooking the whole what Novick said about Obama is RIGHT thing.
Posted by: Rose Wilde | Mar 21, 2008 6:19:57 AM
Of course you can do and say what you want on your own blog, but this kind of post confuses me about the mission of BO.
Because the premise of this entire post is that one should withdraw one's support of Novick because his two year old Obama criticism might result in tepid support for Novick.
1) Obama has made forgiveness a campaign issue
2) are you saying Obama's that stupid? Have you looked at the US Senate composition lately? He needs every D he can get (regardless of ruffled feathers)
3) Is it REALLY all that controversial to call anyone involved with a campaign as HUGE as the Presidential race (in terms of money raised and spent) a sell out? It's practically required for national office these days!
Well, I've never been in a campaign situation like this -- can you give me some examples of similar situations where the criticizing candidate then lost the election?
Otherwise, I think this post is specious. While I understand the pro-Merkley perspective from this particular author, I also have come to expect astute political insight at BO, and for the insight to take precedence in the original posts. Ethical, sound journalism, even of the "blog" nature, is a far greater contribution to democratic society than electing any single candidate. These fear tactics are discouraging and disappointing.
Posted by: FocusOnTheIssue | Mar 21, 2008 7:02:13 AM
The issue is Gordon Smith and control of the Senate, and the importance of Oregon in the general election, not petty complaints about strong words.
Sorry Kari, but I think this post is an insult to Obama - just as he has clearly said he will support Hillary if she gets the nod, and vice versa, it is insulting to suggest that Obama would withhold effort based on Steve's comment, that the tough words somehow poisoned the eventual support of whomever wins the primary. He will be in Oregon if Oregon matters in his election and if he thinks the Democrat - Merkley or Novick - can beat Gordon Smith.
Gordon Smith is the problem, and Obama (and Clinton) knows that. We need to show Obama that Oregon Ds are united behind anyone to beat Smith. Kari, your post sadly suggests otherwise.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 21, 2008 8:13:03 AM
Posted by: colin maloney | Mar 21, 2008 12:38:23 AM
Novick was criticizing a Democratic (GASP!) Senator who held a position he disagreed with.
Disagreeing with a Democrat is one thing. Using that disagreement to launch gratuitous attacks is another, very different thing.
Take the recent hubub over LNG here in Oregon. Merkley clearly disagreed with Kulongoski and some of his major union backers, and he did so publically. But he did so without stupidly throwing in any gratuitious cheap shots like Novick did against Obama. That is the kind of level-headed reasoning that I believe most Oregonians want in a Senator.
Posted by: LOL | Mar 21, 2008 8:13:23 AM
Kari sure learned a thing or two from the Swift-Boaters. Katy had an accurate comment "Kind of interesting that everyone seems to be overlooking the whole what Novick said about Obama is RIGHT thing."
I'd just add that what is equally interesting is how whiny and ugly Merkley and Clinton supporters have become as the failings of their chosen candidates have been exposed. And how many of us who don't think Novick or Obama aren't that great don't mind saying so, or hearing them say that about each other, but for now will still vote for them because Merkley and Clinton are much more corporate-friendly choices who are just a further step in the wrong direction for this country and the Democratic party.
If Merkley and Clinton supporters actually cared about unity first they would urge their candidates to step down. The only numbers that favor their candidates trace to voters views that would keep our country headed in the wrong direction, abetted by the failed wing of the Democratic Party they proudly represent.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 21, 2008 8:14:31 AM
If you or anyone else in the Merkley camp were actually worried about how this will affect Oregon in the general election, you wouldn't be raising this as an issue now.
This is a fairly transparent hit by the Merkley folks, and is the antithesis of the "new brand of politics" that Obama is preaching on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 21, 2008 8:18:24 AM
But bashing democrats is OK if its Jeff Merkley and his surrogates doing it to Steve Novick.
Kari, you're a raving hypocrite with no sense of shame.
Do you establishment schmoes ever wonder why people are so turned off by party politics?
You're horrible.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 21, 2008 8:24:50 AM
Merkley's new slogan
Jeff Merkley
Change? Bwa ha ha ha ha ...sucker
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 21, 2008 8:43:59 AM
and is the antithesis of the "new brand of politics" that Obama is preaching on the campaign trail.
Neat trick, Sal. Projecting Novick's foot-in-mouth disease onto Merkley doesn't change the fact that Novick takes cheap shots at Democrats while Merkley doesn't. As such there is no doubt which of the two better captures the "new brand of politics" Obama is preaching on the campaign trail - it's Jeff Merkley.
Some talk the talk (Novick) and some walk the walk (Merkley).
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 21, 2008 8:54:49 AM
"Novick takes cheap shots at Democrats while Merkley doesn't."
So Kevin, when Merkley lies to voters about Novick, as reported by Steve Duin and Harry Esteve, isn't he taking a cheap shot at a fellow Democrat.
Moreover, Novick actually believed what he was saying, while Merkley was a repeating a lie written for him by his D.C. consultants.
Newsflash: You are the most shameless of the shamelss, Kevin.
Posted by: trishka | Mar 21, 2008 9:01:55 AM
kari, seriously. i met you once, you seem like an awfully nice guy, i believe in your passion and your convictions.
but this is embarrassing.
c'mon. please?
no matter what i figure we're going to be working together starting oh, exactly 2 months from today.
and whether we're working to elect novick or merkley, given the size of the loudspeaker that you command in the oregon progressive community, please tell me you can do better than this.
cuz, yeah. just like it's been said above. this is EXACTLY the kind of politics that obama is trying to move beyond with his campaign.
i'm not just saying this because it's about my candidate, steve. i'm saying it because if this is what we go after gordon smith with, this kind of tactic, WE WILL LOSE!
we have to do better than this!
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 21, 2008 9:02:02 AM
A few things here.
1. Obama was wrong on ethanol. As a STAUNCH Obama guy, this one has always rankled. I've called him out on it, too.
2. It's possible to disagree with those we support.
3. When you do call out someone with whom you agree, you have to do it in a way that a) doesn't destroy the relationship and b) doesn't damage the candidate by giving the GOP firepower.
4. In politics, what you say matters. The comments Kari flags are troublesome, but what Steve does with them could turn them from a problem into an opportunity. He can point out that, like Obama, he is opposed to special interests and therefore hold Barack to a higher standard, and apologize for overheated language. Or, he can let it say nothing and stick with the Obama's "another captive-of-special-interests fraud" who "hows a stunning degree of fealty to the military-industrial complex, and/or unjustifiable political timidity." Those are his words to stand by or clarify.
5. Defenders of Steve love the fact that he's a livewire who speaks truth to power. Fair enough, but that means that he's going to have to spend some time discussing his truth-speech. If you run on a platform of flinty-eyed, unbought truth-teller, you can't very well revert to the politics of parsing and waffling and trying to have it both ways.
6. For Novick-backers on this thread, resorting to the "yeah, but Merkley sucks, too" defense ain't gonna erase Novick's words and does little to bolster the straight-talking meme they try to spread about their man.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 21, 2008 9:13:30 AM
let me rephrase your posts title more accurately:
"The damage [i am hoping will be] caused by [joining all the merkley blog surrogates together to trying amplify the non-issue that is] Novick's [criticism of obama's opportunistic positions into being seen as] anti-Obama rants".
did i about get it right? i believe the correct term for this sort of post is "concern trolling".
as an obama supporter i am not afraid to admit he really did disappoint early on in his senate career by just bending over for some ingrained interests (most notably sugar, and coal). though, i think it's worth mentioning that the sugar lobby owns most of congress, and that while sugar ethanol is much more efficient that corn, too much tropical deforestation is occurring in the name of new sugar cane plantations for the growing ethanol market.
Posted by: petrichor | Mar 21, 2008 9:15:31 AM
sorry for the italics, didn't preview because my connections crawling...
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 21, 2008 9:17:41 AM
So Kevin, when Merkley lies to voters about Novick
Your poor grasp of the English language doesn't constitute a lie by Merkley. He told the truth and you badly botched what any highschool kid could have accurately diagramed in English class. It really is that simple. Which, incidently, is why nobody has bothered to even respond to your attempts to get your distortion to stick on the wall. All you've accomplished is to underscore your poor grasp of your native tongue.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 21, 2008 9:23:18 AM
kevin, perhaps you should tell Steve Duin and Harry esteve that. Y
Shameless, kevin.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 21, 2008 9:25:33 AM
By the way kevin, (aka karmaman, Oregon progressive and all the other pseudonyms you use) it's become quite clear that you wouldn't recognize the truth if it was sideways up your *ss.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 21, 2008 9:28:52 AM
I almost forgot. The hosts of KPOJ's morning, show where Merkley first told the lie, also seemed to think it wasn't honest because they gave Kari a chance to clear things up for his client. Of course, he (breathlessly)declined.
Posted by: trishka | Mar 21, 2008 9:32:04 AM
see, jeff, your post is reasonable, especially point 5, and that i have no problem with.
it's the lead blog post which is all OH NOES!!!!1!!1 OBAMA HAS ABANDONED OREGON IN ADVANCE & IT'S ALL NOVICK'S FAULT!!!
which is just plain silly.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 21, 2008 9:38:47 AM
3. When you do call out someone with whom you agree, you have to do it in a way that a) doesn't destroy the relationship and b) doesn't damage the candidate by giving the GOP firepower.
What evidence do you have that Novick's comments "destroyed the relationship"? And are you seriously claiming that the GOP -- which is all up in the ethanol lobby -- is somehow going to criticize Obama for supporting ethanol?
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 21, 2008 9:44:20 AM
I just want to ask one thing.
Has anyone writing here, or reading this - the original post or any of the responses - had their mind changed?
Yeah. Thought so. This really has become a poo-flinging contest with no point other than allowing the same old crowd to attack each other over inanities.
So let me say a few blunt words about inconvenient political truths people don't want to hear:
#1 Barak Obama would never allow a set of old commentary critical of him to trump a neutral (and, of necessity, brutally realistic) political assessment of where to spend resources to maximize votes in the Senate.
#2 Clearly that assessment has already been made, a long time ago, by the DSCC - an organization of which Barak Obama is a member. And the view of those Democratic senators, each with experience in successfully winning the exact kind of campaign we need to run against Gordon Smith, could not be more clear: our best chance is with the Speaker of the Oregon House, not a Portland lawyer and activist with absolutely no record of legislative accomplishment.
#3 No, this assessment is not the result of an anti-Democratic conspiracy by Senate Democrats. It nearly certainly comes from in-depth statewide polling and basic political common sense.
#4 Although in some ways Mr. Novick and Senator Clinton are extremely different, in one way they're identical. They (and their diehard followers) refuse to see that they've already lost. Their attacks also, occasionally, step over the line.
#5 Even if, by some bizarre accident (like another rollover), Mr. Novick did become the nominee, that brutally realistic assessment of his chances would certainly push him down to the third tier of priorities in the general.
#6 Clearly, however, Steve does appeal to a vocal minority who have a Naderesque view of the Democratic party (pretending they can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans). Jeff will need everybody he can get, including these people, so when Kari posts inflammatory commentary like this, it doesn't actually do Speaker Merkley any favors.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 21, 2008 9:57:14 AM
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 21, 2008 9:58:11 AM
Ooooh, mean primary attacks by Democrats on Democrats! I hope nobody gets mad!
TO: Interested Parties FR: Obama Campaign RE: A history of misleading voters DA: March 20, 2008Senator Clinton likes to claim that she’s been vetted. But there is a salient theme emerging that has not been examined at all in this race: Senator Clinton has consistently made political calculations to deliberately mislead the American people and the voters have noticed. A new Gallup poll shows a staggering figure: far fewer Americans think Clinton is trustworthy than think she isn’t, by a margin 44-53 percent. And in the exit polling from the most recent primary, Clinton was viewed as honest and trustworthy by only 52 percent of Democratic voters.
Perhaps Kari can take the Senator to the woodshed for calling Clinton "unstrustworthy".
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 21, 2008 9:58:21 AM
Although in some ways Mr. Novick and Senator Clinton are extremely different, in one way they're identical. They (and their diehard followers) refuse to see that they've already lost.
This statement defies every publicly released poll on the race for Senate in Oregon. The only polls that have been released on the primary show Novick in the lead. The only polls on the general election show Merkley running a distant third.
So I'll ask you, Steve, what hard data could you possibly be basing your assertion on?
As for this business about stepping over the line... I see Merkley's camp and their surrogates repeatedly going negative. That's politics, I guess, but the reason they are doing it is because they know that their guy is currently losing this race.
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: Peter Forsyth | Mar 20, 2008 11:15:01 PM
Kari, since I've been kinda critical of your approach in the past, I want to tell you I think you're right on the money here. I want to be proud of Novick for holding Obama's feet to the fire and helping him become a better candidate...but the words he used do go a step beyond, and if his strategy is not to acknowledge that, I'd have to say that's pretty disappointing. It goes beyond winning, too -- I want a Senator that is able to work with the President. Obama may be a forgiving sort, but there are some bridges that are pretty tough to unburn.