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: Jack Sullivan | Mar 21, 2008 5:21:09 PM
To all the Novick fans who are defending his opposition to the sugar industry:
On that score, Novick is right. The sugar industry has been an obamination, a special interest par excellence
But that is completely beside the point. The point is that Novick didn't just register his disaffection with Obama's policy position. He called him a "fraud".
It's about name-calling, not policy disagreement.
Here's a concrete way to think about this: If Novick had been in the Senate in 2006, what would have been the best way to get Obama to change his position on the sugar ethanol issue? By taking to the Senate floor and calling him names? Or quietly requesting a meeting at which he would make his best case.
Novick is an excellent bomb-thrower. But Merkley will be more effective at actually making change happen.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 21, 2008 5:37:57 PM
Aren't "rants" supposed to be angry in tone?
Those comments weren't angry. They were pointed and funny, hardly angry.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 21, 2008 6:08:15 PM
The point is that Novick didn't just register his disaffection with Obama's policy position. He called him a "fraud".
It's about name-calling, not policy disagreement.
Exactly!
As a policy disagreement I agree with Novick about the sugar lobby. But that's not what this is about. Which just underscores the counterproductiveness of a politician who eschews prudence in favor of gratuitous name calling.
Given the choice between two equally progressive candidates, one of whom demonstrates tact and relies upon the strength of his argument to pursuade others to his cause and another one of whom seems overly fond of his own witticisms and demonstrates very poor impulse control... I'm going to choose the former. And I'll do so for eminently pragmatic reasons. I want change!
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 21, 2008 6:27:48 PM
Jack Murray,
Novick's statements were not about Obama's platform, but about his positions in the Senate. Obama has been campaigning as the candidate who can free government from special interest control in favor of something more attuned to the interests of the people. That is great if he means it.
I do not speak for Novick, who I have not even endorsed, but I use fairly strong language when I talk about the influence of moneyed interests on government, because their effect is huge, pervasive, and deleterious; and it is minimized by political leaders [no surprise] and the corporate media [no surprise]. The problem is not, usually, one of personal corruption, but of institutional corruption. I doubt very much that Novick believes Obama is an evil man, just as I did not believe Novick [and Kari Chisholm] were evil men when I suggested they were lapdogs of the labor unions during the debate on Measures 46 and 47. For a contemporary discussion of the issue, check out the piece on Larry Lessig available on CommonDreams: Time To Reject Corporate Influence on Washington
Combating the effect of special interests on government requires strong speech. Obama's record, unlike, for instance, the record of Dennis Kucinich, suggests that he is not immune to the influence of the big lobbies. Perhaps his success at raising money from the little people will fortify his backbone and make him a great president. I hope so. But that would be in the future, and Novick's critique was of Obama in 2006 when it was not off-target.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Mar 21, 2008 6:49:38 PM
I think Kari needs to work for the Clinton campaign. He has that same, slimy kitchen sink approach to politics. Obama, by contrast, is a high-minded man who would never hold it against Novick for a few intemperate remarks Steve might have said. When Barack needed Steve's support -- which is now -- Steve is on board. That's more than can be said for the majority of political candidates in Pennsylvania and in a number of other states.
Can Kari really be so stupid as to believe that Barack would withhold his support for Steve based on a comment made in 2006? Of course not. Kari has decided that the kitchen sink should be thrown on behalf of Merkley. It's making Jeff look like a weasel (he apparently isn't calling off the attack-dogs) and adding to the likelihood that if Steve won't win, Smith will.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2008 6:52:07 PM
"Given the choice between two equally progressive candidates, one of whom demonstrates tact and relies upon the strength of his argument to pursuade others to his cause"
1) Where are these two equally progressive candidates? There's no plausible basis for not admitting that Novick clearly has the more progressive platform.
2) how tactful and persuasive was it to threaten to hold up Senate legislation until they heard his mortgage bill?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 21, 2008 7:24:38 PM
Sometimes "tact" really means timidity.
Sometimes "getting along" means "going along."
I personally have had more than enough of that from Jeff Merkley.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 21, 2008 7:49:42 PM
Jenni Simonis: [O]thers on here continue to say things like those who support Novick dislike the Democratic Party, see no difference between the two parties, are Nader supporters, etc.
By no means are all Novick supporters people who dislike the Democratic party. I never said that. There are some, like Miles, who honestly believe that Steve Novick is the more electable candidate in both the primary and the general. I have nothing but respect for them, because on primary election day, either they or I will have to admit our perceptions of the race were wrong, and we'll all come together to try to put the Democratic winner into the senate.
But it's also true that angry leftists who do dislike the Democratic party (yet also want to vote in our primaries), disproportionately support Steve Novick.
That's not an insult, Jenni. It's simple reality.
I would venture that the main reason they do is because Mr. Novick occasionally hurls insults at major Democratic leaders when they don't do exactly what he thinks is right (or even merely based on the turn of phrase used in some campaign website). So of course Naderites are going to be attracted to the candidate who most reminds them of Ralph circa 2000 as he led the Green party against Al Gore.
None of this has anything to do with actually moving the country in the progressive direction. But it hardly matters to Naderites. They're really more interested in expressing their juvenile alienation than doing anything actually constructive.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 21, 2008 8:03:28 PM
But it's also true that angry leftists who do dislike the Democratic party (yet also want to vote in our primaries), disproportionately support Steve Novick.
I think the reason is that Novick isn't the same old same old. He's not afraid to be critical of others, even when it's not necessarily popular. He's willing to be honest about his feelings about a position, an issue, etc., even when it means disagreeing loudly with fellow Dems. He doesn't appear to be the type who will go to DC and just follow right along with a Senate that many Americans are extremely unhappy with. He represents a hope that maybe a few people like him in the Senate will help finally push a progressive agenda through. They see him as a way to inject some spine into Congress, the same way many of these same people worked hard for Dean.
I think the reason why many of these people dislike the Democratic Party is because of what they see happening (or, in actuality, not happening) in DC. Many people equate the "Party" with our representatives in Congress. They become increasingly dissatisfied with Congress, and therefore the Party. I can't tell you how many people I've had write in angrily to be removed as PCPs, from our county mailing list, etc., and all because of Congress.
Many of these same dissatisfied people were actually looking at the Party as a friend and not a foe for the first time in years. They're signing up to volunteer, filing to run as a PCP, etc. And I'm not surprised to find that all of these people that I've talked to thus far are also Obama supporters - they also see him as a candidate who represents change from politics as usual.
Posted by: Jiang | Mar 21, 2008 8:12:21 PM
...and it is everyone else's growing insensitivity for the FACTS that is causing us to say sweet f*ck all to the Democratic party.
It's often been debated what the relationship is between the Party, the facts, being progressive and individual candidates on this blog. There can be no further doubt. Kari declares that Novick's remarks are insensitive based PURELY on their effect. No consideration about their accuracy. "We need the party." Not we need more people like Novick. And after what he's done for this blog? As I re-read the post, I am actually getting physically ill. This is disgusting.
And like this debate would hurt Obama. Do you just like the idea of sucking up to powerful people? Certainly seems to motivate you more than standing behind progressive ones!
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 21, 2008 8:29:56 PM
It's Scots-Irish, with maybe a few Welsh and Gallegos thrown in.
Scotch is for alcohol and clear cellophane tape manufactured by 3M.
The above is correct according to Scots; that is, the Scottish people, but Scotch-Irish is correct using American-English. They say the plane arrived on "shedule" but we say on "skedule."
Posted by: LT | Mar 21, 2008 8:56:13 PM
About comments like this,
"I think the reason is that Novick isn't the same old same old. He's not afraid to be critical of others, even when it's not necessarily popular."
Is being popular a bad thing?
Secondly, there have been some amazing offline conversations this year when one person who knew Steve before he announced for US Sen. talks to another such person ---conversations between friends.
One of those people mentions knowing someone active on the Novick campaign, and the other says "Sorry, I've known Steve a long time, but I don't think a 2003 legislative resolution should be the basis for a 2008 US Senate campaign" (or some similar statement).
Such discussions do go on, and not necessarily to the betterment of the Novick campaign. Sometimes the person who speaks well of Novick looks shocked that someone else would have a negative reaction to Steve. But maybe that doesn't matter here in the blog world where often it seems that "success" means verbal banter/attack.
Some people think Steve is the greatest thing since sliced bread, others do not. Why would those others vote for someone who might think Steve is too critical of others while not being specific enough himself going to vote for him?
Or don't they matter?
Chris, there were no comments on this topic when I first started typing---as if that matters.
Out in the real world, many of us have other concerns.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Mar 21, 2008 9:15:52 PM
Four and five years ago I was one of those angry liberals who supported Howard Dean. I'm still angry but I don't seem to recall becoming a "leftist." Perhaps you can help me figure that out, Steve Maurer, because that transition must have been great. I'd like to remember it.
I still think we would have done no worse with Howard Dean as our nominee, and possibly better, than we did with John Kerry. Sometimes you need something different. All indications are that 2008 is such a year. Voters are screaming for change, and Steve Novick embodies change in a way that Jeff Merkley never would (unless perhaps he were running for President of the League of Women Voters). There is not another white guy candidate in America who embodies change the way Steve Novick does, although Al Franken may come closest.
Gordon Smith is a highly talented traditional politician. Jeff Merkley is a moderately talented traditional politician. We already know how that election turns out.
Steve Novick, although far from perfect as we all know (and if we did not know, Blue Oregon would contrive to remind us), is a very talented and clever nontraditional politician who will confound Smith in a general election campaign. It will be just like watching the rebel forces trip up the Imperial Blizzard Walkers in the Battle of Hoth.
"Sorry, I've known Steve a long time, but I don't think a 2003 legislative resolution should be the basis for a 2008 US Senate campaign" (or some similar statement).
Since Steve was running for the Senate months before Jeff Merkley announced, and never heard of HR2 until a reporter asked him about it when Merkley decided to run, I think it is inaccurate at best to characterize Steve's campaign as being "based on a 2003 legislative resolution." But that resolution is highly revealing of a sharp distinction between the two principal Democrats in this contest, and the more voters know about it, the more they will make an informed choice as to their preference. Surely, LT, no one can be opposed to making sure the electorate is well informed about the candidates and their similarities and differences? Or is Steve supposed to just lie down and let Chuck Schumer and the DSCC railroad him out of the campaign?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 21, 2008 9:26:19 PM
I never said being popular is a bad thing. But sometimes, you need to speak up about what is right and what is wrong, even if it isn't popular.
Posted by: LT | Mar 21, 2008 9:54:25 PM
OK Stephanie,
Are you saying you are willing to bet that nominee Merkley WILL lose and nothing can change that result, but Steve WILL win because no one will be offended by anything he said in the primary or says in the general election and besides he is a better candidate ? Your evidence for that is....?
When will we hear where Steve stands on the new Sen. Webb GI Bill with 51 current Sen. co-sponsors (but not McCain)?
Why not be demanding Gordon Smith speak out on that issue--or is it more fun to blast Merkley?
Was it really smart to send out an email from the campaign "War, Peace, Beer...." or might it have been smarter to send one email with just the support of
"A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" and another with the other items---so that the one about the plan to end the war could be fwd to people who care about the war but don't drink beer and would consider the other items frivilous?
Or shouldn't anyone even ask that question?
"Well informed about the candidates"? What parts of Obama's speech today does Steve admire most? Does he support what the Fed did this week? Does he have any opinions on Obama's speech about race? Did he notice that there is a lot of similarity between what Obama said today about education and what Huckabee was saying?
Obama has done community organizing (getting actual people into job training, for instance). What has Steve done along those lines, or has his work in Oregon all been behind the scenes--Sen. Dems, Bruggere campaign, etc. ?
The reason some people I know say "Merkley for Senate, Novick for Chief of Staff" is that they think Steve's greatest strength is behind the scenes. Are they wrong?
You may not have lived here then, but the primary which nominated DeFazio for his first term in Congress featured a contest not unlike this one--in that case a county comm. running against a state legislator. People outside the district were trying to pressure people there to vote the way they wanted them to vote. People inside the district were saying "Have voted for both of them in the past, and this time each of us makes their own decision which one has the best background and temperment for serving in Congress".
Would that be a good basis for this primary, or should we consider why the Novick fans are angry at DSCC as a factor (and forget that Steve worked for the DSCC endorsed candidate in 1996)?
Are you saying that people who have known Steve for years shouldn't base their decision on that experience? How many people have you talked with recently who don't know Steve and were happy to talk with someone who does?
"Or is Steve supposed to just lie down and let Chuck Schumer and the DSCC railroad him out of the campaign?"
Where did I say that the guy who worked for the DSCC candidate in 1996 should drop out in favor of the DSCC candidate this time? Or is that just a talking point to rely on when nothing else seems to work?
Gee, I thought I was saying "Steve is very bright but has made many mistakes and I'd like to see his supporters make a positive, issue oriented case for why Steve should be nominated without mentioning the name Merkley".
I have said to several people that my concern is an opportunity squandered--we could have had an intelligent issue debate in this primary but instead we see attacks. And before you attack Merkley and say he has done bad things, I don't care. Even if Jeff had been silenced and no one spoke on his behalf, the Novick campaign is responsible for the actions of the Novick campaign, just as it was brainless for Republicans to answer charges against Bush with "But the Democrats...".
If Steve wins the nomination and doesn't move to unify activists (including praise for all those who worked hard on the Merkley campaign) there is nothing anyone can say or do which will force people to make US Senate their most important fall campaign. (Believe me, the Bruggere campaign tried that and it didn't work!)
And no, this is not about Kari.
If BO did not exist, if I had seen the ads on TV and not online, if I had read the text of the Sunriver speech, combined with the time I took an 18 year old to hear Steve speak in person, I would still feel the same way.
Most voters have never heard of Kari.
And how's that downstate grassroots organizing coming along--or shouldn't I be asking that question because it can't be answered with talking points?
What kinds of crowds is Steve gathering in downstate appearances?
Stephanie, even if every blogger said "Steve is the greatest candidate ever and Merkley has no good qualities" that is such a small fraction of the electorate that it wouldn't win a statewide campaign.
I know what it takes to win a statewide campaign--I've worked on such campaigns that won, lost, and one which ended in a 330 vote margin against my candidate.
In favor of Les AuCoin--who won that recount, didn't reach out to the opposition in the summer and fall, and lost the 1992 election. Now let's see you tie that to Schumer and the DSCC!
Or, Stephanie, you could write a comment "5 positive reasons why Steve should win the primary". THAT might do the Novick campaign some good among all those people who read BO but don't comment!
Posted by: LT | Mar 21, 2008 10:09:10 PM
"I never said being popular is a bad thing. But sometimes, you need to speak up about what is right and what is wrong, even if it isn't popular."
Jenni, I admire the poster
WHAT IS RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS POPULAR, WHAT IS POPULAR IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
However, I also believe what a friend says that the approach of "this is what I believe and this is why", said in a diplomatic way, can cause people to say "well, I don't agree with you on that, but I admire the way you say that". It is why Huckabee had fans who strongly disagreed with him on some issues and admired his courage for some of the things he said outside party orthodoxy--esp. on education.
What I do not admire is the acerbic remark when the same thing could be said diplomatically (wasn't that one of Obama's themes today?).
An 18 year old friend who might not have been able to name Oregon's 2 Senators was taken to hear Steve speak in person. Unlike Obama's rhetoric (speaking in terms that the people in his old Chicago neighborhood could understand, but using elegant language), Steve sometimes speaks as if he is talking to activists who share his knowledge base (other public figures have the same problem). And rhetorical devices only work if they impress people. At the end of that speech, Steve used his line inspired by the Wizard of Oz, that "Gordon Smith is a good man but a bad Senator".
The 18 year old's reaction was that Steve reminded her of the Wizard of Oz. There might be others who may think it is time for Gordon to be sent back to the frozen food plant who can name some good things he did as Senator. How does Steve's remark impress those people?
"The Democratic electorate" is not static. It is anyone who registers in the Democratic Party by the deadline in April---including those who register to vote for Obama. How many such people has Steve spent time with?
If there is someone in a college dorm who likes Merkley and convinces a fellow student to take a look at Merkley, how is anything said here going to change that student's mind in favor of Novick?
Steve Novick has a first class mind, but it is sometimes clouded with the certitude that he knows what voters think without asking them (he and I argued about this long before Steve announced for office).
I'm just trying to get people to see things from a point of view other than their own.
I find Obama a lot more inspiring than any US Senate candidate. Why would I vote for Novick--because he says things that make him unpopular in some circles? Sorry, that isn't enough of a reason.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 21, 2008 10:18:14 PM
Why would I vote for Novick--because he says things that make him unpopular in some circles? Sorry, that isn't enough of a reason.
See, that's the problem. You take one little item and make it seem like that's all there is. No, you shouldn't vote for someone just because he says things that make him unpopular in some circles. He has plenty of text, video, etc. on a variety of issues available. That's a reason to vote for him - his positions on issues, his plans, his ideas, etc.
You bring up people you've taken to see Steve, but myself and others have had the exact opposite experience. People I've encouraged to see Steve, people I've played videos of his speech to, etc. are inspired by him. His words resonate with them. And not a single one of them are activists.
If there is someone in a college dorm who likes Merkley and convinces a fellow student to take a look at Merkley, how is anything said here going to change that student's mind in favor of Novick?
None of us have said it would. What would change the person's mind in favor of Novick would be finding out that person's issues, what they think is important, etc. and then giving them information on Novick in regards to those issues. Making it personal for someone is always the best way to get a vote.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 21, 2008 10:29:35 PM
They see him as a way to inject some spine into Congress, the same way many of these same people worked hard for Dean.
There are plenty of Deaniacs supporting Merkley, and for the EXACT same reason. I could tick off several names and I don't know but a tiny fraction of Merkley supporters.
I think the reason why many of these people dislike the Democratic Party is because of what they see happening (or, in actuality, not happening) in DC.
There are plenty of progressive non-Dems supporting Merkley too. Again, I could tick off several names just from my limited contact with Merkley supporters.
And I'm not surprised to find that all of these people that I've talked to thus far are also Obama supporters - they also see him as a candidate who represents change from politics as usual.
Same song, third verse.
None of those reasons or demographics explain why some choose Novick and some choose Merkley.
I think Steven is essentially correct about the "angry" part. Although I would substitute "petulant." That's the one big difference that I see. Most Merkley supporters that I've had interaction with see the cup as being half full rather than half empty. They understand that the 50% + 1 divide and conquer tactics of the GOP represent the worst of America rather than the best of America. My sense is that most Novick supporters would be only too happy with 50% + 1, by whatever means necessary.
I remember the many months early on when Merkley was focused solely on Gordon Smith and Novick supporters kept whining about it, petulantly demanding that Merkley pay attention to Novick. Novick kept taking shots at Merkley and Merkley kept ignoring them to maintain his focus on Gordon Smith... you know, the REPUBLICAN we're trying to get rid of.
Now that Merkley is paying attention to Novick, once again the Novick supporters are... whining!!!
When Novick gets a union endorsement they crow about how great it is.
When Merkley gets a union endorsement they pooh-pooh the merit of any endorsement as not being all that important.
When Novick gets a major political figure to endorse him they crow about how he's got all this momentum.
When Merkley gets a major political figure to endorse him they discount anything but the vote in May as being meaningful.
Most of your online contingent come across as angry, whining, malcontent children petulantly throwing temper tantrums when things don't go exactly how they think it should.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2008 11:08:17 PM
I remember the many months early on when Merkley was focused solely on Gordon Smith and Novick supporters kept whining about it, petulantly demanding that Merkley pay attention to Novick. Novick kept taking shots at Merkley and Merkley kept ignoring them to maintain his focus on Gordon Smith... you know, the REPUBLICAN we're trying to get rid of.Now that Merkley is paying attention to Novick, once again the Novick supporters are... whining!!!
And of course the person to blame for that is...Jeff Merkley. When Merkley entered the primary, Steve thought the best way to help Democrats was a series of joint appearances where both men would make the case against Smith, and make their own case so voters could compare at the same time. It would keep the focus where it belongs, keep the primary civil and on point because of their interaction, and show a party ready to take over that seat no matter who you preferred.
Merkley had none of it, was told by the DC boys to keep his head down and raise, and assumed the posture of the presumptive nominee. Now that strategy has bitten them in the ass, and you want to blame Novick? Good one.
And he's not paying attention to Novick, he's paying attention to stuff that has nothing to do with honest debate. He's going Clinton, trying to regain momentum by slashing at the guy getting the good press. This latest silly season salvo is like buttonholing Dad barely in the front door from work, telling that Steve said a curse word, but Jeff made his bed and has Dad's pipe. Talk about childish!
Posted by: LT | Mar 21, 2008 11:55:16 PM
Jenni, such is life:
"You bring up people you've taken to see Steve, but myself and others have had the exact opposite experience".
And that is OK. If everyone you know has a positive impression of Steve, more power to you!
I agree that making it personal to someone is what wins elections.
I have no idea how the Novick organizing is doing outside the Portland area, where he stands on particular legislation I care about (like Sen. Webb's new GI Bill), what he agrees/ disagrees with in the Oregon Obama speeches and the speech on race and unity earlier this week. I wonder how much of a tour of the state Steve is doing, where he is appearing, what kind of crowds he is getting.
But it seems those are all secondary to the comments of many here.
If Steve got 50 people to show up for an appearance in Medford, then what does it matter that DSCC backed Merkley?
If he backs the Webb GI bill or some other specific legislation, what does it matter that Kari supports Merkley?
My problem is that I recall an outspoken candidate who showed up to a roomful of people in Albany years ago and was warned to soft pedal the abortion issue. The hostess said these people might vote for a Democrat who was not in-your-face about that issue but wouldn't support a "say it loud, I'm a NARAL member and I'm proud" politician.
When asked about abortion, this candidate said "I'm for it!" instead of a more nuanced answer. The audience then tuned out the candidate and the hostess was still angry about that weeks later.
That candidate was as outspoken as Steve, had an equally strong base of support, won some primaries but never won elective office. But according to some here, that could never happen to Steve and anyone who worries about that sort of thing must be a Merkley supporter. Not the best way to win friends and influence people!
If I worry Steve might do something similar, being told I don't realize people like him because he says unpopular things is not going to make me worry less about that.
THIS is what I worry about with the Novick campaign. If he wins the nomination, then "But Kari and the Merkley campaign..." are stale remarks, well beyond the sell-by date the day after the primary. What will those who are so gung ho on Steve now say then? That it is our duty to support Steve and never ask another question? That was tried in 1996 and it failed miserably.
If the focus of Steve's campaign is what's wrong with Merkley, and no one should express concern about what some consider not ready for prime time activities (the beer, the emphasis on shallow but clever and memorable ads, the anger towards anyone who has the "gall" to see value in an elected official running for higher office even if every Democrat doesn't agree with every item in the voting record),what happens if Steve wins the nomination? Will all Democrats automatically say Steve's the one and never give him constructive criticism after that? How would that help defeat Gordon Smith?
Statements of support like:
"Darned right I am voting for Steve because of his stand on..."
"Gee, I am so proud of Steve because of the work he did on..."
"My friend convinced me to vote for Steve because..."
"I've known Steve for many years and really appreciate how he treats his friends"
would be more convincing than:
"Kari, you're a raving hypocrite with no sense of shame."
"If you would only read what he has on his website, you'd agree" (as if it is impossible to read the entire website and not agree with everything---that is an old political trick, "you have read it, therefore you agree with everything it says" but not a very successful approach with people like me)
"we're trying to win a PRIMARY here, in case you hadn't noticed. "
"And of course the person to blame for that is...Jeff Merkley".
But if people don't understand "where I am coming from" on this, there is nothing I can do.
Posted by: Tiresias | Mar 22, 2008 12:41:41 AM
To the dozen or so people who are ruining this blog:
Have you nothing better to do with your Friday night? Haven't you rehashed every possible Merkley vs. Novick argument by now? Most of you appear to be good writers who are genuinely intelligent, but this insanity is a waste of your talent.
Please stop. Please.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 22, 2008 1:39:34 AM
When will we hear where Steve stands on the new Sen. Webb GI Bill with 51 current Sen. co-sponsors (but not McCain)?Why not be demanding Gordon Smith speak out on that issue--or is it more fun to blast Merkley?
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but Gordon Smith came out as a co-sponsor of the bill earlier this month. It's not exactly "new," Webb introduced it the first day the Democrats took over the majority in the Senate last year, and Wyden's been a co-sponsor for a year already.
Smith's right there in the list of the bill's sponsors. And he even managed to get the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to send out an email praising him for signing on.
Dear Darrel Plant,Great news!
Your senator, Gordon Smith, just took a major step towards making a modern
GI Bill a reality by signing onto S.22, the new legislation that is making
its way through Congress. As you know, IAVA's number one priority this
year is getting the new GI Bill passed, so that Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans can afford to go to college after they return from war.Please take a minute to call Senator Smith and thank him for his support
of this critical legislation.
Never too late to give lip service in an election year, I guess.
I passed copies of the IAVA message on to Jake Weigler of the Novick campaign and Kari.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 22, 2008 1:42:19 AM
None of those reasons or demographics explain why some choose Novick and some choose Merkley.
And I wasn't trying to. I was explaining why some of those people chose Novick. I wasn't talking about Merkley.
There are at least dozens of different reasons why people have chosen Merkley. Some did it because he's already an elected official and they see him standing a better chance. Some people like Merkley's position on an issue better than they do Novick. Some are good friends with Merkley and always support him. Some are fellow legislators and believe he'll be a great U.S. Senator. There are a ton of reasons why someone could pick one over the other.
I was just pointing out the reasons why those I know that fall into the categories Steve Maurer described.
And calling Novick supporters petulant is like calling the kettle black. I've seen you just as rude to Novick supporters as some Novick supporters have been to Merkley supporters. I try to stay out of the name calling and petty bickering, but it is making me madder and madder to see this crap continue. You can't criticize Novick (a Democrat) and then whine about him criticizing Democrats. You can't be rude to others and then accuse them of being rude. That seems to be a big problem around here - people accusing others of activities they're guilty of themselves. I know I, for one, am tired of it. It gets us nowhere except in this stupid circular firing squad, which honestly are chasing some people away from supporting the nominee if it's not their candidate. That's a very stupid course of action for any of us to take if our goal is indeed to defeat Gordon Smith this fall. After all, we need more than just all our active supporters' votes, we also need their time knocking on doors, their dollars to run the campaign, etc. And people who are turned off by a campaign's actions are extremely unlikely to give anything more than their single vote.
I'm sure the Republicans just sit back and laugh at all the time we take bashing each other over stupid stuff like a 10 year-old letter to the editor, a blog entry that was at least half tongue-in-cheek, etc. All the less time to spend on looking into Smith, what he's up to, etc. If we spent the time digging into Smith that we did digging up useless junk, we have a chance at winning in November.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 22, 2008 1:46:44 AM
Also, having spoken with numerous "silent" Blue Oregon visitors recently, the feelings above that I just wrote are a fair description of how they felt as well. They wish it would all just stop from supporters on both sides so that we can get into the real issues. But as long as one side stirs something up, the other side will always feel duty bound to respond.
I feel like I'm a mom with little kids that need to be separated.
"He started it."
"No, he started it."
I feel like something needs to step in my like mom always did, separate us, and say "and now I ended it."
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2008 8:54:26 AM
I'll be voting for Obama unless something extraordinary occurs to cause me to change my mind, but I find it absurd that anyone might take the position of see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil about Obama. He is clearly the best, or the least flawed, of the remaining candidates running for president, but he has been in politics for some time and it would be surprising if some "special interests" haven't already purchased a piece of the action. If Obama gets the nomination, much stronger criticism than Steve Novick's will be hurled at him. It is about time for the more starry-eyed acolytes in Obama's entourage to get the message that he doesn't walk on water, nor is he perfect. That way they will be better able to deal with attacks from the right wing and not collapse with some sense of betrayal if some of those attacks stick.
This http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860>Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy is another reason why I'm opposed to Hillary and for Obama. This quote from an article by Gore Vidal reinforces that decision: "I speak ex cathedra now, ad urbe et orbe, with a warning that no society so marinated in falsity can long survive in a real world."
Posted by: anon | Mar 22, 2008 9:14:47 AM
I never said being popular is a bad thing. But sometimes, you need to speak up about what is right and what is wrong, even if it isn't popular.
So it's "right" to say that Obama is a "fraud" and a "sellout"?
Novick supporters on this thread are really missing the point, it seems.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 22, 2008 9:24:14 AM
I had breakfast yesterday with an Oregon senator and during the conversation, he mentioned the disconnect that occurs between running as an ideologue focused on favorite issues, and the reality of being a legislator and actually getting favored legislation passed.
We talked about several legislators, some of whom never get beyond the tiny notes pinned to their foreheads, while others buckle down and learned the rules, customs, and personalities that determine if a bill gets heard and/or passed.
Now I've railed against the incumbent Dem legislators for their behavior and lack of attention to the Constiution and progressive values, and will continue to do so. I'm no fan of protocol, mutual comity, or diplomacy, and I ain't running for office, in fact I'd bet that if I announced for Dog Catcher here on Blue Oregon, the derisive laughter from list regulars could be heard all the way out here in Sandy.
In short, I'm a bomb thrower, and even if he has 50 IQ points on me, Novick's a bomb thrower too, whose behavior both in person annd in comments and speeches, is a lot more about throwing witty lines than building coalitions to accomplish progressive goals.
So Jenny, add this to your list of reasons why poeple support Merkley.
I support him because, he has demonstrated the ability to change minds without personal insult, build coalitions through persuasion, and advance shared goals.
Novick has, shown me personally and in print, that he's at least as ill suited to this task as I am.
I don't want a senator that says lots of things that make me feel good, but in the end is so polarizing as to be totally ineffective.
The fact is that these two candidates are pretty similar in their actual policy positions, so I have to judge based on who I think will get the job done, not who can get a headline for speaking truth to power or some other long charished lefty cliche.
If you demonstrate none of the skills required to govern, I ain't voting for you over the guy that shares your goals and has a record of success in implementing those goals.
Posted by: Ben Hubbird | Mar 22, 2008 9:40:05 AM
This thread is ridiculous. Novick's comments were clearly a joke. To pretend otherwise is so disingenuous as to be laughable.
Next week on BlueOregon: "Novick supported term limits!!! Read his voters pamplet statement!!!"
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 22, 2008 10:13:55 AM
"whose behavior both in person annd in comments and speeches, is a lot more about throwing witty lines than building coalitions to accomplish progressive goals."
You do realize that a contested primary isn't at all like governing or mobilizing for change on a specific issue, right? Sort of not the time. Steve's bonafides on building coalitions to accomplish goals are well established--and usually occur in the vacuum left by legislative inaction at one level or another. So this is a canard, frankly.
And I think lighting a lurker's candle rather than cursing the regulars' darkness is probably more useful, Tiresias.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 22, 2008 10:28:28 AM
I had breakfast yesterday with an Oregon senator and during the conversation, he mentioned the disconnect that occurs between running as an ideologue focused on favorite issues, and the reality of being a legislator and actually getting favored legislation passed.
Well, if that Oregon senator was Ron Wyden, perhaps you could have asked him why it took three years before he spoke out against the Iraq war once he'd cast his vote on the AUMF. Sometimes "getting things done" actually means taking a stand on an issue and pushing that agenda forward, not sitting back and letting the waves of history wash over you.
Take a look at Wyden's press releases and news clips from 2003 to 2006. Not a word there about ending the war. There are a few pieces about oversight of war spending, but nothing said about the need to actually end the war.
Wyden's one of the two-fifths of the Democrats in the Senate who voted against the AUMF originally. But for whatever reason, he wasn't willing to speak out publicly against the biggest policy disaster of the past five years.
If you want a disconnect, it was staring you right in the face over breakfast.
Posted by: anon | Mar 22, 2008 10:51:28 AM
This thread is ridiculous. Novick's comments were clearly a joke. To pretend otherwise is so disingenuous as to be laughable.
So does this mean that when Novick gets offensive, it's all just a big joke and we should laugh it off?
This is what you want me to vote for when I make my mark on the primary ballot for U.S. Senate?
Posted by: bdunn | Mar 22, 2008 11:17:02 AM
"Argue ideas but don't attack a person" is the first thing that they teach you in high school debate. Steve Novick apparently never learned that lesson.
Obama is wrong on sugar. But his other measures to fight greenhouse gases (like 100% auction of permits in his cap and trade system) are historic in their opposition to special interests.
Calling a great American and Democrat a fraud because you disagree with him on one out of thousands of issues on which you agree is no way to be a successful legislator.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 22, 2008 11:29:50 AM
Darrel,
I should have specified that it was a state senator.
As for your attack on Wyden, do your reaserch. He's been one of the very few senators that has stood solidly for the Bill of Rights and against this alleged foreign policy for years. If you feel that he's been insufficiently vitriolic, I'd disagree. (see my comment above).
TJ,
When you say You do realize that a contested primary isn't at all like governing or mobilizing for change on a specific issue, right? , you make my point for me, except that there's a huge difference in skill sets required to be a lobbyist.......er, moblize for change.....and actually governing. Since Novick has never held elective office, we pretty much have to go on what he says and how he behaves.
That was the whole point of my comment. Novick's abrasive and witty style provides a warm feeling for the faithful while piling up resentment from the targets of his ridicule. Not a good way to move the progressive agenda forward.
Contrast Obama's style with that of Novick, and it's a pretty stark difference.
Contrast Novick's style and statements with Merkley's and your choice of candidates is clear too. Two candidates with very similar platforms, and very different approaches to governance.
I'm not gonna be happy with a stack of rhetorical bon mots. I want progressive change, and that happens through coalition building within the Senate.
Novick has so far exhibited no skills in that area.
Merkley has been through that fire, both in the minority and as majority leader.
Posted by: LT | Mar 22, 2008 12:14:03 PM
Pat, thank you for this remark:
"That was the whole point of my comment. Novick's abrasive and witty style provides a warm feeling for the faithful while piling up resentment from the targets of his ridicule. Not a good way to move the progressive agenda forward."
I have been applying Barry Goldwater's famous "Catch more flies with vinegar than by hitting them over the head" test to candidates since long before the Internet existed. The idea is as old as the Aesop's fable of the Wind and the Sun (a contest where the wind and the sun compete to see who can get the man to take his coat off first, and the wind just makes the man wrap it tighter around himself).
Personal touches say a lot. I recall one campaign year when the frontrunning candidate was coming to town and either he or his campaign called the leader of a campaign whose candidate had dropped out and issued a personal invitation to a luncheon.
Another time, someone working for a presidential campaign made a comment "manners cost you nothing, but they can reap big awards".
Maybe some consider such "soft skills" less important than "speaking truth to power", but who says we can't demonad both?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2008 1:13:57 PM
Obama is wrong on sugar. But his other measures to fight greenhouse gases (like 100% auction of permits in his cap and trade system) are historic in their opposition to special interests.
If Obama is still for bio-fuels then he is wrong on that, too. It is part of The Folly of Turning Water Into Fuel and raising the price of food.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Mar 22, 2008 2:00:28 PM
Pat Ryan: Darrel, I should have specified that it was a state senator.
That's OK. He's an equal-opportunity hater.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 22, 2008 2:48:04 PM
Pat, I have done my research. I went through Wyden's press releases and statements. I used an online newspaper database to look for articles where he'd made statements about the war.
That's how I can say with relative certainty that in the first three years of the war Wyden never issued a press release or made a public statement calling for the end of the war. Even the info sheet Wyden's staff passed out at last August's PSU town hall said that his first call against the war didn't come until April 8, 2006. It's not that he wasn't "sufficiently vitriolic." He didn't say anything.
And for all of you Barry Goldwater fans, Goldwater at least put his marker on the line in May 1973 -- a year before the House began impeachment hearings against Richard Nixon -- and said that if Nixon had lied to the American people that he should resign before it came to impeachment.
Should President Nixon resign? If the President of the United States lied to the American people, then the question is: Can you trust him? Impeachment would come up. And this country is in too much trouble internationally to have such a gigantic demonstration of distrust in its leaders. I'm convinced he knew nothing at the inception [of the Watergate affair]. But the coverup?If it can be proved that he lied, resignation would have to be considered.
It would be quick. Everything would be over, ended. It wouldn't drag out like impeachment.
That trust question was the one I asked Wyden seven months ago, after he'd spent a couple of hours telling everyone impeachment would take too long. It took less than six months to go from the House considering impeachment against Nixon to him leaving the White House.
Posted by: LT | Mar 22, 2008 3:04:31 PM
Pat, glad to know there is a state senator who understands the difference between ideologues and those who get things done--I'll bet that applies to several who understand the difference and several who don't.
And about this:
In short, I'm a bomb thrower, and even if he has 50 IQ points on me, Novick's a bomb thrower too, whose behavior both in person annd in comments and speeches, is a lot more about throwing witty lines than building coalitions to accomplish progressive goals.
Those of us who have been at the state capitol or part of coalitions that actually get things passed understand that. Someone once compared the process to a movie maker who wants to make a movie a particular way. Changing the ending, or changing one of the characters into a different kind of person would fit the description of violating core principles. Changing the lighting in one scene from a green lighting to white or blue lighting is about how something looks, not the core message. Lighting changes don't change the ending of the movie, for instance.
Unfortunately, what burns out many people on politics is just this question:
Are you willing to do the equivalent of changing the lighting from green to blue lighting to achieve the goal? Or must it be the whole package and if people don't like the green lighting they don't see why something is important?
THAT is what frustrates some people who might agree with Steve on some issues and admit he is very bright. If they don't think the ads are so cool Steve should never be asked to run more substantive ads, if they are unimpressed with the beer, then they just don't understand that Steve speaks truth to power!
Yeah, right.
Those of us who have ever made a living in sales understand that the customer rules--a Mac person is unlikely to buy a PC, someone with a 3 story house is unlikely to buy a 20 lb. vacuum and lug it up those stairs just because the sales person thinks the product is the best ever.
And no, those of us who say Novick fans should be making a positive case rather than what we have seen over the last several months are not "Merkleyites".
They are the equivalent of a customer saying "That sales person is pushy and rude!" as they walk away contemplating whether to report the sales person to the management before walking out of the store and possibly never going back to that store again.
There are people who work in stores and in other customer service occupations who understand this better than people who have had low customer contact/ high paying/ high prestige jobs for most or all of their lives. Like my friend who was a server for a venue which did a lot of political fundraisers (along with her other job) and told all her friends which candidates treated her as a potential voter and which treated her like "the help". The first candidate wanted her vote, the second led to her telling all her friends why she wouldn't support that candidate (regardless of party or anything else).
Now customer service workers understand this but very intelligent people can't grasp that concept, then it is not the fault of those who are not impressed with the tone of the Novick campaign.
This section DOES NOT belong in the same email with the endorsement of the Responsible Plan to End the War from the Novick campaign (email signed Novick Campaign Team--complain to them if you don't like people being unimpressed with their email).
New Video Clips: Steve & Jeff at the Eugene City Club
We've got highlights from the March 7 candidates forum in Eugene for your viewing pleasure. Find out which candidate catches fire, and which candidate's pants catch on fire ... then pass it on to your friends who haven't made up their minds yet.
If it appears juvenile, makes some people who get the email say OH! GROW UP!, then it is not helping the campaign.
---and if that makes me an old fogey, it sure doesn't make me someone who would fwd the email to friends, much less campaign for Steve!
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 22, 2008 3:30:29 PM
This thread is ridiculous. Novick's comments were clearly a joke. To pretend otherwise is so disingenuous as to be laughable.
Ben, I don't think so, but I could see how his first set of comments could be considered a joke.
The second set of comments, however, can't possibly be construed as a joke.
"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."
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 22, 2008 3:32:17 PM
When you say You do realize that a contested primary isn't at all like governing or mobilizing for change on a specific issue, right? , you make my point for me, except that there's a huge difference in skill sets required to be a lobbyist.......er, moblize for change.....and actually governing. Since Novick has never held elective office, we pretty much have to go on what he says and how he behaves.Only if you stopped reading what I said, where you clipped it. As I noted, Steve has a strong record of working with coalitions he had to help build (not ones that were there for him, like legislative colleagues) and getting things done--where legislators couldn't.
And I'll ask again--what coalition did Merkley build with Peter Courtney and other Senate colleagues when he threatened to hold their bills hostage unless they considered his? I'll take tough talk over obstreperous, pointless behavior any day.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 22, 2008 4:05:05 PM
As I noted, Steve has a strong record of working with coalitions he had to help build (not ones that were there for him, like legislative colleagues) and getting things done--where legislators couldn't.
Again you make my point for me. Novick ain't running to be the head of a "coalition that he had to help build."
He's running for US Senate, which as you note is "already there for him", and that is what the winner of the '08 election will encounter in DC, whether they agree with or like any of the other 99 senators.
Whole different dynamic requiring a whole other skillset.
In the legislature, you deal with those present, not those that you wish to deal with. You never ever win 'em all in that environment, but if you don't burn your bridges with your colleagues, you might get a chance to win the next one.
Merkley gets that, as proven by his track record.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 22, 2008 5:02:27 PM
In the legislature, you deal with those present, not those that you wish to deal with. You never ever win 'em all in that environment, but if you don't burn your bridges with your colleagues, you might get a chance to win the next one.
There's a long leap from the claim in this post that remarks by Steve Novick made here at Blue Oregon -- and now considered "rants" by Kari -- have burned any bridges with anyone.
As I've pointed out on this very thread, Obama's own campaign is characterizing Clinton as dishonest and accuses her of "misleading the American people." Calling her a liar, in short. Yet Obama presumably believes that he can manage to get past that once the nomination is settled and he has to lead the party, which is roughly split between his supporters and people who have supported the woman he's calling a liar. The same thing goes double if Clinton manages to pull it out by some miracle.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 22, 2008 5:22:27 PM
Merkley's track record? His track record of "burning bridges" with his colleagues as he did this session?
LT, surely you remember your Leg history well enough to know that Steve's been inside the Capitol a time or two, given his job with the Senate. Ask Kate Brown or Cliff Trow whether he was useful and cooperative in a legislative setting, how about--and if he was instrumental in reversing the trend away from a GOP Senate and towards a Democratic one, starting in that 97-98 cycle.
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 22, 2008 6:18:32 PM
If we spent the time digging into Smith that we did digging up useless junk, we have a chance at winning in November.
Jenni,
That's what Jeff was doing! That's what his supporters were more than content with. It is, afterall, the prize which LT keeps wisely suggesting we keep our eyes on. That's what WE kept saying back when TJ, Stephanie and the rest of them kept trying to make it all about Steve versus Jeff.
So now you want to plaintively bemoan the lack of focus as if you didn't know that the genesis of this spat can be traced directly back to Steve Novick? Is that really the reputation you want to follow you long after this primary race is over?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 22, 2008 6:28:05 PM
Kevin:
Actually, I have no problem with there being information that distinguishes Merkley from Novick. There should be - they are running against each other. Otherwise, how will voters know what the difference is between the two candidates?
However, it should be things about how they disagree on how they'd vote on something, the differences between their positions, etc.
This stuff that's been going around is just junk.
Posted by: anon | Mar 22, 2008 8:07:23 PM
Merkley's track record? His track record of "burning bridges" with his colleagues as he did this session?
Which colleagues, specifically?
You know as well as anyone that in the 2007 session, Merkley brought together Republicans AND Democrats. So you must have some idea which in the 2008 session you're referring to.
Merkley has a great reputation for bringing legislators together to solve problems. So you must have a list of burned bridges. Share it please.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2008 8:40:28 PM
How many Obama supporters are basically arguing that substance, intelligence and judgment make up for "experience" when it comes to Obama becoming commander-in-chief but are arguing against Steve Novick for not having held elective office? This is a brief abstract from Paul Wellstone's biography on Wikipedia:
"In 1982, he ran for state auditor, but lost to Arne Carlson. In 1988, he was the Minnesota campaign manager for Jesse Jackson's Presidential campaign.
"In 1990, Wellstone ran for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz, beginning the race as a serious underdog. He narrowly won the election, after being outspent by a 7-to-1 margin."
According to that summary, it looks like Paul Wellstone went to the Senate without the "benefit" of having held elective office.
There is not much I would rather see than Steve Novick be his own version of Wellstone in the Senate.
What was the original purpose of this thread - rant - other than to get something negative going against Steve Novick? We need more people in Congress who are individuals representing the people and living up to their oaths to defend the Constitution instead of betraying their oaths like Gordon Smith and Merkley's sponsor, Chuck Schumer.
Posted by: LT | Mar 22, 2008 9:55:21 PM
Bill,you miss the point. A candidate as witty as Wellstone would be doing better now than an angry candidate with angry supporters who can't understand why people actually question details of the campaign (such as the "pants on fire" item in an otherwise serious email).
Ron Wyden had never held public office before running for Congress and he won. But Ron was never known for acerbic comments, had a background in grass roots organizing (Gray Panthers) and has always worked on bringing people together--by actual hard work, not acerbic remarks and an attitude that his friends like him therefore everyone else should as well. Ron runs serious campaigns, made and kept the promise of at least one town hall meeting every year in every county (has done 2 in Salem this year) and engages in dialogue rather than just being clever.
TJ, are you saying Steve recruited candidates, and went out to their districts and campaigned for them?
"...he was instrumental in reversing the trend away from a GOP Senate and towards a Democratic one, starting in that 97-98 cycle."
We had a 1998 State Senate campaign here, but I don't recall any help from the caucus office. Did he help Tony Corcoran defeat Cedric Hayden, or Metsger defeat Grisham?
And wasn't he in a staff role? Why is that the same as elective office?
It is my belief that what finally broke the Republican majority was a number of efforts including the 2002 Bus Project campaigning. One of the Senators elected that year also thought that was a major factor in his race.
Bill, why do you think comments like "Merkley's sponsor Chuck Schumer" will gain votes for Steve?
The tide has turned, folks, and people are looking for optimism, not just old line "we know what we are doing" politics (that's why Hillary is having such a tough time).
We know all your reasons why Steve is the greatest candidate and thus we shouldn't ever say anything nice about Merkley, but repeating them won't win over the unconvinced.
Posted by: darrelplant | Mar 22, 2008 10:41:18 PM
A candidate as witty as Wellstone would be doing better now than an angry candidate with angry supporters who can't understand why people actually question details of the campaign (such as the "pants on fire" item in an otherwise serious email).
In reality, Wellstone's first months in office were so rocky that his fellow senators called him "Senator Millstone." He gave an angry polemic on the evils of capitalism to a bunch of Minneapolis lawyers he was trying to touch for campaign funds. He pushed a copy of a tape of Gulf War protesters onto VP Dan Quayle. He needled President Bush in person. There were bumper stickers in Minnesota that read "Don't blame me. I voted for Wellstone, but I didn't think he could win." He pissed off vet groups by holding a news conference against the Gulf War at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
He told the National Journal: "Rocking the boat creates some risk in public service. But there is a greater risk to me in not being outspoken."
He overcame his early missteps, made peace with the veterans groups, and went on to become the person that most people remember.
But he still stuck to his principles, and that continued to piss some people off. When he opposed the Iraq AUMF shortly before he died, a DSCC staffer wrote that the idea of spending millions of dollars on someone who "decides to commit suicide" by voting against the resolution made them "physically ill," no matter how "principled and otherwise defensible" their position was.
If you're going to remember Wellstone, remember him the way he actually was.
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: Jack Murray | Mar 21, 2008 5:20:58 PM
Ah, but here's the rub: Novick's repugnance is based on such small policy differences. The Obama platform is not that different from the Merkley platform or the Novick platform. Yet, he turns these arguably small differences into divisive, contemptuous remarks that aren't healthy to the cause at hand.
He should have to be responsible for calling Obama a 'sellout' and Hillary Clinton a 'traitress'. If he's not proactive about that responsibility, if he doesn't clarify his remarks, we voters have the opportunity to hold him responsible at the ballot.
The abrasive indignation of Steve Novick's campaign messaging, taken together with his previous statements of disdain for Democratic leaders, shows that Steve Novick time and again lets the perfect be the enemy of the good. And the unofficial motto of the U.S. Senate is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".
I am persuaded that Steve Novick's irresponsible ranting indicates his future ineffectiveness in a legislative body like the Senate.
And for the record, Willamette Week brought this up, not Kari.