Merkley, Novick debate at the Portland City Club (video)
Yesterday, Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick debated at the Portland City Club.
BlueOregon took center stage at the debate - with Merkley questioning Novick about a series of blog posts he'd written here, and Novick questioning Merkley about another blog post here.
He brought up several Novick blog postings in which Novick lampooned presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.Merkley: "I keep trying to picture you going to Senator Obama or President Obama and saying, 'I’ve called you a special interest fraud, be please help me with those timber payments for Oregon.'"
Novick concedes some of his comments were deliberately over-the-top. But the Portland political consultant says it shows that he’s not afraid to criticize fellow Democrats when he feels they’ve compromised their principles.
Novick: "Sometimes in expressing my passionate criticism of specific policies, specific votes that Democrats have cast, I have certainly been undiplomatic."
On stage Friday, Merkley began by casting himself as the man who led Oregon Democrats back into power in the Oregon House - holding together a slim majority to pass a wide slate of progressive-leaning legislation, from a crackdown on the payday loan industry to a bulk purchasing pool for prescription drugs.Novick began with a theme that's followed him not just in his campaign, but in his life: He pledged his faith in the power of public services, and the need to pay for critical services through fair taxation. ...
But the real fireworks began when the two candidates were each allowed to ask each other three questions.
Novick led off, bringing up the recent poll from the Merkley campaign that cast him as a "pro-tax advocate" and a "professional political consultant," and asking whether Merkley really considered that rhetoric to be fair game.
Merkley responded that Novick had been on the offensive from day one, jumping on a Republican talking point against Merkley, that he once voted for a legislative resolution expressing support for the troops at the beginning of the Iraq war, which also praised the courage of President Bush.
Merkley then hammered Novick on previous statements about Democratic leaders, informing the audience that Novick had once called Obama "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."
"I keep trying to picture you going to President Obama, and saying, 'I know I have called you a special interest fraud, but please help me with county payments,"' Merkley said.
Novick acknowledged that some of his language may have been "over-the-top" and noted that he'd also offered praise for Obama, but said he wasn't afraid to criticize fellow Democrats when "they depart from progressive principles."
The most curious exchange came late in the debate and centered on Bono, lead singer for the rock band U2 and an activist on world poverty issues.Merkley read a statement by Novick in which he called Bono "the most hypocritical human on the face of the Earth."
"Do you stand by that statement?" Merkley asked.
"Bono is a tax evader," Novick replied. "His band stashes their money in tax shelters in the Netherlands" while supporting tax-subsidized debt relief for Third World nations. "I think that's hypocritical."
"The most hypocritical human on the face of the Earth?" Merkley asked, incredulously.
"Yes!" Novick exclaimed.
For context, read Novick's complete BlueOregon posts for yourself here: On Obama, on Clinton, on Bono. The blog post by Reps. Mitch Greenlick and Mary Nolan is here.
Discuss.
|
April 5, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (92 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Ben | Apr 5, 2008 10:43:48 AM
Personally, I'm really impressed by Jeff's announcement of his Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) endorsement. That group's been working so hard for equality, and their causes are so relevant (especially here in Oregon), that I always pay extra attention to whomever receives their support.
As it turns out, that someone was Jeff in this race.
This just continues to show me that Jeff's the one to head to D.C. and do what's right on issues of equality... especially with Gordon Smith still sitting there.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Apr 5, 2008 11:02:33 AM
I listened to the debate and rated it a draw. Both would make great Senators. But how both could support the continuation of earmarks in any form is beyond me. And I thought their questions of each other were petty, too much about campaigning and not about broader issues affecting us all.
I generally liked the City Club format but thought the City Club committee’s choice of questions lacking. Where were the questions about international issues – Iran, Pakistan and, especially, China (see Jeff Alworth’s post “Questions for the Candidates: China.”
Posted by: Fr. John-Mark Gilhousen | Apr 5, 2008 11:13:26 AM
I listened to the audio of the debate on the City Club website, and it definitely sounded as if Merkley kept Novick on the defensive pretty much throughout. It will be interesting to see if the video conveys the same impression.
As for Dave Porter's issue with earmarks -- I would have to say that there are earmarks, and then there are earmarks. Right wing talk radio has taken the White House's ball on the issue and is running with it, and has gotten some traction painting them as all the same, and all bad. I am more concerned about lack of transparency in the earmark process than with the fact that they exist at all. After all, if we restore the much needed timber payments to counties, it may very well come in the form of an earmark. Equating that to "bridges to nowhere" which are cloaked in secrecy until some diligent reporter finds a whistle-blower is not the basis for sound public policy.
Of course, I have to admit that the fact that George Bush is so enthusiastically on the anti-earmark bandwagon colors my opinion of the cause.
Posted by: bdunn | Apr 5, 2008 11:16:22 AM
Dave,
While I disagree with your outcome analysis, I do think you are right about the City Club's questions which I thought tried to be too cute at times.
Posted by: Jack Sullivan | Apr 5, 2008 11:17:28 AM
Earmarks you may have heard of: Several buildings at OHSU, Newport Aquarium, Smith Hall at Lewis & Clark, Portland's light rail, etc.
All earmarks represent Congress overriding the decision-making authority of the executive - which some may see as bad, others as good. The fact is that right now, that's how it's done. You can support earmark reform while still arguing that you'll bring home the bacon here.
Posted by: local mom | Apr 5, 2008 12:14:45 PM
I think Jeff's remarks about earmarks were particularly on point. We need "more sunlight" on the process.
The problem is not representatives and senators taking care of their states - aren't they supposed to? - it's that they need to do so in an open way.
What came through to me, in the end, is the advantage Jeff Merkley has in temperament. I think his style is more suited to the US Senate.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 5, 2008 1:10:53 PM
FYI: We now have the video posted. Enjoy!
Posted by: Dave Porter | Apr 5, 2008 1:19:52 PM
Earmarks are part of a federal budgeting process that is totally out of control. Look at the size of the annual deficit, or the growing, long-term costs of the Iraq war, or the declining value of the dollar, or the spreading subprime mortgage crisis (all also not the subjects of City Club questions). Transparency, while an improvement, is just not enough. Progressives need to take responsibility for budget discipline, and earmarks should not continue. As progressives, we can and will have a different set of federal funding priorities but we must also restore budget discipline. Jeff and Steve should know this. And it would, I think, be good politics.
It might be interesting for BlueOregon to take any one recent Oregon project funded through an earmark and to create a post in which we could discuss whether that project was the most important use for additional dollars in Oregon. I doubt that such a case could be made for most earmark projects. Maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 5, 2008 1:35:08 PM
Dave, I think Steve Novick was right that earmarks represent something like 1% of the overall budget. It's hardly significant in the overall fiscal problem of the nation.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 5, 2008 1:36:31 PM
How did Blue Oregon take center stage? The blog was never mentioned. I guess the comments made here were a focus of one of the candidates, but it's not like the blog itself was part of the debate.
I think Jeff's remarks about earmarks were particularly on point. We need "more sunlight" on the process.What came through to me, in the end, is the advantage Jeff Merkley has in temperament. I think his style is more suited to the US Senate.
It's ironic you think Merkley's remarks were on point, since he basically said "I agree with what Novick just said about that."
I agree his style resembles what we have in the Senate, which is pretty much the problem. One more self-compromising, attack-avoidant punter in the Senate--that's definitely what we DON'T need, unless we're interested in making good on the 100 Year War. Let's remember what Paul Wellstone used to say: "The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard." Which Senate candidate does that sound more like? And I'd put forth Al Franken as another example of someone with over the top comments about people, who is able to place them in proper context with the electorate and compete as a serious candidate. "Holds Democrats accountable" is going to be a tough thing for Merkley to paint as a negative with the Democratic electorate, IMO.
The people I was sitting with--the traditional media--mostly shook their heads in confusion when Merkley started talking about Bono. Bono? WTF does that have to do with the Senate? To waste 45 seconds of precious debate time laying out BONO'S record...that was absurd.
LO's analysis is here. I gave it to Novick on points, in good measure because Merkley overplayed his hand on "Mean Steve" by the end. Merkley did as well emotionally speaking as I've seen him in debates, however, and to the extent that Steve would have been expected to wipe up the floor with Jeff, that it didn't happen could be seen as something of a victory. But if Novick is successful at pressing substance over silly season attacks, it leaves Merkley with a big hole in his primary strategy. "My opponent is too mean" has rarely worked to get oneself elected.
Posted by: LT | Apr 5, 2008 2:00:22 PM
Point of clarification, TJ:
Do you consider Ron Wyden "self-compromising, attack-avoidant punter "?
Sen. Webb? Sens. Clinton and Obama?
Exactly which Democratic Senators fall into that category all the time, as opposed to individual Senators whose individual votes you don't agree with?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 5, 2008 2:07:47 PM
How did Blue Oregon take center stage? The blog was never mentioned.
That's true - the phrase "Blue Oregon" was never uttered. But the second half of the debate was dominated by questions about three blog posts that Steve Novick wrote here at BlueOregon, and one that Reps. Greenlick and Nolan also wrote here at BlueOregon.
For BlueOregon readers, that would seem to be relevant - even if isn't or wasn't to readers of other publications (who referred generically to "internet postings".)
Posted by: verasoie | Apr 5, 2008 2:13:42 PM
The impression of Merkley being seen as having a more suitable "temperament," as some have put it here, reflects on the what is essentially the underlying issue in this race:
a seasoned legislator with experience achieving progressive goals versus a firebrand political consultant who says "elect me and I'll shake things up and accomplish great things"
The "fire-in-the-belly" of the latter is admirable, but as this debate appears to have shown, the seasoned and accomplished progressive seems more credible in being able to effect the goals that we all desire, which starts with defeating Smith.
Posted by: local mom | Apr 5, 2008 2:28:18 PM
Both candidates are passionate and seem eager to move a progressive agenda forward. I'm just not willing to confuse "passion" with "over the top remarks". That's the relevance of the "Bono" conversation. Steve Novick greatly exaggerated his feelings about him, and Jeff called him on it. Maybe that's what the media reps were shaking their heads about?
Posted by: bdunn | Apr 5, 2008 2:31:47 PM
TJ and Steve Novick keep attacking everything from Nobel Peace Prize nominees to stalwart progressives. Can you say anything positive?
When this stops May 21st I will be so happy.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 5, 2008 2:32:44 PM
I don't know that keeping Novick on the "defensive" about what he thinks of Bono is really an advantage with the electorate.
And basing all of his questions on internet blogposts? It's certainly no way for Merkley to bolster his contention of being the "serious" candidate.
...the advantage Jeff Merkley has in temperament. I think his style is more suited to the US Senate.
Wayne Morse would disagree.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 5, 2008 2:34:25 PM
"The most hypocritical human on the face of the Earth?" Merkley asked, incredulously."Yes!" Novick exclaimed.
Context is everything, as usual.
Consider some of the other likely candidates for "most hypocritical human on the face of the earth":
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Don Rumsfeld
Tom DeLay
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Pat Robertson
Ralph Reed
Bill Sizemore
Kevin Mannix
Karen Minnis
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 5, 2008 2:36:49 PM
"Consider some of the other likely candidates for "most hypocritical human on the face of the earth":
You forgot this windbag:
Kevin Kamberg
Posted by: bdunn | Apr 5, 2008 2:43:45 PM
Wow Malach continuing the Steve Novick style personal attacks. Kevin didn't say anything negative or deragatory but yet you have attack him why? Is it because you cant say anything positive?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 5, 2008 2:47:22 PM
Yes!
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 5, 2008 3:15:50 PM
I don't mind, Bradley. Anyone who would try to tag a Jew such as myself with the KKK label simply isn't someone whose opinion matters to me.
One thing that does matter, to me, is the endorsement of Jeff Merkley by Basic Rights Oregon. Fighting against any form of discrimination premised upon hateful bigotry is a mission which I very much appreciate. Race-baiters have largely been exposed and rejected by Americans of good will. Discrimination based upon private sexual orientation is the new frontier of the ongoing battle for justice and, like Ben said upthread, whomever BRO endorses matters to me.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 5, 2008 3:35:36 PM
I think Novick's answers to the moderated questions were generally crisper, more responsive, and less laden with platitudes. Unlike Steve, Merkley was called out once by the panel of judges for failure to answer a question, and even when he was, he struggled a little with his response.
Jeff did score some points in the one-on-one questioning, I think, although the Bono thing was weird and not particularly relevant, he was clearly on a mission to create the impression that Steve Novick sometimes has a sharp tongue, which (based on the laughter in the audience) probably wasn't news to anyone present.
They both gave decent closings. Again, Steve's was crisper and less platitudinous. Jeff certainly benefited from going last.
I think Steve won, which might mean it was a draw, but I have one data point from an undecided friend. She's a lawyer downtown (a litigator) and one of the toughest, smartest people I know. I have been trying to persuade her to support Steve for the better part of a year but she was 100% undecided because she kinda liked Merkley and wanted to focus on choosing the one she thinks will have a better shot at beating Smith. She took off like a bat out of hell when the debate ended and went back to her office, so I never got a chance to buttonhole her for her opinion. But when I checked my Blackberry a few minutes later I had an email from her with the subject line "I am totally sold." She said she can't wait to see Steve debate Gordon Smith.
She's a litigator, so I do repose a certain amount of trust in her assessment of the candidates' performance.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 5, 2008 3:52:54 PM
I don't mind, Bradley. Anyone who would try to tag a Jew such as myself with the KKK label simply isn't someone whose opinion matters to me.
Dear kevin kamberg,
I previously commented that I hope for your sake your middle name isn't Kyle or Kurt.
To characterize that silly line as trying to tag you with the KKK label is an overblown load of crap, and you know it.
My grandfathher fled Bohemia in 1938, and one of my best friends in the world is the son of two Holocaust survivors. So take that bullshit somewhere else.
You are shameless.
Thanks for proving my "windbag" comment. I'm sure that the GOP misses your membership.
Posted by: LT | Apr 5, 2008 4:15:21 PM
Pat, about the Wayne Morse reference---
Some of my friends worked on Wayne Morse campaigns. One of my friends disagreed with him on an issue and asked him about it in a public forum. Morse gave him a reading list and said he'd discuss it with him when he had read what was on the list---and did.
The problem here is that even Steve has admitted some of his remarks were over the top, and that he had realized that public figures are real people with feelings (he just now recognized that?).
Perhaps if Steve had more public (rather than behind the scenes) experience, he would be running a better campaign.
FYI, from Morse's official biography about what he did before being elected to the US Senate.
MORSE, Wayne Lyman, a Senator from Oregon; born near Madison, Dane County, Wis., October 20, 1900; attended the public schools; graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1923, and received a graduate degree from that institution in 1924; graduated from the law department of the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis in 1928, and from the law school at Columbia University, N.Y., in 1932;
held a reserve commission as second lieutenant, Field Artillery, United States Army 1923-1929;
taught argumentation at the Universities of Wisconsin and Minnesota;
assistant professor of law at the University of Oregon at Eugene 1929, associate professor 1930, and dean and professor of law 1931-1944;
member of the Oregon Crime Commission; administrative director, United States Attorney General’s Survey of Release Procedures 1936-1939; Pacific Coast arbitrator for the United States Department of Labor (maritime industry) 1938-1942, and also served in other capacities of the Labor Department; chairman of the Railway Emergency Board 1941; alternate public member of the National Defense Mediation Board 1941; public member of the National War Labor Board 1942-1944; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1944;
Steve has worked as a staffer more than as a public figure, which is why some of my friends say Merkley for US Senate, Steve for Chief of Staff because his true strength is behind the scenes.
Posted by: Kristin | Apr 5, 2008 4:16:27 PM
Steve Novick, dear leader,
BONO? Seriously? Back off, man. This avid supporter of yours has been a U2 fan before I could even vote, before I even knew you or Merkley existed. Some loyalties run pretty deep. :)!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Apr 5, 2008 4:26:36 PM
I echo what has been up-thread about Merkley having the right temperament and skill set to move progressive policy forward within a legislative body by working in such a way that can bring in needed support even from people who may not agree entirely within, and outside of a party caucus.
This is one of the reasons I became a Merkely supporter when I was supporting the another candidate previously.
Posted by: local mom | Apr 5, 2008 4:31:00 PM
Regarding Stephanie's anecdotal assessment of who "won" the debate, I overheard two gentlemen talking to each other as they exited the City Club. They seemed to like what both candidates had to say but were inclined to vote for Jeff Merkley because of his experiences. Just thought I'd mention another anecdote.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 5, 2008 4:43:16 PM
"Steve Novick greatly exaggerated his feelings about him, and Jeff called him on it. Maybe that's what the media reps were shaking their heads about?"
This would be akin to Bill O'Reilly calling out Keith Olbermann for labeling him "The Worst Person in the World." It's the dogged ignorance of the ironic that's so interesting to watch in Merkley. Do you REALLY think that if he sat down to rank the most hypocritical people in the world, he would put Bono on top?
I think Bono can defend himself, and Merkley taking time to list HIS accomplishments made me wonder why he didn't reserve more time for his own.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Apr 5, 2008 4:46:19 PM
In the past, Steve has probably been seen as the “winner” of these forums. I thought this debate was different. Although Steve did well, I thought Jeff was at the top of his game; crisp, commanding, and committed to his beliefs. He showed me that he could stand up to Gordon Smith with a strong message and successful record as a peoples' politician and legislative leader.
An issue where I wish we had a different opinion, and it doesn't seem that R's like Smith and Walden are any different, is county payments. Do people really think that payments from the feds to Western state counties should be a long term solution? Apparently so., but his will only increase the already god awful national debt.
I feel that either OR voters have to step up to pay higher property income/property taxes to fund local services, and /or we should sell some, say 20%, of federal lands to provide more revenues for counties (or increase logging).
Posted by: local mom | Apr 5, 2008 5:01:38 PM
Note to TJ: Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly are on TV. They are not in the US Senate. They get paid to exaggerate and increase their ratings. Senators have a different mission, and diplomacy, whether you like it or not, is necessary.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 5, 2008 5:38:48 PM
note to local mom: Steve Novick wasn't a US Senator when he said those things. He was trying to be provocative. Obviously he succeeded.
Posted by: Masterpiece | Apr 5, 2008 5:56:42 PM
Steve Novick wasn't a US Senator when he said those things. He was trying to be provocative. Obviously he succeeded.
Isn't one of the main reasons we're told Novick is the right guy is that he'll always speak his version of truth to power, no matter what?
Now we're being told that was only because he wasn't running for U.S. Senate..it was just to be "provocative"?
I give up. Why exactly am I supposed to vote for Novick?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 5, 2008 6:21:59 PM
Uh, Masterpiece, did I say "only because he wasn't running for US Senate?"
I'll help you with that. No, I didn't say that.
I said he was trying to be provocative. What I didn't say, because I thought it was obvious, was that he was speaking the truth. He chose to do so in an overtly provocative way.
Please don't pretend that you are trying to understand. You have a preference and so do I. They are different.
This isn't the "Mr. Congeniality" sideshow from some kind of twisted beauty pageant. It is a campaign for the United States Senate. The US Senate is a body where the truth can sometimes be a casualty of the perceived demands of politics.
I'd rather vote for the guy who always tells the truth, even if he does piss someone off every once in awhile. Because when someone always tells the truth, even when he does piss you off, at least you know you can trust him.
Jeff Merkley, on the other hand, seems to have no compunctions about lying. Today it's about his opponent. We don't know how far it goes. Guess what? That will piss people off too. So pick your poison. Oh, wait, you already have.
Posted by: Masterpiece | Apr 5, 2008 6:47:11 PM
I said he was trying to be provocative. What I didn't say, because I thought it was obvious, was that he was speaking the truth. He chose to do so in an overtly provocative way.
You are splitting some awfully fine hairs here.
I can see why it might hit a nerve with you to point out the fact that there is a very thin line between speaking truth to power and crossing over into insults and personal attacks. Had you not let your temper get the best of you, you might have seen that.
Yes, this is a campaign for United States Senate. And being congenial with colleagues is part of the equation. Bringing people together in coalitions is how things get done there. That can be tough to do after having called someone a "fraud", a "traitor" or whatever the label of the day might be.
As someone else already pointed out by inference: there is a reason that Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann aren't in the Senate. They are pundits and provocateurs.
I want to vote for the person who will move progressive legislation and issues forward. That can't be done without first defeating Smith. But once that is accomplished, the person has to actually work with others in the Senate. Having spoken the "truth" by calling them "liars" and "sellouts" and "cowards" doesn't strike me as the way to do that.
You seen eager to lob accusations at Merkley and claim them to be "truth". I haven't seen Merkley supporters here on this thread doing that to Steve, even though some of them might believe that Steve has been less-than-honest in this campaign.
Its an interesting echo of the two campaigns, as I observe them.
If choosing the person I best believe will get progressive legislation passed is choosing "poison", then so be it. Better that than seeing any chance this state has to actually be a partner with other blue states get flushed down the toilet in the name of alleged "truth".
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 5, 2008 6:52:40 PM
I said he was trying to be provocative. What I didn't say, because I thought it was obvious, was that he was speaking the truth. He chose to do so in an overtly provocative way.
So now "trying to be provocative" is a euphamism for a kinder, gentler lie, except that it's okay because he was only trying to be provocative... As opposed to really bad lies which are apparently where one isn't trying to be provocative?
It seems that the definition of a lie has been changed. Now, rather than being about the truthfullness of the statement it is now about one's motivations.
Um... the Senate is dominated by lawyers, no?
Posted by: colin maloney | Apr 5, 2008 6:56:30 PM
I was at the City Club debate and I think that Merkley gave the best performance in terms of oratory, I've seen him give over the campaign (particularly his opening). He was more forceful in his manner of speaking than I've seen him and I think it's a good change for him.
That said, I felt that Novick was stronger in his answers by addressing specifics. I got the general impression that Merkley was avoiding giving specific answers at times, and the City Club panel called him on it in regards to the Columbia River span question.
Both had good responses to the Senate Seniority question, but I think that Novick's point that Gordon Smith failed to come through for Oregon on county payments even with a Republican majority was a stronger argument. That Smith cancels out Wyden most of the time is a good argument for electing a Democrat, but Novick's answer pointing out his ineffectiveness was great.
I also thought Novick's reframing of the county payments issue as loss of property taxes was shrewd, and that Merkley's "social contract" verbiage sounds good, and is correct, but isn't likely to accomplish much in terms of keeping rural areas funded.
Largely disappointed in the "Candidates ask questions of each other" section. Thought it was largely a waste of time, going over stuff that had been been hashed over ad nauseam. Novick got a laugh out of the crowd by asking which of the poll tested negative messages would be appearing in an ad soon. The Bono stuff was just... strange.
I guess none of the regulars here will be surprised that I think Novick did a better job, overall, at the debate. Merkley did do better than I expected, but still needs to refine his message by including more specifics and his delivery by being more concise.
Posted by: bdunn | Apr 5, 2008 6:59:40 PM
What I didn't say, because I thought it was obvious, was that he was speaking the truth.
So according to Stephanie V Obama is a fraud. Glad to see the attack train didn't leave the station without all of Novick's prominent supporters getting on.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 5, 2008 7:14:07 PM
Masterpiece and Kevin,
If I say "that shirt doesn't flatter you" to my husband about a shirt that doesn't flatter him, that's the truth.
If I say, "I like the striped shirt on you better," that is also the truth, but expressed more softly.
If I say, "that shirt looks like something out of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and not in a good way," that might also be the truth, but more provocatively expressed.
If I say, "I love the way that shirt looks on you," then I might make him feel better, but that's not the truth.
(Alternatively, I could say, "rrrrr, seeing you that shirt always makes me want to tear it off of you," which would also be the truth, but perhaps more than a bit misleading.) %^>
I repeat: we're not electing Mr. Congeniality here.
Having said that, I have to say that I personally find Steve very congenial, funny, and fun to spend time with. I have no doubt that his future colleagues in the US Senate will enjoy working with him and find him a valuable colleague.
Daniel Spiro has posted repeatedly here on BlueO about his experience encountering Steve as a fellow law student at Harvard. There's a community filled with giant egos and world class ambitions, I promise you. Yet Steve was apparently able to navigate that highly competitive community and emerge very popular and well-respected.
I would submit to you that this campaign has now reached the stage where the Merkley supporters will say anything and clutch at any straw to try to establish some advantage for their guy. How about we go back to the issues?
Posted by: colin maloney | Apr 5, 2008 7:16:41 PM
Stephanie V:
I said he was trying to be provocative. What I didn't say, because I thought it was obvious, was that he was speaking the truth. He chose to do so in an overtly provocative way.
Kevin said:
So now "trying to be provocative" is a euphamism for a kinder, gentler lie, except that it's okay because he was only trying to be provocative... As opposed to really bad lies which are apparently where one isn't trying to be provocative?
I'm not sure where you're going with this Kevin. Both true and untrue things can be said either provocatively or not. Steve tends towards hyperbole, that doesn't mean his statements are "lies." I happen to like Steve's more confrontational style. It's a quality that I think Democrats tend to shy away from and I think it's a shame. I think we need a little "fire" in the Senate and that's one of the reasons I prefer Steve in this race.
And bdunn,
The "fraud" bit is getting old. Steve explained, again, at the debate that the statement was made as a proposed question that someone might ask Earl Blumenauer at (humorously enough) a City Club forum. Again, provocative statements made to draw attention to an important issue. Cherry picking half a sentence out of a paragraph is not providing appropriate context in most situations and in the post in question here, ANY of the statements should really be considered in the full context.
Posted by: bdunn | Apr 5, 2008 8:21:37 PM
Collin:
I appreciate confrontation as much as the next person. However, knowing when to fight is just, if not more important, than knowing how to fight, and I think this debate showed that Novick has yet to learn when attacking, insulting, and being undiplomatic does more harm than good. What is worse is that provocative or not he has said he stands by his comments.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 5, 2008 8:43:49 PM
Based on finally getting a chance to watch the video, I'm impressed with how animated Jeff came off. I've seen him a bunch in-person, and he always strikes me as sincere and passionate. But he's really been working hard at his public presentation, and it's paying off...
Posted by: Morgan | Apr 5, 2008 9:15:39 PM
Torpid Joe and Kraptacular Kevin post again!!!
Death, taxes, and crappy posts for all!!!
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 5, 2008 9:16:43 PM
"Yes, this is a campaign for United States Senate. And being congenial with colleagues is part of the equation. Bringing people together in coalitions is how things get done there. That can be tough to do after having called someone a "fraud", a "traitor" or whatever the label of the day might be.
As someone else already pointed out by inference: there is a reason that Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann aren't in the Senate. They are pundits and provocateurs."
So was Al Franken, and he's very seriously contending for a seat in the Senate. He's called Republicans shameless dickheads, and done all manner of foul comedy during his career. It's not a barrier to have carried a sharp wit in life before coming to the Senate, I think that's quite clear. How genial and loving is Barney Frank in the House? But he's a leader, and doesn't suffer GOP bullshit. The Senate is clubbier, but that's also part of the problem, and there have been no shortage of effective firebrands.
Finally, it's absurd to suggest because of things he wrote at BlueO, that he doesn't work and play well with others. He somehow managed to get along in the state Senate, even finding his way to being part of the team that reversed Democratic losses and set the body back on the way to Dem control. And frankly, I think his appearances on Fox are telling. They know the guy believes NOTHING they believe in. But they like him, they want to talk to him, and they want to banter with him. Even their anti-Novick website is a backhanded compliment: "As tax-happy as Merkley...only funnier."
And I think Steve had a pretty smart response to Merkley's question: "If Hillary Clinton can work with Newt Gingrich, I think she can handle me."
As I said, in a short term event sense, Merkley did well. But is this his strategy for the primary? To sustain this is to essentially pull a Clinton and tear down the other guy as your path to victory. Calling him a tax and spend Commie is really sad and low, but it suggests that's where Merkley is headed. Who's the better Democrat, again?
Posted by: LT | Apr 5, 2008 9:25:10 PM
Long before he started running for President, Barack Obama was talking about the need to integrate this country in order to solve problems.
Let's have a thought experiment here.
Assume for a moment that Bono really is the most hypocritical person in the world, that Merkley screwed up so badly on the 2003 resolution that he should hang his head in shame for the rest of his life, that it is better to be 100% honest even if that insults people, and that Steve should never have apologized for his use of language by saying this (quoted from the Oregonian),
"Sometimes, I've used rather over-the-top language," Novick said. "
OK, assume everyone in Oregon agreed on all of that.
How does that employ and house an unemployed homeless combat veteran?
How does that provide health insurance for needy kids or working poor people who can't get into the Oregon Health Plan? How does that fix broken transportation infrastructure, or keep libraries open in timber dependent areas like Jackson County?
How does that, in Obama's words, integrate this country to solve problems?
Or doesn't that really matter because all good people realize Steve is the greatest candidate ever and no one should disagree with them?
A person who sees the wisdom of picking battles and not making unecessary enemies isn't strong enough to run against Gordon Smith? Is that it? Anyone who has ever been insulted by any remark Steve ever made should accept his apology during and after the debate and never question whether he is the right candidate?
Sorry, but that sounds as bullying as telling women Obama supporters "how dare you be a woman and be supporting a man?" as has happened in previous elections where one candidate was male and one candidate female?
Folks, many are just now tuning in to primary contests below the presidential level. There are places (like this blog) where someone can watch the candidates debate and make up their own minds.
Years ago we had a mayoral election where the ultimate winner was apparent way before the election. 2 qualified city council candidates who were otherwise equally qualified differed in temperment. One was very mild mannered and the other was a "pound the table" very passionate guy. I knew people who voted for the first candidate on the basis of who would work better with the new Mayor.
If there are Obama or Clinton supporters making that same calculation about US Senate (and for that matter Congress) telling them Steve may be acerbic but at least he is honest is unlikely to win their votes.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 5, 2008 9:30:49 PM
"OK, assume everyone in Oregon agreed on all of that.
How does that employ and house an unemployed homeless combat veteran?
How does that provide health insurance for needy kids or working poor people who can't get into the Oregon Health Plan? How does that fix broken transportation infrastructure, or keep libraries open in timber dependent areas like Jackson County?"
How does ceaselessly pointing it out as Merkley is, get any of that accomplished either? Novick laid out specificially what programs he would enact or favor that Merkley would not. Merkley chose instead to talk about stuff so far removed from people's lives that it begs for relevance.
Posted by: David | Apr 5, 2008 9:35:34 PM
Earlier today, both Steve and Jeff participated in a debate in Newport sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Steve was direct and to the point. Jeff came across well also. However, in my view, Steve showed a better command of the issues and was more engaged.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Apr 5, 2008 9:37:42 PM
I'm very jealous of you guys who got to see the debate. I hope they have a bunch more between now and the the primary.
Me? I spent a big part of the evening debating (informally) with Clinton supporters. It's amazing how much they're starting to resemble Karl Rove disciples. I can't wait until she finally calls it quits we can begin to have a clue as to whether the Democrats will unite this year. I'm hopeful, but I wouldn't bet the ranch that it will happen. More likely it will happen in the Oregon Senate race than at the Presidential level.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 5, 2008 9:44:13 PM
OK, people, let's stop arguing about what one blog commenter or another thinks - and get back to arguing about what the two candidates think.
Colin Maloney wrote: That said, I felt that Novick was stronger in his answers by addressing specifics. I got the general impression that Merkley was avoiding giving specific answers at times, and the City Club panel called him on it in regards to the Columbia River span question.
Colin, you forgot to raise your hand for irony! Because you can't possibly have been serious about this one.
After all, when asked if he supported a new Columbia River crossing, Jeff Merkley said, unequivocally, "Yes."
On the same question, Steve Novick said he had friends who told him it was a good idea and friends who told him it was a bad idea, and his final answer was, "I don't know."
Now THAT'S a specific answer!
Full disclosure: I built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.
Posted by: Opinionated | Apr 5, 2008 9:50:37 PM
Jeff stood out in this debate. I think he took the high road and stuck with the issues vs the defense and attack technique of Novick. Jeff's list of accomplishments trumps Novick.
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: bdunn | Apr 5, 2008 10:43:41 AM
I was at the city club and Merkley gave the most dynamic and commanding performance I have ever seen him give. I though he just owned the debate from the moment that he announced the BRO endorsement to his conclusion when Merkley laid out, in a way similar to the transformative politics of Obama, that he will work to build coalitions to bring about real progressive change. He showed humor, class, experience, and statesmenship. My liveblogging of the debate turned into a recap because of the spotty wireless but you can read Forward Oregon's coverage and if you don't take my word for it you can listen to the audio (MP3) and decide for yourself!