Novick ad goes negative on Merkley; Senator Max Cleland objects
The Novick for Senate campaign (accidentally) released a new TV spot yesterday. The Novick for Senate campaign's latest TV spot was released yesterday when KGW accidentally aired it ahead of schedule. Watch it here (realplayer required).
With just three weeks to go until Oregon's primary, ad wars in Oregon's U.S. Senate race are heating up.On Monday, Portland lawyer and activist Steve Novick took direct aim his rival, Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, for his 2003 vote on a House resolution that expressed support for the troops, while acknowledging "the courage of President George W. Bush" in launching the Iraq war.
In Portland, former U.S. Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) objected to the ad:
On Tuesday, former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a triple amputee from the Vietnam War who was in Portland to campaign for Merkley, called the Novick ad, "a last-ditch effort to make something out of nothing. When you start throwing dirt, you're losing ground."Cleland called the 2003 resolution a classic example of a time-tested GOP tactic: Putting two separate ideas into the same proposal, including one that's so popular — like supporting the military — that there's virtually no way to vote against it.
"Years later to pick out this vote focused on supporting the troops with a Republican barb and hook in there is unfair and misleading," Cleland said.
The Novick campaign defended the ad:
But Jake Weigler, Novick's campaign manager, said the ad reflects, "a basic disagreement about (Merkley's) record, which goes to the respective principles of the two candidates. Steve was asked on the first day of the campaign whether he would have voted (for the resolution) and he made it clear that he would not have done so."A handful of House Democrats did vote against the resolution in 2003, though most joined Merkley in voting in favor.
The ad aired once, during KGW's morning news program Monday. Weigler said the spot ran before it was supposed to, due to a station error, but the campaign was "considering running this ad in the near future," more widely. KGW confirmed the ad ran by mistake.
Discuss.
|
April 30, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (77 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Apr 30, 2008 5:12:19 AM
I don't understand why Novick's team thinks they are going to get mileage out of that vote, especially when they selectively quote out context from the entire resolution--which (as they well know) also expressed support for our troops that were about to get sent off to war. The bill was for the troops, not Dubya.
It's especially silly to see this kind of nonsense when Novick has demonstrated such a grasp of real issues. He could do better than this, and I'd like to see him take charge of his campaign and say no to his wonks on bad campaign ideas if he expects to win votes. This does not build confidence in me about the kind of senator he would try to be.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 7:10:25 AM
first of all, the headline needs to be changed for accuracy; it's only Merkley and his out of state support who calls it a negative ad.
Secondly, Jamais--come now. In no way do you really believe that was a resolution about the troops, do you? It was a Bush endorsement bill from start to finish--except for the very last line, put there only to bait hapless and worried Dems into voting for it. Even greenlick and Nolan acknowledged that when they smeared Novick about it. I can't wait to put someone into the Senate who can easily recognize bullshit bills like that, and I fear voting for someone who can't.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Apr 30, 2008 7:16:54 AM
I'm sorry, but I get really tired of this "but I was doing it for the troops" stuff. I didn't agree with Merkley back in 2003 when he voted that way, and I still don't agree with him now. He could have voted no along with the other legislators who did and he could have used his speech to praise the troops and say that he was against the war and Bush's policies and therefore could not vote to praise him. He could have also tried to bring up his own vote that strictly praised the troops and nothing else.
This is a matter of one candidate doing something and the other disagreeing with that vote. It's Merkley's record and he's going to get called on it. And I'm sorry, but if he ends up being our nominee, I can assure you that Smith will hammer him on issues a lot harder than this vote.
And in today's endorsement piece for Novick, the Willamette Week also brings up Merkley's vote as one of their three chief concerns with him:
On the war, we think Merkley's yes vote on House Resolution 2, the state measure to declare support for Oregon's troops and "the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power," would hamstring him from making the case that Smith's flip-flops on the war were unconscionable.
I also find it funny that this ad that talks about Merkley's record is negative, but at the same time, all is just fine with the "Mac" ad.
And folks wonder why people are so sick and tired of politics and politicians right now and are coming out to support those who either aren't the typical politician (Obama) or are those running for their first elective office.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 7:19:09 AM
and has cleland ever SEEN HR2, or is he just reading from Merkley's notes? Because even if you somehow think it was about the troops, there's no possible way to say it's focused on the troops, with the war as an afterthought. Usually "the focus" doesn't come in the last line, after several paragraphs of unrelated material. Thanks for the help, Mr. Georgia Person!
Posted by: no name | Apr 30, 2008 7:20:05 AM
Steve Novick stands apart as an accomplished advocate who's chief tool is to be combative.
The truth is that Novick is the big shifter and Jeff Merkley is rock steady. Novick declared in a public debate that he would choose Frohnmeyer as best qualified after himself. Then a week or two later, he was emphatic that Frohnmeyer should drop out of the race. Early in the campaign he called Hillary a "traitor" and Obama was a "fraud". This is vintage Novick. His immoderate language makes him unsuited to be the second Democrat in the US Senate. Merkley is steadfast, Novick is shifty. Merkley is disciplined and has exactly the skills we need to change the direction of the country.
Send Jeff Merkley to Washington to build a new working Senate.
Ok TJ and the Novick,(not so merry) pranksters hit squad..do your job..go negative and combative like your master.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 30, 2008 7:50:55 AM
So after all the faux weeping and gnashing of teeth by Novick partisans over Merkley's message testing - repleat with predictions that Merkley would "go negative" on Novick with TV ads... Novick is the one going negative.
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 30, 2008 7:59:11 AM
"The Novick for Senate campaign (accidentally) released a new TV spot yesterday."
This line is also not accurate, because it implies a mistake by the Novick campaign. The story makes clear it was KGW's mistake.
[Disclosure: Hey Kari, how come the posts from my blog aren't making it onto the Oregon Blogwire anymore?]
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Apr 30, 2008 8:11:41 AM
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone's vote on an issue and bashing a fellow Democrat for being a "pro-tax advocate."
Of course a candidate is going to point to specific votes, issues, etc. that they disagree with - and it's not negative to do so.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 8:23:17 AM
"Of course a candidate is going to point to specific votes, issues, etc. that they disagree with - and it's not negative to do so."
Particularly when it's one line, and they're not even named!
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 30, 2008 8:31:31 AM
I don't consider Novick's ad more negative than Macpherson's posted at "Kroger & Macpherson hit the airwaves".
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Apr 30, 2008 8:54:20 AM
This really didn't seem like a hit piece to me.
In four seconds of the 30 seconds he mentions the vote. He doesn't mention Merkley by name, nor by image, nor... anyway, it seemed more about politics as usual, and how Steve's not politics as usual.
Go Steve!
Posted by: Clelland is a sad case | Apr 30, 2008 8:58:23 AM
It's too bad Max Clelland is not more respectful himself the kind of Democrats who spoke up his defense when he was defrauded out of his office. I'd venture there are far more of them supporting Novick precisely because he is a fighter for some Democratic Party values, rather than "go-along-to-get-along" Merkley whose decision making has always been towards making the compromise, regardless of whether that undermined Democratic Party values, which was expedient for his personal career.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 30, 2008 9:06:19 AM
Posted by: Clelland is a sad case | Apr 30, 2008 8:58:23 AM
I suspect that most who defended him know how to spell his name.
FYI - It's spelled Cleland.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 30, 2008 9:07:16 AM
I'm inclined to believe that Merkley voted for HR2 because he was thinking as a politician. Steve Novick and others opposed to voting for HR2 would have refused to do so because they were thinking as citizens. That, to me, is the prime distinction between Merkley and Novick.
Posted by: verasoie | Apr 30, 2008 9:11:47 AM
This ad highlights for me the key reason why I'm supporting Merkley, and not Novick--- the former has been in the ring, fighting for Oregonians and progressives as a publicly elected official, and the latter has been catcalling from the sidelines.
It's easy to criticize someone for having "baggage," Steve, but that comes with experience, of which you have very few. It is not a sign of courage to criticize those who have had the strength to serve us publicly and take the hits that come along with it--- this just emphasizes that Steve has very little experience putting his neck out for Oregonians.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 9:30:54 AM
little xperience putting his neck out for Oregonians? How about running to beat smith when no other Dems stepped forward? Hello?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Apr 30, 2008 9:45:01 AM
O.k., if "In the News" is going to editorialize ("accidentally") the commentary should be signed, or at least explained. What does "accidentally" mean?
anonymous: "Ok TJ and the Novick,(not so merry) pranksters hit squad..do your job..go negative and combative like your master." After "Merkley is steadfast, Novick is shifty." etc. Passive aggressive much?
IMO this is a weak issue for Steve and a bad issue for the race in general (ends up weakening both candidates). But in a way I think Merkley has resurrected it himself, with his exaggeration of his cautious expressions of possible doubt about the war into strong unequivocal opposition early on.
Unless Steve's campaign has misled themselves because WW cited it. The WW editorial board has their own image agenda that makes their reasoning suspect and certainly not representative of many voters if any.
But the idea that this was not a praise Bush resolution is bunk. It was both. The point was not just to jerk Democrats. It was also to create propaganda defining "supporting the troops" with triumphalist imagery of "courageous President Bush." For the Rs it was a two-fer, though I'm not sure they could have imagined that the "tie the Democrats in knots" part would work so well that it would be causing us problems in 2008, even when Bush's rep has tanked because his war was not only revealed as an aggression based on lies but also as incompetently planned and executed beyond the initial campaign of superficial territorial conquest. They're still playing us.
The real question about the war is not where they were in 2002 but where they are now. Both have endorsed the so-called "responsible plan," which is largely composed of measures already introduced that have failed to be passed, in many instances because of passivity, obstruction or unwillingness to fight by the Democratic congressional leadership. What will each do to change that dynamic? Will Steve's forthrightness help do that? Will Jeff's quiet diplomacy approach? Or will Steve just alienate and isolate himself? Or will Jeff just fall in line with the culture of excessive passivity in the Dem leadership in DC?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Apr 30, 2008 9:46:11 AM
Because I am so critical of the DC leadership, and because for me the war is not a partisan issue to be used in elections and then discarded for insider pseudo-"realism" (I am SO pissed about 2006, on the war, though secondarily also because of what the "leaders" have squandered for 2008 prospects), Steve's fighting approach seems necessary to me.
I think Jeff is going to get rolled by the "leaders" into their "roll-me" approach to the Republicans.
But I genuinely would like to hear from the Merkley supporters why I'm wrong to think this about Jeff and what he would do to challenge the "leaders" & shake up the Democratic culture of passive timidity in Washington.
Not what's wrong with Steve, I know what you think about that, but why I'm wrong about Jeff, if you think I am.
Or, if you think I'm wrong about the "leaders" so that it would be good to have a senator who would work with them the way they work now, it would be good to hear about that too.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 30, 2008 10:04:17 AM
O.k., if "In the News" is going to editorialize ("accidentally") the commentary should be signed, or at least explained. What does "accidentally" mean?
Chris, I've updated the post to expand and clarify. But it's worth noting that the "accidentally" thing was fully explained in the post.
As for "negative", of course it's a negative ad. (Just like Macpherson's, Jenni.) Thus the AP line - "Steve Novick took direct aim his rival".
Full disclosure: I built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.
Oh, and Pat, as I mentioned on the other post, your feed on LeftyBlogs is fine. Just delayed, along with 300 other blogs that were slow to respond yesterday.
Posted by: MCR | Apr 30, 2008 10:24:10 AM
It's not much of a hit piece, but it's not a very interesting ad either.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 10:28:45 AM
"As for "negative", of course it's a negative ad. (Just like Macpherson's, Jenni.) Thus the AP line - "Steve Novick took direct aim his rival"."
Stuff and nonsense. Macpherson conjures up an unflattering image of his actual opponent, names him, and then ascribes to him negatives that are poorly verifiable by fact. THAT is a negative ad.
Taking one moment out of 30 seconds to draw a single, factual contrast between you and your opponent is not a negative ad.
And it's delightful to see you place your trust in the editorial alacrity of Associated Press, Kari. They've done such a fair job the last few years with that...
Posted by: colin maloney | Apr 30, 2008 10:29:11 AM
"Unlike my opponent, I would never praise George Bush for invading Iraq." (from the ad)
Sounds like a theme that could be used against Smith in the General as well as against Merkley in the Primary...
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 30, 2008 10:29:38 AM
Chris Lowe: I think Jeff is going to get rolled by the "leaders" into their "roll-me" approach to the Republicans.
How did Merkley perform when he had a razor-thin 31 to 29 advantage in the legislature?
Didn't the Oregonian try to ding Merkley for having burned bridges with legislative Democrats in the recent special session?
You can't have it both ways. Either Merkley is timid and the 2007 session never happened - or - Merkley fought hard against daunting odds to the point of being accused (falsely) of having burned bridges on his own side of the aisle.
Look at HR2. Congressman AuCoin tried to lay the onus for no organized push-back on Merkley. Turns out Merkley wasn't the minority leader, Ms. Kafoury was. She was the kind of passive Dem leader who Merkley simply bypassed and later, when he was elected Speaker, showed how a strong Democratic leader can perform. Mind you, Governor K and many other Dems have bluntly stated that they flat out didn't believe ANYONE could have made much headway with a 31/29 advantage. Yet Merkley did what nobody thought possible.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 30, 2008 10:29:52 AM
Well, I don't know about the entire AP - but Julia Silverman does good work.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 30, 2008 10:34:03 AM
BTW, I'm not a person who thinks there's anything wrong with a negative spot. Voters have to make a choice, and it's the campaign's job to draw a contrast.
In general, the only thing that's bad is when the negative spot mischaracterizes or mis-states the opponent's views. But a negative spot that fairly describes the opponent's views is 100% fine.
With respect to this ad, I'll leave the discussion on that score to others.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2008 10:36:12 AM
One thing I like about Steve's ads is that he's the guy doing the talking. If you look at every ad that Merkley has produced -- and for that matter, every ad that Isaacs and whomever (Hiram or Compass or someone) does his spots produces -- it's always someone else speaking on behalf of the candidate.
As for the specifics of this spot...
I couldn't get the audio to work on Real Player 11. If the point is about Merkley's bad vote on HJR2, then my question is this:
Every time someone who supports Jeff on that issue defends him, the defense is that Novick is "going negative" by using a Republican talking point.
Here's my question: Let's pretend for a minute that Merkley makes it through the primary. How is he going to counter the same charge from Smith?
Somewhere else, Kevin said that Smith won't want to discuss the war. That may be true, but when Merkley raises the issue, Smith's response is going to be something like: "It seems to me that my opponent was for the war before you were against it. Isn't it hypocritical of you to criticize my votes when you, yourself cast a similar vote in the Oregon House? Why else did you praise the courage of te Commander-in-Chief for taking action?".
And the spots that he runs will be a helluva a lot tougher than that. They'll say that Merkley supported the largest tax increase in Oregon history. They'll say that Merkley is a politician who wants to play both sides of the fence on the war, etc.
That was one of several items on the list of reasons why I agreed to help Frohnmayer after it became clear that Merkley was the establishment pick in this race.
I knew then, what this primary campaign has proven out: That Jeff was a good speaker, and is a good man, who will run a very cautious, very conventional campaign that stands virtually no chance of gaining the traction he needs to defeat the better-funded Gordon Smith in the fall.
Novick has shown much greater resilience than I expected. He has run a fantastic campaign -- gaffes and all. Oregon voters will forgive a guy for making a few mistakes if they believe that he is really in this race to shake things up. But they will not rally behind a guy who is being overly-cautious, running a tepid message, and still making fairly regular mistakes on the campaign trail.
At this particular time, Steve has the best chance of blocking a challenge from the left and of rallying people around a populist, change-oriented message.
Just my $0.02
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 10:36:21 AM
Sometimes, Kari, sometimes.
As for Baghdad Kevin:
"Merkley fought hard against daunting odds to the point of being accused (falsely) of having burned bridges on his own side of the aisle."
Falsely? What do you base that on?
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 30, 2008 10:52:15 AM
but when Merkley raises the issue, Smith's response is going to be something like: "It seems to me that my opponent was for the war before you were against it.
:::rolls eyes:::
Sal, look at Smith's own record on Iraq. Do you seriously believe that he wants to compare his own "for, then against" Iraq record to a non-binding resolution???
The timeline on Smith's flip-flop is most damning of all the fact surrounding it.
He claims to have read a book in the summer of 2006 which changed his mind. But did he speak out? No. He waited and waited and waited until after SIX Republican Senators got booted in the November election before he spoke out.
And you think he's gonna want to get anywhere CLOSE to opening that can of worms?
You really disappoint me, Sal. Most Independents exhibit much better critical thinking skills...
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Apr 30, 2008 10:58:38 AM
Kevin said:
- So after all the faux weeping and gnashing of teeth by Novick partisans over Merkley's message testing - repleat with predictions that Merkley would "go negative" on Novick with TV ads... Novick is the one going negative.
Why am I not surprised?
Kevin, that's a straw man. The bulk of the criticism was not of the fact that the Merkley campaign suggested negative things about Novick, but the kind of things it suggested.
I don't happen to agree with Novick on this point, but the message is fair game. On an ethical level, it's always acceptable to question a political opponent's political stands.
I guess we'll see how it plays out politically. And I'm sure Merkley's decision not to run with the tax crap was a political call too, not an ethical one.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2008 10:59:47 AM
Kev, you missed the point: Regardless of whether or not Smith wants to talk about Iraq, what I have given you is his likely response to an attack on the war from Merkley.
How does the Merkley camp respond?
"Uh... those are GOP talking points." Is not going to work in the general election.
As for critical thinking ... There is nothing critical about wishing or hoping or praying that Smith won't respond to that criticism in exactly the way that I've descibed.
So I'll ask again, when Smith says that Merkley was before the war before he was against it, how does Merkley respond?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Apr 30, 2008 11:02:12 AM
Kevin,
Not really responsive to my question, which is about how Jeff will approach the problem of passivity and timidity in DC. Is he critical of how the current leadership has handled Iraq? If he's serious about the "responsible plan," how does he propose to get through the items they have obstructed, not moved on, or not fought for?
But let's take your analogy further for a sec. It has two parts, how Jeff functioned as a leader, but more implicitly, how he functioned as a follower. Did Jeff try to get the Kafoury leadership to do anything different when he was more of a backbencher or rank & file rep or whatever? If so, what? His actions as a leader may be relevant in two terms if he gets elected -- what I want to know is how he will approach the Iraq issue in 2009.
Did Jeff ever publicly disagree with or criticize D leadership when he wasn't in it?
I am not trying to have anything both ways, & I am not responsible for the Oregonian's editorial positions. I am honestly expressing a real perception I have, specifically in relation to the occupation-war issue in Iraq.
It really isn't about point scoring. The war issue matters more to me than any candidate.
Among other things it's about trying to figure out how I will need to relate, as an anti-war activist, to Jeff, if he is the nominee.
Despite my support for Steve, I was grateful for the Merkley presence at the March 15 rally & march.
But I was grateful for Earl Blumenauer's speaking from the podium in 2006, and yet have been disappointed in his not pushing harder for standing up to Bush on war funding. Disillusionment with the Dems failure to follow up on their promises led to a decision this year not to invite any elected officials to speak.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 30, 2008 11:05:46 AM
Falsely? What do you base that on?
Rep. Phil Barnhart: "Yet, Jeff held us together through the 2007 and the short 2008 session to pass some important progressive legislation. And he has the deep respect of all of his colleagues after all of it."
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Apr 30, 2008 11:06:18 AM
Sal, I was just over at the Frohnmayer website, and as far as I could find, there was not a single word about Iraq.
Is John dodging the issue? Is he giving Smith a pass on it? Will he caucus with the Republicans if elected and either support McCain's militarism or obstruct a Democratic president's efforts to get out of Iraq? Or will he caucus with Dems like Bernie Sanders (or Jeffords before, perhaps more comparably)?
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 11:07:20 AM
"And I'm sure Merkley's decision not to run with the tax crap was a political call too, not an ethical one."
There's still time, and $250,000, for him to do something. He's not going to spend that extra dough from his house on more face time for his wife, I don't think.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2008 11:13:32 AM
Sal, I was just over at the Frohnmayer website, and as far as I could find, there was not a single word about Iraq.
I can't say. When I helped him launch in September and October, we had a video clip that prominently featured his comments about Iraq, which we released on YouTube.
It didn't get anywhere near the play that his comments about impeaching Bush got.
At this point, given that he has failed to raise enough money to run a credible campaign, I hope that John will participate in the debates and then throw his support behind the Democratic nominee -- though I believe that there is a stronger chance of that happening if Novick wins the Democratic Primary since Steve is doing more to speak to John's issues.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 30, 2008 11:17:01 AM
Did Jeff ever publicly disagree with or criticize D leadership when he wasn't in it?
GREAT question, Chris. Finally we are getting down to something that is truly important.
No, Jeff doesn't make a habit of taking public shots at his fellow Democrats, very unlike Steve Novick's long and sordid history shows.
I submit to you that there is NO WAY in Hades that Jeff could have accomplished what he did in the 2007 session and this year's short special session if he were like Novick and ran around spouting insults at elected Democrats.
Right now Oregon serves as an example to the rest of the nation. No other state legislature matched what Merkley et al did in the 2007. Not a single one.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Apr 30, 2008 11:37:05 AM
Kevin,
You still are dodging my question about how Jeff would handle the problem of timid Democratic Senate leadership on the Iraq issue, if elected, and if he is seriously anti-war.
Regarding your responses above, you have blamed timid Kafoury leadership for lack of more & other kinds of pushback to HR2. Did Jeff press for such pushback "behind the scenes"? Try to organize any other kind of response, that need not have criticized the D leadership but still called the Rs out more? Or did he in fact share the analysis of the Kafoury leadership about how to respond?
Posted by: James X. | Apr 30, 2008 11:37:44 AM
TJ, both this and Novick's last ad have been negative. The last ad said Merkley's ads suck and so does his tax policies. This one says he's a Bush-lover. Neither ad has used Merkley's name, but both correctly assume we're smart enough to know who he's running against. We went over this a long time ago.
That said, my main opposition to this ad is the baggage handler's hammy acting, not the swipe at Merkley.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 30, 2008 11:44:54 AM
Did Jeff press for such pushback "behind the scenes"? Try to organize any other kind of response, that need not have criticized the D leadership but still called the Rs out more?
Again, an important question on the meta side of which of these two guys is more tempermentally suited to moving the progressive and/or liberal aqgenda forward.
If you want to get something accomplished either in Oregon, the US, or the world, you don't get all that far by insulting, bullying, and denigrating the people that you will be working with whether they are going to be on your side of the table or the other side of the table.
Standing off to one side of the fray swinging a sword (or a hook) around in circles may get you some nice news clips for the faithful but doesn't do a damned thing to better the country or the world.
Screaming insults may satisfy some primitive urges to get payback, but that's about all it does.
Temper Tantrums are reallyt great theoter, but I'm going with the adult here.
There's too much at stake.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Apr 30, 2008 11:45:07 AM
As I've written before, I think Merkley's vote for HR2 was a mistake, but there certainly were mitigating circumstances. Of course, Novick's ad does not mention them. It is, after all, a campaign ad.
There is an important difference between this issue and the one involving Merkley's poll question testing ad language, which suggested that Novick loves taxation. Novick's ad is from a Democratic point of view [or, at least one I hope Democrats would hold], that illegal invasions, killing humans, and wasting tax money are bad things. Merkley's poll question [which has not led to an ad, as far as I know] is from a Republican viewpoint, that we must guard against elected officials who would tax us. Novick's ad, whether it leaves an accurate impression of Merkley or not, reinforces Democratic values. Merkley's ad [if created and run] would Reinforce republican values - or more accurately, Republican rhetoric, since there is not much actual difference between the parties in the level of taxation they vote to support.
Posted by: Anon | Apr 30, 2008 11:48:05 AM
I just decided to vote for Merkley.
Going big-negative in a D primary. Terrible and terribly stupid.
Posted by: trishka | Apr 30, 2008 11:53:51 AM
yeah, if novick just weren't so gosh darned ANGRY!!!!!!
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 11:55:44 AM
"TJ, both this and Novick's last ad have been negative. The last ad said Merkley's ads suck and so does his tax policies. This one says he's a Bush-lover. Neither ad has used Merkley's name, but both correctly assume we're smart enough to know who he's running against. We went over this a long time ago."
Your definition reduces "negative" to functional meaninglessness, however. By those standards, Merkley's "Fighter" ad is negative (taking on "Democratic inaction," and noting that he was "against the war from the start," having claimed that Novick was MIA), and so is Kroger's first ad (saying he has trial experience, when we know Mac doesn't). I think those are spurious connections to the concept of a "negative ad."
A negative ad, as I would define it, is chiefly aimed at identifying and naming something negative about a specifically named opponent. This ad (like the other two I noted) doesn't qualify.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 30, 2008 11:57:34 AM
Kevin, I wasn't aware Rep. Barnhart had begun speaking for the state Senate's Democratic caucus...
Posted by: LT | Apr 30, 2008 12:01:43 PM
Thank you Daniel, you are a man among men!
On the other hand, I haven't lost a shred of respect for Jeff Merkley for voting for that resolution. I can understand why a professional politician would have done it. And if he wins the nomination, I don't think this vote would dampen my rooting for him in the least.
Need I remind everyone that the Democratic electorate(defined as people who will get Democratic ballots in the mail not long from now) includes everyone who registered Dem. by the registration deadline? That includes former NAV and Rs who wanted to vote in all the interesting primaries this year, presidential on down.
There may be folks (esp. long time Democrats in areas like Mult. Co. ) who think Steve was right to mention this 2003 resolution issue in speeches and interviews and everyone else should see it the same way!
Seems to me I heard Steve make a statement that he would never say a nice word about GW Bush.
This is how Democrats are going to defeat Gordon Smith by alienating people who may have voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 only later to get disgusted?
Posted by: without name | Apr 30, 2008 12:06:08 PM
We should not be doing anything that will reduce the chance of the eventual nominee to win the general election. Whether it's Merkley or Novick, they need to be in the strongest position possible.
Charlie, Macpherson vs. Kroger is different, because there's no R in the race, much less a strong incumbent R US Senator.
Posted by: James X. | Apr 30, 2008 12:22:58 PM
TJ, both Kroger's and MacPherson's ads used negative campaigning. You'd have to be pretty slow not to pick up on the criticisms they made of each other. Your definition of negative seems to be "nasty" or "unfair." Mine is criticising your opponent. And by that measure, fighting "Democratic inaction" isn't negative. I'm not making an exception for Merkley here, his ads just haven't lived up to the definition. I wouldn't be surprised if we do see a negative ad from Merkley in the coming weeks, though.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Apr 30, 2008 12:35:20 PM
...which illustrates the point that bitching about negative ads is silliness. I want to know what's wrong with candidates. It is dishonest, hypocritical, trivial or irrelevant attacks that should provoke our bitching.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 30, 2008 12:52:06 PM
Again, an important question on the meta side of which of these two guys is more tempermentally suited to moving the progressive and/or liberal aqgenda forward.
I agree. At this point in our history, I'd like Oregon to send a hard-nosed litigator who will work to roll back some of the power of the executive branch, and who will use the considerable tools available to a United States Senator to ensure that a progressive agenda is moving forward given that it is likely that the Democrats will have majorities in both houses.
Go-along to get-along has a time and a place. Right now is not that time.
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: Daniel Spiro | Apr 30, 2008 5:10:36 AM
I see this issue differently than most. On the one hand, I agree with Steve that the resolution was a mistake. I would add that a politician like Steve Novick is unusual, refreshing, and needed precisely because he would not join in the kind of language that gives rise to resolutions like this one at a time when the country was making such a horrible, horrible mistake.
On the other hand, I haven't lost a shred of respect for Jeff Merkley for voting for that resolution. I can understand why a professional politician would have done it. And if he wins the nomination, I don't think this vote would dampen my rooting for him in the least.