Novick disses the netroots, causes firestorm, then apologizes
Deep inside the Willamette Week endorsement interview of the Dems running for the U.S. Senate, there's a clip of Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick talking about blogging. And it sparked a mini-firestorm in the netroots over the weekend.
In the clip, Jeff Merkley praises the blogs, noting that the netroots will spread the word about our Senate race in the fall. But Steve Novick dismissed blogging as "a way for a number of people to waste a vast quantity of time."
And while it's certainly true that there's plenty of time wasted all over the blogs, it's also true that the netroots have become a central part of the progressive infrastructure in this state and across the country - helping take this country back. We share information, build community, get organized, raise money, and influence the dialogue. Novick's backhanded dismissal is just bizarre.
Here's the one-minute clip:
Reactions...
Over at the Northwest Progressive Institute:
I can hardly believe Novick actually said this, but you can see it for yourself - it's all on video. I've observed before that Oregon's netroots community is split between Novick and Merkley. Novick has many supporters online, so why is he dissing people who have invested time building new media?...Given how hard Novick has tried to present himself as a people's insurgent against an establishment rival, I can't help but conclude he's done himself some damage with these comments. Whether or not his supporters get upset about this remains to be seen, but Novick has already managed to lose favor with us.
Merkley's answer, on the other hand, is what I would expect to hear from a Democratic candidate who appreciates the value of the netroots community.
Senate Guru mentioned the comments in his Saturday round-up - which sparked a massive comment thread from bloggers around the country upset about it. A sampling:
ryanlkelly -- What the hell is Novick thinking? It's almost like he's trying to throw the damn primary away and build support up for Merkley. If I was voting there, I'm pretty sure my vote was already behind Merkley but it's just solidifying more and more now.Jeremiahthemessiah -- Insulting Bloggers. That's kind of the last straw with me. I don't jump financially into a bunch of races. I'm still a college student! But now, I'm seriously considering tossing 40-50 bucks in for Merkley. I don't want to see Novick win. Period. Weaker GE candidate, and he's had a number of statements that will come up from the primary that makes him a huge risk in the general.
emilyxgeorge -- Why wait until after the May primary to add Oregon to expand the map [fundraising effort]? Clearly, you should add Merkley now after Novick's latest assault on reason. Novick was always a long shot, but at this point he's shot himself in the head so many times it's clear if we want to get to 60, Merkley needs to win the primary.
populista -- Novick has said some stupid things that have made me go from a supporter of his to a soft Merkly supporter but there is no reason to take sides in Expand the Map.
On Sunday, Steve Novick rightfully apologized on his campaign blog:
In the Willamette Week endorsement interview the other day, I gave a pretty dumb answer to a question about the impact of blogs on politics. Some folks online are blowing my comments up as a betrayal of the netroots, so I wanted to take a moment to apologize for my statement and clarify what I was trying to say. ...My concern, which I agree came out very poorly, was whether the internal fights between like-minded progressives can distract us from the larger task of taking back our country. In my own primary, we’ve seen bloggers who are typically allies divided into increasingly personal and repetitive fights that I worry do little to help reach a broader audience or advance our cause. Of course, as I noted in my comments, this is (hopefully) really just a loss to those individuals, but I worry about the cost to personal relationships and uniting progressives in the general election.
The whole thing has been very weird, especially since - until he ran for Senate - Steve was a regular contributor here at BlueOregon. As the Oregonian's Jeff Mapes noted:
For someone who once was a regular contributor to a political blog, Democratic Senate candidate Steve Novick has had a funny relationship with the netroots this campaign season.
Bizarre.
[Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]
|
April 14, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (84 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Apr 14, 2008 4:29:52 AM
Kari, I don't get it -- you agree that what Novick said is true. So at worst, this is a case of misplaced emphasis.
Speaker made a very good point, that blogs help publicize that Oregon as a whole has an excellent slate of progressive Senate candidates.
Novick responded by noting a downside of blogs.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable discussion to me.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Apr 14, 2008 5:20:04 AM
Novick is playing the Obama role in this campaign. The Merkley supporters are trying to replicate the Hillary role (tear the primary opponent down every way possible). It's too bad that Jeff doesn't have as loyal a lieutenant as Joe Scarborough to get on TV every day and insult Novick every day like Scarborough insults Obama. I guess Kari Chisolm, and his Blue Oregon blog, will have to suffice.
Kari has determined that he will hit Novick early and often if that's what it takes to elect the politician who paid him. (Oh, and he'll intersperse the insults with an occasional compliment just to keep up the appearance of some semblance of balance.) It's called politics as usual, which is precisely what Novick and Obama are running against.
If you listened to the Portland debate, you heard a politician that sounded smooth and polished against a guy that sound frank and gritty. It's kind of a subjective issue as to who you prefer. Personally, I think a little candor and grit is what's needed in my home town of D.C. That is part of the formula for change.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Apr 14, 2008 6:25:47 AM
Why does Mr. Chisholm persist when it has become apparent to even the most casual observer that he is nothing more than a campaign operative? Does Mr. Chisholm push equally silly criticisms of his benefactors? After all, he "speaks only for himself". Riiiiight.
Posted by: Masterpiece | Apr 14, 2008 6:36:24 AM
Novick is playing the Obama role in this campaign. The Merkley supporters are trying to replicate the Hillary role (tear the primary opponent down every way possible). It's too bad that Jeff doesn't have as loyal a lieutenant as Joe Scarborough to get on TV every day and insult Novick every day like Scarborough insults Obama. I guess Kari Chisolm, and his Blue Oregon blog, will have to suffice.
Odd. The tearing down in the video clip in this post comes from Steve Novick, not from Jeff Merkley. The nasty and snide comments in this thread so far come from those who support Novick, not Merkley.
The blogs have been very important to Novick's campaign. If they're a "waste of time", then a lot of people have been wasting a lot of time supporting Steve. It was a stupid and petulant thing for him to say.
The "internal fights" quote is interesting. Given how much his supporters continue to stoke that, as evidenced in comments above and will likely be in evidence in comments below this one.
Posted by: david gee | Apr 14, 2008 7:09:21 AM
I may not be up on all the facts, but in my experience a person who profits from one campaign should not be commenting publically on a rival campaign, at least not with any pretense of fairness.
Again, maybe I am missing something, but the idea that a 'Progressive' site posts attacks on one candidate written by a person with contracts with the other is shocking to me. Every time I come to this site there is a negative story on Novik witten by a Merkely paid individual who claims to be speaking independently. Well, that person needs to understand that taking the money makes the independence suspect, to say the least.
Why does an individual with ties to one campaign continue to froth up faux outrage against the rival? And yeah, faux outrage. It is not like blogs are free of time wasting agenda mongers, or even paid operatives disguised as honest voters.
From my point of view, these anti-Novik posts are unethical, and the wee disclosure does not go far enough. What does this operative mean when he says 'my firm'? The firm he owns and operates? Or the firm he works for as one of a hundered employees? Big difference, indeed. So the disclosure is not a disclosure at all.
Posted by: Carl Fisher | Apr 14, 2008 7:26:48 AM
Wait a minute. Did I hear correctly that Steve Novick apologized? It must be true, he really isn't a politician.
Which of course is a good thing.
Posted by: bdunn | Apr 14, 2008 7:39:07 AM
This is just another example, yet again, of Steve Novick sticking his foot firmly in his mouth. Novick wildly attacked Obama, Novick wildly attacked Darlene Hooley, Novick wildly attacked Bill Richardson. He irresponsibly said that he would vot for Frohnmyer, who, rather than the Democratic nominee is the best candidate not named Steve Novick.
This is far more than a pattern and if our nominee, it would only be a matter of time before Novick says something he would call "undiplomatic" and I would call exceedingly stupid that Smith would use against Novick like a bludgeon. We cannot nominate someone so undisciplined to take on Gordon Smith or we will lose.
I liked Merkley's answer in the video. In contrast to Novick, Merkley responded that blogs are essential to the spread of information and used the opportunity to compliment the other three Democrats, saying that the candidates in the race represented amazing progressive talent. I am glad that Oregonians have a great option for people that like candidates like Obama that unite people to bring about change. That candidate is Jeff Merkley.
Posted by: Karen | Apr 14, 2008 7:48:42 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why Novick said he would vote for Independent John Fromeyer, a former Republican who switched parties to run against Steve and Jeff in the May primary if he doesn't win the nomination. That was up on Jeff Mape's political blog and in a recent WW article all week end long. Dissing bloggers, dissing fellow Democrats....strange strategy to appeal to fellow Democrats.
Posted by: TomK | Apr 14, 2008 8:14:48 AM
Right. Who better to judge the importance of blogging than a bunch of ... bloggers?
Get over yourself!
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 14, 2008 8:15:11 AM
This interview was a study in contrasts.
When asked who he would vote for if he couldn't vote for himself, Jeff Merkley immediately and decisively stated that he would vote for Steve Novick. Novick also happens to be the one person in the room who had been attacking Merkley for months and also was the one person in the room who posed the greatest challenge to Merkley. With his answer Jeff Merkley demonstrated that he is 100% focused on defeating Gordon Smith.
In stark contrast on literally every level was the response by Steve Novick to the same question.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 14, 2008 8:22:02 AM
Don't blame Kari. He can't help himself.
It's like getting mad at a toddler for throwing a fit. Ya know, it's what they do.
I am still waiting for a post about Steve Duin's Sunday column where he says Jeff Merkley, the guy who pays kari, is running a campaign that makes him the second biggest hypocrite in the world (right behind bono).
I bet that will never see the light of day at BlueOregon.
Bizarre.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 14, 2008 8:31:50 AM
OK
After having read the "massive comment thread from bloggers around the country upset about it" it's clear that Chisholm is also a liar.
Seven people in that thread had negative comments about Novick. The rest were neutral or pro-Novick, or they were talking about other races in the Saturday Round-Up.
kari Chisholm lied on BlueOregon's front page to promote a paying client.
Jeff? Charlie? Anyone care?
I guess now is when the "Glee Club" starts chiming in.
Posted by: TroyB | Apr 14, 2008 8:32:48 AM
I think Kari's disclaimer should be more accurate and say "I'm Jeff Merkley's Mark Penn of the Blogs". What a ridiculous criticism of Steve.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 14, 2008 8:33:29 AM
Kari's right- this is bizarre.
I'm glad he apologized for the strange comment, but I still feel a little jilted. I mean, although I'm a Merkley guy, I'd expect either potential nominee to be thoroughly and unequivocally supportive of the work we all do -- especially on Gordon Smith's record.
I guess that still leaves me with the Frohnmeyer question. After all the work Jeff's done to build a grassroots network, can't Steve at least go off-message for five seconds and give Jeff even the littlest praise or support? After all, beating Gordon Smith is the A-1 priority, and we need either Jeff or Steve at full unity to do that.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 14, 2008 8:33:46 AM
Excuse me again.
Kari wasn't promoting his paying client. He was tearing down with the Democratic rival of his paying client
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 14, 2008 8:37:00 AM
What Novick said about blogging is true. They can be used to set the terms of the debate, and a whole lot of people waste a whole lot of time with them.
This post is proof of both truths. Kari is using his blog to spin Novick's comment into something he didn't actually say and borrowing from 3 Merkley-supporting blogs to make the bulk of his case.
And the people making the bulk of the case -- particularly Kevin and Bdunn -- waste a hell of a lot of time blogging in the false belief that they are actually doing something that is of benefit to their candidate.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 8:38:21 AM
kari, shame on you for using a source like Senate Guru, who through his
zealousness has been forced to retract multiple smears against Novick, and uses misleading tactics much like the one you employ here: pretending novick "dismissed blogging," when in fact he agreed with Merkley's pander response before offering another angle on them--one which no one could seriously deny, and which you in fact do not deny. Or like
pretending Novick would not support the nominee.
So how many bullshit character attacks having nothing to do with the Senate
does Merkley have left? Just so I can adjust my calendar...
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 14, 2008 8:39:26 AM
I guess that still leaves me with the Frohnmeyer question. After all the work Jeff's done to build a grassroots network
What work is that, exactly? If Merkley had built a strong grassroots base in this state, he wouldn't be running behind Candy Neville in current polling just 1 month out from the primary election.
Posted by: Runtmg | Apr 14, 2008 8:40:29 AM
Folks, Steve Novick is a bright guy, a great attorney, a great pol consultant. He has been effective thus far at mobilizing the young voters in Portland.
However, he doesn't have my vote. The guy is melting down making weird comments about netroots, Bono, not supporting Merkley if Merkley wins, being in favor of a "limited" death penalty. He is running a strange campaign, and his supporters are getting a bit loopy about it.
Each one of these comments are defended by the diehard Novick supporters. It's this the-whole-world-is-wrong and we are right attitude that is exceptionally annoying.
I want a responsible candidate. When I say responsible, I mean one who can articulate their views in a way that won't scare off anyone who doesn't agree with them 100 percent. I am leaning more and more towards Merkley.
Posted by: Runtmg | Apr 14, 2008 8:42:05 AM
Kari, should abstain away from writing posts like this, no matter how articulate he may be or correct in pointing it out, he is working for Merkley and there is no way that he can speak for himself. His point stands though, I believe.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Apr 14, 2008 8:44:02 AM
I think that the choice in the primary is becoming increasingly clear to voters.
Choice One: We have a candidate--Steve Novick--who's often made highly critical remarks of his allies leading up to and during this campaign, only to regret them later (either out of principle or political expediency).
He's admitted he's a loose cannon, and that he goes over the top frequently to make a point. And that causes some damage. He's called Obama a 'fraud' and 'uninspiring', Hillary a 'traitress', Richardson a 'shameless panderer', and Darlene Hooley a 'peddler of lies'. And now this about blogs.
Yet Steve Novick has recently said that he worries about 'uniting progressives' for the General Election. Then why does he prefer independent John Frohnmayer over Jeff Merkley?
Choice Two: We have Jeff Merkley. Jeff's served for 10 years in the Oregon House and built the strongest progressive campaign in a long time to take back the Oregon House. He took back 7 seats in two elections. And then, with a bare 31-29 majority, led the most productive, progressive session since the 1970s.
Jeff's the one uniting progressives to defeat Gordon Smith. And that's why he's supported by Planned Parenthood, Basic Rights Oregon, AFL-CIO, SEIU, the Sierra Club, the Oregon Nurses Association and so many more.
Here in Oregon, it's going to take everything we've got to beat Gordon Smith. We can't afford to have a nominee who attacks his allies.
We need Jeff Merkley, a strong progressive uniter, to beat Gordon Smith and take on special interests in the Senate.
Posted by: darrelplant | Apr 14, 2008 8:47:28 AM
Dissing bloggers, dissing fellow Democrats....strange strategy to appeal to fellow Democrats.
Opening line of Jeff Merkley's recent TV ad: "Tired of his party's inaction, Jeff Merkley led Democrats back to power."
Merkley's not just dissing a couple of national party Democrats there, or some Democratic bloggers. He's saying that the members of the Oregon legislature were ineffective until he rode in on his white horse and led them to victory.
Still, many of Merkley's colleagues endorsed him (although they did so before he called then ineffectual in the ad). Somehow, I doubt that it's going to make much of a difference in the long run, except to some exceedingly thin-skinned people.
There. I've just wasted five minutes.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 9:05:34 AM
"I'd expect either potential nominee to be thoroughly and unequivocally supportive of the work we all do"
You'd expect that out of traditional, same old politics, wouldn't you? But here in the World of Reality, "the work we all do" is richly deserving of criticism as well as praise. Only someone who is simply trying to kiss ass and make people feel as superficially good about themselves as possible without letting honesty intrude, would offer unequivocal support for blogging.
And I'm sure Merkley's happy with the state of the blogs in Oregon at this point; he's ginned up a few to smear his opponent in classic Hillary style so that he can compensate for his apparently failed grassroots ability. Without Kari and Senate Guru running point on the Smear Express, Jeff would be in worse trouble than he is now.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 9:07:22 AM
And now that we see Novick's fundraising was up a pretty solid 57% last quarter, it will be interesting to see what Merkley's trend is--more raw dollars certainly, but how well compared to previous quarters?
Posted by: joel dan walls | Apr 14, 2008 9:10:08 AM
Folks, Steve Novick is a bright guy, a great attorney, a great pol consultant. He has been effective thus far at mobilizing the young voters in Portland.
However, he doesn't have my vote. The guy is melting down making weird comments about netroots, Bono, not supporting Merkley if Merkley wins, being in favor of a "limited" death penalty. He is running a strange campaign, and his supporters are getting a bit loopy about it.
"Strange campaign" seems pretty accurate, and "loopy" is also a pretty apt description.
Each one of these comments are defended by the diehard Novick supporters. It's this the-whole-world-is-wrong and we are right attitude that is exceptionally annoying.
Yes....unfortunately way too similar to the way zealous Obama supporters and zealous Clinton supporters are framing the debate.
I want a responsible candidate. When I say responsible, I mean one who can articulate their views in a way that won't scare off anyone who doesn't agree with them 100 percent. I am leaning more and more towards Merkley.
I was also leaning towards Merkley until I read the Steve Duin item in the Oregonian about Merkley's screwball telephone "push poll" asking leading questions and making demeaning remarks about Novick. How about Mr. Chisholm presenting something about Merkley's dumb push poll? (And don't patronize me with hair-splitting definitions of what a push poll is.)
A vote for Cindy Neville, anyone? Or Maybe Frohnmayer isn't looking so bad after all. My spouse wouldn't even divorce me for voting for Frohnmayer now that he's no longer a Republican :-)
Posted by: karen | Apr 14, 2008 9:11:41 AM
darrelplant
Thanks for the quote, "Tired of his party's inaction, Jeff Merkley led Democrts back to power."
Thanks to Jeff Merkley's leadership the 2007 legislative session was the most progressive legislation passed in over 30 years.
One can only imagine Novick trying to work with a 31-29 bare majority in the Oregon House. The potential for inflamatory remarks, impatience, and misplaced humor would likely not resulted in the most progressive legislation passed in 30 years. Novick is provocative, funny, smart and witty with strong left hook, the guy would be a great talk show host for the left.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Apr 14, 2008 9:13:59 AM
Seems to me, the blog comment was nothing. The part about not endorsing Merkley in the general is he's the nominee bothered me very much. We need to display unity if we're going to beat Smith.
I was also concerned about Merkley going negative on Novick, and was about ready to come off the fence for Novick as a result. Now I'm still just waiting for a primary winner so I can back that one. Either of them would be a much better legislative partner for Wyden than what we have now.
Please let's not have this race devolve into Clinton/Obama Lite at the 11th hour.
Posted by: local mom | Apr 14, 2008 9:14:55 AM
I think the ad is talking about "his party's inaction..." in the context of a Republican majority which caused said inaction. He is not "dissing" his party - and anyone who knows the history knows that.
When I watched the WW endorsement interviews, Jeff Merkley's ability to bring people together is obvious, and Steve Novick's divisive nature is equally obvious. And what is most obvious is who we should support in the primary!
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 14, 2008 9:21:48 AM
Novick seemed to say that there are two sides to this blogging coin. And there are. This blog for example, contains a lot of people spewing a lot of nastiness.
I agree as the more independent bloggers will probably also agree.
Is it a waste of time to spew such junk? Of course it is. And yet we're all guilty of it.
Some of the time spent on blogging is a waste on many people, but there is the prospect of people reading these blogs trying to make up their minds. If we abandon our positions and let our opponents go unchallenged, then we will be surrendering the field to them. So, it is not all necessarily a waste of time. However, it would be a delusion to blog with the prospect that you will persuade all readers of your comments to your cause. No way, but you might just help some people who will count and make a difference. As the old saying goes, "All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." "Evil" may be a stronger word than necessary in this case, but the principle applies.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 14, 2008 9:27:29 AM
I'd just urge anyone who is still undecided to watch the City Club debate and the WW interview. The blogger thing is bizarre all right but the previously mentioned endorsement of Frohnmeyer should really be seen in real time to appreciate where Novick seems to be coming from.
To review:
Merkley supports Novick without hesitation.
Novick gets into this weird long pause and response pattern as he first endorses Frohnmeyer, then is corralled by the interviewer with an "in the room" parameter, where he chooses........Neville.
After additional hemming and hawing he finally say concedes that he'd support Merkley (I'm guessing in a sort of I am Legend situation.
It's increasingly doubtful that this guy would be able to accomplish much in elected office. Given his demonstrated pattern of indiscriminate bashing, a voter viewing his behavior would have to wonder about how this stuff would ever advance the progressive agenda.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 9:30:16 AM
"Thanks to Jeff Merkley's leadership the 2007 legislative session was the most progressive legislation passed in over 30 years."
Wasn't it also the first Democratic House since Vera Katz was Speaker? Why wouldn't most of what passed in 2007, have passed with virtually any Speaker?
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 9:33:23 AM
"Novick gets into this weird long pause and response pattern as he first endorses Frohnmeyer, then is corralled by the interviewer with an "in the room" parameter, where he chooses........Neville."
It's amazing that some people think no matter how much Merkley slanders and lies about Steve Novick, literally using GOP-honed smears, he is automatically entitled to Novick's support. Maybe Jeff should have thought about running an honest campaign on the issues instead of a sleazy character attack-based one.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 14, 2008 9:33:35 AM
I'm still not sure how anything Steve said was wrong in the first place. I believe both that liberal blogs have done a world of good AND ALSO that they are a venue for the wasting of immense amounts of time. I have uttered those very thoughts to Steve in the past. God knows I've personally wasted enormous amounts of time on blogs.
Having said that, it's more than OK to apologize for causing a misunderstanding, which is what serious adults should do even when they have not said or done anything wrong. Seems he has stepped up appropriately.
Posted by: Bridget | Apr 14, 2008 9:37:08 AM
I think Evil is too strong a word.
I know that I have seen some good discourse on this blog.
There has also been a lot of snarky B.S.
And I've wasted at least 5 minutes on this post alone.
I'm happy that Steve came back and clarified his position.
I like it when people say what they think, and I'd be really happy with a senator who actually says what he thinks, and doesn't wait to find out whether it's okay with the Democratic party line. Let's bring some passion to the Senate!
Merkley couldn't even comment on whether he agreed that folks should be able to bring guns into National Parks. He had to wait until he heard from his higher-ups from outside of Oregon. That's not prudence that's paralysis.
Having said that, I wish that Steve wouldn't waste his time on silly subjects like whether Bono is a hypocrite or blogging is a waste of time. Merkley's campaign (with Kari's help) is making him chase his tail on this silly stuff. That's not helpful. I would expect Steve to handle this with more aplomb. Steve needs to focus his fighting instincts on issues that really matter to Oregon.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 14, 2008 9:42:39 AM
To be fair to Novick, what he actually said about the "vote" question is this:
"I'd wait several weeks because I'd want to see whether Speaker Merkley continues to run the kind of campaign that he's run against me. If he's, in fact, planning to attack me, as his poll already has as a pro-tax advocate, to continue to attack me for a 1998 comment about Ralph Nader, to attack me ..."
As has been previously pointed out, Novick also said he'd support Merkley in November if Merkley is the nominee.
Oregonian columnist Steve Duin weighed in on Merkley's campaign tactics Sunday, calling Merkley a close second to tax-evading Bono for world's biggest hypocrite.
I know those pesky truths kind of ruin things for the Merkleybots, but thems is da facts.
This is another attempt by Chisholm to muddy the waters on behalf of one of his paying clients by trying to turn nothing into something.
It's not like we haven't see this before on BlueOregon -- repeatedly.
Remember when Chisholm's source for the previous PDA-gate told him to stop mischaraterising their conversation in an attempt to "swiftboat" Novick?
More of the same.
Jeff? Charlie? Anyone care?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 14, 2008 9:43:48 AM
Personally, I too would be tempted (purely as an emotional matter) to vote for Frohnmayer in the general if Merkley were somehow to win the primary. I won't, because I'm a Democrat and the most important thing to me is for a Democrat to win. Happily, it appears unlikely that I (or Steve) will be forced to make that choice.
But it's not exactly shocking that Steve would be unhappy with the nasty campaign Merkley has run against him. I mean, if Steve's supporters like me are so bent out of shape about it, imagine how Steve must feel.
And the bottom line is that Steve has always said he would support the primary winner. He doesn't have to like it.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Apr 14, 2008 9:44:07 AM
Merkley couldn't even comment on whether he agreed that folks should be able to bring guns into National Parks. He had to wait until he heard from his higher-ups from outside of Oregon. That's not prudence that's paralysis.
BS. Merkley said he would discuss the issue with people like Jon Tester who support the proposal before he made up his mind on the issue and he promptly gets crucified for it. However, I don't see how that's any different from when Novick said that he had smart friend on both sides of the I-5 bridge debate and that he wasn't sure where he stood. Either they are both right, or they're both wrong for taking that approach, but let's quit with the blatant hypocrisy here.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | Apr 14, 2008 9:54:01 AM
Here's the thing, when someone asks you whether the netroots will be a good thing for the Democratic nominee, you just say yes! It's really not that hard. There are a ton of bloggers who spend a lot of their free time advocating for candidates they believe in. If John Edwards had insinuated that many of us were just wasting our time, I would have been offended! That could be considered self important, but when people are volunteering their time trying to spread the message about a candidate, you don't insult them. It's just common sense.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 9:56:29 AM
The difference Nick, is that Novick is entertaining counsel before reaching his own decision. Merkley said he had to go ask someone else what his position should be.
Posted by: LT | Apr 14, 2008 9:58:31 AM
Right On Masterpiece!!
"The blogs have been very important to Novick's campaign. If they're a "waste of time", then a lot of people have been wasting a lot of time supporting Steve. It was a stupid and petulant thing for him to say."
Also, Right On bdunn and Jack Murray.
Folks, WATCH the video. Look at the body language as well as listenting to the words. Jeff actually answered the question and was sitting still, just gesturing with his hands. Steve was squirming, and began his answer with "I have no idea".
Isn't that part of the point of interviews to see if candidates can give responsive answers to unexpected questions?
Yes, there are people here who would not believe Kari if he said it was raining outside. Therefore he shouldn't post stories like this, it should be someone else. But not having watched the entire WW video, I was glad to see the one minute clip.
And did you notice Steve was trying to pivot from blogs to something else and the interviewer then called on Loera to answer the question?
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 9:58:45 AM
"when someone asks you whether the netroots will be a good thing for the Democratic nominee, you just say yes! It's really not that hard"
Only if you want to pander and not really be honest or answer the question fairly. But I certainly agree Merkley has the list of traditional politics click-whirr responses, and rattles them off when prompted.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 14, 2008 10:02:33 AM
"Steve was squirming, and began his answer with "I have no idea"."
Do YOU have a definitive position on whether blogs have been a positive or a negative for the Senate campaign? What quantifiable evidence can you use to bolster your conclusion?
The correct answer IS "I don't know," isn't it? Does anyone have a way to truly calculate the net effect of blogs on this primary?
I think your problem begins when you admit "I only watched a tiny bit of the interview, but..."
Posted by: LT | Apr 14, 2008 10:03:23 AM
This is the most intelligent thing I have heard Novick say in quite awhile (copied from LO) :
In the Willamette Week endorsement interview the other day, I gave a pretty dumb answer to a question about the impact of blogs on politics. Some folks online are blowing my comments up as a betrayal of the netroots, so I wanted to take a moment to apologize for my statement and clarify what I was trying to say.
We were asked: “The blogs … do you think they've helped or hurt the Democratic nominee's chance to win in November?” Given the editor’s additional comments, I took this to mean, “Has all the back-and-forth between the candidates’ partisans on the blogs so far helped or hurt the cause?”
The truth is that blogs and the netroots are doing a lot to beat Gordon Smith and they are doing a lot to help my campaign.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Apr 14, 2008 10:06:07 AM
joel an walls: I was also leaning towards Merkley until I read the Steve Duin item in the Oregonian about Merkley's screwball telephone "push poll" asking leading questions and making demeaning remarks about Novick.
If Steve Duin wrote that Speaker Merkley's campaign did a push-poll, that was clearly libel on Mr. Duin's part. Both campaigns have tested negative messages against the other (Mr. Novick's campaign having done it first), but neither have done a push poll.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 14, 2008 10:11:19 AM
Yes, there are people here who would not believe Kari if he said it was raining outside.
Well, LT, just like I can check the weatherby looking for myself, I can check the veracity of what Kari says.
He claimed "a massive comment thread from bloggers around the country upset about it."
I counted seven unique commenters upset about it. The rest of the comments pro-Novick, neutral, or they were about an entirely different race.
So yes, If Kari told me it was raining outside, I'd have to check for myself before I believed it.
Posted by: trishka | Apr 14, 2008 10:15:14 AM
okay, i am late, as usual to the fracas, but i have to say i'm gobsmacked at the faux controversy.
can anyone here honestly say that, regardless of the benefit of reading/participating on these blogs (and there is a lot) - they aren't also a huge time suck?
oh my FSM! honestly.
::giggling::
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 14, 2008 10:16:06 AM
I think most of the comments here speak for themselves.
I'll just remind folks that you don't have to read BlueOregon if you don't like it. If you think I'm not credible, don't read what I write.
I'll also remind you that there are LOTS of pro-Novick contributors on this blog - from two of his biggest endorsers, Les AuCoin and Randy Leonard; to his early-in-the-campaign PR person, Leslie Carlson; and don't forget Charlie Burr, one of his earliest supporters and a BlueOregon editor. There are several others too. Each of them has a password and can post anytime they like.
As for my personal ethics, I'm 100% comfortable with how I do things. I'm an activist. I decide who to work for based on who I support in the election.
My friend Steve Novick asked me to work for his campaign way back before he announced in April. I declined, and decided instead to work for Jeff Merkley, who announced in August. It's probable, given how we charge for our services, that I'd have made more money if I'd agreed to work for Steve -- so this is yet another case where I made a decision to work for the candidate that was less lucrative for me and my company.
Y'all can keep attacking me, or you can talk about the issues at hand. Just know that the former is a waste of time.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | Apr 14, 2008 10:16:17 AM
It's not pandering to say that the netroots will help the Democratic nominee. I think the netroots has done a lot of good work for a lot of candidates. Look at 2006 and what we did for Tester and Webb. I even asked Tester how he felt about the bloggers, and he said he really appreciated all that they did for his candidacy.
Regardless, I like Merkley's answer. He believes the netroots will help the nominee, complimented everyone running for the nomination and said that we'll all come together in the end.
To all the Novick folks, you all know I'm a Merkley supporter, however, I will look forward to working with you online if Novick gets the nod. I hope you feel the same way if Merkley gets the nod. The real target here is Smith, he's gotta go!
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 14, 2008 4:14:27 AM
Talk about a mountain out of a molehill. This reminds me of Obama's statement about people being "bitter." We live in a society where all you have to do is open your mouth and you'll offend people, at least if you're a politician who isn't completely programmed and monotonous.
Novick seemed to say that there are two sides to this blogging coin. And there are. This blog for example, contains a lot of people spewing a lot of nastiness. Is it a waste of time to spew such junk? Of course it is. And yet we're all guilty of it.
What's really a shame is that Novick felt the need to say that his answer was dumb. It was frank, that's all. And accurate. And in today's politics, frank and accurate statements are usually considered dumb. Our problem, not his.