Novick disses the netroots, causes firestorm, then apologizes

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

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.]

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • david gee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • TomK (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Right. Who better to judge the importance of blogging than a bunch of ... bloggers?

    Get over yourself!

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • TroyB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excuse me again.

    Kari wasn't promoting his paying client. He was tearing down with the Democratic rival of his paying client

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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...

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Runtmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Runtmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    So... Novick apologized for telling the truth?

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)
    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.

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • (Show?)

    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?

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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 :-)

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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!

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    "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?

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Bridget (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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?

  • (Show?)

    "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.

  • (Show?)

    "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..."

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    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::

  • (Show?)

    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.

  • (Show?)

    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!

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torridjoe, I would say that Jeff Merkley immediately responded to the interview's question about supporting the nominee because he has clear sight of the overall goal: Beating Gordon Smith.

    Novick hemmed and hawed, clearly uncomfortable, and flubbed the answer. I respect his tenacity to campaign for office, but lately I'm not so sure that he's completely committed to the cause of eliminating Gordon Smith as our Senator.

    We'll need to close ranks so damn fast in order to build a campaign to take Smith down. Frohnmayer can't do it; only a Democrat can. And we don't have room for error or evaluation after the primary; it's all in.

    Either Novick's on board with the nominee, or he's not.

  • (Show?)
    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.

    That's not what the ad says.

    The phrasing of the line squarely places the blame for the ineffectiveness of the Democrats on the Democrats. It doesn't say he was frustrated by Republican control of the Legislature. It doesn't say the Democrats were doing things that were bring stymied by the majority. It says the Democrats were inactive.

    But you seem to have missed the point of this little exercise. I don't think that it's particularly consequential or that it will have any effect on Merkley's chances in the election or that it will drive the people he's labeled inactive away from him, even if it was exactly what he meant (as opposed to lines written by the ad campaign and just approved by him). Because it's no more important than the hysteria over what Steve Novick said about bloggers.

    The question -- after all -- was whether blogs have "helped or hurt the Democratic nominee's chances." Considering that this blog and Senate Guru and several others have had a decidedly pro-Merkley slant, and that Loaded Orygun and a couple of others have been pro-Novick (I haven't seen any Neville blogs, but they're likely out there), what would you expect him to say? An unreserved "BLOGZ IZ GR8!"?

    Another 10 minutes down the drain.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks Kari, by the way, for pointing out these excellent websites. It's interesting to see our little Oregon race from the national perspective. Not to mention the excellent writing.

    Take for example "Senate Guru"'s take on torridjoe (although to be fair, this could apply to any one of a number of obsessive anti-Democratic party and/or purity troll partisans):

    "I have zero problem with your support for a candidate I'm not sold on. What bothers me is the Kool-Aid breath."

    Comedy gold.

  • (Show?)

    Kool-Aid breath... that IS funny.

    ;-)

  • (Show?)

    I think what has people like Darrel Plant flustered is that Merkley is able to communicate frustration with the past inaction of fellow Democrats without childishly resorting to calling them names or threatening to vote for a member of another Party.

    It's nice to know that there is at least one adult in this primary race.

  • (Show?)

    The question -- after all -- was whether blogs have "helped or hurt the Democratic nominee's chances."

    Uh, yeah I guess that's the specific topic of the thread, but The Question is really a two parter:

    Which one of these guys can beat Smith and which is capable of forming alliances in the US Senate capable of advancing the progressive agenda.

    As an early Novick supporter who switched to Merkley, it seems to me that Darrell and TJ are at least partly correct in saying that the comments of the boosters of both candidates should be evaluated in the light of their support and previous comments.

    However, if you don't really give a damn about what surrogates think, you need only go through videos of all of the joint appearances by Novick and Merkley.

    Despite glowing high minded rhetoric from Steve about focusing on Smith, he has gone right to bashing and attacking jeff since the very first appearance at the Summit last year.

    The fact is that from the earliest public appearance right up through the City Club debate and the Willamette Week interview, the truly undecided have walked out of these encounters impressed by Jeff's gravitas, and surprised at the stuff that comes out of Steve's mouth in real time.

    Not a great reccommendation for a man who would be senator.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Does Merkley want to be put on the spot to answer for all of Carla's posts on LO? Even though that was before she was hired by his campaign it calls into question his decision to bring her on board despite her history of using profanity in her posts, which some may find offensive. That is why endorsing blogging wholesale has inherent risks.

  • Randy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Novick is a whack job. Every time he opens his mouth more whack stuff flys out. Merkley just needs to keep Novick talking in order to win this thing.

  • (Show?)

    "but lately I'm not so sure that he's completely committed to the cause of eliminating Gordon Smith as our Senator. "

    Good for you. I'm backing the guy who didn't have to be enticed into the race as someone's 8th choice with 100 grand and some dour imported staffers. Steve sounds like the one more serious about taking on Gordon Smith to me.

    "Frohnmayer can't do it; only a Democrat can."

    Funny, Novick said the same thing.

  • (Show?)

    "threatening to vote for a member of another Party."

    Why ya gotta lie like that, Kevin? Oh yeah, I remember now.

  • (Show?)

    TJ makes a good point Kevin.

    Watch the video and then decide whether you're going to believe TJ or your lying eyes........

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

  • (Show?)

    WW: THe blogs - do you think they've hurt or helped the Democratic nominee's chance to win this November?

    Merkley gives an answer about how they have helped.

    WW: But all these nasty back and forths on the Blue Oregons and the Loaded Oryguns {spoken over}

    Merkley says he thinks it will all go by the wayside after the primary.

    Novick (59:02): Uh, I have no idea. They're, I mean I think that they provide information to some people. They're also a way for a number of people to waste a vast amount of time.

    For many of us, it was pretty obvious that when he talked about wasting time, he wasn't saying that blogging in general or blogging on this race was a waste of time. He was referring to all the nasty back and forth stuff (as WWeek had just mentioned a moment earlier). For those who look at Novick with a negative eye already, they saw him as bashing bloggers in general.

    The rest of us saw it for what it was - a complaint on the time wasted with these stupid attacks back and forth. Time that could be used instead to inform people on a candidate's position, out talking to voters, or whatever. I think it is a waste of time when we get on these back and forths that are on complete non-issues, and I've said it before. Which was why I said the other day I was going to stop responding to Kevin on certain issues - he's not going to chance his mind and neither am I. And it just leaves us in this back and forth and back and forth that does nothing but fill a blog with comments no one outside of a small circle wants to read.

    I'm glad that Steve clarified his point so that it isn't just us supporters who are pointing out what he meant, but he did it as well. Sometimes you say something and you think that it's clear, but it isn't. And then people attack you because they misunderstand what you said. This is one of those times.

  • Runtmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joel Dan,

    I know this is late, I agree with you about the poll. It is certainly weird to do a push poll and it is a bad form tactic. But, hell Novick has now whined about it so much that it doesn't even matter if he did the push poll or not!

    Novick is trying to show voters that Merkley is really a creep. I get that, but at some point he will need to learn to bite his tounge. He is throwing the kitchen sink at Merkley and perhaps it is effective in the sense that he has the lead, but it seems to me that he is expending way too much vital energy on side issues that have little or no relatives. What is Novick running on? What is his policy issue? Right now, it seems to me he is being frustrated by Merkley's tactics.

    But there is several weeks to go until the primary, Maybe Novick composes himself and comes off at least a bit more statesmanlike.

  • (Show?)

    "But there is several weeks to go until the primary, Maybe Novick composes himself and comes off at least a bit more statesmanlike."

    There's a golden opportunity tomorrow evening.

  • petrichor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    funny how this merkley-mandate attack thread is an exacte example of what steve actually said:

    Questioner: (partially inaudible) But all of these nasty back and forths on the Blue Oregons and the Loaded Oryguns.

    ...

    Steve Novick: Uh, I have no idea. I think that they provide information to some people. They're also a way for a number of people to waste a vast amount of time. But probably they're the only ones that suffer from that.

    the merkley-mandate blogosmear (blue oregon's kari chisholm, followed by forward oregon's bdunn, premptive karma kevin, senate guru, and a host of others, now including the nwprogressive institute blog, and part of the swing state project) is an almost entirely self-contained network of interlinking posts about merkley's smear attack of the day. this weekend they have succeeded in inaccurately portraying novick's comments about blogs, suggesting that he was criticizing blogs themselves, rather than the nasty-back-and-forths that occur like in this post, and succeeded in getting novick to clarify his comments. what a colossal waste of time.

    yes, the nasty back and forths probably provide information to some people. yes they are a way for a number of people to waste time (especially people like bdunn, kevin, steve mauer, etc who are literally everywhere in the blogosphere whenever there is a comment anywhere registered by google alerts about merkley), and yes, the only people who suffer are those who participate.

    excusing, time for me to end my suffering.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The irony of this latest attack on Novick is that it simply proves his point. This post, and all the comments on it, are a supreme waste of time and progressive energy.

    If bloggers and their addicts are seriously offended by Novick's pretty obvious point, you need to turn of the computer, walk outside, and actually start talking to real people.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sometimes you say something and you think that it's clear, but it isn't. And then people attack you because they misunderstand what you said.

    Actually, Jenni, let's be clear. Kari knows exactly what Steve said, and he knows exactly what he meant. This is not a misunderstanding, it is a calculated political attack designed to inflame the blogosphere.

  • (Show?)

    "If bloggers and their addicts are seriously offended by Novick's pretty obvious point, you need to turn of the computer, walk outside, and actually start talking to real people."

    I only have this latent worry that I've just been Sister Souljahed. :)

    No, I agree completely. If you're offended, is there a worry you have that you're wasting your time? Whether I sleep the bliss of the incontrovertibly wrong or not, the capacity for being offended seems propotional to the anxiety that Novick is right. Bloggers are sensitive because I think many people and particularly elected officials and staff (although fewer than before) say what Steve does, without noting the positive effects they've had in many areas. Novick was asked about the effect on the primary race, and myself included, there's things the blogosphere shouldn't be very proud or defensive about. So no wonder he was feeling grumpy about it. No reason to be cranky and abrupt though, which I suspect--along with blowing the chance to show how much he really does understand and know the blogosphere--was why he issued the letter.

  • (Show?)

    While we are all looking forward to supporting our nominees this year and in the future, I am grateful for at least one benefit of the disputatious primary season we've had on the blogs: I know now who is trustworthy and who isn't.

    I know who will bend the truth or shatter it completely in the service of intramural partisanship. I've been able to make an assessment of the ethical compasses of a number of people. I know now who is ruthless and just how ruthless they are.

    Disagreement, by itself, is not the issue.

  • Nick (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The blogging answer doesn't really have any effect on my vote...it was when Novick said he would vote for John Frohnmayer if he weren't in the race that he really pissed me the hell off. I was already leaning slightly to Merkley after I watched the Portland City Club debate, and now I am firmly in the Merkley camp. Merkley needs to improve on his campaigning style (I think he can), but he is definitely more qualified than Novick to be a US Senator.

  • Nick (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The blogging answer doesn't really have any effect on my vote...it was when Novick said he would vote for John Frohnmayer if he weren't in the race that he really pissed me the hell off. I was already leaning slightly to Merkley after I watched the Portland City Club debate, and now I am firmly in the Merkley camp. Merkley needs to improve on his campaigning style (I think he can), but he is definitely more qualified than Novick to be a US Senator.

  • (Show?)
    it was when Novick said he would vote for John Frohnmayer if he weren't in the race that he really pissed me the hell off.

    Except, of course, that he said he would vote for the Democratic nominee.

  • (Show?)

    Nick, can you please use a secondary identifier with your name? A last name is best, but Nick X or Nick from Tigard or something is better.

    We've got other Nicks around here, including Nick Wirth - the BlueOregon Fellow - and it'd be nice to avoid confusion.

    Thanks!

  • (Show?)
    Except, of course, that he said he would vote for the Democratic nominee.

    Except, of course, that he only gave that qualified answer to a DIFFERENT question at the end of the interview.

    Novick was asked whether his previously stated preference for Frohnmayer was another attack on Democrats and inline with his Nader roots. It was only then that Novick apparently calculated that the prudent answer would be to say that he'd vote for the Dem nominee.

    One would expect an experienced political consultant like Steve Novick to make just such kinds of calculated statements.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yep, this is definitely a mountain-out-of-a-molehill issue.

  • (Show?)

    Actually, Steve has been saying since he first decided to run that he'd support the nominee. He's said it to me on multiple occasions, and I've heard it said to groups of people.

    There are many people, like Steve, who think Frohnmayer is a great candidate and well qualified for the position. But they also know the reality of the situation is that at best he pulls in a small percent of votes and loses the race and at worst is a spoiler. He's in much the same situation as Ben Westlund was when he ran for governor and then decided to leave the race since he felt he would be a spoiler and put Ron Saxton in the governor's office.

    Steve's a committed Dem and only voted for a non-Dem in a race where it was obvious that the Dem (Bill Clinton) had the race more than won. And that definitely isn't the situation we're in with Gordon Smith.

  • (Show?)

    An inconvenient question for Merkley supporters

    Has Jeff Merkley run a good campaign thus far? If so, why is he polling behind Candy Neville? If not, why should any Democrat believe that he is the best candidate to take on Gordon Smith?

  • (Show?)

    I'll take a shot at that one Sal (with zero personal knowledge)and say that the first question is fallacious and like asking a skydiver how it's going so far.

    The next two questions?

    We can assume that all of these campaigns have a strategy, and we'll know how it all turns out on May 20th. Novick has his poll numbers for the moment and Merkley definitely has been pretty successful in this quarter's fundraising.

    Jeff's first ad came out last week and he's got another one out today. With 40% undecided and just introducing himself to the people with actual jobs, he's still got some room to move in the next 70 days.

    I like his chances.

  • (Show?)

    Oops make that 40 days + or -.......

  • (Show?)

    my calendar says 36 days to counting, which means about 20 or so days before ballots.

    Since when is off by 26% pretty good?

  • (Show?)

    Do we know how much of Merkley's cash-on-hand is in general election contributions from those who gave him $2300 for the primary?

  • (Show?)

    We don't. I also don't think that either campaign has released the total number of donors either.

    All that stuff, however, will be public tomorrow sometime when the FEC releases the full reports.

  • (Show?)

    Unless someone else also recently did a godawful long poll on the Democratic Senate primary race, the "push poll" complaints about the Merkley poll are way off base for more reasons than just the fact that it wasn't actually a push poll. The part that Steve Duin left out was that it tested Jeff's negatives just as strongly as it did Steve's.

    I answered a couple of the "If I told you that..." type questions about Jeff's views "No, that would not influence my vote because I believe that is a mischaracterization of Merkley's position."

    I'm on the fence still in this race. Neither vilifying Merkley for something he hasn't actualy done nor taking what Novick said out of context in order to make it mean something different from what he intended is going to persuade me to hop off onto one side or the other.

  • (Show?)

    Steve's a committed Dem and only voted for a non-Dem in a race where it was obvious that the Dem (Bill Clinton) had the race more than won.

    The traction that Nader got in 1996 with people like Novick is what laid the foundation for his 2000 spoiler performance.

    <h2>That Novick later crowed about how well Nader did in Portland in 1996 disproves Jenni's attempted explanation for his vote.</h2>

connect with blueoregon