This is how we beat Gordon Smith.

Charlie Burr

The best :90 seconds of the campaign so far:

  • (Show?)

    Steve's pretty good on the campaign trail, but these 90 seconds were amazing. He was about as good as I've ever seen him, and the stakes were very high. A home run.

  • TroyB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with you Charlie. I hope voters were watching.

  • (Show?)

    I was there and I was a big fan of Jeff's closing at the debate on Tuesday where he emphasized his vision for bringing people together to fight for results for Oregonians. Jeff has always been able to get progressive legislation passed by bringing people together rather than insulting them and has shown the right temperament for being an excellent US Senator.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think very highly of Jeff Merkley, but this Senate choice isn't even close; Steve is right on. (Now if he'd only stop despising Merkley and quit taking the attacks so personally!)

    I remember watching one high profile Dem after another pass on this race last year. Steve's been the best surprise of our state's primary season, in any race, by far. TJ (I think) previously pointed out that the last time we elected a non-office holder to the Senate, we got Wayne Morse. After seeing Steve in person and watching this clip, I'm starting to think that the Morse comparisons are not overblown.

    Thanks for posting this video Charlie.

  • (Show?)

    In my view, here's how we beat Gordon Smith:

    "Merkley will be an important progressive leader in the Senate. His background on nuclear weapons, his knowledge of national security issues and his political experience clearly indicate that we need him in the U.S. Senate" - Council for a Livable World.
    "...this David Douglas High School alum has the most proven track record and is best poised to unseat incumbent Gordon Smith" - Just Out Magazine.
    "We need a fighter like Jeff Merkley in the U.S. Senate" - Basic Rights Oregon.
    "Speaker Merkley has been a champion for the environment and Oregon's economy, passing legislation that has created economic opportunity, benefits to consumers, and green jobs that are tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our time - global climate change" - The Sierra Club.
    "Now that our members have made their voices heard, we put the full force of our voter education and mobilization program behind Jeff Merkley, starting today. We will work hard to spread the word to our 145,000 members, plus their family members, that Jeff Merkley is on their side" - AFL-CIO.
    "Empowering the individuals and small businesses is central to Jeff’s belief in fair access to resources and opportunities for the effective improvement of the Oregonians’ living standards and the Oregon Economy" - Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership.

    Additional ways: Planned Parenthood, SEIU, AFSCME, Veterans for Merkley, etc.

  • Greg D (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like Novick and have given him money, but as the Dem. presidential primary bogs down into a mud wrestling competition between Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, I think the Repubs have a pretty fair shot at keeping the Presidency, and I don't think Gordo can be beaten.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How to beat Smitty:

    Run the above ad four times as much as Smitty runs his ads. Which will cost about four times what Smitty spends. Novick needs to win the seat the old fashion way: Just buy it. For $40M. How much does he have so far?

  • (Show?)

    I watched the debate and the highlight for me was when Merkley spoke about the situation in Tibet. Besides Pelosi making a statement a few weeks back and Hillary calling for Bush to boycott opening ceremonies, the U.S. government has been pretty silent about the current conflict. It was nice to see a candidate demand that the government start standing up for the Tibetan people and addressing China's human rights violation.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The way to beat Gordon is the way Ron Wyden did in Jan. 1996-- town hall meetings which in Ron's case had the draw of ice cream in January (the one I went to, the ice cream was melting because people were so thrilled to hear someone with experience talk in great detail responsively answering their questions, and Ron did that Q & A for over an hour), run the kind of commercials Merkley is running---or better yet the candidate talking straight into the camera (Novick's poverty video which unexplainably is not linked to the front page of his website would be good for that) run the kind of grass roots campaign that was part of Wyden 1996 realize that people who went to see their kids in a talent show recently (or otherwise are not consumed with politics) may care less about Left Hook Lager or "progressive principles" and more about specific problems (NCLB and overcrowding in schools, a relative about to do a 2nd or 3rd tour of duty in Iraq, gas prices, infrastructure, etc. ) than about whether someone does something as vague as "standing up for principle".

    Yes, I mentioned both candidates. The people who will decide this election probably aren't aware of all the ins and outs of this primary.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Novick is Da Man! He definitely has the charisma to give the Democrats their best chance against Smith. But even he will lose, IMHO, unless the good people of Pennsylvania and North Carolina give Obama the kind of victory Barack will need to end this Presidential race quickly and allow the Party to come together. With a unified Democratic Party, Barack's coattails should be devastating for Smith in Oregon. If Hillary fights this thing until August, the Democratic Party could be in for a world of hurt on many levels.

    By the way, to those who promote Merkley's campaign, let me make one point -- I sure wish he hadn't taken Novick on when it comes to taxes. I agree with Steve that we need to make the tax system more progressive. Indeed, I think that's the cornerstone of what it means to be a progressive. Of all the issues in which the desperate Merkley should have avoided a "Kitchen Sink" strategy, taxes top the list. (My analogue on the Presidential level is when Hillary insulted Barack as a Commander of Chief but praised McCain; I still haven't forgiven her for that one.)

  • (Show?)

    As I said in the other thread, when Steve Novick is at the top of his game no one can touch him, and this clip demonstrates why that is.

    A US Senate nomination is not a gold watch for past meritorious service at a lower level of government, nor is it a promotion to be earned on the basis of seniority. It is a leap of faith, a wager on the future. In Steve Novick there is the promise of not only a really great Senator, but also the reality of a clever, creative candidate who could utterly confound Gordon Smith.

    Yes, THIS is how we beat him.

  • Jared (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While I think the substance of Novick's message was good, it seemed too scripted to me. It almost looked like he was looking right into the camera because it was a teleprompter. Don't get me wrong, Novick would be tons better then Smith in the Senate, but this message didn't really seal it for me.

  • (Show?)
    I watched the debate and the highlight for me was when Merkley spoke about the situation in Tibet.

    You mean the part where he ventured out of the box in his supposed area of expertise, offended the Chinese government, and had to be pulled back to political safety by his campaign manager? Is that the part you're talking about?

    Forgive me, but how many dumbass campaign mistakes does this guy get?

  • (Show?)

    Taylor,

    You hit the nail on the head. I actually used to post here quite a bit, but sometime ago stopped because of some of the petty bickering. This probably one of the rare occurrences where I will post something.

    Being an overseas voter, I have not been exposed (figuratively speaking) to what has been going on since last Fall (I was home for most of last summer).

    I met Mr. Merkley last Fall, but have not had a chance to meet Mr. Novick. After doing some reading I decided to vote for Mr. Novick. Actually I happened to see this video after the fact and it reinforces how I feel.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Stephanie, for once you and I agree:

    "As I said in the other thread, when Steve Novick is at the top of his game no one can touch him",

    but we disagree on this: "and this clip demonstrates why that is. "

    I happen to think "the top of his game" is the serious videos on the website (like the poverty video), the Q & A at Marion Demoforum, things like that.

    Steve is a very bright guy, alhough Duin was right in saying humor serves him better than anger. But the point is that he seems to be speaking to a selected target audience, and one wonders if that audience is large enough.

    Do the young people whose first exciting candidate ever has been Obama really care what Steve did to defeat Sizemore? Will parents trying to teach social skills to their children really be impressed with his snarkier remarks? Is Steve's target audience only beer drinkers and people who never tire of seeing either of the clever (but not really issue-oriented) commercials?

    Suppose someone who has just learned there is a US Sen. Dem. primary turns on the TV and sees the To Tell The Truth ad and either of the Merkley ads in the space of one TV program. Do you Novick supporters really believe there are more people who will remember To Tell the Truth ad and think the Merkley ads are "generic"? What does that term really mean to college students who also work, or to working parents who drop the kids off at Before School Care a little after 7 AM and pick them up from After School care between close to 6 pm and then have to deal with dinner, homework, etc.? Is it any wonder some people's lives are just too busy to pay much attention to politics?

    Personally, I thought with all of Steve's background he could have been more specific than he was in this closing statement.

    But I realize that some here consider me a "Merkleyite", as if that will gain my vote or the vote of anyone else.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A divided em electorate will not defeat gordon Smith. with infighting at both the national and state level it appears the party will rip apart under petty jealosy and lose the momentum for the change that progressives claim to seek so desperately.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The wisdom of Harry's post from the other thread is worth reposting here, if I do say so myself!

    Just do a global search and replace of the Prez candiates with the Oregon senate candidates.

    ------from the other thread------ That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger!

    Hillary (Novick) is making Obama (Merkley) stronger, not weaker. And if she is successful, she will "kill" Obama (politically), which is her obvious intent, and right, to do.

    And who knows, if she can did up more 'dirt' on Obama (ie another close associate worse than Wright; more self inflicting elite comments; closer inspection of Obama by the fawning press), then maybe the Democrats (via the SupaDelegates) will shun Obama and go with Hillary.

    But if she can't dig up enough dirt on Obama, then maybe he doesn't have any more dirt out there. And thus, Hillary would have made Obama stronger, not weaker. I mean, really, ya think that the Republicans won't find the dirt on Obama, and then blast him with it in the fall?

    Harry

    <h2>full disclosure: As a NAV, I have no vote, but probably would vote for 'Bama over Hillary. (ditto Novick/Merkley)</h2>
  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ways to beat Gordon Smith in 2008:

    1) Run Peter DeFazio 2) Run Darlene Hooley 3) Run Bill Bradbury 4) Run Jim Hill 5) Run just about anyone except the trio I saw in the debate.

    It wouldn't hurt Jeff if he would smile every once in awhile or show that he has any personality at all. Learning how to speak without that monotone that puts me to sleep might help him get his message (if he has one) across. His TV ad voiced by Mary Merkley makes me want to vote for her.

    Steve's take no prisoners attitude turns me off. As much as I've tried to accept him he just reminds me of someone who rather than see Oregonians lose and be represented by Smith if he can't be the candidate.

    I watched the debate with an open mind hoping that Candy was for real. About halfway through though I realized her real estate brokerage will remain open for business for at least the next six years.

    David Wu, yes that David Wu, would be able to run a better campaign than the three I watched in the debate.

    One of these three idiots better step up and answer the call or I may be faced with having to vote for Frohnmyer (sp?) in order not to be represented by Smith.

    In a year when Elephants in general and Smith in particular are the most vulnerable, we have failed as a party to attract a winning candidate in this race.

    Unlike the presidential race which is similar because Democrats are damaging other Democrats all day , I hate all the choices that will appear on my primary ballot.

    Please feel free Merkley and Novick partisans to tear me apart.....

    Proud life long Liberal (Progressive) Donkey, Union member, and Oregonian,

    Pedro

  • (Show?)

    I thought Steve's closing "arguments" seemed very rehearsed and looked like a law school courtroom exercise. I keep hearing how Novick will be "different". Two thoughts: If he's going to be different, why is he behaving like a typical politician with his negative attitude and attacks? And when is he going to learn to "play nice", which will certainly be necessary in the US Senate. I have heard Jeff Merkley say positive things to Novick, but not once have I heard Steve do the same for Jeff.

    It's okay to have good ideas (he does) but if you can't bring people together to come up with a way to implement those ideas, what good are they? Oh, and one more thing: Do we really need more attorneys in the Senate?

  • (Show?)

    seemed very rehearsed

    Another way of saying that is "polished." These are closing statements. They are supposed to be polished because they are an important summary of all the themes the candidate is trying to emphasize. A lack of polish in a closing statement is a sign of ineptitude, not authenticity.

  • (Show?)

    I can't believe that people are slamming Steve's closing statement for being rehearsed and scripted. Any debater who doesn't rehearse their opening and closing statements has no place being in a debate to begin with. You can bet the other candidates rehearsed theirs too. This is the one time in a debate when the candidate is in complete control and can say whatever they want. It's basically time for a short speech. What, you think the Gettysburg Address and JFK's inaugural were made up on the fly?

  • (Show?)

    Apparently Stephanie and I were thinking the same thing at the same time. I like her last line better than mine though...

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    local mom asks, Do we really need more attorneys in the Senate?

    A partial, albeit selective list of Democratic lawyers (with their alma maters) who serve or have served in the US Senate:

    Ron Wyden (UO) Barack Obama (Harvard) John Edwards (UNC) Ted Kennedy (UVA) Claire McCaskill (UMiz) John Kerry (BC) Amy Klobuchar (Chicago)

    Robert Kennedy (UVA) Jack Kennedy (Harvard) Wayne Morse (UMinn; UO Law Dean)

    Law school (at its best) trains students to become skilled at critical thought, clarity of expression, and diligent advocacy. These are excellent abilities for public servants! Sure, Gordon Smith was a lawyer, as was Virginia's George "Macaca" Allen (to cite two more egregious examples). But then law school can help Republicans like Smith become more polished. Training in critical thought can't necessarily un-make a creep like Allen, either.

    But your argument for fewer lawyers in the Senate is about as specious as saying that Jeff Merkley worked as a budget analyst for the Pentagon in the 80s, and everyone knows the Pentagon can't control it's budget and was directed by Dick Cheney, so why should we trust Merkley?

    I'd love to have more smart lawyers in the US Senate. I'd go so far as to say that being a lawyer (especially a top-notch environmental protection lawyer) is a plus qualification for Novick.

  • (Show?)

    I KNOW there are good (and not so good) senators who are also attorneys. I also know that it would be nice to have some balance on that score.

    I have no problem with attorneys - I have friends and family members who have chosen that profession. But I think there are other professionals who can bring a different perspective to the problem solving that is required in the US Senate. And I find attorneys to be, by nature, more confrontational and more likely to fight against people rather than bring them together.

  • (Show?)

    How many Senate lawyers voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq?

    Wasn't Bush's torture policy the product of lawyers? At least one of whom is a professor training legions of more lawyers.

    Lawyers are trained to secure an outcome that is beneficial for their client. Period. It doesn't matter whether their client is in the right or in the wrong, guilty or innocent, sane or insane, dangerous or not dangerous.

    Personally, I would much rather have a former weapons analyst and foreign policy think-tank president representing Oregon than a lawyer when the next war is proposed.

  • (Show?)

    Kevin, it's OK that you prefer Merkley, but please don't slander my profession in your haste to express your preference.

    There are all kinds of lawyers. The law is a service profession. We are problem solvers. We are trained to analyze problems and spot issues. Some lawyers, like Steve Novick, are public interest lawyers who have spent the bulk of their practice representing the public good. Remember Love Canal and the Oregon Lottery case? Yeah, like that.

    Each of them is qualified in a different way to be a Senator. You have a preference. Some of us have a different preference. Full stop.

  • (Show?)

    Remember Love Canal and the Oregon Lottery case?

    Stephanie, a minor correction - albeit one that has absolutely zero bearing on the Novick/Merkley choice... I'm pretty sure Steve wasn't working as an attorney on the Oregon Lottery effort. I think he was working as a political consultant/activist.

    I haven't gone back to look it up (not sure where you'd do that) but that's my recollection.

    Not that it makes any difference. Steve's work on the Lottery stuff was very good.

  • (Show?)

    It would appear that Steve agrees with you Charlie, as I saw him giving this word for word as a stump speech earlier today, complete with the point at the audience.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin argued against voting for Novick based in part on the following: "How many Senate lawyers voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq?"

    This IS a joke, right? Merkley is the one who voted for that awful resolution when the war started. Novick has opposed it in every way possible.

    I've taken to the streets to protest that awful war on several occasions, sometimes with my kids and sometimes alone. And I went to law school with Novick. What are you suggesting, that I'm a lousy lawyer?

    Admittedly, Merkley supporters have to swallow hard to suggest that their guy is more talented than Novick, but must you resort to the kind of argument that would have us vote against Abe Lincoln if he were in politics today?

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie,

    I didn't slander your profession. I simply described it accurately.

    Lawyers are useful and sometimes necessary. I once secured the services of a former Oregon Assistant Attorney General (Richard Sly 1973-74) to represent my interests against a mega-insurance corporation in a workplace injury case where I ended up partially disabled (10% overall) due in part to the insurance corporation playing legal games instead of approving my critically important back surgery.

    The fact remains that the history of the United States Senate amply demonstrates that lawyers are as big a part of the problem as of the solution. IOW, their profession has no direct bearing on whether they end up being "good" Senators or not.

    With 60% of the Senate already being lawyers, I don't see any value in adding one more lawyer.

    I don't believe there has ever been a former weapons analyst in the Senate. It's about time that there was one!

  • (Show?)

    Leadership is one area where Oregon Democrats face a stark choice.

    It’s telling that of the 31 members of the House Democratic caucus, all are supporting Merkley. They have nothing to fear from him, because he can’t run for re-election to the Legislature while pursuing a U.S. Senate seat. Merkley imposed tight discipline to keep his slender majority united and treated Republicans fairly in such matters as committee representation — and did it without making enemies of any of his Democratic colleagues. A more convincing demonstration of leadership would be hard to find, and it’s a type of leadership badly needed in hyper-partisan national politics. - Eugene Register-Guard

    The Register-Guard endorsement goes on to sum up the choice between Merkley and Novick thusly:

    Each is a candidate of intelligence and integrity. The real difference is that only Merkley has a proven record of effective leadership in public office.
  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The real difference is that only Merkley has a proven record of effective leadership in public office."

    is the essence of the debate.

    I speak as someone who has pretty much decided to vote for 2 legislators over their opponents who have lots of experience but that experience is not in elective office. I am still undecided on the 3rd (people who read BO will know which one I have yet to decide on).

    If the slogan is "vote for Steve because he has never held public office", that could apply to both Novick and Marks.

    But there are those of us who think it would be keen in the US Senate race this fall to have the current Speaker of the House running against a former President of the State Senate. There goes the "not qualified for US Senate" argument.

    There was a time I might have considered voting for Steve, but on multiple occasions I found his campaign disappointing.

  • StateBluer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve Novick is unelectable in a general election.

    Over the last 13 years, he has said far too many things that will shock and offend all but the most liberal 10% of Oregon.

    Deep down, even though they like him personally - Everyone who has known him for any length of time knows this to be true.

    Gordon Smith will find these quotes and destroy him with his own words. "Obama = Fraud", "Hillary = Traitress" were just a very small sample and there are WAY too many more.

    Nearly all Democrats anywhere but inner city Portland will have to disavow and disassociate themselves with him as these statements are found and publicized with Gordon Smith's 8 million plus.

    It will be a disaster.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin, your comments regarding lawyers display a fundamental ignorance of the work of Senators. A key part of a Senator's job is to draft, support, amend, and vote on legislation. This is called making law, and good lawyers have been trained to study, understand, and shape law. You point out that John Yoo drafted legal memoranda supporting torture. Well, guess what, it takes Democratic lawyers to fight back against John Yoo and clearly establish that he was working outside of the law!

    You sound like a blind Merkley partisan. Jeff has valuable qualifications as a legislator and public policy analyst. (Although, stop trumping things up- he was president of Oregon's chapter of World Affairs Council, which is pretty humble in the realm of US think-tank positions.) Does Jeff's lack of law schooling really make him a better candidate? I don't think so.

    On top of it all, it's ridiculous to say that the Senate has too many lawyers when most of the best Senators have been lawyers! My point wasn't that Steve's experience makes him a fundamentally better candidate- it's that Harvard law school and work as a US Attorney (pre-Gonzales) are plus qualifications for any US Senate candidate.

    So, good work on employing a 1970s OR Assistant Attorney General, and good luck with your insurance claim. How that has any bearing at all on your take on the US Senate race simply confuses me.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Statebluer, thanks for saying here what is being said privately.

    Whatever anyone says here, conversations like "I've known Steve Novick for years, and don't want to associate myself with some of his past remarks years before he announced for US Senate" in localities far outside Portland are out of the reach of blogs, activists, and Portlanders.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie, your work here at BO is top notch. Thanks.

  • (Show?)
    Whatever anyone says here, conversations like "I've known Steve Novick for years, and don't want to associate myself with some of his past remarks years before he announced for US Senate" in localities far outside Portland are out of the reach of blogs, activists, and Portlanders.

    I don't understand why voting for a person is the equivalent of associating oneself with every remark that person has ever made.

    How could ANYONE ever cast ANY vote if that were the case??

    I mean, hell, I don't even want to associate myself with some of the remarks I have made over the years.

    I vote for the person I think will (a) be the better Senator; and (b) has a better chance to beat Smith. If those two were different people, I would vote for (b). Happily, in this election, in my view (a) and (b) are both Steve Novick.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Before the primary, I hope people naysaying Steve's candidacy remember what happened the last time Oregon Dems fielded a challenger to Gordon Smith who had stepped up the state electoral ladder with legislative accomplishments but relatively lackluster charisma: Bill Bradbury in 2002. Remember what happened? Bradbury lost 56-40. With Smith's alleged pivoting on his war boostering, big financial advantage, and well-crafted media impression of being a moderate, I don't see how Merkley realistically closes that gap.

    I agree that because of his lack of elected experience Steve isn't a safe bet to win, and has a higher downside than Merkley. But Steve's got a much clearer path to distinguishing himself from Smith, who is the king of the Oregon GOP status quo. I'd rather go into this fight with someone who inspires voters and speaks his mind than a cautious, Bono-praising pol who co-opts the unity message after he sees it work for someone else. In Novick Democrats have a candidate who will speak up and make waves in a race that desperately needs some.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Taylor M:

    "I agree that because of his lack of elected experience Steve isn't a safe bet to win, and has a higher downside than Merkley."

    This is all some of us have been trying to say.

    If a voter anywhere prefers someone already elected to public office, they will vote Macpherson, Schrader, Merkley. If they look at other individual characteristics, they may vote for people who have not held public office.

    Having recently attended both a children's talent show and a family reunion involving 4 generations, I know many people are thinking about other things than politics. Also, I know if someone realizes a friend, former neighbor, etc. is running for office, that I KNOW HIM! could easily trump all other reasons for voting.

    Voters are individuals, and those who stereotype voters (saying all women, all progressives, all people of color, etc. vote a certain way IS stereotyping!) are likely to be shocked.

  • (Show?)

    Taylor,

    It confuses you because you insist on filtering my comments through your own bias.

    Of course some of the best Senators have been lawyers. When was the last time that the Senate WASN'T dominated by lawyers? A top ten list of the worst Senators would probably also be dominated by lawyers for the same reason that a top ten list of the best would.

    Interestingly enough, of the 29 Senate Democrats who voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq, 17 were lawyers.

    Of the 21 Senate Dems who voted against, 12 were lawyers.

    Well, guess what, it takes Democratic lawyers to fight back against John Yoo and clearly establish that he was working outside of the law!

    But presumably not one of the majority of Dem lawyers in the Senate who voted for the Iraq War?

    A higher percentage of Dem lawyers in the Senate voted for it than Dem non-lawyers, although a majority of both subgroups voted for it. But the lawyers went for it decisively whereas the non-lawyers were nearly evenly split between being for/against it.

    So much for lawyers somehow being better qualified or more capable of seeing through bullshit in the Senate.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin, as an Obama partisan I hate to say this, but the world is not exclusively defined by the Iraq war vote. Why not choose a slightly less arbitrary criteria to arrange those voting Senators on? How about gender; after all, only four female Democratic Senators voted against the war, and five voted for it. So a higher percentage of Democratic women in the Senate voted for it than non-women! This must mean there's too many female Senators, and a majority of them "can't see through bullshit." Give me a break.

    I said that a background in law, especially one in public service practice, is a plus. And that Senate Democrats with backgrounds in law have long been among the most progressive and efficient advocates. Take your beef with lawyers elsewhere- this topic has gotten absurd.

    Lastly, conflating legal battles against the torture regime with voting for the war is really dumb, and I fail to understand your point. Having a training in law doesn't by definition equip you with a capacity for moral outrage. That's what's most important in the torture issue right now. Pretty soon though, it's going to take top-notch constitutional attorneys to get violators of the rule of law like Yoo and Addington to justice.

  • (Show?)

    Steve Novick is unelectable in a general election.

    Electability deserves to be part of this conversation. But the Merkley campaign -- who never took Steve seriously -- doesn't have a great track record of predicting Steve's voter appeal. From debate negotiations:

    Former state Sen. Charlie Ringo, who is helping the Merkley campaign negotiate the debate schedule, used the opportunity to wing an insult or two at the Novick campaign. "From our standpoint, Jeff is the only 'realistic' candidate," Ringo said. "Steve's a good guy, but I don't think he's got what it takes to run this campaign."

    The same people who are saying Steve can't win a general are the ones who never gave him a prayer in the primary.

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The same people who are saying Steve can't win a general are the ones who never gave him a prayer in the primary.

    Maybe you're right, Charlie.

    But it seems like there are some very legitimate reasons for the belief that Novick's candidacy gives us six more years of Gordon Smith.

    Those who stridently support Novick will of course, disagree. And they might point to reasons why Merkley's candidacy doesn't resemble one that can beat Smith. But given the statewide infrastructure that Merkley seems to have built, along with his ability to raise substantially more cash (and yes I know "substantial" is an objective term) and the obvious lack of real policy differences, the better candidate is Merkley.

    Does that make Merkley "safer"? It might. But this might be the best, last chance progressives have to take Smith out. I'd rather bet on the man with the substantially better odds.

    But then I've always believed that the most important goal here is to defeat Smith.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT concurred with the following statement:

    "I agree that because of his lack of elected experience Steve isn't a safe bet to win, and has a higher downside than Merkley."

    But it is simply wrong. Merkley is solid, but I find him a snoozer. Gordon Smith is the incumbent who has positioned himself as a "moderate" and has a lot of money. To beat him, Oregon had better think out of the box. Playing it "safe" is what got the Democratic Party to support the Iraq War. It was anything but a safe strategy, and a vote for Merkley is equally imprudent, if people want to beat Smith.

  • John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow! Charlie... nice job removing the context from that clip you cite without proper ellipses.

    Here's the full clip, and I'm sure you didn't mean to delete that sentence in there, right?

    Former state Sen. Charlie Ringo, who is helping the Merkley campaign negotiate the debate schedule, used the opportunity to wing an insult or two at the Novick campaign. Novick, he says, wants the debates limited to "realistic" candidates. "From our standpoint, Jeff is the only 'realistic' candidate," Ringo said. "Steve's a good guy, but I don't think he's got what it takes to run this campaign. He doesn't have the background, doesn't have the credentials."

    So Novick wanted to exclude people. That's interesting. Certainly "democratic" of him.

    Also seems like he teed that one up for Ringo...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "But it is simply wrong. Merkley is solid, but I find him a snoozer."

    Fine, Daniel, work your heart out for Steve. But there are those of us who think Merkley is reliable, hard working, has a record of having won elections and made the hard decisions while holding elective office. Call them not progressive or any other name, but those who like Merkley's approach are allowed to vote that way!

    I have no problem with people who admire Steve strongly supporting him. The problem I have is with those who make remarks like "Merkley is a snoozer, therefore all good Democrats should vote for Steve" as if no one has the right to question anything Steve has said over the last several years. "But at least he is never boring" is no way to win back someone still telling friends about a questionable remark Steve made years ago.

    Those of us who have been involved in campaigns for outspoken candidates in the past (Steve is not the only outspoken candidate ever to run in a Dem. primary) reserve the right to say "been there, done that, want a candidate who can appeal to those who don't want outspoken politicians".

    To the extent Steve's supporters understand that, he might do very well. However, anyone supporting Steve because all voters should like what Steve's supporters like is heading for a disappointment.

  • (Show?)
    "been there, done that, want a candidate who can appeal to those who don't want outspoken politicians"

    There it is in a nutshell.

    I believe that the 2008 electorate (not only the Democratic primary electorate but also the November electorate) is not made up primarily of "those who don't want outspoken politicians." People are angry about the direction this country is headed in and they are tired of elected officials who get along by going along.

    LT is clearly an exception. But I do not believe that she is the rule.

    Not this year.

    Not after 7 years of an illegal war, Americans implicated in torture, hard working people being turned out of their homes without the most rudimentary consumer protections, and lots of other things to be bent out of shape about.

    Watch that video clip again. That's what Steve is talking about. That's where all those new voters are coming from. Those people WANT "outspoken politicians."

    Now. This year. 2008. Novick.

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not after 7 years of an illegal war, Americans implicated in torture, hard working people being turned out of their homes without the most rudimentary consumer protections, and lots of other things to be bent out of shape about.

    I have every reason to believe that Jeff Merkley is the most effective individual in the Senate race from any party to address the issues listed above. His excellent leadership skills have been more than demonstrated.

    I have less reason to believe that Novick can accomplish those things. He certainly can't do it all by himself. I have seen little evidence that Steve is ready or able to do the sort of bringing together that must happen among the caucus (or beyond it, if necessary).

    Novick has done good things in Oregon and I applaud him for it. But even Novick himself had trouble in the Willamette Week interview coming up with a time when he had to really work with those outside his coalition to do something effective for Oregon. That makes his candidacy on a statewide level a shaky one, at best. Merkley was able to easily show how he'd built coalitions across the board without having to once give up his progressive values and without alienating his party. That's a guy who can win a statewide race.

    If you are really angry about the direction this country has gone (and I am furious), then the first priority must be to get rid of Gordon Smith. Based on the campaign Steve has run, he is far less capable of accomplishing that goal.

  • (Show?)
    But even Novick himself had trouble in the Willamette Week interview coming up with a time when he had to really work with those outside his coalition to do something effective for Oregon. That makes his candidacy on a statewide level a shaky one, at best.

    Watch the debate, he made it pretty clear: worked as part of a team at DoJ led a team in the state Senate *built a team to beat Sizemore and Mcintire

    The idea of Merkley being above negativity is bunk. The last THREE videos Merkley has produced have all been hit pieces on Novick. I don't believe Novick has put out a single negative video on Merkley...and I'm almost positive his broadcast ad is another positive spot for him.

    Who's the negative candidate, again?

  • (Show?)

    "So Novick wanted to exclude people. That's interesting. Certainly 'democratic' of him."

    It's also total bullshit. Novick NEVER said anything about restricting invitations. Never. Ringo was full of it. The truth is that ALL campaigns EXCEPT Merkley's agreed to the debate schedule and format. The only campaign holding up debates was Merkley's.

  • (Show?)
    People are angry about the direction this country is headed in and they are tired of elected officials who get along by going along.

    I agree to the extent that Novick's campaign seems to be most attractive to those who are angry. But the misguided ethics that led to an attempt to gin up a fake endorsement or the alleged Merkley anti-gay marriage position, which can charitably be characterized as factually AWOL, are but two examples of why that angry demographic is more of a liability for Novick than an asset.

  • (Show?)

    About the Senate debate schedules... Several times now Ms. Neville has directly credited the Merkley campaign with back-channel contacts seeking to help her be included in a debate she would otherwise have been excluded from. The recent televised KGW debate being just the most recent example.

    The evidence clearly supports Charlie Ringo's assertion about which campaign was seeking to exclude others.

  • (Show?)

    If you are really angry about the direction this country has gone (and I am furious), then the first priority must be to get rid of Gordon Smith. Based on the campaign Steve has run, he is far less capable of accomplishing that goal.

    Masterpiece, we share the same priority of beating Smith. Regardless of whose guy wins, I'll be there working hard for our nominee. But Novick is my guy. And in my assessment, Novick's more in tune with the mood of the electorate.

    The reason I have not gone after Merkley during this primary, btw, is 1) my focus has always been about beating Smith and 2) I like Jeff even if many of his overzealous supporters annoy the crap out of me from time to time.

    Jeff has a lot to argue for him in his favor, but I gotta tell ya, his campaign hasn't set the world on fire. You guys haven't earned the standing to play pundit about the general election and so easily dismiss Novick. But if I'm wrong -- that the Merkley campaign planned for a close primary all along -- jump in here and I'll stand corrected.

    I work from the assumption our nominee will be outspent and that Smith brings formidable political skills to the general. You guys can hit Novick all you want for being some big lefty, but to date, he's done a better job playing his hand this primary. And I suspect you don't deny that. Most important, Novick has been more aggressive with earned media that will be key for our nominee.

    I'm with Novick, but I would never go as far as saying Merkley is a general election loser. I don't believe that. I will say, for what it's worth, that the Republicans I know -- and I'm talking about the folks who've worked as consultants and for guys like Haley Barbour and such -- think Novick would be stronger. A direct quote: "We know the campaign we'd run against Jeff. There are 20 TV spots that we could take off the shelf the day after the primary. With Novick, he's a wild card. It's hard on some level not to root for the guy. He'd make us work for it."

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie, thank you for your measured comments.

    But the problem some Democrats of long experience have with Steve is just the wild card element. Some of Steve's less measured supporters seem to think it is heresy for someone who has known Steve for many years to say something like "his previous comments which grated on me were the first 2 strikes, and during the campaign when he said......., that was the 3rd strike." Steve Novick for US Senate because Democrats shouldn't think for themselves? Somehow that doesn't sound like a winning slogan.

    Steve might be the salvation of the Senate for all I know, but he has never said what he learned from the Bruggere loss. And yet we should all have faith that he will win where his 1996 employer lost, and never question any of his campaign decisions?? My impression over time (this is not a complete list) is that Steve and his supporters want the support of beer drinkers who find the "flammable pants" video and the popping open the beer bottle commercial amusing, but not the support of those who ask why Steve doesn't make that excellent poverty video part of his website front page AND a TV or web commercial.

    In other words, we've seen the serious Steve and the sarcastic Steve, and worry the latter would hinder his chances in the general election---esp. with those who have voted for Gordon in the past but might be ready to change and vote for someone without a public sarcastic streak who has the experience of being Speaker of the House.

    I have no problem with people supporting Steve, but I do have a problem with the attitude "I find Merkley boring and his ad generic, so you should see things that way also".

  • (Show?)
    About the Senate debate schedules... Several times now Ms. Neville has directly credited the Merkley campaign with back-channel contacts seeking to help her be included in a debate she would otherwise have been excluded from. The recent televised KGW debate being just the most recent example. The evidence clearly supports Charlie Ringo's assertion about which campaign was seeking to exclude others.

    No it doesn't, because NONE of them were. And THAT is a direct response from Candy to me during an interview. So quit with the crap, Kevin. Merkley held up the debates because he wanted all SIX at EVERY debate. All the other campaigns agreed to the first two with whomever, and accepted the possibility that other hosts would set the invitee list.

  • (Show?)

    "But the misguided ethics that led to an attempt to gin up a fake endorsement or the alleged Merkley anti-gay marriage position, "

    There was never any evidence presented to suggest that the first reckless allegation you're making is true.

    And Merkley does not support gay marriage, we know that. He holds two logically incompatible positions, and was called on it in the WWeek endorsement video. And in any case, that has never come from Novick that I know of, so why are you blaming him for it?

  • (Show?)
    But if I'm wrong -- that the Merkley campaign planned for a close primary all along -- jump in here and I'll stand corrected.

    It seems obvious to me that Merkley has followed a carefully crafted strategy for this primary. His huge advantage in endorsements seems evidence enough of that.

    While Novick was trying to get his ID up Merkley was working the endorsements. Only one candidate can earn each endorsement that is available, whereas every candidate can get their name ID up, provided they have the resources to do so.

    With Merkley having a larger bank account and a huge advantage in endorsing union members putting boots on the ground and working phone banks... it seems to me that exactly how "close" this primary has ever been, if indeed it ever has been, is not yet known.

    For Novick to be able to make a credible case for having made it a close primary he is going to need the primary election results to be close. Otherwise he'll be rightly viewed as having pursued a flawed strategy.

    I think it's great that Merkley is being underestimated. His record is that of a person who excels when he's underestimated. The RPO is as keenly aware of that as anyone.

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I will say, for what it's worth, that the Republicans I know -- and I'm talking about the folks who've worked as consultants and for guys like Haley Barbour and such -- think Novick would be stronger. A direct quote: "We know the campaign we'd run against Jeff. There are 20 TV spots that we could take off the shelf the day after the primary. With Novick, he's a wild card. It's hard on some level not to root for the guy. He'd make us work for it."

    With all due respect, those Republicans are polishing your apple pretty hard.

    Just based on the silly and inflammatory things Novick has said that have been recently brought to light, the Republicans can't think of how they'd go after Novick? I find that very difficult to believe. Novick's unflattering behavior in the Willamette Week endorsement interview also demonstrated another way that Novick is quite vulnerable.

    I'm just a layman but I can see that much.

    It might very well be that the GOP can think of all sorts of "off-the-shelf" ways to attack Merkley. That's what the GOP in the House races and legislature spent their time doing and by most all accounts Merkley beat them time and again.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    look, it's really simple.

    with all the institutional support that merkely has from the DSSC, the unions, the state party insiders, &c, he should be slaughtering steve novick in this primary. honestly. and that he's not, speaks volumes.

    i made my decision on whom to back last fall, based on some research, hearing the candidates speak, and not a small amount on my gut instinct.

    and it's turning out that my instincts were correct.

    jeff merkley should, by all rights, be ahead of novick by double-didgets in the polls and not the other way around. with all the money being thrown his way by the DSSC et al, plus the endorsements, if he were running a half-way decent campaign this election would be a done deal.

    but he's not.

    steve novick? what has he got? his brains, his wits, his humor, and the ability to galvanize a grassroots movement around him. looking around my community, i have seen quite a few novick lawn signs & bumper stickers, and not belonging to people that i've given them. i have seen zero physical evidence of the merkley campaign. if folks are sporting lawn sighs anywhere, it hasn't been in any neighborhoods i've been visiting.

    it's crazy. i happen to think steve novick will make a great senator. but you know - honestly. if jeff merkley can't beat steve novick in the primary, not without barely squeeking it out, with the institutional advantages that he has over him, how is he going to beat smith, when he is going to be outgunned on every level?

  • Wag Per Word (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Were people watching, or listening? If I were simply listening, this was a good clip. But Steve's wag per word of his hand was a distraction from his words. Who didn't advise him to not do that?

  • (Show?)

    "Just based on the silly and inflammatory things Novick has said that have been recently brought to light, the Republicans can't think of how they'd go after Novick?"

    Yes, I can see the campaign now:

    "Novick is not entirely masturbatory about Obama" "Novick doesn't kiss Hillary Clinton's ass" "Novick is no party automaton when it comes to supporting lackluster, same-old Democrats"

    Imagine the outrage that will cause in the GOP community!

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon