Well put, Kari.

I remember when I was a kid I used to pick on my younger brother mercilessly. But I wouldn't tolerate anyone else messing with him without having to go through me first. I probably didn't do him any favors in learning how to defend himself - he never had to. But it was just instinct. He was family and I wasn't going to stand by while someone else picked on him.

The speed with which Merkley got this ad out shows that he's got the same familial instinct.

Helluva a good response.

Wow this is a great ad. First it shows which campaign has the mettle to stand up to Gordon Smith and the Republicans. In the middle of a contested primary and it took them what like 48 hours on a weekend to put up a hell of a response. It seems like there is only one campaign that has the organizational capacity to take on Smith, and thats Jeff Merkley.

Secondly, while the Novick campagin is putting attack ads up against other Democrats, it is good to see Merkley keep his eye on the prize: beating Republicans! Both of Merkley last two ads including this one go after Smith. Gotta love that

funny about that brad, merkley has released THREE ads with attacks on Democrats. Novick has released none.

I like this ad!

"Just one more example that proves to us that Jeff Merkley is the Democratic candidate who knows who the real enemy is this year."

In what way? By belatedly making his case in Eastern Oregon and with another bland, generic ad? There's not a bit in there about what Merkley would do as Senator, and the sole accomplishment he lists is the very same thing they're going to have to readdress in 2009 because hundreds of minor public officials around the state are revolting against its provisions.

That's the ad the DSCC should be making, not Merkley--although I guess it's all out of the same money bag.

merkley has released THREE ads with attacks on Democrats.

What the hell are you talking about?

Merkley has now released four ads. Watch them all here:

Fighter - the intro spot Know - the Mary spot Places - the economic justice spot Kidding - the special-interest senator spot

Exactly which of these attacks Democrats, TJ?

Maybe, just maybe, you could make a case for the opening phrase of the first spot - "Tired of his party's inaction..." - but beyond that, what the hell are you talking about?

Can we please make a blog just for TJ and bdunn and check in every few days until the primary is over? Please?

I gotta agree with H2D, Chris. If equating BDunn and TJ is your idea of "even-handedness" then I don't think we are working off the same definition by a long shot. I can easily think of a number of Novick supporters who might actually be comparable to BDunn, but TJ's not one of them.

Unfortunately, the ethics reform bill supported by Merkley failed to include any limits whatever on campaign contributions, so it does not form any kind of logical basis to attack Smith for receiving campaign contributions.

In fact, the ethics bill is quite ineffective, because lobbyists are still perfectly free to pay for trips to Hawaii and Blazer tickets, etc., merely by making campaign contributions, which the candidate is allowed to use for those purposes. In fact, the last round of legislator trips to Hawaii, paid for by the beer and wine lobby, were actually paid for by campaign contributions. Candidates can use campaign contributions for just about anything, including going to Hawaii to speak with lobbyists in hope of later receiving . . . more campaign contributions.

Jeff, please be serious about campaign finance reform and announce your support for amending the Oregon Constitution to ensure that limits on contributions in Oregon can be enforced.

Kari, certainly you haven't forgotten this video attacking Novick, or this one? Oh dear, and I actually forgot the jeopardy ad...that's four. How many videos has the Novick campaign released specifically attacking Jeff Merkley by name? I believe that answer is zero.

H2D, who said I was angry? Far from it--I'm stoked to back a candidate primed for greatness, and in solid position to do what he came to do: beat Gordon Smith. But that's May 21, and there's a different job now--securing the nomination for the best Democrat to do the job. I think you must be rather unfamiliar with me or what I do; perhaps only Blue Oregon and StopGordonSmith themselves have done more in the blogosphere to bust the myth on Gordon Smith, and I'm not just regurgitating the points of others; I've done original research tying Smith to the Klamath fish kill in ways not previously reported. There's more coming; I'm simply saving it for more appropriate times--like in the GENERAL ELECTION.

As for badmouthing Democrats, lately they deserve it. I spent 6 years placing the blame on George Bush and the Republicans; since 2006 there has been ample opportunity to at least make a principled effort to turn the ship around, and they are failing almost across the board. And if you think I'm alone in wanting to hold Democrats to account for that failure, I think you need to reexamine the landscape. More Democrats isn't going to cut it; they need to be BETTER Democrats.

And this part is patently absurd:

I see bdunn weighing in in support of his candidate (who in the interest of full disclosure also happens to be mine, fwiw...); but all I ever see from TJ is attacks on anybody who doesn't share his views.

Perhaps you'd like me to link up the several Kos diaries that were exclusively positive diaries about Steve Novick--some that I wrote, in fact--that Brad showed up in to dump one of Merkley's lame attack videos I mentioned above, apropros of nothing and devoid of the context in which the remarks were made. And those aren't even policy attacks! They're silly season crap, much like what Obama has to deal with.

The content of the ad is fine. The format is generic, like most every other ad, and the timing is rather superfluous, given that if Merkley wants to do anything about what he's upset over, he'd better concentrate on the opponent he alternates between ignoring and smearing over stuff that matters little to Oregon families. I'm not mad about it, I just wonder what the heck he's doing half the time, like taking up precious debate time to talk about Bono, of all people.

To be fair: Jeff in past years has been a proponent of ccampaign finance reform in Oregon. Unlike Jeff, Steve actively opposed the statewide measures in 2006 to limit campaign contributions in Oregon races. Steve argued that there is not enough money in Oregon politics:

And I can give you a pretty good argument that there ISN’T very much money in politics. General Motors spends two billion dollars a year on ads, nationwide. I’d guess the Oregon portion of that (we’re a bit over 1% of the population) is over $20 million. Annually. That’s a lot more than is spent on the Governor’s race every FOUR years. Why aren’t we trying to “get the money out of cars”?

I disagree with Steve's position, of course. And Steve's assertion about $20 million being "a lot more than is spent on the Governor's race every FOUR years," turns out to be incorrect, because the $18 million (spent in 2005-06 in the Governor's race) is not a lot less than $20 million.

TJ, you're moving the goalposts. You said, "merkley has released THREE ads with attacks on Democrats."

I linked to all four ads, and noted that not a single one attacks Democrats.

Then, you started talking about web videos.

You do understand the difference between advertisements and web videos, right?

Personally, I don't think polling has anything to do with it. Taking on Smith is pretty much the point of the Primary election choices. Voters who would be turned off by Merkley taking on Smith aren't going to vote for a Dem in the General, IMHO.

"You do understand the difference between advertisements and web videos, right?"

There is one, beyond whether the campaign pays to have them seen or just puts them on YouTube?

I'm not sure the relative push behind them matters, and I applied the same standard to the Novick campaign. Merkley has endorsed the release of three ads for his campaign (because I assume he's not just hitting Steve for laughs; they are meant to get people to vote for him instead) that specifically attack Steve Novick. Novick has released none. And the Fighter ad begins with a negative statement on the Democratic Party, thus other Democrats--I assume the ones in office.

There is one, beyond whether the campaign pays to have them seen or just puts them on YouTube?

YES! Of course there's a difference.

A television advertisement appears when the viewer is watching another television program. The viewer does not select which advertisements they watch.

A web video is deliberately selected for viewing by the viewer. They visit a site, click on the link, click play to watch the video.

And that, my friend, is why web videos are NOT required to have "I'm Joe Blow and I approved this message" on them - and why television advertisements are. (In federal races.)

I'm starting to think that Loaded Orygun isn't just a blog, but rather a state of mind.

Perhaps you'd like me to "link up" the endless frothing and rabid foaming-at-the-mouth Merkley-hating comments you've made over at dKos yourself? They're silly season crap, much like what Obama has to deal with. Do you really want to get into who said what about Obama, Joe?

If you did provide the links, at best you'd establish the equivalence between brad and I--which would still pretty well contradict your point, wouldn't it?

I have no idea what your threat is about the smears against Obama.

"And that, my friend, is why web videos are NOT required to have "I'm Joe Blow and I approved this message" on them - and why television advertisements are. (In federal races.)"

Well, great. That's a distinction. What's the difference, in terms of what the campaign puts out? The distinctions you're raising don't have much pertinence to the question of whether Merkley has taken four opportunities to attack Democrats, Steve specifically in three of them.

A television advertisement appears when the viewer is watching another television program. The viewer does not select which advertisements they watch.

A web video is deliberately selected for viewing by the viewer. They visit a site, click on the link, click play to watch the video.

That's a distinction without difference in this context. Merkley has put out 3 or 4 videos attacking Democrats. If you, or someone else wants to take shots at Steve Novick for criticizing Democrats then you should quit playing a double-standard as it relates to your candidate of choice.

I say Bingo! to Sal.

TJ is full of it once again.

Novick "accidentally" had his attack ad go on TV, yet again tearing another Democrat down.

As for the video TJ refers to the jeopardy music is the only thing that isn't Novick talking to the camera or a quote. Considering that Novick has said about a million times that he stands by his comments I don't see why you have any issue having them posted.

Sal: then you should quit playing a double-standard as it relates to your candidate of choice.

WOW!!

Seriously - what is it with you Novick supporters and an utter inability to see that what you are charging others with describes your own choices to a "t"?

"what you are charging others with describes your own choices to a "t"?"

Steve's campaign has said from the beginning they would not be afraid to challenge Democrats for coming up short on Democratic principles.

Merkley is making a campaign issue out of it--yet he's doing it more than Novick is! Merkley is largely using comments from BEFORE the campaign, for heaven's sake!

Kev, can you please explain how I am holding any of these candidates, including Gordon Smith, to a double standard?

I don't care if these people attack other Democrats. I find myself annoyed, however, by the hypocritical whining about big bad Steve Novick and all of his attacks on Democrats, including Merkley, when the very first sentence of Merkley's very first ad attacked other Democrats, and when he has released 3 video hit pieces on Novick since this campaign started.

As for "us Novick supporters..."

My loyalty to Novick begins and ends with the fact that he is running the strongest campaign, and has the best chance of challenging Smith given the likely financial disparity between Smith and any Democratic nominee.

"is Jeff Merkley the only candidate ready and able to take on Smith?"

...prematurely?

That's quite a stretch.

If Novick were running the "stronger campaign", then there wouldn't be such panic among his supporters when it comes to showing Steve's record. And Steve's words are definitely a very intregal part of his record.

One could say the same thing about questioning the wisdom and politics of Jeff's vote praising the Decider in HR2, and continue the comment with the "GOP talking point mantra" being breathlessly echoed by folks like yourself.

I don't have a problem with either brand of "attack politics", only with the hypocrisy of whining about it when the other guy does it and rationalizing it when yours does.

"So showing Steve's own words attacking Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and playing Jeopardy music to Steve's horrendous WW interview are now an "attack on Democrats"?"

Are you saying he's attacking Steve Novick as a Republican?

Panicked? Steve's not the one putting out pointless attack ads on his opponent, about things irrelevant to Oregonians.

"As far as taking on Smith "prematurely", that's just flat silly. Smith is the ultimate target of all of this"

You just contradicted yourself pretty neatly there. If Smith is the ultimate target, then by definition Merkley's attacks ARE premature...because we're not in the ultimate race yet. We're in the penultimate race.

what i care is that it merkley's campaign be EFFECTIVE.

and i'm just not seeing it. i haven't seen it. i haven't seen it since he declared.

Welp, Trishka, We'll all find out about relative effectiveness in about 15 days.

I'm thinking that, given your definitions, you and I will both see the primary winner as being more effective of the two candidates.

Can't wait.

"Come now, torridjoe. You're not that obtuse.

Showing Novick's own words isn't an attack at all (especially with the sources cited)."

Are you saying he's praising Novick? That's what sounds pretty obtuse.

If he's not doing it to attack and criticize Novick, why on earth is he producing videos capturing Steve's words? Is he planning on releasing Steve's close from the KGW debate too? That'd be "just showing Steve's words."

I don't think you're that disconnected from reality, so the more likely answer is that you know very well it's an attack ad, and you're playing games.

You're in good company over there, it seems--disingenuous and willing to do anything to win. How can we trust Merkley with a Senate seat, when we can't even trust him to be honest about his support in Oregon? When 60% is actually 35%, that's not only sad, it makes you wonder if they thought people were so witless they wouldn't check the math.

I mean, Steve outraised Jeff in Oregon by SIXTY GRAND last quarter. That should be a source of great shame to Jon Isaacs, that with every advantage he can't even outraise Steve in-state.

Pat: I'm thinking that, given your definitions, you and I will both see the primary winner as being more effective of the two candidates.

Trishka: pulling out a squeeker of a win over a little (no pun intended) guy w/ no funding like steve novick is no indicator of an effective campaign.

OK Trishka, my bad.

If Novick wins the primary it means he's effective.

If Merkley wins the primary it means nothing.

Gotcha.

<hr/>

Me, I think that the original topic of this thread, which was the push back on Smith by Merkley, shows that Jeff can respond quickly and forcefully (dare I say effectively) against the Republican machine.

Beating Smith in the general will be a tough row to hoe for anyone, but most of us haven't cast our primary ballots yet, so in that context I'm stick with my belief that this ad was a good thing for Democrats in the Oregon race for US Senator, and I look forward to seeing more of the same.

"If Novick wins the primary it means he's effective.

If Merkley wins the primary it means nothing.

Gotcha."

The first should never have had a chance. Thus are the expectations correctly in line here--if Novick wins he's proven he can beat the odds. If Merkley wins, what--he's proven he can beat a guy he thought he'd have no trouble with?

Trishka wrote... pulling out a squeeker of a win over a little (no pun intended) guy w/ no funding like steve novick is no indicator of an effective campaign. as i've said before, given merkley's resources & institutional support, he should be KILLING novick right now. that he isn't - says something in and of itself.

TJ wrote... The first should never have had a chance. Thus are the expectations correctly in line here--if Novick wins he's proven he can beat the odds. If Merkley wins, what--he's proven he can beat a guy he thought he'd have no trouble with?

Unlike in sports, in politics all the wins and losses are straight up.

If Merkley wins with 50.01%, I suppose some Novick supporters will say that they "beat the spread" or that it's a "moral victory"... but from everything I know about Steve Novick, he'll only consider it a win if he actually wins.

And you know what? Same is true for Jeff Merkley and his team. Landslides are nice, but a win is a win is a win.

"And you know what? Same is true for Jeff Merkley and his team. Landslides are nice, but a win is a win is a win."

C'mon, Kari, we're not stupid. Is a win a win a win in the Presidential race? No. Hillary won PA, but her margin made things worse for her, not better. Obama didn't take over the month of February because he was squeaking by, he was CRUSHING Hillary.

And you know as well as we do, that how the victor in the primary performs will inform the national interests as to how viable a candidate the winner is against Smith. I submit that beating a guy who had all the advantages looks better against ANOTHER guy with all the advantages, than a Patriots team who had to bust ass until the end to beat HOFSTRA.

That's your analogy, now you're stuck with it. If you think Bill Belichick would say "hey, a win's a win!" after squeaking by Hofstra, you might be right...in public. But behind the closed doors (the same kind of doors DSCC and netroots nation donors will be talking behind), the meme will be "Jesus, what's wrong with New England? Maybe they're not as ready to take on the Giants as we thought..."