Merkley Ad Goes Negative on Novick
Jeff Merkley's campaign has released a new advertisement lambasting Steve Novick for criticizing prominent Democratic officials.
The ad promotes a website, www.NovickInsultsDemocrats.com, that similarly highlights Novick's quotes. Discuss.
|
May 7, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (94 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: MAYbe 20th? | May 7, 2008 8:38:18 PM
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 7, 2008 8:40:31 PM
It hurts to have one's own dumb, insulting comments set down for posterity, doesn't it? I doubt that those comments render Novick unfit for the US Senate, but WTF, he said those things, didn't he?
Posted by: MAYbe 20th? | May 7, 2008 8:40:49 PM
To follow up, I'm sure there will be some Blue O. contributors who will think twice before speaking/writing in any sort of candid way.
Remember folks: what you say can and will be used against you by Kari.
Posted by: Jonathan | May 7, 2008 8:43:41 PM
I have to say that Jeff's ad makes me very happy with my choice in voting for Novick. What a horrible ad. You could tell that all the quotes were taken out of context to paint an inaccurate picture of Steve. I also watched Greg Macpherson's new ad earlier while watching CNN, which was another attack ad, and his second one at that. I wonder if both candidates feel they are losing. I hope Merkley chooses a more positive ad next time and the makes the campaign about his positive message. I know Jeff has a lot of great things to say and a great vision for the U.S., and I would like to hear about that next time.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 8:52:21 PM
"It hurts to have one's own dumb, insulting comments set down for posterity, doesn't it? I doubt that those comments render Novick unfit for the US Senate, but WTF, he said those things, didn't he?"
Did you even read the posts they were taken from? And how decidedly unshocked, unoffended and gasp--in AGREEMENT the reaction was?
I mean, really--it doesn't sound quite as insulting when you read it, does it?
The real question however is, how does this ad make Merkley's case? And on what issues important to Oregon does the ad refer to?
Posted by: LT | May 7, 2008 8:55:11 PM
There is not a big Kari consipiracy (seems to me he has been less outspoken this time than he was against those of us who didn't think Ted 2006 was infallible)---just a bunch of people angry when the whole world doesn't see Steve as the greatest candidate ever.
There ARE people who have known Steve since before blogs existed who are saying quietly to their friends,
"Sorry, I've known Steve for over a decade, and refuse to associate myself with some of the remarks he has made over the years".
Responsibility for one's own actions is a powerful idea, connected to no particular ideology. From "quit teasing your sister" to "I saw you throw the ball that knocked that over" with young people to
"Really admired how you voted on...." or "Sorry, I couldn't possibly support anyone who said....", once actions are taken or words are spoken they are the responsibility of the person they came from.
Dee Dee Myers once made a great statement illustrated by pushing her hands towards her mouth,
"Sometimes, right after something is said, you wish you could just push those words back into your mouth".
For an interesting exercise, read all the endorsement editorials in this race and count the uses of the word "acerbic".
No one denies that Novick's language is less diplomatic than Merkley's. Steve says he has sometimes gone over the line in "standing up for principle". Perhaps a Novick supporter can suggest which principle Steve was standing up for with each of these quotes.
Posted by: bdunn | May 7, 2008 8:55:32 PM
How is this going negative? Steve Novick has said time and time again that he stands by those quotes. If Novick always says what he believes and tells the truth I don't see how he or any of his supporters can be mad about this ad. If Novick always tells the truth and these are his positions he should be glad there getting out there.
Further, Gordon Smith has already shown a propensity to use Steve Novick's words and loose tounge in his ads. If Novick can't deal with Merkley doing it and how will he deal with Smith?
Posted by: MKD | May 7, 2008 8:56:03 PM
Did it crack anyone else up that this ad spent 21 seconds tearing Steve Novick down and 10 seconds arguing that you should vote for Jeff Merkley because he doesn't tear people down?
Posted by: Galen | May 7, 2008 8:57:55 PM
Canter said the ad merely points out a difference in style between the two candidates. "I dispute that it's a negative ad."
Matt Canter is utterly full of shit. This is classic DC spin -- lie preposterously and hope everybody is too shocked to challenge you on it. What good reason do we have to trust this guy, and more importantly, to trust his boss?
This pathetic advertisement is the hallmark of a candidate who will say anything to get elected.
So Merkley brings people together by tearing others down? Right. Try again next time, Jeff.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 7, 2008 8:59:09 PM
The two races I care most about this year are Obama and Novick's. I supported each when they were considered long shots and am incredibly proud of what both campaigns have accomplished.
The important thing fellow Obama supporters should know about Jeff Merkley is that he's incredibly unhelpful to the Obama campaign. This ad, of course, is also unhelpful.
Steve Novick is running the type of campaign we need to beat Gordon Smith. Merkley is running the type of campaign that will win Democrats the trophy for second place come November. It doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but Merkley in the general ain't gonna cut it. The fact that Merkley's pulling up blog posts from 2006 really says everything you need to know about his lackluster campaign.
Posted by: peter c | May 7, 2008 9:03:28 PM
ouch. way to encourage speaking freely on blogs, team merkley. so i guess this would make that novick "baggage" ad pretty much fair play...
Posted by: MAYbe 20th? | May 7, 2008 9:05:19 PM
There is not a big Kari consipiracy (seems to me he has been less outspoken this time than he was against those of us who didn't think Ted 2006 was infallible)---just a bunch of people angry when the whole world doesn't see Steve as the greatest candidate ever.
Um, at the very bottom of the website, it reads:
"Paid for by Jeff Merkley for Oregon"
Who's Jeff Merkley's chief media consultant...
Posted by: Kevin | May 7, 2008 9:08:14 PM
I hate to disagree with Charlie but I believe it was Barack Obama who said that "words matter." And Obama was right. Words do matter.
Jeff Merkley is agreeing with Obama. Words do matter.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 9:12:19 PM
"If Novick always tells the truth and these are his positions he should be glad there getting out there."
I don't recall him writing the original words with quite so many ellipsis. Or did I miss the blog post Novick wrote tearing down Hooley that simply said, "Lie"?
Not a negative ad. How dumb do you think people are? Pretty fucking dumb, I guess. Here's a tip--when your opponent is in twice as much of it as you are, it's not a positive ad.
After all the ways LT thinks Novick has failed to present a positive message for what he would do for Oregonians, it's really amazing that somehow THIS is an appropriate use of 30 seconds for her. Raising funds with a creative beer idea? Terrible. Smearing your opponent with decontextual quotes? Sign me up!
Posted by: Kevin | May 7, 2008 9:18:16 PM
The fact that Merkley's pulling up blog posts from 2006 really says everything you need to know about his lackluster campaign.
Lackluster? Do you know how overwhelming an advantage in endorsements Jeff Merkley has? He has bested Steve Novick on every single front except for newspapers. Everything else has been totally dominated by Jeff Merkley. And the endorsements continue to roll in. Just today they announced the endorsement of the influential 21st Century Democratcs.
21st Century Democrats don't make endorsements lightly, particularly in contested Democratic primaries," said Mark Lotwis, the Executive Director of the 21st Century Democrats. "But this Senate race is a real opportunity to defeat an entrenched Republican in Gordon Smith, who consistently works against our core values of universal health care, a clean and sustainable environment, living wages and secure jobs, and fair taxation."Jeff Merkley has been a leader for progressive values in Oregon and a fighter for working families. 21st Century Democrats enthusiastically supports Jeff's campaign because Jeff brings the courage and skill needed to take our nation in the right direction."
It's worth pointing out that several of Merkley's biggest endorsers have also endorsed Obama and are actively helping both campaigns. AFSCME and the SEIU being two well known examples.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 7, 2008 9:20:16 PM
Hey folks...
A couple of things.
Anybody know who built that website?
Yes, I built that one-page website. No, I didn't make the TV spot.
Who's Jeff Merkley's chief media consultant...
It's certainly not me. I'm not a media consultant. I'm an internet consultant.
I've got my own post going up in about one minute about this. You can see the rest of my thoughts over there.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 9:22:22 PM
"He has bested Steve Novick on every single front except for newspapers."
Earned media?
Polling?
2008 financial support from Oregonians?
My count indicates Novick's dominated all three.
Lackluster. Find me ONE journalistic observer who has said Merkley's run a solid campaign.
Posted by: Kevin | May 7, 2008 9:22:50 PM
Gordon Smith has already shown a propensity to use Steve Novick's words and loose tounge in his ads. If Novick can't deal with Merkley doing it and how will he deal with Smith?
There's the rub, isn't it?
Posted by: Logan Gilles | May 7, 2008 9:28:12 PM
I find it interesting that at the end of his ads, Merkley seems to be going for a very working-class, blue-collar look with flannel shirt-jackets and such.
Posted by: Bryan Boyd | May 7, 2008 9:29:33 PM
To be 100% honest I've filled my ballot out... all except for this race. I can't decide, but seeing this again and again from Jeff's campaign makes me sort of sick. He's consistently going negative. Each day he seems more and more like your typical dirty rep on the hill.
Someone tell me I'm wrong.
Posted by: bdunn | May 7, 2008 9:30:46 PM
Charlie I have a ton of respect for you but you really need to substantiate the statements you just made.
1. I find it hard to see the ad as unhelpful when it puts Novick's attacks against Clinton to the front and center just like Novick's attacks against Obama. Further if you want to blame someone for having crappy things about Obama floating around maybe you should blame the person that said them... Steve Novick
2. Secondly I would dispute your last contention as well. Steve Novick is showing right now exactly why he is a poor choice to go up against Gordon Smith. Merkley has in three weeks obliterated the lead that Novick earned because he was the first candidate to raise his name id, a luxury that Novick won't have against Smith. Novick is showing that his loose tongue will get him into trouble when it counts against Smith, who has already debuted his use of the tactic in his first attack ad. Finally, Novick is showing that his campaign is going to get swamped when it doesn't have financial parity. Merkley picking up 10pts in three weeks shows that Novick will get rolled by Smith's massive war chest and we already know that Novick won't get national money to help make up the difference. Further Merkley has gone after Smith in two ads already and Im still waiting for Novick to go after Smith. Merkley is dominating these last several weeks and if Novick cant handle the heat he should get out of the kitchen.
In contrast Merkley's campaign has shown the affinity that Oregonians have to his message of bringing people together and fighting for real policy changes like universal health care. When Oregonians hear Jeff Merkley's message and the style they respond positively. Merkley has been running on his record of positive and proactive legislative achievements for Oregon which is what people want... not someone who goes around insulting people.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 9:36:31 PM
"There's the rub, isn't it?"
You think Smith is going to attack him for saying things about Democrats??
And is your point that Gordon Smith will unleash smears and lies all over Novick, so Merkley going sleazy on him first is really doing everyone a favor? Thanks, Hillary.
The really sad part is that it's MERKLEY who doesn't know when he's gone too far attacking people. Ad about Karen Minnis and her protection of her brother in law on a sexual assault beef? Reasonable. Making her out to be Mark Foley? Too far. Clarifying your position on HR2 and criticizing Novick for misconstruing how he (Merkley) saw the bill? Reasonable. Claiming you were against it with columns and speeches that weren't against it, claiming your opponent wasn't against it when he was, and having surrogates smear your opponent with character attacks that you approved? Too far. Lobbying your Democratic colleagues hard on a bill you really, really want to pass for your Senate campaign? Reasonable. Threatening your Democratic colleagues with the nuclear option after they've already said no? Too far.
Back Jeff Merkley into a losing position, and he freaks, quite frankly. Is THAT what we want?
Posted by: bdunn | May 7, 2008 9:40:54 PM
Also I would like to remind everyone that Novick has already aired the first negative attack ad of the campaign.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 9:40:56 PM
"Charlie I have a ton of respect for you but you really need to substantiate the statements you just made."
{follows with several paragraphs of unsubstantiated statements like "we already know that Novick won't get national money to help make up the difference."}
Does up HAVE to be down to support Merkley, or does it just help?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 7, 2008 9:42:00 PM
Bdunn: I've got a respect for you too, but ask yourself, if you were working in Obamaland, would you want to see the words "fraud" and "Obama" on TV over and over? Of course not. And the truth is this quote is pulled from a 2006 blog post in which Novick also asked if we should deport all Scotch-Irish back to the old country to reduce crime. It was an intentionally stylized piece of writing.
To tell you the truth, if I was working with Clinton I'd be equally annoyed with Merkley for amplifying this negative messaging 1000-fold. The fact is that although Novick endorsed Obama, Novick had a lot of praise for Clinton and her campaign.
Oh, and I should mention that this original story was leaked to media three days before Obama got to town last. Is that helpful, from Obama's perspective? Of course not.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 9:46:09 PM
"Also I would like to remind everyone that Novick has already aired the first negative attack ad of the campaign."
Untrue. KGW aired it, on their own mistake.
And if I have this straight, the Merkley ad discussing Novick by name for 2/3 of the commercial is NOT a negative attack ad...but the Novick ad that does not name Merkley and takes about 2 seconds to talk about his opponent's legislative record, is a negative attack ad.
Posted by: Kevin | May 7, 2008 9:46:27 PM
No smears or lies, just the words that Steve Novick himself chose to use. However, I understand why his supporters are uncomfortable with having the rest of Oregon find out the kind of nastiness that he is capable of and entirely too willing to use.
It was one thing when it was just the political junkies reading Blue Oregon. It was another when it made the City Club debate footage. But even that gets ignored by most swing voters. Now everyone gets an opportunity to see Steve Novick's style contrasted with Jeff Merkley's style.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 7, 2008 9:46:35 PM
My first line was a typo and not meant to be snarky. I have a lot of respect for Bdunn (and actually got the McCain Voter's Pamphlet idea from his post) but want to see Merkley focus on his own race. Want to draw distinctions? Knock yourself out. Elections are about choices. But stick to the US Senate race and win on your own merits.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | May 7, 2008 9:52:57 PM
Bryan:
The first negative ad released or "not released" this primary season was by the Novick Campaign. This is the first ad that I've seen from the Merkley Campaign that is aimed at Novick's past statements about Dems. I hope that neither of the ads would be the end all be all for your vote.
Both Novick and Merkley will be dependable progressive votes in the Senate. It will be great to add that kind of backbone to the Senate in November when we oust Smith. For me, Merkley's style of leadership is desperately needed in the Senate. Merkley has been able to unite the Dems and get Repubs on board with progressive legislation. We don't have many progressive Senators who are coalition builders, and we sure as hell need them.
Posted by: BCM | May 7, 2008 9:54:10 PM
Funny, I haven't seen this 'in the news.' Anyways, the Merkley should consider trying to increase his name rec instead of his opponents. After all, nobody knows who the Merkley is.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 7, 2008 9:57:02 PM
Hey folks... Just a bit of clarification: The "baggage" ad wasn't the only Novick ad that popped Merkley. The "pull the plug" ad does too.
We can spend all day arguing what the definition of a "negative" or "attack" ad is... but creating a classification system for political commercials ought not be our goal.
I suggest actually debating the content of the ads themselves. Much of the commentary above does just that - keep it up - but I'd try and avoid debating what the meaning of "negative" is. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Or as they say, the beer holder.
Full disclosure: I built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.
Posted by: LT | May 7, 2008 9:57:34 PM
" But stick to the US Senate race and win on your own merits."
There was a letter to the editor today supporting Merkley and Macpherson for their efforts in the Oregon legislature.
Now, I understand Steve has lots of fans who say he is a great candidate even though he has never been elected to office.
But whether Steve has ever been elected, he has been a public figure for many years. And even if this ad had never run, people within earshot of Steve when he made various remarks over the years would still be repeating what they heard Steve say. And in some cases that might cause more trouble for Steve than anything Merkley has done with this commercial.
Posted by: LT | May 7, 2008 10:00:26 PM
Kari,
Recently I was in a conversation where people were trying to remember an example of a really clever remark of the "scalpel is better than a chainsaw when making cutting remarks" variety.
You just provided a great example:
....but I'd try and avoid debating what the meaning of "negative" is. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Or as they say, the beer holder.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 7, 2008 10:03:08 PM
"but creating a classification system for political commercials ought not be our goal. "
Yes, let's just use the traditional systems--when you pull a bunch of old quotes out of context and talk about your opponent for the better part of the valuable ad time you're purchasing, you have made a NEGATIVE AD.
If you have to twist and turn away from obvious realities so madly in order to support your candidate, is it really worth it?
Posted by: Steven Maurer | May 7, 2008 10:18:19 PM
Let me add yet another voice asking what Novick supporters' problem is with this? From the very beginning, Steve touted himself as the guy willing to tell people exactly what he thought - the unvarnished "truth" as he saw it. His most vocal supporters - like tj - clearly stated that they were attracted to his full throated anger against Senate comity, equating civility with appeasement.
So now they're getting all their panties in a bunch when Jeff Merkley puts out an ad that asks voters if this is what they really want? What happened to all those 'Steve is a fighter!' posts? The 'Steve fights with everyone who isn't 100% lockstep at all times with downtown Portland progressive principals!!' posts? Why aren't they proudly proclaiming - as they've done for several years - that this is the way Democrats should behave? Why chicken out now?
Where are all the purity trolls, willing to forthrightly defend purity trolling, when you need them?
Posted by: bdunn | May 7, 2008 10:23:17 PM
Charlie: Maybe I don't work in Obamaland but you and I were both in Washington organizing supporters for the caucuses, I have made a crapload of calls, and organized events on his behalf. To me the absolute ridiculousness of all of Novick's attacks against other Democrats kinda makes me as the viewer just dismiss Novick and his attacks.
This is about who would be a more effective Senator, the guy who has shown time and time again in the state legislature that he can build coalitions to methodically pass progressive public policies or the guy who sits on the outside playing monday morning armchair quarterback yelling at Tom Brady and calling him a failure?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 7, 2008 11:36:38 PM
I'm sorry, but saying you're for SS taxes for those over $100k and your opponents aren't isn't an attack and it isn't negative. It is pointing out an exact issue where you disagree.
That's quite different than what was found in this newest Merkley ad. It's one of the worst ads I've seen in some time, and it made me cringe much in the way those Minnis ads did back in '06.
This campaign is getting more and more ridiculous. Just when I thought things have gotten as bad as they can, something else like this pops up.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 8, 2008 12:00:03 AM
Like I said, what's "negative" is in the eye of the beholder. Some purists never want any kind of contrast in an ad; some anti-purists think anything short of a flat-out lie is OK.
Suffice to say, some people think this ad does exactly what you say you support: "pointing out an exact issue where you disagree."
I'm less interested in defining "negative" than in talking about the substance of the ad.
Posted by: darrelplant | May 8, 2008 1:05:50 AM
Kari, did it ever occur to you that you might not have legal rights to use the image of Novick in your knock-off of the site? Did you just steal it from the Novick home page?
Posted by: darrelplant | May 8, 2008 1:16:03 AM
Oh, yeah, I see you did just steal it from the site.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 8, 2008 1:22:45 AM
Hmmm... I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it falls within the "criticism and comment" exception of the fair use clause in the copyright law.
Posted by: Nick from Eugene | May 8, 2008 1:35:16 AM
I went back and read some of Novick's old posts on here...and this is a fair ad. In his posts, Novick attacks the character of anyone he disagrees with...it's insulting and arrogant. I'll vote for him in the general if he wins the nomination, but he is in trouble in November for sure with this kind of style. I am glad I voted for Merkley.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 8, 2008 1:53:59 AM
"the substance of the ad."
HAHAHA!
What substance, Kari? It's an attack ad about BLOG POSTS he made in 2006, for heaven's sake. It's not even about sugar tarrifs or privacy or any of the ISSUES Novick was referring to.
Posted by: colin maloney | May 8, 2008 2:35:38 AM
Steven,
As one Novick supporter, I'll try to explain why I have a problem with the ad. As you might expect, the problem is with the ellipses.
I'm fine with Steve's comments, and actually find them quite amusing, but I have a problem with bits and pieces being cherry picked out of larger sentences and paragraphs without context. I've called Bdunn on this about a dozen times on Kos and other sites about the interwebs, so it's not a new argument I'm making.
I'm fine with Merkley supporters trying to make hay out of blog posts from 2006 if they like, but only if the information is presented in FULL and with context. Otherwise, it's an intellectually dishonest effort. That's the problem.
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 8, 2008 8:08:44 AM
You said the Novick ad where he says "some of my opponents don't think millionaires should be taxed on all their income" was negative. But this one isn't
C'mon, Kari. Do you really think every other person on the planet is a complete moron.
Talk about insulting your readers.
Things are catching up with you, kari. What's you plan B.
Posted by: Masterpiece | May 8, 2008 8:17:02 AM
What substance, Kari? It's an attack ad about BLOG POSTS he made in 2006, for heaven's sake. It's not even about sugar tarrifs or privacy or any of the ISSUES Novick was referring to.
Its a comparative ad about things Novick wrote just a few months before he entered the Senate race.
And you're right, its not about policy. That's the point. Novick didn't attack policy--he attacked PEOPLE. That's what Novick does.
If "substance" is your problem, then you have a problem with Novick.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 8, 2008 8:18:22 AM
I'm fine with Steve's comments, and actually find them quite amusing, but I have a problem with bits and pieces being cherry picked out of larger sentences and paragraphs without context.
That would be a valid criticism if every single quote were not linked to the actual full text, which these are.
The point being made by the Merkley campaign is that Novick is an intemperate person who glorys in the cutting insult as part and parcel of his routine discourse.
This ad suggests, and I agree, that Novick will have trouble getting anything done in the US Senate at all given his propensity to insult allies at the drop of a hat.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 8, 2008 8:26:42 AM
"And you're right, its not about policy. That's the point. Novick didn't attack policy--he attacked PEOPLE. That's what Novick does."
Absolutely false. Novick specifically attacks on policy each time. Jeff Merkley is the only one in the race who has attacked people--Steve Novick. Same old weasel politics from a same old politician like Jeff. You knew it was coming; it's his history to panic and lash out recklessly!
Post a comment
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 7, 2008 8:34:07 PM
Anybody know who built that website?