Novick hits Merkley on Healthy Kids
Steve Novick has sent voters a new attack mailer accusing Jeff Merkley of failing Oregon's children on health care. From Jeff Mapes:
Senate candidate Steve Novick has leveled a new hit against Democratic rival Jeff Merkley that seeks to blame the House speaker for the failure of a cigarette-tax bill aimed at expanding children's health care. ...The Novick mailer charged that Merkley "failed to deliver on Healthy Kids legislation that would have increased taxes on cigarettes. The result, 125,000 Oregon kids today are without health care."
Reaction from legislators and progressive activists was swift:
"I was absolutely livid" after seeing the mailer, said Rep. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, a Merkley supporter who worked on the cigarette tax. Merkley "went to the mat" for the issue and the blame for its failure should be "with the House Republicans and the tobacco industry."Rep. Tina Kotek, D-Portland, called it "a low blow" and the Oregon Nurses Association and AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain, all Merkley supporters, weighed in with similar comments.
Novick argues that Merkley is to blame - not the Republicans or the tobacco industry:
Novick was unmoved, saying that Merkley has repeatedly talked about his successes in the Legislature in bringing people together, so it was fair to bring up a failure. "If he wasn't able to bring Republicans in this Legislature and wasn't able to defeat the special interests, then I think that is worth mentioning."
The Merkley campaign also objected to the timing of the attack - coming just days after Novick's pledge to end the campaign on a positive note:
Novick held a press conference on Monday to say he decided to end his campaign with a positive TV ad, in contrast to the other parties in the race.Canter, Merkley''s spokesman, said that pledge rang hollow. "He clearly held this [press] event with full knowledge there was negative mail going out the door," Canter said.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
May 16, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (95 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Galen | May 16, 2008 8:32:14 AM
The outrage! Who does Steve think he is, calling out a major legislative failure under Merkley's watch? It's almost as if he thinks that substantive critiques have a place in campaigning. Well, I have news for you Steve: you're just a selfish, back-biting pirate.
Posted by: Emily George | May 16, 2008 8:49:12 AM
I also found this mailing outrageous.
The level of hypocrisy in Steve Novick's campaign, crying foul over attacks on him, while doing much worse and more misleading things to Merkley, astounds me.
Posted by: Jack Sullivan | May 16, 2008 8:49:33 AM
Who does Steve think he is, calling out a major legislative failure under Merkley's watch?
Um, yeah, but it was a legislative success, remember?
The voters turned it down, but Merkley got it passed on the floor -- after the Republicans tried repeatedly to kill it.
Posted by: Eric Parker | May 16, 2008 8:56:00 AM
But, Jack, the issue needed to be decided in-house like it should be with that kind of issue - not just sent to the voters just because it's an "end-around". We voters have enough initiative garbage to vote on without having to clean up the messes of those not willing to go further.
Jeff and hid crew didn't try hard enough, nor were they willing to try harder.
Posted by: Ben | May 16, 2008 8:57:29 AM
I'm saddened that Steve would resort to insulting Jeff's record on healthcare by making a baseless attack under the guise of issue politics.
Here's what the Oregon SEIU had to say:
"Steve Novick knows better," said Dale. "Jeff Merkely took on do-nothing legislators as well as the goliath tobacco industry and did everything possible to expand health care coverage for our children. The defeat of Measure 50 was a tragic setback for thousands of families with nowhere to turn when their children are ill. To use that defeat as an attack on Jeff Merkley is shameful."
And the AFL-CIO:
"It's truth time," said Oregon AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain. "Days out from the election, Novick has made yet another outrageous claim. The fact is that no one fought more doggedly for children's health care and the Healthy Kids Plan than Speaker Merkley.""I testified in favor of Healthy Kids at the legislature, and Novick was nowhere to be found," added Chamberlain. "He offered no plan or alternatives. The very idea that now he wants to blame the House Speaker - and not the tobacco industry - for children lacking health care is absurd."
Pretty disappointing...
Posted by: Taylor M | May 16, 2008 9:03:47 AM
Could the tone of this article be any less news-oriented? When Merkley supporters in the house and pro-Merkley unions respond, they're "legislators and progressive activists." That's ridiculous. They don't speak for legislators and progressives. They speak for Merkley and the parties who tried (and, yes unfortunately failed) to get the smoking tax passed.
In a race where you have two Democrats with (varying) progressive credentials, let's at least try to keep the parties straight. It's absurd to imply the progressive and legislative response is unified.
Posted by: Jack Sullivan | May 16, 2008 9:05:30 AM
Jeff and hid crew didn't try hard enough, nor were they willing to try harder.
Wait just a goddamned minute.
There were 31 Democratic votes. To pass it on the floor, they needed 36 total votes, so all 31 Democrats plus 5 Republicans.
Jeff got the commitments he needed, brought it to the floor, and got backstabbed by the GOP -- three separate times.
Please, please, please, explain to me how exactly he didn't "try hard enough."
Tell us all, exactly, what your magic plan is to have actually gotten five Republican legislators to vote for a tobacco tax.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | May 16, 2008 9:27:32 AM
That plan was a weak excuse for helping people with a crushing burden of healthcare needs. It was exactly the wrong kind of response for the time, and confirmed in many people's mind the stereotype of the liberal cause as being guilty of putting forth unfair taxation schemes. Rep. Merkely's involvement in this lousy scheme is one of the main reasons I don't support his bid for the U. S. Senate.
Posted by: David | May 16, 2008 9:30:02 AM
Ok, so I think the critique/attack (choose your semantics here) was fair game. Merkley has been running based on "experience" and an experience of getting things done. This opens him up to allow someone to question the success of what he did get done. While I agree that the Republicans in the House deserve a HUGE amount of the blame for the Healthy Kids fiasco, I also believe that the leadership was kind of botched on this one. Putting a cigarette tax in the CONSTITUTION? Did anyone think that was a good idea? Trying to strong-arm the Republicans into voting for a STATUTORY change, rather than cobbling together a coalition through compromise, as it turns out, was probably not the best method. But of course, hindsight is 20/20.
To the point of the post. Politics is a game for adults and if you can't take the criticism then find another line of work. This critique (in small print on a circular after 25% of ballots had been already returned) was a pretty mild one compared with the Nuclear option that the Merkley campaign has exercised on Novick, and in my opinion, a fair attack in the heat of a campaign.
Posted by: peter c | May 16, 2008 9:34:26 AM
uh,
"Reaction from legislators and progressive activists was swift:"
dont you mean reactions from merkley supporters was swift? and lest anyone forgets, even the progressive netroots base was largely split on this cigarrette tax for childrens healthcare issue--preemptive kevin himself railed against it harder than any conservative i know of. when you are referring a measure to the voters and even your own base is not behind you, you have many problems and they are not all the fault of the republicans.
and that pretty explains why i am backing novick; i don't think we need anymore senators who are content to blame everything on republicans.
Posted by: LT | May 16, 2008 9:43:02 AM
Let me get this straight:
The pitch is "Novick for US Senate because he has never held legislative office but by golly if he had been in the legislature he would have strongarmed Republicans never to pull any dirty tricks on Democrats".
Have I got that right?
These are the Republicans who didn't learn their lesson when the 2005 attack on Roblan over the S. Coast airport totally failed and made Roblan a hero, but if Jeff had only been Superman, he would have made sure they didn't pull anything like that in the 2007 session? How many of you ever tried talking to a Republican House member about this? Some of us tried to talk to our GOP state reps about this and it was like trying to get independent thought from the BORG (Star Trek TNG fans will know what I mean) but if only Novick had been there it would have been different???????
Or is this just a sign of running out of positive message?
And that is why Steve is qualified for US Senate?
I just got an email from a friend stating positive reasons for voting Merkley for Senate. But since it was not filled with acerbic, "robust" language, it was too vanilla for Novickians, so I should ignore that email and tell all my friends to vote Novick?
Gimme a break!
Sorry folks, I marked my ballot last night--and you can call it a protest vote if you want, but I voted for the guy with a legislative record and the ability to use diplomatic language.
For many years Novick used biting language to people's faces, but because it was verbal there was no record.
Blog posts do leave a record (ever wonder why some of us don't use our whole names?) and I believe it is fair game to quote someone's own words.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | May 16, 2008 9:52:07 AM
A quick reality check here: House Republicans had a plan to fund the Healthy Kids program without a cigarette tax increase. House Democrats, who many suspect wanted a cigarette tax increase even more than a Healthy Kids program, weren't buying it. So they tried to pull a fast one and make the cigarette tax a constitutional amendment, but the voters tubed it.
So the complaint that Merkley's leadership led to the failure of the Healthy Kids program is perfectly accurate. What is fair is to say that House Republicans blocked a cigarette tax increase and Merkley did the best he could to push the cigarette tax increase, even at the expense of tubing the Healthy Kids Program.
(And, for the record, I personally voted for the cigarette tax ballot measure in 2006, but I wish the legislature had enacted the Healthy Kids program without new taxes, which would have only reuired 31 votes, not 36).
Posted by: trishka | May 16, 2008 9:52:31 AM
LT voted for merkley!?!?!?!?
no WAY!!!!!
i'm shocked, SHOCKED!
who saw this coming? not me, that's for sure.
Posted by: Runtmg | May 16, 2008 10:00:23 AM
First of all,
There is a major point here Novick supporters are not grasping and one that shows Steve's major flaw in this campaign.
Steve wasn't in the legislature. Steve wasn't championing anything at that time for kids. Nothing.
Where was Novick during that legislation? What was he doing during that time to help get this to pass? Nothing, thats what he was doing.
The Unions that are being slagged as nothing more than thoughtless Merkley supporters were out there fighting for the passage of healthy kids.
We are days away possibly from nominating a rising star in the Party but a guy who isn't ready to run for Senate and that will be a mistake.
By the way, about decrying attack ads that mislead people doesn't that make Novick oh I don't know....
The worlds biggest hypocrite?
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 10:13:18 AM
"I'm saddened that Steve would resort to insulting Jeff's record on healthcare by making a baseless attack under the guise of issue politics."
Baseless? You mean Healthy Kids passed? WHEW!
No one forced the Democrats to try to fund child health care through a tax increase, and no one forced them to do it with a tobacco tax. And no one certainly forced Merkley to brag that he had the votes...
Why is it when the Leg accomplishes something it was no one but Merkley responsible, but when they fail everyone BUT Merkley is responsible?
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 10:15:00 AM
"Steve wasn't in the legislature. Steve wasn't championing anything at that time for kids. Nothing. "
So? Merkley was, and was leading an effort for health care that failed.
Posted by: Knox | May 16, 2008 10:18:14 AM
Novick is the biggest jackass of Democratic Politics that I've ever seen. Once he gets his hat handed to him on the 20th, he won't be able to do anything in politics because of his jackassness.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | May 16, 2008 10:19:02 AM
I'm curious, if Novick was so concerned about passing the Health Kids Act, why didn't he try and help it pass? Where was he? Was he visiting legislators in the House and Senate and trying to get them on board? The way the Novick Campaign worded it to insinuate the Merkley is responsible for 125,000 uninsured kids is really low. Merkley did try and get a super majority but was fighting the lobbyists and the Republicans. This attack will surely backfire on the Novick Campaign like it already is.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 10:21:50 AM
"I'm curious, if Novick was so concerned about passing the Health Kids Act, why didn't he try and help it pass?"
Maybe he was concerned with child health care, rather than a tobacco tax in a Constitutional ballot measure.
And who can parse this?
"This attack will surely backfire on the Novick Campaign like it already is. "
A simultaneous present-future concurrence!
Any evidence of it backfiring?
Posted by: Stephanie V | May 16, 2008 10:22:46 AM
If Merkley wants to run on his record, he's got to run on his whole record. He doesn't get to edit out the failures. The voters get to decide how much weight to place on each item.
I'm out of town so I haven't seen the flyer, but my understanding is that the criticism of Merkley relating to Healthy Kids was the judgment of the Oregonian, not with Steve. Is he not allowed to remind voters about it?!
Posted by: Miles | May 16, 2008 10:23:23 AM
Many progressives criticized Merkley at the time for his failure on this issue. And yes, it's a Democratic failure, first and foremost, and I'm glad to support a candidate who is willing to say that.
The Democrats, under Merkley's leadership, were desperate to push through a cigarette tax and to fund kids health care. Merkley was unable to persuade the five Republicans needed to refer it as a statutory change, so he decided to play games and instead refer a constitutional amendment. That amendment went down in flames, and so now we still have a couple hundred thousand uninsured kids.
What could Merkley have done differently? First, compromise with the Republicans. He had four, he only needed one more, and you just can't tell me that wasn't doable. But he mistakenly thought he had a political winner, so he risked the kids health care program in order to score political points. Second, fund kids health care through another mechanism. If it is so damn important -- and it is -- it should have taken priority over other budget items. Give health care to kids and put a tax increase for something else on the ballot. Third, he should have recognized the suicide mission of trying to put a tobacco tax in the CONSTITUTION and instead worked at the grassroots level to put a statutory initiative on the ballot. Such an intitiative would have passed.
Posted by: Jack Sullivan | May 16, 2008 10:31:13 AM
Hold on, folks. The question before is NOT "Was Healthy Kids a good idea?"
Steve Novick supported Healthy Kids.
The attack that Novick leveled was that Merkley "failed to deliver on Healthy Kids legislation that would have increased taxes on cigarettes."
This isn't about the policy, it's about the attack.
In fact, Merkley succeeded in delivering on Healthy Kids legislation that would have increased taxes on cigarettes.
You can argue all day long about whether that was a good idea or not - but it's irrelevant.
The point is that Novick's attack is disingenuous and dishonest.
Posted by: Eric Parker | May 16, 2008 10:31:41 AM
"Steve wasn't in the legislature. Steve wasn't championing anything at that time"
Maybe, but that doesn't disqualify him from running. If we used litnus tests for candiates simular to your test runtmg, then our esteemed Governor Ted couldn't run for Governor because he wasn't born in Oregon.
"Novick is the biggest jackass of Democratic Politics that I've ever seen"
Is that because his truth hurts, Knox?
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 10:33:45 AM
"In fact, Merkley succeeded in delivering on Healthy Kids legislation that would have increased taxes on cigarettes."
So the kids have health care now? Awesome!
Posted by: bdunn | May 16, 2008 10:35:30 AM
Steve Novick promised to run a positive campaign for the rest of the primary. Guess lying about the Speaker's record is what he means considers positive campaign. I guess this is what we should expect when he says that he "always tells the truth".
Merkley was in the trenches pulling every trick in the book and the fact that the Healthy Kids even got the minimal traction that it did was because of Merkley's effort. Unlike Steve Novick who was MIA trying to get kids health care.
Posted by: Ben | May 16, 2008 10:39:01 AM
Jeff run on his full record? Sounds good to me. Because, you know, he actually has a record, and has been down in Salem getting things accomplished, even if big tobacco stepped in on this one and poured money to ruin it.
That's why I voted for Jeff. Because his progressive record accomplishment shows he's a person of action (and compromise, when necessary). He's willing to try, and fail, if it means standing up for the right thing in the face of big special interests.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | May 16, 2008 10:39:24 AM
A lot of gnashing of teeth by Merkley supporters, but no answer to the charges I made above.
Posted by: Kevin | May 16, 2008 10:52:51 AM
Emily George: The level of hypocrisy in Steve Novick's campaign, crying foul over attacks on him, while doing much worse and more misleading things to Merkley, astounds me.
There is that valid point. But there's much more to this. Steve Novick has demonstrated not only that he suffers from foot-in-mouth disease but more importantly that he is openly contemptuous of Democrats who are effective.
Merkley kept his entire Dem majority in line on that vote - something I highly doubt that Novick could replicate if he were in the same position.
Posted by: LT | May 16, 2008 10:53:49 AM
Jack, can't let you get away with this,
"A quick reality check here: House Republicans had a plan to fund the Healthy Kids program without a cigarette tax increase"
Exactly what was that plan? Exactly when and how was it discussed in public?
For years (going back before the "bucket plan") Republicans have claimed they had a plan to do one thing or another----as long as ordinary folk would not ask pesky detailed questions.
I live in a Republican district with a state rep. who hardly ever has town hall meetings.
For years some of us have pestered Republicans for detail, as in "OK, you hate taxes--we get that. Let's see your specific list of cuts and make sure it adds up to the amount needed". Such specifics are never given, usually it is something like the famous Kim Thatcher line "we must have spending discipline, but don't ask for details because we must have spending discipline".
When Republicans proposed to pay for state police within existing revenues without a dedicated revenue source (because some day there would be an economic downturn) anyone who pointed out earlier state police layoffs due to budget concerns was treated as a subversive.
What we need is a legislature as open about public process as the Public Comm. on the Legislature was.
Republicans wanted everything behind closed doors.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 10:59:56 AM
"Guess lying about the Speaker's record is what he means considers positive campaign."
Wow, someone else who thinks kids have health care now as a result of Merkley's bill! Go to Freddy's and get a fan before they run out, Bradley--I think the heat's already getting to you.
Posted by: Runtmg | May 16, 2008 11:01:09 AM
In response to Ed,
First your vote is your vote and your choice is your choice. But what other amendments were there? Right now, in the presidential campaigns we have two democratic candidates who have LOUSY ideas in regards to health care. They keep the insurance companies in control and running the show.
Novick is proudly running a campaign that will increase taxes which places a massive target on Novicks back.
You are taking nothing more than the road to hell is paved with good intentions as your argument against Merkley which is fine as it is your choice and your vote.
I disagree however, that it was a weak idea. It was an attempt to do something right and it failed and sometimes you have to fail before you ultimately succeed.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 16, 2008 11:07:55 AM
Merkley kept his entire Dem majority in line on that vote - something I highly doubt that Novick could replicate if he were in the same position.
Actually that isn't true. Schaufler or someone flipped, but Donna Nelson supported it. Donna's support probably had less to do with Merkley's magnificence (though he has always treated her with respect) than it did with the fact that I campaigned against her on the cigarette tax for kid's health care, she felt that there was support for the idea in the district based on the 2006 campaign.
Imagine how different things might be on a variety of issues if Democrats had won that seat in 2006.
Merkley, whose staff otherwise did a pretty good job of retaking seats in Democatic districts that they should have held since 2002, actually told several of my funders that donating to my campaign was a bad play since we "didn't have a credible chance for success".
Of course, at the end of the day, they needed fewer than 200 votes to flip to take that seat. They wouldn't have had a straight ticket vote, since I disagareed with leadership on some bills that passed in 2007, but they would have had enough votes to pass some key legislation that failed because they needed 1 more vote.
Posted by: Runtmg | May 16, 2008 11:09:38 AM
Eric,
I apologize because my point might not have been clear. My point isnt whether or not Steve should be qualified for running legally . Of course he is qualified for that.
My point is that Novick is really good at having all the answers, after the fact. People can criticize healthy kids, they can criticize Merkley and they can criticize the Unions all they want but the fact of the matter is this;
They were there. They fought that battle and lost and guess what, when it comes to health care, there will be many more losses down the road no matter who gets in.
As far as I know, and perhaps i need to be educated but Novick didn't do a god damn thing as a private citizen to help with the passage of that bill or to write letters at the time to challenge Merkley.
It is fine to say, Merkley has blotches on his record for mistakes and losses that's politics. But what I don't hear is what Novick would have done different? Then to make it sound as if defeating the special interest groups is a walk in the park is like saying the Blazers should have blown the Bulls out in 92.
Posted by: ORSTAR RULES | May 16, 2008 11:10:39 AM
Steve Novick gave $150 to Healthy Kids. He invested his own money in leaving 125,000 kids without healthcare. Maybe that should be a mail piece too.
And Grove Insight - Lisa Grove - was the pollster.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 11:23:00 AM
"It is fine to say, Merkley has blotches on his record for mistakes and losses that's politics. But what I don't hear is what Novick would have done different?"
Read the other side of the panel in the mailer Merkley people are so bunged up about--it links to his detailed plan for bringing health care to adults AND kids...
Posted by: Jack Murray | May 16, 2008 11:33:16 AM
Sal, every House Democrat supported Healthy Kids. Most of them did it many times over. Perhaps the instance you're talking about is when Ben Cannon left for a couple of hours to watch his baby being born.
But you're wrong; no House Dem voted NO. Just look at the bill numbers in the leg (I think it was something like 2201, and then it turned into a senate bill).
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | May 16, 2008 11:34:31 AM
Sal,
Your comment on Merkley's dismissal of your legislative campaign reminds me of they way the Democratic caucus approached my 1998 campaign, which I lost by 100 votes after being outspent 3:1 in total by the Republican incumbent. Is bad polling or bad strategy largely responsible for such decisions, or are candidates like you and I considered [by someone with considerable influence] as not the kind of Democrat welcome in the legislature?
Posted by: bdunn | May 16, 2008 11:37:49 AM
Novick's attack is a disappointing distortion that has appalled everyone who worked in the building trying to get kids health care where Steve Novick was notably absent.
What is really disturbing is Novick's willingness to give a free pass to House Republicans and Tobacco Lobbyists while blaming the Democrats leading the charge. Essentially Novick is saying the failure of SCHIP Nancy Pelosi's fault rather than Bush and GOP congressmen like Walden that opposed it. Giving Republicans and special interests a free pass while attacking Democrats is not good an will help GOP House members weasel out of responsibility for their votes in state House races this fall.
Posted by: bdunn | May 16, 2008 11:41:00 AM
Sal it sucks that you lost, but if Future PAC diverted resources to you it is likely that we could have lost Jean Cowan's close race. Everybody wants more help, hell I was arguing for more help as the campaign manager in a +11R district. But its hard to argue with picking up 4 seats when none of the pundits thought it was going to happen.
Posted by: ORSTAR RULES | May 16, 2008 12:01:40 PM
Why the deafening silence from Peter Courtney and Governor Kolongoski? Don't they own this "failure" too?
They should call BS on Novick loudly.
It was a SENATE Joint Resolution that was referred to voters.
And the Governor campaigned for it.
Can Novick explain how Rep. John Lim's refusal to vote for an entire day is Jeff Merkley's fault?
If only Novick had been there with a clever quip; that would've made John Lim vote, I just know it.
And Peralta and Civiletti - get over it. Maybe you should've knocked on 100 more doors. You're like NBA fans blaming the refs when your own team blows free throws and blows layups and plays no D. Be adults. Own your own failure.
Posted by: Jack Murray | May 16, 2008 12:03:40 PM
Sal, this is also untrue in the case of Healthy Kids:
but they would have had enough votes to pass some key legislation that failed because they needed 1 more vote.
To do Healthy Kids any other way than a constitutional amendment, it would have taken 36 votes. There are 31 Democrats, and all of them voted for it.
Healthy Kids failed by one vote because the House Republicans locked up, only allowing 2 or 3 of their 29 members to vote for the proposal at any given time. Usually these were different members, cycled through so that each could be politically inoculated with a 'Yes' vote. But never, not once, did Wayne Scott allow enough Republicans to vote 'Yes' for a total of 36 yeses.
They played games, and the only way it could have passed that way is to get 36 Democrats. Jeff Merkley helped pick up 7 seats in two cycles. Thanks to his stewardship of the 2007 session, it's likely that the Dems can pick up 5 in one year, getting us to 36.
Laying the fate of Healthy Kids anywhere other than at the tobacco lobby's feet, and especially blaming Jeff Merkley, is a grave under-appreciation of this tireless effort to pass it.
Posted by: Ben | May 16, 2008 12:07:04 PM
... and, to talk about grassroots effort that someone mentioned earlier, I knocked on a ton of doors on behalf of the campaign and lobbied a ton of regular voters. But, sometimes, even the best efforts get derailed in the face of a $12 million ad buy.
Jack makes an excellent point above. Jeff got us so close. We sniffed victory on a tricky issue because of his work to fill the legislature and to lead. Without him at the helm, who knows how many seats shorter we would have been and what Speaker Minnis (or whomever) would have done...
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 12:10:24 PM
"Novick's attack is a disappointing distortion"
once again, explain which part that was written was not true.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 12:11:55 PM
"To do Healthy Kids any other way than a constitutional amendment, it would have taken 36 votes. There are 31 Democrats, and all of t
That's not at all clear. A statutory should have only needed 31, and Merkley had a legal opinion in hand that said that very thing. He chose not to use it.
Posted by: peter c | May 16, 2008 12:15:55 PM
sal,
from what i heard that was the case with mike caudle's race; he also lost by around 200 votes (i think 220 something). i actually asked merkley directly about that race back in '06 and he told me something like "we don't think mike can win this cycle". oh well... mike would have been awesome.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 16, 2008 12:18:50 PM
TJ:
Correct. The opinion of the AG's office was that it only needed 31 votes.
Rep. Phil Barnhart, however, has made a parliamentary motion - arguing that "common sense and the law" actually would allow 31 votes to send the measure to the people. Barnhart argued that it was "nonsensical" and "untenable" that constitutional amendments require only 31 votes - while statutory proposals require 36 votes.According to Barnhart, the Attorney General issued an opinion that 31 votes would be sufficient -- contrary to the long-held opinion of the Legislative Counsel. Barnhart argued further that the constitutional question is best resolved by the Oregon Supreme Court, rather than Legislative Counsel.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 16, 2008 12:19:45 PM
Missed this at first:
"Essentially Novick is saying the failure of SCHIP Nancy Pelosi's fault rather than Bush and GOP congressmen like Walden that opposed it."
Point one is that Novick doesn't say who's FAULT it is; what he says is that Merkley failed to deliver as the leader of the majority party. Point two is that you're absolutely right that the failure of SCHIP is Pelosi's failure. Twas always thus.
Look, this is very much like being an NFL quarterback. Merkley has soaked up all the "leadership" cred from being the quarterback of the Leg, and he's right to do so, because he was the QB and called the plays that resulted in wins.
But when you lose, a good QB doesn't blame his line, or the refs, or the noisy crowd. Like a good leader, he accepts responsibility for failure, even when that failure was a team effort.
This is Merkley trying to gin up outrage, when the simple truth is that he QBed the effort and it did not result in a win. That's 100% fair game in an election contest.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 16, 2008 12:25:58 PM
Sal it sucks that you lost, but if Future PAC diverted resources to you it is likely that we could have lost Jean Cowan's close race.
I'd never asked FuturePac to divert resources to my campaign. Telling people who had the money to spend not to donate is a different matter entirely.
I can't tell you how many conversations I had with folks who very clearly told me that they could not help out because "leadership was not interested in the race". There were two funders who would not have lowered the amounts given to other candidates who explicitly told me that they were advised against donating to the HD 24 campaign by Merkley and staff at Future Pac.
"Don't waste your money" should never be a message that goes out to potential donors.
But its hard to argue with picking up 4 seats when none of the pundits thought it was going to happen.
There was every reason to expect that the D's would pick up 3-5 seats in 2006. The question that never gets asked is why some of those were Republican seats in the first place. The question Democrats should be asking themselves is why is it that with 1 exception in the last 12 years, future pac has never won a district where there is a Republican registration advantage.
As to this business of wasting resources..
Why did Future Pac spend $100,000 on a race in Newberg and Keizer. The person who ran was a great guy, but at the end of the day, he underperformed in the district, which anyone who knows anything about politics in Newberg and Keizer could have predicted the minute that they failed to recruit Vic Backlund to run as an I.
Is bad polling or bad strategy largely responsible for such decisions, or are candidates like you and I considered [by someone with considerable influence] as not the kind of Democrat welcome in the legislature?
Tom, I think that is definitely part of it. I feel no small sense of irony that Future Pac called everyone but me in House District 24 when they were recruiting candidates for 2008, despite the fact that they hadn't fielded a credible challenge through their own efforts in this district for more than a decade.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Eric Parker | May 16, 2008 8:30:06 AM
"Novick argues that Merkley is to blame - not the Republicans or the tobacco industry:
Novick was unmoved, saying that Merkley has repeatedly talked about his successes in the Legislature in bringing people together, so it was fair to bring up a failure. "If he wasn't able to bring Republicans in this Legislature and wasn't able to defeat the special interests, then I think that is worth mentioning." "
This shows that Merkley really has no backbone to stand up to people like this and get into faces of those who need to have their faces looked into. He really didn't try hard enough and wasn't really wanting to in order to just get this item "on the books" as it were.
Proves one thing: Pure Milquetoast on Jeff's part.