"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LT voted for merkley!?!?!?!?

no WAY!!!!!

i'm shocked, SHOCKED!

who saw this coming? not me, that's for sure.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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?

A lot of gnashing of teeth by Merkley supporters, but no answer to the charges I made above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

There's a lot of revisionist history going on here attacking Future PAC.

Peter C. suggests Mike Caudle, for example, lost by 200 votes. Nothing against Mike, but the result was Wayne Scott 12,247 and Mike Caudle 9,214, a difference of 3,000 votes.

It's always easy to point to some race that was much closer than expected. But if the race had been targeted, the other side would have also spent more money, so it's not always true that it means a different outcome.

But this is a distraction from the points raised above about how hypocritical and misleading Novick's mailer was, particularly in light of his press efforts touting he was going all positive.

Sal, I know you have sour grapes, but this is also inaccurate:

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.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at LEAST two, and that's just within 4 years. I'll bet there's more.

2006: David Edwards (Derrick Kitts) 2004: Larry Galizio (Max Williams)

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.

They made BAD DECISIONS. Why is that off-limits for criticism? Just because you "fought the good fight" doesn't mean it was a wise strategic decision. In the case of Healthy Kids, it was obviously an unwise decision. If Merkley's not responsible for that, who is?

And for those who only blame the special interests and Republicans, I question whether you're serious about solving our country's problems. Sometimes our side makes mistakes, and we're only going to learn from those mistakes if we acknowledge them. Was Merkley not aware that the tobacco lobby would spend millions against a tobacco tax? Or did he just use bad political judgement? We need someone who is able to frame issues effectively so that we make progress, not just fight the same old fights. Novick is that guy.

If Jeff is such a "fighter", why did he take the easy way out and send the "healthy kids" issue to the voters when he could have tried to twist more arms? Just because you get shot down so many times, does not mean you resign yourself to the easier option to get it off you list. He failed to deliver because he failed to go that extra mile.

Milquetoast at it's best.

and, furthermore...

"Is Steve the one doing all the complaining in this thread? Doesn't look like it."

Yep...don't look like it to me either.

Sal, you need to be honest with people.

You declined FuturePAC's help.

You made a campaign pledge that you wouldn't take any money from PACs or unions outside of your district. That's all fine and good, but it's a little disingenuous to then complain that you didn't get their money. A major way that FuturePAC helps candidates is to encourage their progressive partners - those PACs and unions - to donate to candidates.

And, as I understand it, when FuturePAC did finally decide to inject some money in your race, they did it more-or-less independently and over your objections.

You lost a close race. And that was a tragedy. But because you spent months declining outside help, the blame lies squarely with you.

ORSTAR RULES wrote,

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.

Not to worry, I "got over it" a long time ago. The issue is not my campaign or Sal's, but what factors besides winnability effect how Democratic candidates are aided or hindered by FuturePac and Democratic leaning funders. By the way, I knocked on 14,000 doors in 1998. I believe Sal hit quite a few in his campaign, too.

Pat Ryan wrote,

Tom, I'd argue that there are plenty of Dem reps that are "your kind of Democrat" already serving. Maybe you and Sal have something in common that is also lacking entirely in the current Oregon House. If so, I'd love to hear what it might be.

Not being a mind-reader, I could not say with any certainty, Pat. I would guess it has something do with an independent viewpoint not likely to be swayed by something other than sound argument that's on issue. If I were to pinpoint an issue that might be crucial, how about the unflinching dedication Sal and I have to serious campaign finance reform? I can think of only one legislator who has [oops, I mean had] a similar dedication. Does that offer plausible motivation: that the folks who raise and spend large amounts of money on political campaigns might not be very enthusiastic about candidates who want to change the environment in which those folks operate? For a list of who the "someone with considerable influence" might be, check out the progressive organizations that opposed the Fair Elections ballot measures. Just a guess on my part, though.

Torridjoe,

Your reply reminds me of that great documentary years ago on the 2004 race by Alexandra Pelosi. The documentary had a hilarious scened in which John Kerry was trying to relate to voters in a diner.

He would walk up to a person and start talking about issues, well rather than talk about the issues he would refer them to John Kerry.com and that is all that Novicks flier really does when it comes to spelling out the issues.

So I went to Novick for Senate and three clicks later boom I was able to read juicy nuggets like this

I would likely favor a ‘single payer’ system, which cuts the insurance companies out: you'd be allowed to pick your own doctor, and the government would be the insurer, as it is with Medicare. However, there are legitimate concerns that switching to a single payer system immediately would be disruptive (for one thing, it would throw an awful lot of insurance company employees - not just CEOs, but regular working people - out of work). But a single payer approach would clearly be superior to our current system, so if it gets to the Senate floor, I'll support it.

A few likely's and if's there isn't it. A lot of ambiguous talk. Bottom line is this, when it comes to health care Novick isn't really championing anything but he sounds great doing it. He is saying in a muddled sort of way that he would likely support a single payer system and if it gets to the senate floor he would support it.

Oh really? Not author it, not build a coalition to support it, not do the type of work that needs to be done, he would just support it when all the heavy lifting is done. Memo to Steve, the vote is the easy part.

Contrasting this with Merkleys record, and I say this...it is easy for Novick to take his pot shots at Merkley but he doesn't have a clue or a plan for the health care system. He will gladly piggyback off someone else's plan in the meantime.

In closing,I didn't vote for either candidate because I am not a democrat but I will vote for the Democrat nominee. I don't have a problem with Novick going after Merkleys record or his failures but I think that healthy kids has plenty of blame and most of it belongs on the other side of the house where it belongs.

"Your crew would have a tough job here, if you had the capacity to be embarrassed by being associated with the huge moral flexibility of your candidate, but apparently you share his ethical worldview and hence have no problem with his behavior."

"I don't know if what I'm doing is right or wrong. I just want to win." -- Jeff Merkley said in a downtown Portland lawyer's office (while crying), as reported by The Oregonian and Willamette Week.

Fighter? Sounds more like whining to me.

Miles,

In any campaign good or bad there will be mistakes made. This however doesn't necessarily underscore the legislative ability of the people who brought it up.

The question is; Is healthy kids failure Jeff Merkleys fault because he referred it to the voters?

That question is followed by an equally important question

Since Steve Novick has found passion for helping the 125,000 children who are uninsured, what is he willing to do to help them get health insurance in Oregon?

The answer to question 1 is no it isn't Merkley's fault, but it is his failure as it is the failure of every democrat or republican in the legisltaure as it is every Oregon voter who voted against that tax. We are all to blame in many ways for this.

The answer to question number 2 is that Novick doesn't have a plan on health care other than to support someone elses plan. He throws out easy to look up statistics that underscore the complexity of the problem but at the end of the day he offers nothing new but yet will attack other guys for fighting the good fight when he himself never got into the ring and is pulling an 11th hour stunt to get his parties nomination.

The question is; Is healthy kids failure Jeff Merkleys fault because he referred it to the voters?

I'm making a much more targeted criticism, specifically taking on Merkley's "legislative ability". His first failure was not crafting a proposal that could get the supermajority needed to pass -- that is a failure of persuasion. His second failure was not figuring out a different way to fund Healthy Kids by cutting some lower priority programs -- that's a failure of leadership. His third failure was putting the tax on the ballot as a constitutional amendment -- that's a strategic failure.

These decisions were made out of Merkley's office. To only blame the opposition is to forget all the decisions that resulted in them having an easy target to shoot at. Had Merkley made better decisions, kids in Oregon would now have health care.

Torrid joe, those aren't plans at all. Those are good ideas potentially but let's not confuse those things with plans. How would he accomplish those things? What is the plan?

You know what I want, I want junk foods out of school! So then the next logical step is how do I get junk foods out of school? More importantly how would I used the title of senator to get these things done.

Merkley helped put forward healthy kids. It failed. It was however a plan that when it died a death in the partisan legislature he put it to voters in oregon. We rejected it.

All of those things mentioned by Novick are desired steps that he has no legislative record in showing that he understands or has the ability to get those things passed.

Maybe your too busy rolling your eyes to see that a candidate with no prior legislative experience can make whatever promises he wants, but what will he really be able to do?

Jeff has a record that's not perfect. But that is the difference, he has a record and Novick doesn't and as far as legislative records goes, Jeff's isn't bad even if you say Healthy Kids is a failure that is attributed to Merkley.

Meanwhile, Novick champions a lot of good ideas but is a hero of none.

Miles,

That's an interesting arguement. His failure is not crafting a proposal that will get a super majority. Wow.

So when Novick says that he is going to raise taxes on social security after the first 102,000 dollars how will he put together a super majority that will make the anti tax republicans come on over and say "Sure, thing Stevie!"

The easy thing to do is to never bring it to the floor, certainly never referring it to voters would have been the easy thing to do.

Let me make this clear to anyone who is delusional, you will never be able to craft a tax that will have a supermajority while the dems and repubs split the legislature as closely as they do.

Your targeted criticsm was clear but I have to think that we will agree to disagree on this one. I just want to know how Merkley or Novick or anyone could have crafted that bill to get a supermajority.

Torrid Joe,

I don't think I am missing any "points."

I am going to ask you to step out of your Novick is right on every single issue at all costs and step into the real world here.

If you are going to socialize something, you have to figure out a way to pay for it. Now you can cut somewhere else or raise taxes, try to get federal money somehow. There are possibly other ways to get this done that I am missing but it basically boils down to that.

No one said it, certainly not the crickets from Steve Novick but Merkley with the governor DID IT. He put forward a proposal that failed but it was a proposal in the right direction nonetheless. Fault Merkley all you like but Steve Novick doesn't have a record to run on. That is the point that your missing. He has a hosts of likely and if's but nothing else in terms of legislative battles. He is an attorney who has been on the right side a lot but he is still an attorney.

Blaming Merkley for 125,000 kids not having health care is like blaming Al Gore for global warming. Well if only Gore had won in 2000 things would be different.

We the voters of Oregon are more at fault than anyone else. Merkley gave us a choice and we voted it down. Who's fault again is that?

Merkley will fight for Efca for health care reform. I know this because he fought for them in Oregon and there is no reason to assume that it will stop.

I think its funny how a few people in the comments are criticizing Novick for supporting other folks health care plans and not creating his own, as if Merkley has created an original comprehensive plan on health care. I'll quote one of the three short paragraphs: (the ones I'm omitting are one that says Merkley thinks everyone should have health care [yeah], and the second talks briefly about taking on the nursing shortage).

"Wyden's Healthy Americans Act One of Jeff's first acts as Oregon's next U.S. Senator will be to sign on as a cosponsor of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's health care bill, the Healthy Americans Act. The Healthy Americans Act would guarantee every American universal, affordable, comprehensive, portable, high-quality health coverage that is as good or better than members of Congress have today."

Why would Jeff cosponsor this if he could create his own? I'm being sarcastic, and I actually think Merkley and Novick are right to sign on to legislation that is a move in the right direction.

This shows Novick is counting on voters being stupid...I am glad I voted for Merkley.

"It would have been far better to take LC's interpretation to court, if only to get a determination on whether LC or the AG were correct so that regardless of what happened with the Tobacco Tax, future legislatures would not have had their hands tied by an ambiguous legal point when trying to refer statutory changes to the Oregon tax code."

Sal, you should have won your state rep. election, and if this is what you would have said in caucus meetings had you been elected, that is fine.

However, it appears that some people who were in the thick of that battle see things another way. I believe they have a right to their opinion!

http://www.politickeror.com/laurenlafaro/1621/unions-take-issue-novick-mail-piece

If the Democratic Party is seen as no more interested in honest difference of opinion than the Minnis/Scott Republicans -- who insisted on public agreement or silence on everything-- that only drives people out of political parties except for late April and most of May in even numbered years.

It is one thing to for an outsider to say "The leadership should have...' It is another thing to have been "in the trenches" during the debate.

Just as Ron "PERS = Enron" was AWOL during the 2003 PERS legislative battle and thus deserves scorn, if Novick was not at the capital during the Healthy Kids debate, it is a little late now to say "what they should have done was...".

(And before you jump all over me, folks, no I did not say Novick is like Saxton.)

Now, if there were evidence that Steve had contacted House Dems and advocated for a court challenge or whatever, that would be something different.

Next Wednesday, will Healthy Kids and a 2003 symbolic resolution and so many other primary issues really matter regardless of who wins the primary? Or can we then at long last actually talk about defeating Gordon Smith?

I am going to respond to some of the previous posts.

First, the criticism that was pointed at Novick was not for him supporting other people's plans, so I am not sure where that comes from. Novick puts forward on his website a litany of ideas and some statistics. What he doesn't have and can't have is the experience of advocating for any of these issues in regards to Universal Health Care. After all of the things that he will "likely" do, he puts forward that he would support Wyden's plan. Wyden's plan seems to be all right, although I am partially against anything that doesn't destroy these f-ing robber barons in the Health Care industry. But like Healthy Kids, it is a start.

Second issue;

The 36 votes needed to push the issue forward. I will plead ignorance at this point. Without knowing all the facts or reasons for the decision to be made, that failure is Merkley's it is fair for Novick to bring up.

It is also fair to point out that Novick has no legislative history. It is also fair to point out that if Novick wins no one has any clue what that guy will do in office and that is just the way that many of his supporters want it.

Here's what Novick said about Healthy Kids in October ON HIS OWN BLOG -

Submitted by Steve Novick on October 17, 2007 - 12:11pm.

So I was going to give all of my kicker to Measure 49. Already have given some. But it seems that Measure 50 might have a tougher row to hoe, so I'm going to give a chunk of it to Measure 50.

Eventually, I'd think we need to have a conversation about putting kicker surpluses into a rainy day fund. But if we don't pass Measure 49, pretty soon every day in Oregon will be dark, dreary and overdeveloped. And if we don't pass Measure 50, it will mean some very dark days for a lot of kids. So I think giving your kicker to 49 and 50 is consistent with the rainy-day concept.

<h2>You can give online to them right now here and here.</h2>

Why did he urge people to support failure? Why didn't he criticize Merkley then? Where was his ever-so-superior judgment then?