Will Novick be hit for proposing to deport all Scotch-Irish back to the old country?

Charlie Burr

Merkley's new ad doesn't reach back to Novick's kindergarten essays, but they do dredge up a stylized blog post from 2006. Here's the context and full post of what Steve actually wrote:

"Questions for Earl"

I'm very pleased that Earl Blumenauer will be speaking at the City Club Friday, and there are all sorts of questions I'd like to ask him. Since I'm only allowed one question at the event, I hereby offer these up as possible questions for other Blue Oregon-reading City Club members to ask:

1. Last week David Cay Johnston wrote in the New York Times that in 2004, three years after George Bush's tax cuts that were supposed to make the economy explode and pay for themselves, the total reported* income of all Americans was below 2000 levels and income tax revenues were below 2000 levels. (In fact, income tax revenues only recovered to 2000 levels - in RAW DOLLARS, not adjusted for anything - in 2006. It is unheard of for income tax revenues not to grow for that long a period, other than in the Great Depression.) Will the new Congress hold hearings on the obvious failure of supply-side economics? Will Gordon Smith apologize for voting for those tax cuts?

[* Note: I should have said "total reported income." This post originally said total income, but commentor Bill Holmer pointed out that was wrong, the proper stat is total reported income.]

2. A recent IRS study showed that in 2004 publicly traded companies reported $554 billion in profits on their financial statements but told the IRS that for tax purposes they earned only about $394 billion. Will Congress look into this odd discrepancy?

3. Recently PacifiCorp took some heat (pun intended) for proposing to build new greenhouse-gas-producing coal plants. Coal plants are bad, horrible, but they produce 50% of the electricity in America and wind isn't going to replace that overnight. There is a possibility, though, that with new "integrated coal gasification combined cycle facilities" (I think I have that right) we could strip out the carbon and bury it somewhere. People aren't sure that will work, but it's a hope. PacifiCorp actually said that they'd try to make one of its new coal plants an ICGCCF, if they could make the financials work - the plants are more expensive than traditional coal plants. Why couldn't Congress just mandate: No new coal plants other than these gasified thingamabobs?

4. Speaking of global warming, corn-based ethanol doesn't help, because it takes about as much energy to produce it as it generates. But ethanol from sugar is much more energy-efficient; it's actually worthwhile. But tariffs on sugar, backed by our domestic sugar industry and corn ethanolites, prevent the U.S. from developing a sugar-ethanol-fuel industry. I am not against all tariffs per se, but this one is insane. And, according to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?

5. Sunday's New York Times magazine had a fascinating article suggesting that immigrants commit FEWER crimes than non-immigrants. The article cited one researcher who attributed America's violent culture to the Scotch-Irish heritage of many of us (myself included - I'm more Scotch-Irish than anything else except the Jewish half). I'm conflicted on the whole immigration issue: On the one hand, I think illegal immigration depresses wages; on the other, aren't we supposed to let in anyone who's tired, poor, or is now or ever has been part of a huddled mass? But that aside, this evidence on crime is very interesting, and raises this question for Earl: To reduce crime, should we deport the Scotch-Irish? If that's what has to be done, I guess I'm willing to take one for the team.

Was the post meant to be taken at face value? Here's what Kari had to say:

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 7, 2006 1:04:19 AM

Dudes, you're completely missing the sarcasm in Steve's #5 question. You don't seriously think he's advocating deporting Irish people, right?

No, Kari, I don't.

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, if what Steve said was such a big deal, why didn't anyone call him out on it back in 2006??

  • peter c (unverified)
    (Show?)

    speaking of being quoted out of context from old blog posts, looks like kari himself had some explaining to do over at the willy week when his words were used without the whole context to bludgeon jeff merkley for nepotism:

    "Kari Chisholm writes on May 5th, 2008 10:43pm Comment 1 | Respond

    Nice find! The last sentence of a three year old comment on a blog...

    Here's a longer excerpt of my comment:

    <hr/>

    [T]here are surely relatives who do a fine job -- but I think that a blanket policy that outlaws employing family members would cost less (in losing the few good ones) than the current practice, which has a tremendous cost in eroding public confidence.

    I remember one '94 GOP revolutionary who was surprised to discover - upon arriving in DC - that there was no limo to shuttle him around (since he ran against those very perks).

    Most of what the public believes about legislators is wrong (they confuse 'em with Hollywood celebs) - which is why it's critical to squash the few examples that are true.

    It's time to put an end to legislative nepotism.

    <hr/>

    I still think that's right. There are surely family members whose work is quality - but we should move to a full-time legislature with full-time staff... and then ban the practice of legislative nepotism.

    [Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.]"

    i bet the boss didn't like that too much...

  • peter c (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oops, link:

    http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11791

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There's Kari before he's was in the tank for Merkley:

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 7, 2006 1:04:19 AM

    Dudes, you're completely missing the sarcasm in Steve's #5 question. You don't seriously think he's advocating deporting Irish people, right?

    And after:

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 7, 2006 1:04:19 AM

    Dudes, you're completely missing the sarcasm in Steve's #5 question. You don't seriously think he's advocating deporting Irish people, right?

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure that #5 was sarcastic.

    But #4?

    And, according to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?

    Here's the critical thing: If Steve Novick was just being silly and sarcastic, why hasn't he said that? Did I miss the retraction? Or at least, the clarification of what he actually meant?

    The only thing I've heard him say about this is that he stands by it -- something like "YES, Barack Obama is a captive of the special-interest sugar lobby."

  • (Show?)

    Oh whoops - new post, new disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.

  • (Show?)

    Let's see if I get this straight, Charlie. You're asserting that because a small portion of Steve Novick's post was sarcastic, he didn't mean any of it? I'm sorry, but I find that argument so specious, someone as smart as you could not offer it earnestly. You are being disingenuous.

    A much better line would be that of "distortion". Often politicians will take a single ill phrased statement of their opponent and try to pretend that is what defines what they really think, when they don't.

    The trouble is, this kind of attack against fellow Democrats and progressives is pretty clearly exactly what Steve thinks. He's done it again and again and again. So you really can't pretend that he's somehow being misportrayed. Not honestly.

    I mean seriously - Steve is the guy who said at the cityclub debate that Bono was the most hypocritical man in the world! Not a prominent Republican - Larry Craig - not all of those CEOs now begging for a government bailout. No. Instead, Bono, who instead of all the good he's done, could have just as easily dedicated his life to boinking as many supermodels as he could get his hands on. And over a stupid policy disagreement about whether the singer should submit to special taxes the Irish government designed, essentially, only for him.

    Sorry, Charlie. If the shoe fits - wear it. This is who Steve is.

  • (Show?)

    So we have Steve Novick, a man with a sharp tongue and a sharper mind and wit, who can take the fight to Gordon Smith like no one else.

    And we have Jeff Merkley, a polite man.

    Hmmmmmmm. I know who I'm voting for.

  • (Show?)

    EXACTLY! Stephanie makes the point perfectly.

    For many of Steve's supporters, this sharp-tongued stuff is a POSITIVE for him, not a negative. In fact, it's the primary reason many of his supporters like him so much.

    Jeff Merkley (and I, and many others) disagree. This is just a straight-up choice between two different styles of leadership and advocacy.

    I don't know why some other Novick folks are so bent outta shape about this. This is why they like Steve so much, right?

  • (Show?)

    "I don't know why some other Novick folks are so bent outta shape about this. This is why they like Steve so much, right?"

    Yes, what he SAID was fine. What Merkley made into an ad was so barely "what he said" as to obliterate any context or meaning...I mean really, "lie?" I don't like Steve because somewhere, some time he used the word "lie" in isolation at some proximity to a discussion of Darlene Hooley. It does go slightly deeper than one word in the middle of one sentence.

    Mapes didn't buy the bullshit when Canter was dealing it; what makes you think we'll find the smell any sweeter here? To distort a number of irrelevant past writings and make it into a Senate attack ad is transparent and sad enough--does one need to pile on with false piety about Merkley's shirt still being clean after this?

  • (Show?)

    I'd much rather have Steve be critical of fellow Democrats than praise the courage of George W Bush for invading Iraq.

  • (Show?)

    Man Obama is a fraud: So Sarcastic!!! So funny!!! I cant stop laughing!!!

    Novick wasn't trying to be funny because it wasn't... It was a blatantly personal attack, the kind that should be out of bounds in our society because it prevents real discussion of policies that we need to move our society forward. Furthermore Novick has stood by what he has said. Repeating what Novick has said is in no way an attack, as some have been citing it as his biggest strength, the only problem is that most Oregonians don't see it that way.

  • (Show?)

    .I mean really, "lie?" I don't like Steve because somewhere, some time he used the word "lie" in isolation at some proximity to a discussion of Darlene Hooley.

    Hey, TJ, I figured out the problem you're having understanding this.

    You gotta turn the volume off. Turn off the mute.

    Don't just look at the pretty pictures. Listen to the words.

    AD: "Novick accused Democratic Congresswoman Darlene Hooley of peddling a lie."

    NOVICK: "Darlene Hooley, last I checked, still supports estate tax repeal and peddles the ‘family farms’ lie."

    So, did he or did he not accuse Hooley of peddling a lie?

    (And lest we wander down the rabbit hole of arguing about the estate tax, let's stipulate that the estate tax is a good thing, Darlene Hooley is wrong on the policy, and Steve Novick is right on the policy.)

  • (Show?)
    (And lest we wander down the rabbit hole of arguing about the estate tax, let's stipulate that the estate tax is a good thing, Darlene Hooley is wrong on the policy, and Steve Novick is right on the policy.)

    Soooo, Merkley's ad calls out Novick for telling the truth? Novick shouldn't have publicly said that the family farms argument against the estate tax was a lie? Merkley believes that the best way to win that argument is to just keep his mouth shut and let the people who tell the lie be the only public voice?

    Is that your point, Kari? Because at some point in a disagreement on public policy, if one person is using falsehoods to support their case, someone arguing the other side is going to have to refute that point. In public. And sometimes that means you have to say that they are wrong.

    Apparently you like Jeff Merkley because he would never do such a thing. He'd rather let the lies lie than counter them.

  • (Show?)

    "Don't just look at the pretty pictures. Listen to the words."

    The pictures ARE the ad. They're every ad, except the ones that suck.

    Jeff doesn't want you to think that Novick opposes her on policy, a policy based on a lie. He wants you to think he flatly called HER a liar.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Merkely should leave the Democratic Party and start up the "Petty" Party. Seriously, does he have anything better to talk about than this michegas?

    As a graduate of Stanford, I apologize for my fellow Cardinal. Maybe he smoked a little too much of that Californian home grown back in the 70s on the Farm. I have no other explanation for the turn his campaign has taken. He really is starting to make Gordon Smith look classy by comparison.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obviously Novick was being sarcastic. If you could HEAR the words spoken instead of just reading them, that would be even more obvious.

    Novick's "traitress" remark about Hillary Clinton? His "special interest fraud" remark about Barack Obama? Got me. I'm more inclined it was a case of open mouth, insert foot.

    I still voted for Novick because I think he'll be a better candidate against Gordo.

    We haven't heard the last Novick faux pas. Let's just hope, if he is the nominee, that he can restrain his verbal urges.

  • (Show?)
    Soooo, Merkley's ad calls out Novick for telling the truth?

    Essentially, yes. The ad points out Novick's claimed version of telling the truth.

    The reality is that what led Novick to attack fellow Democrats with nasty names and derogatory terms is irrelevant.

    The distinction being drawn here is that Novick's style is to attack and belittle as a means of making an arguement on policy. Merkley's style is to argue the merits of whatever the policy difference is on it's own merits and leave the schoolyard taunting to... well... schoolyard children.

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So as I understand Charlie's post, Novick was only kidding around so nobody should take what he says seriously? Its all tongue-in-cheek?

    What happened to supporting the guy who always tells the truth? Its my impression that one of the main reasons that people support Novick is that he takes Democrats to task when they screw up, even if it means personally attacking people. But wait-not really, its just all a big joke on Novick's part? He didn't really mean it?

    Is a bit piece of Novick's post in question satirical? Probably. But that's not the part that is highlighted in Merkley's ad. Letting Novick off the hook (no pun intended) for his lousy rhetoric because it was in a post that included a small section of satire is dishonest.

    At least Darrelplant has the fortitude to be upfront about it. He posts in this comment section that what Novick said is the truth. He's not trying to cover-up for Novick by claiming "satire". Good on ya, Darrel.

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And one more thing: "kindergarten essays"? Please. These are Novick's posts from a few months before he entered the Senate race. He had to have been at least considering that he was going to be in a campaign. It was silly and careless of Novick to write like this under those circumstances.

  • (Show?)

    Charlie,

    Having recently gone through workplace diversity training I can tell you that Novick's quip about his own ethnicity does NOT give him a pass on it or any of the others.

    I specifically asked both the HR expert and the lawyer who co-ran the training if making fun of myself would be legally acceptable and the response was an emphatic "NO!" In fact the African-American lawyer cited an example of an African-American he'd represented in a case where this employee had been using the "n" word about himself. The employee lost the appeal... badly. And the lawyer wasn't the least bit surprised nor did he disagree with the ruling.

    We can argue the rightness or wrongness of denigrating one's own ethnicity (God knows I've done it myslf). But the larger reality is that it's just plain STUPID to ass-u-me that making fun of one's ownself gives one a pass and that nobody else has a legit reason to take offense at it. If Novick is half the "brilliant" lawyer he claims to be then he shouldn't have much difficulty grasping that simple truth.

  • (Show?)

    Darrelplant:

    This is what so many hard core novick supporters like you don't get, it is possible to disagree with someone without personally insulting them. Check this out:

    My version: Barack Obama is wrong on sugar tariffs. We shouldn't support such inefficient industries with tax payer money especially when they are preventing us from taking on global warming.

    Steve Novick's version: Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?

    Same policy argument. However, The first version is a policy difference, holding a candidate's feet to the fire. Steve Novick's version insults a man's background and honor for no reason, and really in doing so Novick obfuscates the policy that he was trying to discuss. Not effective, quite insulting.

    But if Novick stands by calling Obama a fraud or Hillary a traitress, which he has several times, then he really shouldn't have a problem with the ad. If Novick always tells the truth and says what he believes, he clearly believes these comments.

  • (Show?)

    The point of the ad is accurate. Novick shoots from the hip and makes cutting remarks about potential future collegues (including the future president) and that's what his supporters like about him.

    Merkley supporters that were formerly Novick supporters, like myself, think that this schoolyard shit is going to render him completely ineffective if he ever gets to the senate.

    Why would we want to send a guy back to DC who's main claim to fame is that he seems to have no limit on what he'll say and most importantly, how he says it.

    In each example in the ads, the quote is linked back to full text and I encourage anyone who is put off by lack of context to follow those links and educate yourselves about Steve's condescending and belittling style.

    It's who he is, and it's not pretty.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Darlene Hooley is wrong on the policy, and Steve Novick is right on the policy.)

    And yet the TV ad and accompanying website kari built boil that down to "lie."

    NOVICK: "Darlene Hooley, last I checked, still supports estate tax repeal and peddles the ‘family farms’ lie."

    The fact is, Novick was right, Hooley was peddling the "family farms" bunk.

    It's a patronizing lie.

    And it;s what Merkley is doing when he fails to include the entire context of these quotes.

    Jack Roberts is right, this really is shameless. And all those involved ought to check the mirror a little more often.

    I'd have trouble voting for Merkley for dog catcher after this.

  • (Show?)

    "But if Novick stands by calling Obama a fraud or Hillary a traitress, which he has several times, then he really shouldn't have a problem with the ad."

    When did Novick say he tears people down and isn't uniting Democrats for change? Because that's what the ad says...

  • Masterpiece (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So we have Steve Novick, a man with a sharp tongue and a sharper mind and wit, who can take the fight to Gordon Smith like no one else.

    And we have Jeff Merkley, a polite man.

    Yes, Jeff is polite and mannerly. He's also brilliant and incredibly effective at getting progressive legislation passed.

    It really does come down to style differences and I appreciate Stephanie making note of it very honestly in this comment section.

    Stephanie believes that the sharp tongue and rhetorical style are the way to go. I believe that the work hard, bring people together style is the way to go. And that's exactly what this ad highlights.

  • Sarah Lane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's be honest shall we? I haven't brought up Novick's comments online because I don't like going negative on fellow progressives. However, if you guys think that Novick's comments are a good thing because he "tells it like it is," I have no idea where you're coming from. Do you honestly think that Obama will want to appear with Novick? Can you imagine the press conference?

    These comments by Novick whether they were last month or back in 2006 are a problem for us. It's the truth. You're not being honest with yourself if you think that Smith won't be drudging up every insult and controversial thing Novick has ever said.

    You guys may think Merkley is too safe of a politician because he doesn't fire his mouth off. He wasn't a safe progressive legislator and that's what matters. Oh, and I think it's a good thing that Merkley has a lot of tact, it's a must have for pols who want to win a GE.

  • (Show?)
    At least Darrelplant has the fortitude to be upfront about it. He posts in this comment section that what Novick said is the truth. He's not trying to cover-up for Novick by claiming "satire". Good on ya, Darrel.

    I'm afraid you may have broken your arm patting yourself on the back. The quote about Darlene Hooley that I addressed wasn't a part of the post Charlie referred to as satire.

    Frankly, I'm not worried about this ad. By running it, Merkley's shown that he's really no different than Novick when he's desperate and fighting for himself. Too bad he doesn't show that kind of tenacity when he's supposed to be fighting for others. Although even in this ad, he can't come out and say what he thinks about Novick himself. That's pretty lame.

  • (Show?)

    "These comments by Novick whether they were last month or back in 2006 are a problem for us. It's the truth. You're not being honest with yourself if you think that Smith won't be drudging up every insult and controversial thing Novick has ever said."

    Problem for whom? And can you explain what kind of ad you think Smith will create, that criticizes Novick for criticizing Democrats Smith wants to denigrate as much if not more than Novick? What's his interest there?

    "He wasn't a safe progressive legislator and that's what matters. Oh, and I think it's a good thing that Merkley has a lot of tact, it's a must have for pols who want to win a GE."

    He wasn't? No land use reform bill? No child health bill? No corporate kicker repeal? No corporate tax hike? No mortgage reform? A capitulatory prisons bill for the ballot in Nov.?

    When you say he has a lot of tact, are you referring to things besides comparing Karen Minnis to a pedophile, or threatening Senate Democrats with a universal hold on their bills? You've created quite a myth for Jeff, one that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. When the going gets tough, Merkley panics and lashes out.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    AD: "Novick accused Democratic Congresswoman Darlene Hooley of peddling a lie."

    NOVICK: "Darlene Hooley, last I checked, still supports estate tax repeal and peddles the ‘family farms’ lie."

    So, did he or did he not accuse Hooley of peddling a lie?

    This really sums it up for me, Kari. The "family farms" issue with regard to the estate tax IS a lie. Objectively a lie. And Hooley used it to explain her support for a repeal of the estate tax. Which means that on that issue, she peddled a lie.

    The problem with the ad is that it doesn't give voters that context. And you have to ask "why not"? Because Merkley knows that if he explains Novick's remarks in the policy context in which they were made, he'll lose the issue because Hooley should absolutely be criticized for peddling that lie.

    I can only hope that Oregonians understand how important it is to send someone to DC who isn't afraid to speak the truth about important issues. Merkley believes that Democrats should never be criticized, even when they're wrong, which is exactly why the congressional leadership has continued to get away with tacitly supporting Bush's agenda. Merkley equals more of the same weak tea.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe the problem with Steve Novick is the WAY in which he disagrees with the positions of others. He doesn't have to use strong language - he just chooses to. And that, in my opinion, is the issue here.

  • (Show?)

    local mom gets to the heart of it.

    It's not about the policy Novick disagrees with, it's the disagreeable way he uses strong language, ethnic slurs and hyperbole to express himself that is offensive.

  • (Show?)

    Do you honestly think that Obama will want to appear with Novick?

    Great question. Yes, absolutely Obama will support and vigorously campaign for our nominee. Merkley folks -- including Kari -- have implied otherwise but that's just silly. Of course Obama will work tirelessly to elect Democrats up and down the ticket and especially top-tier pick-ups for US Senate.

    To imply Obama doesn't understand the importance of improving our majority in the US Senate just doesn't fit with political reality. I say this as someone who's worked very hard to raise money and increase support for Obama since early last year.

    Obama will support Merkley or Novick. Period. There's no uncertainty here.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And, according to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?

    Can anyone name a presidential candidate with a high prospect of winning who was not in the pocket of some corporate special interests or in league with them to some degree or another during the last 100 years? Obama had to have connections to power players just to get on the stage at the 2004 Democratic convention.

    I'll be voting for Obama because he is the least problematic of the three viable candidates and because he has the potential to do some good, but I have no illusion that he is some messiah come to rescue this nation from corporate control.

  • (Show?)

    Undoubtedly Obama understand the importance of increasing our majority in the Senate, as does the DSCC, 21st Century Democrats, et al. That's not in question. Indeed, when Obama was in Oregon last he met with one of the Senate candidates - Jeff Merkley.

    It seems to me that if Obama wanted to appear with Novick then he would have done so. Likewise, if they'd thought he would help President Obama I'm sure the DSCC would not have downgraded Oregon the day after that early April poll, nor would 21st Century Democrats have endorsed Merkley over Novick.

  • (Show?)

    I didn't imply that Obama doesn't want to help down ticket races. I didn't imply that he doesn't understand the importance of increasing our majorities in the Senate and House. That's hogwash.

    I'm not saying that Obama won't support the Dem nominee whoever that may be. I am saying that if I were an Obama adviser I'm not sure I'd want Novick and Obama to hold a press conference together. Do you actually think the question wouldn't get asked?

  • Chris #12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Ethnic slurs", Kevin?

    What are you talking about?

  • a (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Jeff is losing this race, and these ads won't help.

  • (Show?)

    "Do you actually think the question wouldn't get asked? "

    Why, will Merkley be there? Otherwise, who is it you suppose will care at that point?

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Quit it, both of you, or I'm voting for John Frohnmayer.

    I like hit ads. I really do -- they keep politicians honest. And I respect the role that message polling plays. No sense in making an ad blindly, right?

    But come on... Steve's getting hit because he called someone names? And Merkley's getting hit back because he's a tattle-tale?

    What is this, the race for elementary school class president?

  • (Show?)

    What is this, the race for elementary school class president?

    Well, no, but the nomination race is like high school.

    I'm torn - I can't think of five US Senators who don't need to get lit up pretty regularly by a person the likes of Steve Novick. But it IS the Senate, and much as I love them, the House is much more a place for smartasses.

  • Fireslayer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The purely farsical suggestion that all of us with Scots (Scotch is a beverage, not a people) Irish be deported is not a serious proposal by Novick. As I am Scots Irish and Comanche in my personal implications I do not see a point here. Can't you take an F'n joke?

connect with blueoregon