"How can Golden even compare Merkley and Novick to Gordon Smith?"

Because that's what you do in a campaign.

What he doesn't do (thus losing credibility in this voter's eyes) is provide specifics for comparison.

I have no time and little respect for candidates (or commentators) who speak in generalities without specific concrete points to support the "argument". They end up hoping the reader will rely on their "superior" and "inside" knowledge.

We all know that Gordon pushed the Bush agenda 90% of the time he was asked to. Does anybody know what -- aside from Bush's agenda -- he has otherwise done in two terms? Or would do in another term?

Perhaps Novick's proposals are too detailed and complex for pundits to understand. At least we have specific ideas that he has committed to. Far more than I've seen from Smith, Frohnmeyer and Merkley.

Isn't it time for Oregon to have two Senators?

Randy2

Here is a specific:

Instead, the two Portlanders have focused on "what's wrong" with Smith, a strategy that's not going to be enough to defeat the second-term Republican<<

I haven't heard Jeff speak since he announced for office, but I have heard Steve speak. And he did seem to spend time talking about Gordon.

There is no denying Steve and Jeff are Portlanders. And Steve's comparison of Gordon to the Wizard of Oz, incl. "he's a good man but a bad senator" may have sounded like a snappy one-liner. But what is the target audience of such a remark--the "go gettum Steve!" crowd who were going to vote Dem anyway, or the swing voters needed to win any election?

In 1984 an old friend of mine was hired in the last 6 weeks of the US Senate campaign of a legislator who was the Dem Senate nominee. He asked me if I was going to vote for his candidate. I told of the anger locally when the candidate had a great opportunity (above the fold interview in local paper) and spent more time talking about the opponent than about why a Democrat should be elected to that seat. I said "If you want me to vote for this person, it can only be if there is more positive rhetoric and less about the opposition". The tone of the campaign changed, and I voted for that candidate. But had it not changed, I would have left the ballot line blank.

Bill Clinton often says there is a rule in their family--don't think past the next election or there may not be a next election. Either Jeff or Steve will be the nominee. Why should anyone support them? Is every Oregon voter going to be swayed by the Sanders-Boxer bill Steve supports or this quote from Jeff's campaign,

"There is no question that on the issues most important to Oregonians — Iraq, energy independence, health care and jobs - there is a clear difference from where George Bush and Gordon Smith have taken us and where Jeff Merkley would," Isaacs said.<< ?

This topic uses a generality. 3 people named Meredith, John and Jake do not constitute "Democrats" in the sense they don't speak for all registered with that party. The represent party leadership, activists, or some other term.

Steve, perhaps better than anyone, should realize that in 1996, the margin between Smith and Bruggere was 52,966. The number of those who voted for another one of the 5 "3rd party" candidates was 57122. In 1996, there was a peer pressure campaign of "the nominee has been chosen and all loyal Democrats are supposed to support that person and not ask any questions". That is why I became registered NAV after the 1996 primary--if someone pulled that nonsense on me, all I had to say was that I had changed my registration to NAV and that I considered myself an independent capable of thinking for myself. I stayed NAV until I decided I wanted to vote in the 2002 primary, and if this topic is an example of what Democrats stand for, I reserve the right to register NAV after the May 2008 primary. Friends of mine who were once very active Democrats are either registered NAV already or contemplating doing that. If Jeff or Steve is the nominee, do they want those voters? How about the 57122 who voted 3rd party in 1996?

If Steve would say "enough already" to the party chair and both campaign managers (much as Wyden overturned the "professionals" who were telling him he had to "go after" Smith) and run a positive, issue oriented campaign, that would impress me. By positive, issue oriented, I mean saying something like "I support/oppose Obama/Biden/Dodd etc. on the way forward in Iraq and here is why..." or "Gen. McPeak's speech to City Club yesterday was very interesting, and I agreed [disagreed] with his statement that..." or "you can read the details of my health care proposal at..., and basically is is a --- system".

Steve is a bright guy who worked on what I considered a stupidly run Bruggere campaign--he and I have had email exchanges about that. Some people vote on "gee, that guy's speech had substance and the other guy was just another slick politician". Some people like to vote for strength of character. It would take strength of character for Steve to say "this campaign is dedicated to not making the mistakes made in 1996 which got Gordon elected in the first place", and evidence of that would be major points in Steve's favor as far as I am concerned.

My mind is not made up. I thought Jeff was a good Speaker (and it would be appealing to see the current Speaker run against the former Sen. President--there goes the "not enough experience for the job" sound bite). Steve is a bright guy who I heard give a speech filled with insider references and why he is not like Gordon Smith. I like John F's attitude--he seems in tune with "the fastest growing party is no party at all", that people have gotten cynical about partisan politics, and I really enjoyed reading his book about the NEA.

I once heard Susan Estrich (former Dem. campaign manager) talking about a presidential campaign. She said it was her experience that the most telling poll question was how a candidate rated on a scale (from a lot to very little) of "cares about people like me, understands my problems". The Republican on the show with her was talking about the "8 issue matrix"--talk about out of touch with ordinary folks!

There are a lot of people who were not registered to vote in 1996 (not old enough, not living in Oregon then) who could possibly be persuaded to vote for a challenger this time around. There might even be some people who decide "this current US Senator is not the guy I thought I voted for in 1996" (people in lower level offices have lost elections for that reason, why not Senator?)

This is a debate which is healthy to have now. But the tone of some of it is "When you go to buy ice cream, your choices are vanilla, chocolate, strawberry. Good people would not even consider other flavors like cherry, pear, or mint chocolate chip".

While I might agree with LT that a positive, "what I'm for campaign," is more appealing, I don't automatically consider "I'm none of the above," a particularly strong recommendation. It is also rather important to keep in mind that this is not a General Election, it is a Primary Election and it is about winning with Democrats, the NAVs opted out. They seem to take disengagement with the hard part of politics as a badge of honor, I don't think so...

A contested Primary changes some of the dynamics of campaigning and LT might bother to remember that you don't get to talk to NAVs, Republicans, Indies, etc. if you don't win that Primary. I can speak from personal experience of having run in a Primary with the General as my focus. I'm not talking about sacrificing principles to win, but the rhetoric and focus are a little different.

"I'm against Smith's votes" is perfectly legitimate and against an incumbent must be the focus, though I'm also quite certain that a differentiation from your Primary opponent's goals is also important. That does create a certain set of difficulties for two good Democratic candidates.

Just had to look at my voter's reg to see if I was a Demican or not. Guess I am, this cycle. I'm a lousy party member: more than once I've refused to vote for a Dem. candidate because I thought he was a shmuck. I don't care who the flipping party endorses: the party is as nebulous as smoke, anymore, and as firm as Jello. The Rethuglicans are firm, I'll grant them that—but so were the Stalinists, of course. I'll vote socialist or write-in before I'll vote for someone just because the Dem.s say he or she is the candidate. I'm too old for that, thanks. Too many compromises over too many years. I honestly don't think Ron Wyden is all that much better than Gordie Smith.

"the NAVs opted out. They seem to take disengagement with the hard part of politics as a badge of honor, I don't think so.."

Chuck, with all due respect, there are some NAV because they don't see a difference between parties, some because they are fed up with both parties--in some cases after years of volunteer work or disliking being told that if they campaign for people in one party they shouldn't say admiring words about anyone in the other party, some for other reasons. Genaralizing about a bunch of individuals gets no one anywhere.

Do Democrats really want to ignore anyone not registered Dem by Labor Day 2007 because they won't be voting in the Democratic primary? Or is it possible some of them could be inspired to re-register Dem to vote in the 2008 primary?

With regard to Steve's issues page, he is detailed. But,for instance, it sounds like he wants all employers to pay something for health care. Suppose Jeff or John says "sure, as long as they have at least 10 employees--a store with 2 employees might have to just pay min. wage if they have to pay something towards health care".

Then maybe the other one would say something about how the COBRA system is currently organized--it was originally passed by Congress. Should that be a totally governmental program, or should there be private companies handling that for major corporations? And if a mill or some other employer which had been providing health care for employees closes, who then deals with the COBRA paperwork? If a family owned restaurant had been providing health care to employees is forced to close (due to disaster, lost lease, family wanting to retire or soemthing else) who then deals with the COBRA paperwork?

Now THAT might be a debate which draws in people concerned about health care but who couldn't care less about "We know that he says one thing when he's back here in Oregon and votes another way when he's in D.C," noting that he votes on the side of President Bush about 90 percent of the time.

There is a line in Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin" which goes "don't criticize what you don't understand".

There are people whose lives are so removed from politics (like my friends who have small children, or aging parents, or work multiple jobs and may be taking courses besides) who sometimes have a hard time remembering the names of both our US Senators.

My question is this: what do you folks here think would win the votes of those people--an indepth discussion of how health care impacts their lives, or a debate on whether this election is about Gordon's voting record or the best person to serve in the US Senate for 6 years starting 2009?

TJ, speaking as someone who worked on an "impossible" primary where we won 59% of the vote although the "party estalishment" was about 95% for another candidate, this is what worries me about Democratic insiders: Neither--they aren't likely to vote in the primary.

Yeah, right, and only 18 states count in national elections. So why did Howard Dean expend so much time and energy on a 50 state strategy? And no one will ever have a chance in an election where the "smart" political professionals have decided there is no chance thanks to their process of targeting? The 2006 election results would seem to say otherwise.

If people really think that no one who isn't a Democratic activist or at least long time Democratic voter by now will cast a vote in the 2008 US Senate primary, then my friend Cathy was right. She started out being a teenager in a political family. By the time I met her, she was in her mid 30s and actively involved in an old friend's campaign (may have been treasurer or scheduler or something--it was decades ago). She would end up an employee of a Congressional campaign, a paid staffer to an elected official, and the campaign manager to a legislative candidate.

Then she got burned out and got a job in a bank and seldom even discusses politics anymore.

Her "last straw" moments involved what she called the 5% and the 95% people in politics. Blue Oregonians, by definition, would be 5% people because of their level of political interest and activism. The young woman working in retail who still remembers how she voted in a particular election the previous year--she recognized the name--would be in the 95%.

Cathy said she was giving up politics because she was sick and tired of "the 5% who think they decide elections thinking they know more than the 95% who actually decide elections !" (not an exact quote--she quit politics sometime in the 1990s as I recall).

If everything is known about politics a year in advance, why bother? If the concrete is already set and nothing can change, why would any ordinary person even bother to get involved in politics?

I suspect that is what Golden understands, and why those who worry deep down that he might be right are getting so angry.

Stephanie, That is one school of thought. There is another school of thought which says "our challenger is better than the incumbent because..." rather than the "we can't say nice things about our guy until we have laid a finger on the opponent" school of thought.

My favorite swing voter has voted for Kitzhaber and other Democrats, but in 2004 voted for Bush/Hooley as incumbents deserving re-election. Hooley's challengers try very hard to convince people to throw out the incumbent, but are usually so ham handed about it they just turn people off.

And Frohnmayer is from Medford, and lives in Corvallis.

Portland, Portland, everybody is always from Portland.

Except Dr. John. And Gordon. And Gov Ted.

I'm not talking about "seeking a middle strategy", I am talking about inspiring voters and not saying "well, the disaffected are disaffected, nothing we can do".

I didn't say Cathy wouldn't vote in the primary---matter of fact we haven't talked for years as she lives in another county. What she did say is she wouldn't discuss politics with others, just mark the ballot, mail it in, throw the voters pamphlet in the recycle and not discuss her vote with anyone.

Howard Dean inspired lots of disaffected voters, so has Obama. My point was that it is better to inspire voters than to write them off as disaffected therefore not worth trying to attract to a candidate. I see nothing "seeking the middle" about either Dean or Obama, but I do see an attempt to reach out and give people hope rather than writing them off as disaffected.

I wish to associate myself with Chris's remarks, esp. these:

Personally, I don't see why a primary campaign aimed at targetting Smith can't also be practice for honing a message that specifies the candidate's priorities, why those are or should be for Oregon voters, and why Gordon fails to do what we need.

Is anyone really disagreeing that an anti-Smith campaign that also has positive content will be stronger than one that's just anti-Smith? If Golden's comment isn't true, that will be clear. The amount of worry it seems to cause suggests that he might be on to something that Steve and Jeff & their people ought to pay attention to.

But I'm not sure that "the first job is to defeat the incumbent" translates into "the first words out of our mouths should be about the incumbent."

And even if it does, in this age of soundbites, perhaps that should be quickly followed by "what I'll do" before returning to hammer Smith more?

As a registered Democrat who votes D faithfully, I want to use this opportunity to say one thing to Meredith Wood-Smith (who really has unimpressed me since she assumed the Chair): Tell Merkley to quit being so disrespectful of us core Democrats and post a clear statement of his positions on the issues on his website. At this point, 47 days after he announced and has started campaigning actively, I have decided that he can't be trusted since he doesn't even care enough to tell us what are his key issues and his positions on the issues.

And no, I'm not a Novick partisan. But he will get my vote, by default if nothing else, unless Merkley does something to erase the overwhelmingly negative impression he apparently has chosen to create in this race by thumbing his nose at voters who care what he has to say about a range of issues. I have never found him to be a very impressive legislator, much less as Speaker, or even a very effective representative for what our party stands for (or used to stand for anyway). At least Novick tells me his positions on his website instead of wasting that resource to blather about all the useless syncophants who support him, so I at least know what I'm being asked to vote for. We don't need another failed, marginal Democrat like Wyden, and Merkley has all the signs of being nothing more than that.

I want to clarify one thing in my previous post, because it could be read incorrectly:

"At least Novick tells me his positions on his website instead of wasting that resource to blather about all the useless syncophants who support him,"

could be read incorrectly. What it should have said is:

"At least Novick tells me his positions on his website instead of wasting that resource to blather about all the useless syncophants who support him LIKE MERKLEY DOES,"

I am not making any comment here about Novick's supporters who seem issues focused enough. The comment and this thread is about Merkley , so the object of the sentence should have been understood to be Merkley, but I can see how that would be misread. It is the most annoying feature of how Merkley's supporters can't seem to do anything but participate in the charade of cheerleading for him. And by the way Kari, Merkley isn't Prime Minister of Oregon and the accomplishments of the last session, modest and as over-hyped as they are, are hardly due to him. In fact as modest as they are, the credit is spread amongst House and Senate leadership very thinly indeed.

Jeff Merkley is a great guy with a sharp mind and a total policy nerd.

Jeff Merkley is also so boring that he could make a insomniac fall asleep.

He needs a lot of work between now and then.

In 2000, there were some people (i.e. Nader and his supporters) that believed that Bush and Gore were too similar, that the two parties didn't have any defining values or clear differences.

I find it hard to believe that there's anyone that holds that view anymore.

Many of the people who voted for Nader in 2001 thought the only thing similar about Gore and Bush was that they were two of the worst candidates in living memory to ever run for president. They expected Bush to be incompetent but never had any reason to expect him and Cheney to get us into a war on Iraq. Neither was Gore and his incompetent staff nor the Democratic Party prescient enough to suspect Bush of this madness. Gore, on the other hand, was about as incompetent as a candidate could be - even before he announced. He must have lost thousands of voters when he showed he was prepared to sell little Elian Gonzales down the Miami River to get the Cuban vote. Some were turned off by this vile and squalid act but were prepared to hold their noses and vote for Gore rather than let Bush become president. However, after several months of his incompetent and contemptuous campaign, Gore succeeded in turning more voters off and they abandoned him for Ralph Nader, one of only two candidates that were considered to be honest, and the one with most progressive credentials. Credentials that were very much more progressive than anything Gore could offer.

In effect, people who voted for Gore were more interested in getting a party hack in the White House than they were interested in progressive principles. The problem is not that so many people voted for Nader instead of Gore. The problem is that so many people voted for Gore instead of Nader.

As for the war in Iraq, there is no guarantee that we wouldn't be in that mess with Gore as president. He was part of the troika (with the Clintons) in the White House that maintained the US-sponsored, UN sanctions against Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives. Of this, the Clintons' secretary of state, Madeleine Albright said, "We thought it was worth it" with "we" including Bill, Hillary and Al. So the hatred of the U.S. that this holocaust inspired among Arabs would have ensured 9/11 would have taken place if Gore had been in the White House. And with Joseph Lieberman (Dem-CT and AIPAC) as vice-president, Bill and Hillary in favor of war, and campaign markers from the military-industrial complex and Big Oil to be paid off the chances of a war on Iraq could not be ruled out under Gore.

Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley and political activist Steve Novick have both said "precious little" about how they would "make a real difference."

I think most would agree a news radio host would be too well informed as to make such a silly claim. What's the real reason Golden wants to poke the Dems in the eye?

sopranist quagmiry autosoterism esophagostomy petiveriaceae prefabricate instantial proctocystotomy 46500 http://www.angelfire.com/arixgb/4.html