Why I support Novick

Charlie Burr

Oregon Democrats have two strong candidates for the United States Senate. Both bring records of accomplishment to the race; both have helped engineer takeovers of an Oregon Legislative chamber. And both are running stronger efforts as a result of this competitive primary.

That's a good thing, because Gordon Smith will attempt to define the challenger early, just as he did successfully in 2002 against Bradbury.

But 2008 will be different than 2002. Smith will face larger statewide turnout during this Presidential year, including a disproportional increase in lazy Multnomah County Dem voters. Unlike 2002, Smith will not be able to run as Jesse Jackson in one part of the state and Jesse Helms in the other. And yeah, Smith will have a lot of money, but funding alone -- assuming we raise enough to get our message out -- won’t be the one, single definitive factor any more than it was during last year's governor's race.

Given that recent data suggests Smith is one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans in the country, it’s a good bet that our nominee will have access to resources. Of course the nominee will still have to work like crazy to pull the money in, but the fund-raising environment will be significantly better than it was in 2002. Plus, our small state is a bargain (just ask the good folks at RJ Reynolds).

On core issues, Gordon Smith is fundamentally out-of-step with Oregonians. Here’s how Novick put it back in January:

Imagine if one of Oregon's two U.S. senators had repeatedly voted against raising the minimum wage, or voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for reasonable prices for prescription drugs.

Imagine if strongly progressive Oregon had sent somebody to the world's greatest deliberative body who voted against investigating Halliburton, and who voted to raid the Social Security trust fund in order to pay for tax cuts for America's richest people.

Imagine if Oregon had a senator who believed that people who work for a living should pay taxes at a higher rate than people who make their money buying and selling stock.

Imagine if that senator was one of the prime sponsors of a massive tax cut for multinational corporations—especially drug companies—that stash their profits in overseas tax havens. A tax cut that George W. Bush's own treasury secretary denounced as favoring multinationals over domestic firms.

Imagine the senator not only voted for the Iraq war, and supported it for four years, but as late as June 2006 gave an impassioned speech defending the war as a noble fight for "freedom." Imagine that in December 2006 he said he was open to supporting sending more troops to Iraq.

Imagine that the same senator openly called for then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to override Oregon's voter-approved Death with Dignity law, opposed a woman's right to choose an abortion and was an unabashed supporter of the Patriot Act.

Imagine the senator was one of Congress' top recipients of trips on corporate jets, accepting rides worth over $69,000 since 2001.

Imagine the same senator voted to allow coal-fired power plants to increase their toxic emissions. Imagine that his position on global warming was so absurd that the Daily Astorian said he had joined the Flat Earth Society. Imagine that he had voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Imagine he had voted to give $11.5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industries.

Imagine that the senator thought he could pass himself off as a "moderate" by continuously engaging in transparently political contortions—like taking six different positions on the war in Iraq in six weeks.

If Oregon had such a senator, wouldn't all the pollsters agree that he was a ripe target for defeat by a Democrat in 2008?

Oregon does have such a senator. His name is Gordon Smith.

It's worth re-reading Novick's piece about Smith in its entirety. It's crisp, compelling, and totally devastating. I don't know if Steve will beat Merkley, but I know he can beat Smith.

But why Novick?

I'm personal friends with Steve, and have known him nearly a decade. He's one of the most talented, brilliant strategists I've worked with anywhere. This U.S. Senate race is the not the campaign I initially hoped to see: I tried -- unsuccessfully -- to convince Novick to jump into the Portland Mayor's race in early 2004. I think Steve would have won. And I know he would have been great.

When I first met Steve in 1997, he was the caucus administrator for the Senate Democrats. The world looked different then, and Republicans outnumbered Democrats two to one. I was managing Brad Avakian's race in Washington County, and Steve had a plan to get us into the majority within three cycles. The plan worked. Because of the work of many, many folks (as Steve would be the first to point out), the Oregon Senate was one of just two state Legislative chambers in the country in which Democrats regained control in 2002. Steve had left to take on Bill Sizemore by that time, but it was Steve's discipline and focus that helped put us in a position to win.

Steve's work against Bill Sizemore during the initiative wars of the late 1990s -- and especially the 2000 campaign -- was relentless. Merkley brings an impressive list of accomplishments to this race, but it's hard to overstate how important Novick's work as a private citizen has been to the direction of our state. Education, health care, investment in clean energy: all these investments from the 2007 session would have been much, much more difficult if Sizemore would have prevailed.

Speaking of initiatives, Steve and I worked together in 2004 against Constitutional Amendment 35, an effort to limit the jury rights of terribly injured patients. In a difficult year, we narrowly prevailed despite being outspent by several million dollars. As manager of that effort, I can say definitively that our coalition would not have won without the under-the-radar legal work done by Novick and Steve Berman. And I have little doubt that a loss in 2004 would have led to yet another round of playing defense against tort reformers during the 2006 cycle.

Jeff Merkley had a helluva session in 2007, to be sure. Based on what each has done to impact the lives of Oregonians, Merkley has the edge. But that's going to be true of any Speaker of the House, and Novick's work -- like saving taxpayers $129 million in toxic cleanup costs -- suggests that he wouldn't be just any United States Senator. Novick could be one of the greats.

Novick would instantly capture people's imagination in a way that we have not seen since Wellstone. He would offer Oregonians a clear choice in a year in which authenticity matters. His remarkable personal story would bring the sharpest contrast to Gordon Smith. And he would beat like a gong the election issues that matter above all others: Smith's failed record and election year gamesmanship.

Oregon Democrats have two compelling choices. I support Novick because I know he'd make us proud in the world's greatest deliberative body.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Charlie. That was a great write-up. You summed up much of my own thoughts on Novick and this race.

    I'd heard Novick speak a few times before in my political work. But earlier this year I had the chance to sit down and talk with him one-on-one. That sealed the deal for me.

    Disclaimer: I work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site, but I speak only for myself and not the campaign.

  • Adam HD34 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I heard Steve Novick speak at the Washington County Democratic central committee meeting many months ago.

    During a question and answer session I asked him "During the 2000 Election no senators stepped up to contest the fraudulent election results not even Senator Wyden. Steve, would you be Oregon's voice for Justice and speak up even if it might be unpopular?"

    Steve's answer was "Yes."

    Right there I had decided that Novick is the one and started to give money as often as I could afford to do so. Steve will be a misfit in the Senate, and that is exactly what we need. Oregon is a laboratory for progressive ideas, and we need to remind the rest of the country that you don't always have to conform to the standard ritual.

    Steve Novick is on our side and will make a great replacement for Gordon Smith. I think that Steve will be to the left of even Senator Wyden which is very important for our state, because a good number of people are further left then Wyden.

  • (Show?)

    Great post, Charlie. Thanks.

  • (Show?)

    Adam HD34

    Did you ask Merkley that question before you decided?

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have had the opportunity to spend time with both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley over the past couple days and I have heard and asked uncomfortable questions, we are very fortunate to have two men of this quality vying for the nomination. I, personally, face a conundrum regarding publicly picking one or the other, and that is that it would seem disparaging of the unselected one, and I don't see that as accurate.

    I'm going to have to really think about this, I can't remember the last time I had this much difficulty and the two men are not the same interchangable pieces of a puzzle. I suppose they could take that as a compliment from me, that despite the obvious differences, the "qualifying" characteristics of each that they do not have in common are so balanced.

    I'd like to compliment Vicki Walker, Jeff Merkley, and Steve Novick for their presentations in Baker City and their professional behavior, Baker County and surrounding areas were well served and rewarded by candidates who spent a great deal of time, energy, and money to come and see us.

    We thank you.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve Novick is the closest thing we have to Paul Wellstone. I think he is the most talented progressive in American politics today.

    As a progressive, when I look at the Democratic party and what they're accomplishing on Capitol Hill, it makes me want to pull my hair out. The party has done incredibly little to deliver on the mandate of 2006. And the reason is obvious: the party is commonly represented by uninspired, machine-buttressed politicians, rather than electric orators who have some gumption. I'm not suggesting Merkley would be just another uninspired tool (I really don't know Merkley well enough to evaluate him), but I am positive that Novick would stand out in FIGHTING HARD for a progressive agenda. And he wouldn't just fight, he bring the kind of charisma and natural sense of humor that would make it difficult for his ideological opponents simply to dismiss the guy. In fact, the more you know Novick, the more you like the guy. Trust me on that. I've only known him for 26 years.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great post, and interesting comments by Chuck.

    I have known Steve for years and know his assets and liabilities. When he spoke to Marion Demoforum, his Q&A was excellent, but his speech sounded like he was only talking to people with considerable political background. There were 2 people under 25 at our table (one was my 18 year old guest) and I'm not sure he made a good impression. My young friend said things like "nice guy but...".

    Even if everyone on BO thought Steve was the greatest thing since sliced bread, that wouldn't win a general election if young people aren't excited by the campaign.

    Steve has the best speaking voice, deserves credit for the information on veterans issues on his website, and is obviously sharp as a tack. Unfortunately, some of his wit and humor is also sharp, and not always appropriate. Having been in situations where swing voters were prepared to keep an open mind on a challenger until that person said ---, that concerns me. (It also concerns me that Merkley has been heavy on the pictures of his travels and light on the issue substance for those who have not had the opportunity to see him in person but have looked at the website.)

    Steve may be the closest thing to Paul Wellstone, but Paul was more positive and humorous in a way Steve isn't always. More importantly, Steve would need to gain the votes of swing voters (the folks who voted Bush/Hooley here in the 5th Dist.--I know people like that).

    Which is why Adam's paragraph

    "Steve Novick is on our side and will make a great replacement for Gordon Smith. I think that Steve will be to the left of even Senator Wyden which is very important for our state, because a good number of people are further left then Wyden."

    concerns me.

    A good number of people admire Wyden because he is himself and doesn't try to be anyone else, and he does those 36 town halls--every county every year. Would Steve (or Jeff) make that sort of pledge? Can they think on their feet the way Wyden does when the audience is not a purely Democratic audience?

    This is why I am waiting until next year to decide on this primary.

  • Henry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LT,

    As a young person, I must quibble with the notion that Steve doesn't speak to youth. Many of my friends and I have volunteered for Steve's campaign and we're not alone. I'm an unpaid staffer on the campaign right now, but I wasn't always. At first, I just heard Steve's message, felt inspired and decided to help out. While the nature of political discourse in this country (and this state) often turns the younger generations away from politics, Steve definitely doesn't. He's exciting, inspiring and, without a doubt, something different.

    That's mostly what we're looking for, as students or just as young citizens: something different. We've grown up with a stalled and staggeringly stupid status quo. We want genuine change. We don't just want the word "change"--which gets thrown around every four years but is rarely supported by action. We want a clear and unequivocal shift in the way this country does business. I know I'm not alone when I say Steve symbolizes that to me.

    In fairness, I should say that Steve isn't alone in inspiring youth. Candidates all over Oregon have brought young people into the fold, but I've never before felt the spark that comes with Steve's candidacy.

    So maybe the kids sitting at your table didn't take to Steve, but I know many teenagers and twenty-somethings who feel very differently.

    Disclaimer: I am an unpaid staffer on Novick for Senate, but speak only for myself.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    the party is commonly represented by uninspired, machine-buttressed politicians, rather than electric orators who have some gumption.

    The party is represented by politicians and aparatchiks interested primarily in their own pursuit of personal power and status as their lack of regard for the voters' wishes expressed in the 2006 elections shows. Steve Novick's record practically guarantees he will work for the people which is why I am all for voting for him. Jeff Merkley has a lot to be said in his favor but the fact that Chuck Schumer recruited him tags Merkley in my mind with a big question mark.

    There was a story some time ago explaining John Edwards' vote to authorize Bush's war on Iraq. This story, which seemed to be legitimate, had Edwards opposed to giving his vote for the AUMF, but Bob Shrum worked on him and changed Edwards' mind over his wife's objections. If Schumer wants Merkley's vote, he will be more likely to work Jeff over than work on him. Jeff may go to Washington intending to be his own man, but it will be harder for him to achieve that status than for Steve. I have positive feelings for both but much more positive feelings for Steve - and no question marks. I'm inclined to believe that Steve's negotiating skills are much stronger. It will also strengthen Steve's position if he goes to Washington obligated only to the people and without debt to the DLC or the DNC.

  • (Show?)

    Very well put, Charlie.

    I see Steve as a change agent. As I have said before, the net karmic transfer that would result from swapping Gordon Smith out of the US Senate and swapping in Steve Novick is almost incalculable.

    Many (as above) do compare Steve to Paul Wellstone. Others have compared him to Wayne Morse. What he has in common with both of those legendary Senators is total authenticity, the confidence to speak and vote his conscience no matter which way the wind is blowing, and an inner compass that keeps him focused on the things that really matter.

    I have great confidence that Steve is smart enough and brave enough to know when to reach across the aisle to collaborate with members of the other party to achieve a worthy objective. I believe that he is also smart enough and brave enough to know when NOT to extend that hand -- when collaboration or "bipartisanship" crosses the line into collusion, exploitation, and betrayal of core Democratic values. I trust him to get that right.

    I'm tired of Democrats getting rolled by Republicans. I'm tired of Democrats who go along to get along. I'm tired of Democrats who vote for terrible measures because they're popular, and because the Republicans will use them as campaign fodder otherwise. We need a Senator who has the courage to stand up against the violence to our Constitution and our traditional American values.

    That's Steve Novick.

    I freely cop to the fact that I'm not a young person. (Those of you who have met me know that there's a lot more salt than pepper in my hair.) I'm 51 years old and although I have written some checks to political candidates in the past, I have never become as enthusiastically involved in supporting a candidate as I have with Steve. There are a number of reasons for that, most of which have to do with Steve himself: his astonishing intelligence, his wit, his fierce determination to make a difference.

    So if in this 2007-08 election cycle I'm becoming a political junkie, I guess Steve Novick was my gateway drug. And like all gateway drugs, it feels really good.

  • (Show?)

    I know I'm, by now, well-known as a "Novick partisan," but I think I also have to disagree with the idea that Steve doesn't connect well with young people. I'm 26, and Steve has struck a chord with me that no person running for office has before.

    He's the first candidate I've given more to than the Oregon tax credit lets you give for "free." He's also the first candidate whose race I think about pretty much every day, despite not having a formal role in the campaign.

    He's bold, brash sometimes, but every time I've seen him speak I never felt he was being anything but authentic. I can't help but grin a little at the thought of seeing him standing next to flip-flopper Smith in a debate. Steve would blow him out of the water.

    I think he's our best chance at sending Smith back to his pea factory.

  • What?! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    both have helped engineer takeovers of an Oregon Legislative chamber.

    Back the truck up. Was Steve working for the Senate Caucus or the SDLF during the 2002 election? No. So he didn't "help engineer" anything.

    This is offensive. Let Steve run on his resume. Don't start making sh*t up.

  • (Show?)

    I think he's our best chance at sending Smith back to his pea factory.

    I think that's right. Looking ahead to the general election, I don't think you can beat Mr. Establishment with Mr. Establishment Lite. I think we have to beat him with a candidate who is unique, authentically different, original, "sharp as a tack" (to use LT's characterization), and fearless. We need to offer the voters of Oregon a clear and distinct choice, who is unafraid to lay out the issues before us and show the voters just how wrong Gordon Smith has been on just about all of them.

    That's Novick.

  • (Show?)

    I have heard Novick's supporters describe Steve as the most progressive candidate, but I've never been persuaded by that. Who cares if a candidate is progressive if he has no ability to turn those values into laws that will affect Oregonians. I want to thank you Charlie, for making BY FAR the most compelling argument to date for why Steve will turn his values into law.

    I share Chuck's appreciation that we have two candidates to choose from who both have a proven records. We enjoy an embarrassment of riches.

  • Katie B. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Me too.

  • Agreed (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree. Novick didn't engineer any takeover in the legislature. In fact, I recall his constant rants about all the Democrats in marginal districts not being "progressive" enough and high-tailing it out of there.

    Jeff Merkley has a proven record of winning seats and he was responsible for the takeover in the House. Let's call it like it is.

  • (Show?)

    "Back the truck up. Was Steve working for the Senate Caucus or the SDLF during the 2002 election? No. So he didn't "help engineer" anything."

    You gotta back up. The flip didn't start in 2002. Ask Kate Brown whether Steve had anything to do with the Senate flip or not.

  • (Show?)

    Charlie,

    Forgot to thank you for reminding all of us at one of the sweetest items on Steve's resume: Coordinating the defeat of Bill Sizemore's initiatives at the ballot box.

    Steve's work against Bill Sizemore during the initiative wars of the late 1990s -- and especially the 2000 campaign -- was relentless. Merkley brings an impressive list of accomplishments to this race, but it's hard to overstate how important Novick's work as a private citizen has been to the direction of our state. Education, health care, investment in clean energy: all these investments from the 2007 session would have been much, much more difficult if Sizemore would have prevailed.

    Anyone who can tangle with, and beat, Oregon's answer to Grover Norquist has got my vote.

  • (Show?)

    Bill Bodden's comment above is very compelling.

    There was a story some time ago explaining John Edwards' vote to authorize Bush's war on Iraq. This story, which seemed to be legitimate, had Edwards opposed to giving his vote for the AUMF, but Bob Shrum worked on him and changed Edwards' mind over his wife's objections. If Schumer wants Merkley's vote, he will be more likely to work Jeff over than work on him. Jeff may go to Washington intending to be his own man, but it will be harder for him to achieve that status than for Steve. I have positive feelings for both but much more positive feelings for Steve - and no question marks. I'm inclined to believe that Steve's negotiating skills are much stronger. It will also strengthen Steve's position if he goes to Washington obligated only to the people and without debt to the DLC or the DNC.

    I think this nicely encapsulates an important reason so many of us support Steve - the independence of his conscience, and the courage of his convictions.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff Merkley has a proven record of winning seats and he was responsible for the takeover in the House.

    That's true; Merkley and his campaign team did a masterful job. No argument here. And I as wrote above, the effort in the Senate was the product of many, many folks. But Steve was one of them.

    From WWeek's Winner Column after the 1998 election:

    Peter Courtney's Rabbit Courtney, an energetic state lawmaker from Salem, has long used a cartoon rabbit as his mascot. So in a bizarre stab at humor, his opponent Don Scott sent out hit mail that attacked the rabbit. Scott even put a bandit's mask on the bunny. But the ploy backfired. Courtney won easily, leading a surprising wave of Democratic victories in the state Senate. Dems even picked up seats in districts where the GOP had a registration edge. Credit goes largely to the Democratic team of Steve Novick, Mark Wiener, Anne Hill, Hillary Barbour and Heidi Von Szeliski.
  • (Show?)

    I would also add that the Legislature's record of progressive achievement this session (for which Merkley has been taking the credit) would have been a lot shorter without a Democratic Governor in the State House, and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.

  • jraad (unverified)
    (Show?)

    so not only has steve taken the oregon senate with a 3 cycle plan (2 of which he was not involved), but now he also won the governorship for the democrats too?

    c'mon.

    I think it's dishonest to equate Steve's work in the senate to Jeff's work in the house. I hope no one is trying to insinuate that.

  • (Show?)

    I hope you and your strawmen will be very happy together, jraad.

  • jraad (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am not the one taking inferential leaps over multiple election cycles...

  • (Show?)
    I want to thank you Charlie, for making BY FAR the most compelling argument to date for why Steve will turn his values into law.

    I would have to ditto Jeff Alworth on that. I've had the same reservation, and frankly still do to some extent. But Charlie definitely has made the most compelling argument that I've seen to date which addresses this concern.

  • What?! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 11, 2007 11:07:59 PM

    You gotta back up. The flip didn't start in 2002. Ask Kate Brown whether Steve had anything to do with the Senate flip or not.

    Basically you're saying he engineered the OR Senate Dem takeover the same way Rep. Bob Matsui engineered the U.S. House Dems takeover. Except he didn't get the flu and die before it happened.

    Fine if you want to draw that parallel, but your argument isn't convincing to anyone who has paid attention to the state legislature in the last 10 years.

  • (Show?)

    "Basically you're saying he engineered the OR Senate Dem takeover the same way Rep. Bob Matsui engineered the U.S. House Dems takeover. Except he didn't get the flu and die before it happened."

    If Matsui spent his off hours putting together the necessary organization and coalition to win seats in a hostile political environment, then I suppose that might be true. You can talk to those who pay attention to the legislature (although doesn't WW qualify?); I'll listen to those who were IN IT at the time.

  • (Show?)

    Lets get real. If you want to give Novick credit for winning Ted's race for him in 2002 you have to say that Novick is responsible for letting Gordon Smith beat Bruggere. He held the same position in both campaigns.

    Please let me know what you are smoking that allows you to make these ridiculous claims with a straight face.

  • (Show?)

    More strawmen from bdunn.

    Nobody said Steve won "Ted's race for him in 2002." We said he played a vital role in the win. Are you so desperate to discredit Steve Novick that you are arguing that, bdunn?

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is why I support Steve.

    Steve does not allow himself to get drawn into the trap of right-wing talking points.

    He is relentlessy focused on the issues like a laser beam, and he conveys his points powerfully, clearly and concisely - this is exactly what Gordon Smith fears.

    Smith does not want to debate the issues. He wants to swiftboat and he wants to demagouge and he wants to obfuscate. Steve will not let that happen.

  • (Show?)

    Ok to use your quote Novick played a vital role in loosing in 1996.

    Im not saying either is true. It is just the same logic that you used. If you are going to credit one than you have to credit the other. Your guy lacks the CV that many people are looking for, claiming more than his CV will get both him and you in trouble.

  • (Show?)

    Again with the strawmen. No one has misrepresented Steve's CV here or anywhere.

  • (Show?)

    I might add that CVs don't seem to matter. If CVs won or lost elections, Al Gore would be completing his second term as President and George W. Bush would still be the failed owner of the Texas Rangers baseball club.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie,

    Notice how Charlie didn't spend any time trying to undercut Merkley or put a minimalizing spin on his record. He just made a straight-up case for Novick, and did a very fine job of it too.

    Frankly, you could learn a great deal from his example here. He comes across as thoughtful and fair whereas you tend to come across as bitterly partisan.

    If Steve is everything that you say he is then he doesn't need you to cut someone else down in order to make himself look good. If he does need it then that says a great deal more about him not being ready for prime time than it does about whomever is being cut down.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie V, you miss represented your candidate's CV. You claimed that Novick was vital in Ted's first win (which btw has no bearing on whether we would have had a Dem gov this session) without evidence. Then you tried to parlay that false claim into Novick is responsible for Merkley's great session.

    All I did was point out that your faulty logic could be applied to say that Novick, who was Burrgere's policy director just like he was for Ted, was vital for loosing to Gordon Smith the first time around. Honestly I don't think that Novick should be given credit or blame for either I just want you people to maintain some semblance of consistency.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    These two men are tough seasoned political warriors, they aren't the same, but they're not so different that supporters of one couldn't work for the other in the General. These guys know how to be tough and WHEN to do it, that's the difference between activists and pros. They will only engage in toughness when there is a real payoff and little blowback, the amatures will just start throwing punches, damn who gets hit.

    I keep trying to make that point and people keep getting hot and bothered. Please, these guys know what they're doing and why they're doing it and need little other than the positive reinforcement like Charlie's post and some others that Jeff's gotten. These guys will have to try to draw out the differences between them, but I'll give you odds that not much actual negatives will be in evidence, much more of 'I'm better on this' than 'he stinks on this.'

    When you start feeling hot, remember that your candidate is a pro and has dealt with a lot worse and not gotten mad about it, it is politics not jacks, a politician expects it to be something other than easy.

    This is an embarrassment of riches, don't spoil it by being stupid, they're tough grown ups and know how to handle themselves, they don't need surrogates going nuts over every perceived insult or exaggeration or...

    I spent time with 3 candidates that I really like, for different reasons that there is neither time nor space to go into, but I do find it unappealing to have these people dragged down by their supporters - that's darn silly. If you've spent enough time with any candidate to like them enough to get emotional about them, you also should have enough respect for their abilities to let them handle issues.

    If you've got something real nice to say about your candidate I've left an invitation on my blog, just don't come starting fights, yes, you too Sal. But I'm serious, act like grownups.

  • (Show?)

    it's not often that i end up feeling good when a candidate that i support loses (ok, not often; never). but this primary will be an exception. if Merkley does beat Novick, i will not be the least bit bummed. we have two excellent candidates. they have different backgrounds, different styles, different personalities. but their dedication to Oregon, to the Constitution, to the needs of the many (the commonwealth) and not the few are absolutely equal. for me, it's a matter of style and of approach. i like Steve's way of approaching issues; he's more dynamic, more likely to take on an issue right between the eyes. Jeff's possibly more of a consensus-builder, a legislative pro (which unfairly seems to get him labeled by some as "more of the same" which he is not).

    i hope Steve prevails. if it's Jeff, there will be no sorrow from me. it's rare that two choices in any election are so good. i'll be happy with either one.

    and either one will whup on Gordo's sorry keister.

  • N Dale (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A great piece by Charlie almost gets lost if one tries to read all the comments that try to cast stones instead of celebrating the fact that we have two excellent candidates to choose from, either one of which, I am convinced, will beat Smith. I, too, have met both candidates and I have a favorite but that doesn't mean I will not work just as hard in the general election for whicever candidate wins the nomination.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for this post Charlie. I support Steve wholeheartedly, a position that is only reinforced when I watch our party struggle (to put it politely) with a thin majority in the Senate. How often as democrats or progressives do we weigh the electable candidate against the candidate who actually represents our values? For me, Steve does both, and that is a rare thing. He's smart, he's courageous and he's inspiring. I trust him to win and I trust him to get in there and actually fight for what Oregonians need.

  • (Show?)

    Hear hear, Chuck! When are you going to knock Walden off his post??

  • (Show?)

    Tis the season to thank our lucky stars and Merkley and Novick do shine. I'm with Chuck, the candidates are not helped by some of the comments. They may actually damage a candidate and waste their precious time. Like Chuck, I have had the opportunity to spend time with Merkley and Novick. Both are impressive, working very hard, touring the state meeting with potential voters. Go after Smith's record on behalf of your candidate, that's a place to vent!

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This thread has become quite fascinating, when you think about it. It started out as a really refreshing effort to explain why so many people (myself included) are incredibly inspired by Steve Novick as a politician. But then somehow, it deteriorated into a shouting match over claims that 3rd parties have made about Novick's credentials compared to Merkley's.

    Folks. Do you want a progressive change in this country or don't you? If you do, open your mind to why SO MANY people truly love Steve Novick. For that matter, if people have nice things to say about Merkley (other than that he's "better than Novick or Smith"), open your mind to that as well.

    If, however, you're not interested in progressive change. If you merely like to score debator's points for your favorite candidate, then try to pick apart the words of their supporters -- twist them and turn them until you can shake out all hyperbole or imbalanced claims. Then take your analysis, come on to Blue Oregon, and do your best to turn what could be an opportunity to get people enthusiastic about an Oregon Democrat into just another political cesspool.

    Keep doing it. And then pat yourselves on the back, for you will have just contributed to the re-election of Mr. Gordon Smith. If there's anything that could get him to win, it's an active effort by Democrats to sap the enthusiasm of their fellow Democrats for either of these candidates.

  • (Show?)

    Agreed.

    I support the progressive candidate whom I believe shows the most potential to be truly great, the candidate who is brilliant, original, authentic, and unique. I support the candidate who is tough and courageous, with a passionate sense of mission and a clarity of purpose, someone who will not be derailed by Republican distractions, someone who listens to his conscience no matter which way the winds of popularity are blowing.

    It's Novick.

  • (Show?)

    As long as we're giving credit to those who helped engineer the Democratic take-overs in '06, let's not forget to thank George W. Bush. Without him, our efforts could never have yielded such fruit.

    But W's not going to be there to help us in '08--an election which will focus America's perilous future. I'm impressed by both of our fine Democratic candidates for the Senate, but the one who'll get my vote is the one who tells me and the other voters in the state what he's going TO DO, not just what he's DONE.

    (And ditto to what Chuck said.) Nice post, Charlie.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    First of all, let me say that I agree with Chuck Butcher: "These two men are tough seasoned political warriors, they aren't the same, but they're not so different that supporters of one couldn't work for the other in the General. These guys know how to be tough and WHEN to do it, that's the difference between activists and pros. They will only engage in toughness when there is a real payoff and little blowback, the amatures will just start throwing punches, damn who gets hit."

    First, let's go back to early threads when Steve Novick was the only announced candidate and people were saying it would be a good thing to have another candidate in the race to test and prepare them for the real battle against Gordon Smith. Now we have people getting exercised if others go beyond a narrow, undefined limit in criticizing Jeff Merkley. If we adhere to that philosophy, then future discussions are more likely to be bland and boring. To be honest, I expected to be attacked for having had the temerity to suggest I was concerned about Merkley's relationship with Chuck Schumer. I'm obviously not the only one with that concern, but it should be easy for Merkley to explain that and perhaps resolve it. This sort of thing could also work to the advantage of the eventual nominee to run against Smith. If there are any questions or concerns about the candidate get them out in the open sooner rather than later and resolved as quickly as possible.

    How about if we have two criteria, among others? In the case of both candidates let's be sure to be honest and fair and let's not exaggerate perceived negatives and positives.

  • nhascall (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve was at our house on the 4th for a house party, and the people in attendance ponied up a decent amount of money. I think that Steve Novick is the Senator Oregon deserves, but whether you support Steve or Jeff, don't forget to get out there and beat the bushes for support. If we want a grassroots candidate that represents voters instead of institutions, we need to open our wallets.

    Vote Hook!

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Alworthy, I've appreciated your support and enthusiasm from the first, but there is no way that I have the resources to go after Walden. That campaign should have started in Nov 06, it is all about voters knowing the candidate exists and is a possible. The kind of out in front of the people effort involved is virtually full time campaigning and that takes resources of large scale. Frankly, just a Primary would bankrupt me even if contributions covered direct costs, I still have to support a household and I do that with a nail apron on and hammer in hand at the job sites which isn't being in Medford or etc and that's required.

    Walden isn't impossible for the right candidate, and even more likely with a 2 cycle run, but 2 things, one: Democratic voters have agreed I'm not it two: I cannot afford such an effort

    Neither is a systemic failure, a person is responsible for how they run their lives and I haven't aimed mine at an independent income source, and as for the voters, they really should get to choose who they want to represent them and if it isn't me there's no reason to hold that against them. I made a lot of mistakes, some were amaturism and some were economically dictated, but even minus those the vote margin was too large. As an example, the voter's pamphlet photo was horrid, a result of not knowing I had the funds for it until the day it had to be filed, I knew it wasn't too hot a picture, I didn't know it was that bad...

    Just to make it to May 21 would require $35K, that is not going to happen. $200K in the general fund would make for an inadequate campaign, and I'd need 1 year income to cover my home. That's a lot of scratch I ain't got.

    If you'd like to be finance director and show me the $5K exploratory money by month's end with 25K commitments through May 1 you might be able to pique my interest, I think you'd knock yourself out and frustrate yourself no end raising $500, much less $5K. Even with a relaxed attitude toward it, politicking is stressful and sometimes frustrating, add in shoe-string budgets and sweating loan payments and groceries and it's a recipe for insanity.

    But I do thank you for the belief, it is damn flattering.

  • (Show?)

    Chuck, I too firmly believe that with the right support, you would kick ass.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Henry,I did not say Steve "does not speak to youth". I said a particular 18 year old who was my guest was not overly impressed, and that I noticed references in the speech (like "Kitzhaber says ..." about health care) which were not familiar to my guest (I asked her and explained the references later. )

    "Youth" doesn't vote--individual young people vote.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    With the overwhelming number of Republican lemmings in Walden's district, the only point in a Democrat or other non-Republican running against Walden is to let the voters know they have a choice and for them to say they would prefer someone other than the incumbent. One of the problems is it appears that a large portion of people in Walden's district don't know or care enough to vote.

    Getting a non-Republican elected to the 2nd Congressional District needs to be looked at in the long term with a campaign starting as soon as possible to educate the voters as to why they should vote for someone other than Walden. But it won't happen in '08, but an educational campaign should begin now and continue until success is achieved.

    For the record, I supported Scott Silver to be the Democratic candidate, but I have to admit I enjoyed the mischievous thought of being able to watch Chuck on C-Span giving his fellow representatives in the House some of his inimitable straight talk.

  • (Show?)

    One of the things I like best about Steve is he doesn't just leave you hanging with a nice platitude or vague good feelin's. He spells out how his principles turn into action. Like today, with Veteran's Day. Not only is he ready with what every politician has--kind words of gratitude and support for our vets--but he also lays out a detailed map of how to improve their lives in concrete ways. LT, you have spent weeks begging for the candidates to talk about vets' issues. What do you think of the specific proposals Steve has, and how do you compare them to what Mr. Merkley has shown his support for in this area?

  • (Show?)

    What do you think of the specific proposals Steve has, and how do you compare them to what Mr. Merkley has shown his support for in this area?

    Merkley's Veterans Proposals

    Personally, I think they're both very strong on vets issues.

  • (Show?)

    Nick of time Nick, nick of time. :)

  • (Show?)

    Chuck, I'd love to get you elected, but I'm afraid my political inexperience and overall skillset would do more than anything to ensure a campaign goes nowhere. Bloggers, so far as I've seen, don't necessarily translate their inimitable "skill" to campaigning with any measure of success.

    And I'm sure you're right about the money and difficulty. After all, you've been there before.

    But I do disagree with this one comment: "Democratic voters have agreed I'm not it." Actually, they did agree. They also agreed Measure 37 was a dandy bit of thinking, too, and they changed their minds there. Politics is far more than appealing to voters--you have to demonstrate organizational appeal, get institutional support, capture the attention of the media and so on. But the one thing you do offer as a candidate is the kind of Jim Webb/Brian Schweitzer Democrat who can win in red, rural districts. Any Democrat who wants to actually defeat Walden is going to have to appeal to a lot of NAVs and Republican voters while still uphold Democratic (Party) values. It's damn tough to find credible candidates who can do that.

    Yadda yadda...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Nick.

    It is about time, finally we both have Steve and Jeff on the record on veterans issues. They both now have the level of detail we deserve. Anyone who has known a vet who had a medical problem and it took them a year to get a VA appointment (then in some cases to be told "you should have come to us earlier about this" ) should realize these are important issues.

    I have written both campaigns nagging them to post comprehensive veterans proposals, and they finally have done that. Steve gets credit for going first. They both deserve credit for the level of detail--now let's get these details debated in public and hopefully get lots of veterans involved in this primary.

    Now about some of the above comments.

    Stephanie, how long have you known Steve? I've known him a lot longer than I have known Jeff. But bdunn is right--no matter how good Steve's work was for Bruggere, I have seldom seen a candidate be so clueless about issues. Maybe it was because the candidate was clueless about politics in general. I'm not supporting anyone yet, and "he worked on the Bruggere campaign" is not a point in Steve's favor with me given my support for the other candidates in that primary. Even if all the other campaigns mentioned would have gone the other way had Steve not been working on them, that's biography, not a reason to vote a particular way in the 2008 primary. I'm glad Jeff listed those bills in the Oregon House, but without the federal list of issues I wouldn't have taken that page seriously.

    Can we please stop the arguing about the background and start talking about issues? Is Novick really going to get the votes of people who have voted for Gordon Smith in the past by quoting from a 1998 WW Winners item or this from Stephanie?

    Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 11, 2007 11:23:28 PM

    I would also add that the Legislature's record of progressive achievement this session (for which Merkley has been taking the credit) would have been a lot shorter without a Democratic Governor in the State House, and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002. <<

    OK, let's say Steve singlehandedly provided everything that people like Stephanie say. Is that going to win over the votes of people who voted for Mannix in 2002 but might consider voting to retire Gordon Smith in 2008?

    Kevin made a good point. Why can't we drop all the sniping and just say "I support ---- because...."?

    I got an email from a friend who voted for Gordon Smith in the past. I sent the link to this topic to that friend yesterday. He responded "Interesting, and I am a little put off by Gordon as usual, and I will keep my antennae up for Steve. "

    At the moment, I am not sure if this friend is registered with a party. It is a long time until the registration deadline. But it is more likely that this friend might consider registering Dem. and voting for Novick if substance is being discuss than if there is a big debate about who scored which Democratic victories in the past. This is my favorite swing voter, who voted Bush/Hooley in 2004. Debates about what Steve and Jeff did in the past are just that--not the way to convince swing voters.

  • (Show?)

    LT,

    I wish you and others would distinguish between the comments we make on our own initiative and the responses we must make in rebuttal of overly aggressive criticism and attacks on our integrity.

    Personally, I never set out to slag Jeff Merkley in this discussion. This started out as a discussion of the various positive and strategic reasons some of us have for having chosen Steve Novick as our preferred Senate candidate. I was very pleased by this and eager to participate. I personally do not consider things that happened in oher people's campaigns all those years ago to be particularly probative of anything Steve might accomplish in his own name. But when the bona fides of his past achievements are disputed and his supporters are accused in pretty harsh fashion of falsifying his CV -- well, at that point, we take a look at the equivalent claims being made by others, and we draw parallels where we can.

    I think it's ironic and more than a little sad that when Novick supporters set out to have a positive discussion of our candidate, the Merkley interns immediately begin to accuse us of lying, and when we defend ourselves by comparing our claims and statements to those of their candidate, suddenly WE'RE the ones who are accused of being negative.

  • jraad (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Personally, I never set out to slag Jeff Merkley in this discussion

    Well its hard to tell by what you wrote.

    I would also add that the Legislature's record of progressive achievement this session (for which Merkley has been taking the credit) would have been a lot shorter without a Democratic Governor in the State House, and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.

    You were trying to belittle Jeff's accomplishments in the house, to which apparently he didn't do but, "took the credit", by claiming Steve's work on a campaign in 2002 allowed it.

    I thought it was a great article by Mr. Burr and agree with Mr. Alworth that it was the best argument for Novick so far. However, this is because Charlie didn't make the hackneyed argument you did.

    And I never accused you of lying. Nowhere did you claim Steve's work in the senate equated to Jeff's work in the house.

  • Erik Sorensen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I must say that although I am holding my preference for now until I see more, I do like the way Steve Novick handles Lars Larson. Novick does not let Larson play his games and as an independent, I like what I hear. Has Merkley taken on Lars Larson?

    I am a little concerned about Steve's notoriety. It appears at the moment Merkley is much better known to those outside the Metro/Organized Labor/Environment circles. Many Democrats that I know in Eastern Oregon aren't even familiar with him. That is not to say that nobody knows him. It is just to say that the name "Jeff Merkley" rings a louder bell. Steve has alot of great experience, as does Jeff, so they both could offer Oregon alot representing us in the Senate.

    All that aside, I think that both candidates are pretty palatable regardless of who your favorite is. I would like to finish by saying, don't be too quick to treat them like football teams, as each have a pretty equal chance at unseating Smith. That is the main goal anyways, isn't it?

    ~Erik

  • (Show?)
    I think it's ironic and more than a little sad that when Novick supporters set out to have a positive discussion of our candidate, the Merkley interns immediately begin to accuse us of lying, and when we defend ourselves by comparing our claims and statements to those of their candidate, suddenly WE'RE the ones who are accused of being negative.

    Stephanie, even more ironic, given your statement here, was your characterization of Merkley as "Mr. Establishment Lite" well before any of Novick's bonefides were questioned by anyone, much less by any Merkley interns.

    That said, it needs to be pointed out that Charlie Burr, Jenni Simonis, Daniel Spiro and other Novick supporters have not been accused of "being negative" in this thread.

    There isn't a grand conspiracy or some unjust double-standard being applied here. Comment as you see fit. But a word to the wise would be that playing the victim works better if you really are a victim rather than an instigator.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I must say that although I am holding my preference for now until I see more, I do like the way Steve Novick handles Lars Larson. Novick does not let Larson play his games and as an independent, I like what I hear. Has Merkley taken on Lars Larson?

    Comments such as these explain why I continue to believe Steve would be the better candidate. He impresses me as the more skilled when it comes to use of language and debating so that I'm less concerned about him being dominated by the DLC and other members of the Democratic oligarchy.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Stephanie, who are you calling Merkley interns?

    Agreed or What ?! or bdunn? Kevin? me?

    I think Kevin has it right. "But a word to the wise would be that playing the victim works better if you really are a victim rather than an instigator."

    Honestly, Stephanie, you are so positive on Darlene Hooley on another topic but so thin skinned here. A friend and I were discussing truly nasty (Swifties, what Denny Smith did, etc.) campaigns recently.

    If Steve's supporters are so thin skinned that statements questioning his background bring responses about strawmen just because there are questions about statements like "Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.", you folks will be in for a shock if he wins the primary.

    If you are such fans of Steve, get off the blog and go campaign.

    But don't make cracks about "strawmen" when people who aren't Novick folk question remarks like this don't win over potential supporters now or volunteers in the general, and I can't believe Steve condones this sort of thing:

    Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 11, 2007 10:40:16 PM

    I think he's our best chance at sending Smith back to his pea factory.

    I think that's right. Looking ahead to the general election, I don't think you can beat Mr. Establishment with Mr. Establishment Lite.

    <<<

    Stephanie, why is Jeff "Mr. Establishment Lite"? Is it because he is an elected official who became Speaker? Is it because he got endorsements Steve wanted? Is it that all good people should say Steve is amazing and Jeff should have remained Speaker?

    I may decide next year to support Steve in the primary. I may support Jeff. But as the old Saturday Night Live skit used to say, "hear me now and believe me later!"

    Here is a message for the Novick folks.

    If I do vote for Steve next May, it will be in spite of Stephanie and those like her, not because of anything you folks say. I lived through the nasty 1992 US Senate primary, and I will stay neutral until April if that is what it takes to convince people that we need to be discussing issues, not trying to force people to believe, for instance, that Ted K. needed Steve to be elected Gov. (And yes, I do believe that is what "Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002." means. )

    And how do we know that Gordon is "Mr. Establishment"?

    If the energy used to make sarcastic remarks (strawmen, Merkley interns, etc.) were devoted to asking Gordon Smith if 12 years in the Senate qualifies as being a "career politician" (as the sort of person he derided in his Jan. 1996 TV ads so many of us disliked) we would be a lot closer to electing a Democrat to the US Senate than if we have people making snarky remarks about "Merkley interns".

    Unless you can prove, Stephanie, that the comments you don't like are made by young people in a college or other program where they will are earning pay or college credit and will be able to list "Intern, Merkley for US Senate" on their resumes, your sarcastic remarks are not helping Steve.

    You need to choose, Stephanie. Spend your energy campaigning for Novick for Senate (doing whatever the campaign needs to be done) or make sarcastic remarks here whenever you think Steve has been slighted. But you will help his campaign a lot more by doing the first than by doing the second.

  • (Show?)

    Will someone please explain to me what the rules are? Because obviously I am having trouble getting it.

    Let's start with one basic rule:

    Is it NOT OK to compare the candidates and state which aspects of each I consider to be strengths and weaknesses? If in fact that is NOT OK, then is it ever OK to compare the candidates? And if so, how, please?

    I would sincerely like to know this.

  • (Show?)

    For the record Stephanie V, I am not an intern because my thesis this semester, a full class load, and the cost of driving to Portland are prohibitive.

    However, I don't understand why people that are young and volunteer their time should be disrespected in your opinion, though.

  • (Show?)

    In this instance I would say that disrespect was in the eye of the beholder, bdunn.

    In the past five years I have personally volunteered more than a thousand hours for my favorite nonprofit organization. I respect all volunteer service.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.

    Posted by: jraad | Nov 11, 2007 11:43:59 PM

    so not only has steve taken the oregon senate with a 3 cycle plan (2 of which he was not involved), but now he also won the governorship for the democrats too?

    It appears to me that Stephanie is getting a lot more flack than she deserves. The above is an example. Stephanie said Steve played a vital role and jraad carelessly twisted that into a claim that he also won the governorship. Other critics bought into that and it has been downhill ever since. She was right referring to the strawmen. Too bad others didn't recognize she had a point.

    And since this thread has turned into another silly squabble I will bid you all adios.

  • (Show?)
    Is it NOT OK to compare the candidates and state which aspects of each I consider to be strengths and weaknesses?

    If delving into what you see as Merkley's weaknesses is what you want to do then go for it. But don't then turn around and try to portray yourself as just having been part of a merry band of Novick supporters who "set out to have a positive discussion of our candidate."

    Charlie was having a positive discussion about his candidate. Not once did he even hint at any weaknesses, real or percieved, in Merkley. In fact he was consistently magnanamous the very few times when he did mention Merkley. I'd say that Daniel Spiro, who has several comments in this thread, followed in Charlie's footsteps and also was graceous towards Merkley while touting what sold him on Novick. Ditto for Bill Bodden and some others.

    Do you see the difference?

    By my reading of this thread, your "Mr. Establishment Lite" quip was the first cheap shot. If you wanna sling mud then go for it. God knows I've been right there in the thick of it with y'all in past mud fights. But I try very hard to be honest about it. Honest with myself, I mean. I'm not suggesting that you've been trying to deceive us. Rather I am suggesting that you've not been entirely honest with yourself about your role in slagging, as you put it.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    this is a hard discussion for me to wrap my head around, because in the process of choosing which primary candidate to support, my decision was the result of seeing some things i really liked in one candidate, and some things i really don't like about another candidate, or at least the way his campaign is being run.

    and it seems to me like the rules of the discussion are set so that i can only talk about the former, not the latter.

    which, if that's what the rules are, i can choose to abide by them or hold my tongue. but i feel like it paints an incomplete picture of the race if i do.

    because, personally, my decision to support steve novick was largely about what i see steve doing right, but -- what steve is doing right needs to be viewed against what i see merkley doing wrong in order to be fully appreciated.

    does that make sense? maybe the fact that my criticisms of merkley are entirely based not on the man or the legislator, but on the way his primary campaign has been run so far.

    but i don't want to go all negative, so i'll stop there. and just go on to add my kudos and thanks to charlie burr for his excellent editorial.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Triska, because, personally, my decision to support steve novick was largely about what i see steve doing right, but -- what steve is doing right needs to be viewed against what i see merkley doing wrong in order to be fully appreciated...........my criticisms of merkley are entirely based not on the man or the legislator, but on the way his primary campaign has been run so far.

    I tend to agree with you to this extent. Here we have 2 wonderfully bright, experienced candidates who could be having an excellent debate over issues that matter, and really raising public awareness of these issues.

    If someone likes Steve's approach to health care, or that he got his page on veterans issues first, I think that is great. If someone like's Jeff's background before he came to the legislature (as I recall, work for the Pentagon and then for Habitat for Humanity), that's great.

    But when the legislator is posting pictures and travelogues ("look at the pictures of breakfast in the Dalles") and endorsements (a wonderful former Oregon Journal reporter once called that "an excellent 19th century strategy"), that isn't very inspiring--looks like a consultant dreamed that up. On the other hand, a supporter for Novick calls the Speaker "Mr. Establishment Lite" and some people here went ballistic that 2 state reps would write a post here in what they saw as defending their Speaker against what they considered an unjustified attack, the whole campaign looks brain dead. The presiding officers deserve respect (they are the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate). When someone has great ideas, those should be celebrated.

    But biography doesn't show how well a candidate will do in a statewide race, and face it--neither Steve nor Jeff has ever run statewide before.

    FOLKS! This is the time for Democrats to show they are more serious and more capable of discussing serious issues than Republicans. The House Republican Leader is saying he wants the Feb. session to be 8 days long but no Saturdays, sending out a brainless press release about their priorities. For instance, state police funding should come out of the general fund instead of a dedicated funding source, but don't ask their priorities if a recession shrinks the general fund; they want a legislative audit function different than PCOL proposed, and apparently don't realize PCOL said there are legal reasons why the Sec. of State is the auditor of public accounts; they claim a water bill the Republicans wanted was killed by the Senate--when actually, it reached the Senate a week before Sine Die (was that a partisan plot?). In general, the House Republican press release is very cynical and supports expenditures for popular ideas without saying how to fund them.

    And then there is the objection to funding health care for kids. I heard on the radio this morning that there is a group of Catholics (don't recall the name) running ads against members of Congress who call themselves pro-life but voted to sustain Bush's S-Chip veto.

    The voice is of a woman saying "He calls himself pro-life, but he votes against funding health care for kids. That's not pro-life. Pro-life people care about kids. Call Congressman..... and tell him that if he is really pro-life, he will vote to override Bush's S-Chip veto".

    Why can't our US Senate candidates come up with something like that? Wouldn't have to be a radio ad--could be part of a stump speech, a website challenge to those who remember Hubert Humphrey (for those too young to remember, he was against abortion but a leader in programs for kids) to push the idea of health care for kids, why not a public challenge to Gordon Smith, Greg Walden, and Oregon Republican legislators to prove they are truly pro-life and fund children's health care? If they care more about lower taxes than health care for kids, any "fast on his feet" candidate could make that point over and over and over.

    There was a wonderful Oregon Experience show on OPB last night (and if you go to the TV section of opb.org there is a whole page about it) with interviews of surviving legislators and others who fought to keep Oregon's beaches public along with quotes from citizens involved, footage and still photos of Tom McCall visiting the beach, old newspaper headlines, etc.

    Viewed against that, current legislators and candidates and too many other elected officals are just pale in comparison.

    So let's be clear. I am an undecided voter. I don't really care about previous legislative votes or who worked on which campaigns in the past. I want to see if we can have an inspired US Senate primary or just the same old bland stuff which has been debated here.

    Candidates, show some spark and leadership on today's issues!

  • Liz Kimmerly (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks again for the fun night Chuck. Here is my blog post on the whole weekend with a mention of the dance. http://www.novickforsenate.org/campaign_trail

    Enjoy, Liz Kimmerly Online Director Novick for U.S. Senate

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nobody said Steve won "Ted's race for him in 2002." We > said he played a vital role in the win. Are you so
    desperate to discredit Steve Novick that you are arguing that, bdunn?

    Encouraging to hear it taken as a given that that would be a discrediting factor. Does the fact that you actually thought Ted might be anything different than he has been bother you?

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon