Isn't it possible for Candidate Bates to stay positive while others do the dirty work?

While I think it's noble that Bates doesn't want to go negative, Smith really does need to be held accountable for his record.

I think it depends on what you mean by "negative". If you're saying you won't point out flaws in your opponents' actions or proposals, I think that's a sign of an incompetent campaign. But that certainly doesn't require viciousness or "skewing" the truth so much that it is distorted. I think it is more about being principled - really following the principle that the end doesn't justify the means.

Wait a minute here...

I think there's a difference between holding an incumbent accountable for their voting record (as Sen. Bates has already done here) and swiftboating someone.

On the war: Bates, an Ashland Democrat, said that Smith, 54, made "a huge error in judgment"...

"I know he's apparently changed his position on the war, but many of us from the very beginning were opposed to the war," Bates said. "When you're at that level you have a responsibility to know what you're doing; be very careful of your votes."

There's a difference between talking about a voting record and going negative. I think it all comes down to a smell test. I bet that Ms. Shaw prefers to win races above the belt...as opposed to below. I say, more power to her and to Dr./Sen. Bates.

From what I can recall, Sen. Bates took some pretty wicked shots in the 04 campaign. However, he had the decency to not respond in kind, which is part of why he won that race and remains so popular in his district. You guys are right, though--there is a HUGE difference between questioning somebody's voting record and engaging in character assassination. I think Sen. Bates would be able to call Smith on his B.S. without hitting below the belt. And if Smith used the same tactics that Bates' 04 opponent used (for the life of me, I can't remember his name), it would backfire on Smith and make him look like a jerk. Ideally, a campaign is supposed to be about reaching out to people, inspiring them and give them hope. It's unfortunate that it usually ends up being about playing the politics of division and fear (and yes, I'm aware that I've been involved in such things in the past. I'm sure someone would have pointed that out). But just because that's how it's been doesn't mean it always has to be that way. I think we should take that up as a challenge for our generation, because the current approach clearly isn't working for anybody...except Karl Rove, but I think he's too busy worrying about pending inditements to be as big a threat anymore...

Yes we should hold Gordon Smith to account. That's what running against an opponent is largely about- especially in this case.

As noted above "going negative" is very different than holding someone to account. Shaw's perspective seems a bit simplistic- and frankly, I'll take Steve Novick's campaign strategist over almost anyone's ;)

Other than name recognition and longevity, what has Bates done to actually distinguish himself as a successful leader in the Oregon Senate? Why should a Democrat support him over Novick?

Kari-

I don't think any ofthose would constitute a negative attack, and it would be great to hear Smith try and explain those positions. Personal attacks are completely different (this is where I'd really like to hear Bates chime in, because he's borne the brunt of some nasty ones) and would probably only serve to let Smith off the hook for his abysmal voting record.

Why Bates--I'll give you a great reason. If someone knows both gentlemen and says "I know both of them and really like Bates", that is not a negative attack. If they say "more power to you if you are a fan of Steve Novick, but I like Alan Bates", that is a matter of opinion. A political party without room for such difference of opinion is a party having difficulty with diverse opinions.

Recently in an email exchange with an old friend, I said that a successful primary candidate will inspire people not now politically active to register Dem. if they aren't registered that way already, and inspire them to get involved in the primary campaign. My friend wrote back "Steve will undoubtedly have a tough primary...I am sure there will be serious opposition. However, I am going to work to help him get the nomination."

That is the best way to approach it--"I'm for Novick" is much more persuasive than "how dare you support anyone else". Republicans tried the "everyone is supposed to agree and not ask questions" route, and it eventually backfired.

I wish to associate myself with these remarks from comments above

there is a HUGE difference between questioning somebody's voting record and engaging in character assassination............. You guys are right, though--there is a HUGE difference between questioning somebody's voting record and engaging in character assassination...............Ideally, a campaign is supposed to be about reaching out to people, inspiring them and give them hope. It's unfortunate that it usually ends up being about playing the politics of division and fear .............But just because that's how it's been doesn't mean it always has to be that way. I think we should take that up as a challenge for our generation, because the current approach clearly isn't working for anybody...except Karl Rove, but I think he's too busy worrying about pending inditements to be as big a threat anymore...

Politics has gotten mean spirited in recent years, but all sorts of people of all sorts of political persuasions are looking for a way back to the more civil times of decades ago. John Kitzhaber ran against Denny Smith for Gov--the king of the attack dog Republicans (who lost his Congressional seat at least partly by using the "voice of Hitler " ad against Kopetski). A Republican-leaning friend of mine saw them speak at Rotary and said Smith was just another slick politician, but Kitzhaber had enough substance that he took notes.

THAT should be the goal--non-political ordinary citizen saying nice things about the positive Democratic candidate. Swiftboating shows how nasty people can be, but doesn't complete the sentence "If I am elected, I willl..." Do Democrats want to be the party of attack, or the party of positive solutions?

Why Bates--I'll give you a great reason

In all the rambling after that, I failed to see a single reason how Bates has distinguished himself as a true leader. And the one experience I had meeting Bates in person at a town hall on his health plan, I and several audience members I talked to found him rude and arrogant. I don't fault him for that, my question was whether I've missed something in what otherwise seems to be record as a legislator that seems mainly to be distinguished by longevity and not much more. (I find his health care plan, and his dependence on private insurance, AS HE PRESENTED IT HIMSELF to not be credible.)

I'm really getting tired of whiners who just can't seem to grow up and deal with the fact that politics is and should be serious business. Today's politics are not more coarse nor more negative than over the two hundred plus year history of the republic.

Let's hope that the Democratic candidate looks at the last campaign against Gordon Smith and learns some lessons. Bill Bradbury ran a positive campaign to the point that he refused to point out that Gordon Smith was the Senate's #3 beneficiary of Enron largesse. In my mind, making a connection between Smith and Enron/PGE's high rates would have been a public service, not negative campaigning...

Hilarious! Having observed Dr. Bates in multiple settings;calling him rude and arrogant is so far off the mark I can barely stop laughing.

paulie - why would you be so much of presumptuous jerk to condescendingly claim you know how Bates came across to other people?

From my observation, Bates (and Westlund) talked a good line to fawning folks like you who were unknowledgeable about the health care system, most of whom were fortunate enough to be insured and mainly wanted to know "is this going to disadvantage me to the benefit of someone else?".

Bates reacted poorly to being challenged by people who were professionally qualified to know as much or more about aspects of the health care issue than him, and who asked substantive questions about serious deficiencies with his universal insurance purchasing plan that could actually set back the efforts to achieve universal health care. I wasn't one of the people who asked those questions, my comments are based on observing how he conducted himself.

I mention on my blog this morning:

It depends on the definition of "go negative." If that means saying "Gordon Smith is a jerk," then, no, Bates shouldn't go negative. If, however, that means saying "Gordon Smith has been disingenuous with us on Iraq and doesn't represent us in the Senate nearly as well as Ron Wyden does; I, Alan Bates, could do a much better job for Oregon than Gordon Smith does," then, yes, Bates should say that. And he should say that frequently to lots and lots of Oregon voters.

For our purposes, holding someone accountable for his or her voting record, or even promises made on the campaign trail, are fair game. It is also fair game for a candidate under attack to defend his or herself.

Going negative is almost always about character assassination and skewing information. For example, a library board member votes to fund computers in public libraries so the opposition puts out mail saying that equals support of child pornography. That kind of thing.

With that said, if a candidate claims to be something he or she is not—such as a farmer when a barn and plow are nowhere to be found—this goes to integrity and I would be inclined to point that out to the voters.

In my book, The Campaign Manager, I quote a study listing the four areas that voters consistently support as “fair territory” for attacks: 1. Actual voting records 2. Current ethical problems 3. Business practices, and 4. Money received from special-interest groups

Of those, Senator Bates would be comfortable only with the first.

In my opinion, negative campaigning pulls at the fabric of our society. Campaigns convince voters that their economic plight is the result of minorities or that our very way of life is at risk because of those embracing alternative lifestyles or even that government is to blame, and then wonder why we can’t all get along after the election.

It would be a mistake for us to cripple the Democratic-Primary victor—whoever that may be—with negative campaigning. That means we all use a little restraint in name calling while we advocate for our favorite flavor.

PS. Bates’ 2004 opponent was Jim Wright. In two last-minute mail pieces, Chuck Adams dragged to the surface a difficult child custody battle between Bates and his first wife some 30 years ago. In the end, it had little influence on the outcome of the race.

In my book, The Campaign Manager, I quote a study listing the four areas that voters consistently support as “fair territory” for attacks: 1. Actual voting records 2. Current ethical problems 3. Business practices, and 4. Money received from special-interest groups

Of those, Senator Bates would be comfortable only with the first.

I find it difficult to comprehend why Bates would not be concerned enough with items 2, 3 and 4 above to engage an opponent on them, especially items 2 and 4. Perhaps Ms. Shaw might explain.

In my opinion, negative campaigning pulls at the fabric of our society.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with whether it is effective in winning elections.

But I think we can all agree that no democratic candidate or their supporters are engaged in negative campaigning. To suggest otherwise would be, well, negative campaigning. Thus we know that neither Senator Bates, nor his campaign staff and supporters, would want to suggest his refusal to go negative in any way distinguishes him from any of the other candidates.

Or we could take the eschewing of negative campaigning as a sly way of negatively campaigning. Take your choice.

1. Actual voting records
2. Current ethical problems
3. Business practices, and
4. Money received from special-interest groups

The only one of the 4 that I find of some question is (2), ethical problems covers a rather large arena, someone could be under indictment and that would be an issue, an issue of a divorce over infidelity would seem over the top. Sometimes an accusation of ethical problems is no more than that, and those kinds of thing get currency simply through repitition. There is some bleed over into business practices, also.

In these areas a reputable person would have to exercise a great deal of care in making an attack. The recent flap over Sen Johnson is an example, just what this is about still isn't real clear.

All 4 items have direct bearing on a candidate's fitness or quality as an elected. Much of what is wrong with our past and current Congress is directly related to these questions, how exactly is an improvement to be made if they are not issues?

why would you be so much of presumptuous jerk to condescendingly claim you know how Bates came across to other people?

From my observation, Bates (and Westlund) talked a good line to fawning folks like you who were unknowledgeable about the health care system

Well, mister no-name, I'd say the only jerk here is yourself. Paulie was simply making the observation opposite of your own. You've seen Sen Bates speak ONCE, while Paulie has seen him in multiple settings. You think Bates is "arrogant" and "rude", and Paulie disagrees with you...You call her a jerk. Now who's being rude? Furthermore, you state: I find his health care plan, and his dependence on private insurance, AS HE PRESENTED IT HIMSELF to not be credible. So on the topic of health care, you have more authority than a doctor? Now who's being arrogant?

Your rants are a disservice to the Novick campaign. Please be quiet.

You've seen Sen Bates speak ONCE, while Paulie has seen him in multiple settings. You think Bates is "arrogant" and "rude", and Paulie disagrees with you...You call her a jerk. Now who's being rude?

Actually, what Paulie said was this:

Hilarious! Having observed Dr. Bates in multiple settings;calling him rude and arrogant is so far off the mark I can barely stop laughing.

Which, frankly, sounds more like being a jerk than simply disagreeing.

So on the topic of health care, you have more authority than a doctor? Now who's being arrogant?

On the issue of health care there are a lot of people who have more authority than the average doctor-politician. If for no other reason than doctors have a very large stake in the current system. Public health care models almost all result in drastically lower compensation for doctors.

The only one of the 4 that I find of some question is (2), ethical problems covers a rather large arena, someone could be under indictment and that would be an issue, an issue of a divorce over infidelity would seem over the top.

Again, like "negative," "ethical" would have to be a judgment call. There are issues that would technically be unethical, but in the grand scheme of things they would be of minor significance in the nit-picking category; however, when you get into practices such as those involving Duke Cunningham and friends of Jack Abramoff, then we should be very concerned with ethics.

Don't go negative on Smith? Give me something positive about him. This is typical weak-kneed democrat strategy. It's evident in our wonderful state and also nationally. Democrats just don't have what it takes to "go for the jugular". That's why they continue to be accused of being "soft on terrorism", "don't support the troops", "unpatriotic"........ I don't know who this clown is advising Mr. Bates but he obviously is still cleaning the shit out of his pants because of Rove's visit to Tigard not to long ago. Come on democrats- get a spine and show some courage once and for all!!!

Democrats just don't have what it takes to "go for the jugular".

As an independent, I doubt that Democrats will have much to gain if they resort to thuggery to make up for an absence of political courage and intelligence. Quite possibly many voters who switched to give the Democrats a majority last November voted not only to end the war in Iraq but also to terminate the fascist-like tactics of DeLay and his accomplices. The Nazis won power in Germany through a culture of violence, but in the long term millions of Germans and other Europeans were the losers. Contrary to Vince Lombardi's dictum, winning is not always the only thing. It is how you play the game and what you win that really counts. Or, as a certain biblical saying has it, "What advantage is it to a man if he should gain the world but should lose his soul?"

lestatdelc ---- If you say you disagree with many/most of Gordon Smith's votes and say so as you did in your comment above, that doesn't make you negative.

When people complain about negative attacks they usually mean something more personal: Saying Smith was a lousy Senate President who never did a decent thing in his life some sort of attack on his religion taking a comment he once made out of context and blowing it out of proportion an attack on his family.

There are people who say that over the years they have seen slick Gordon and statesman-like Gordon, and that doesn't strike me as negative. Saying he has never done anything good in his public life would only bring out people saying they admire ----that he did.

The goal should be to consider words carefully and make sure to keep eyes on the prize. Is the prize replacing Smith in the Senate the way Webb replaced Allen, Casey replaced Santorum, McCaskill replaced Talent? Or is the goal to prove that old saw "negative campaigns work"?

It has been said that the difference between longshot and gamble is that in a longshot you know the odds--long odds but you know what the odds are. In a gamble you don't know the odds.

Some people would say that the first of those 2 choices is a longshot (incumbents can be hard to beat) but the second is a gamble (too many people survive really nasty attacks and win).

If people are looking for a civil, common sense, solution-oriented campaign where there is dialogue between voters and candidates, will running nasty ads and reminding people every day for over a year what Gordon Smith US Senate votes someone despises really elect someone to replace him?

Call it a philosophical debate if you wish, but for those of us who believe persuasion is more effective than coercion, stating the affirmative ("electing a Democrat to the US Senate from Oregon could bring the following benefits..." ) is preferable to a dump Gordon movement.

And there are some who think nastiness is a sign of a campaign which thinks it is losing. And in the case of George Allen's Macaca remark, that turned out to be true.

"It would be a mistake for us to cripple the Democratic-Primary victor—whoever that may be—with negative campaigning. That means we all use a little restraint in name calling while we advocate for our favorite flavor. " Sounds smart to me!

Here is something to think about. How many of you know anyone who ever voted for Gordon Smith? If so, how would you discuss with them what it would take for them to look at an alternative?

I had such a conversation recently. It took the turn of "is the Gordon Smith we see now days the same person elected in 1996? Do we see him as often in person? Does he do vote explanations, or in-person town hall meetings where he is in the same room with ordinary voters rather than being on television?"

With all the theoretical debate here, the above paragraph might be something to ponder.

I voted for Smith and I've voted for Bates. I don't know or understand Novick. I do know and understand Dr. Bates. I disagree w/many of his paternalistic leanings as a state legislator, but would consider him over Smith in a head to head campaign.

Smith is master of the negative. Look at his previous campaigns. He trashed Bradbury last time out and won by a landslide. Since when, don't negative campaigns work, especially if you want to suppress the turnout of your opponents supporters.

"What advantage is it to a man if he should gain the world but should lose his soul?"

What profits it anyone to support someone who loses the election because they are uncomfortable attacking their opponent.

All you have to do is look at John Kerry to understand what happens when you have a candidate who spends their time defending themselves instead of counter-attacking. The Republicans understand they aren't involved in an intellectual discussion or debate and make use of whatever weapons they have available to them. There are several thousand dead American soldiers and several hundred thousand Iraqi's who wish Kerry and Gore had worried a little less about their "soul" and a little more about winning the elections.

There are several thousand dead American soldiers and several hundred thousand Iraqi's who wish Kerry and Gore had worried a little less about their "soul" and a little more about winning the elections.

This is one of the more ludicrous statements in this thread. Gore and Kerry sold their "souls" a long time before they ran for president. One of several possible examples for each:

Gore: When Gore was vice president, he was prepared to sell Elian Gonzales down the Miami River instead of returning him to his father to get the "Cuban" vote.

Kerry: A recent article on Boston.com reported that the reason Kerry voted for the war was that he was advised that he would have to do so if he wanted to become president. So to become president he was willing to sacrifice how many thousands of lives?

Both: If anyone was paying attention to their statements while running for president, it was obvious they were trimming their political sails according to the way the winds blew from focus groups. Where were their "souls" then?

There are several thousand dead American soldiers and several hundred thousand Iraqi's who wish Kerry and Gore had worried a little less about their "soul" and a little more about winning the elections.

This is one of the more ludicrous statements in this thread. Gore and Kerry sold their "souls" a long time before they ran for president. One of several possible examples for each:

Gore: When Gore was vice president, he was prepared to sell Elian Gonzales down the Miami River instead of returning him to his father to get the "Cuban" vote.

Kerry: A recent article on Boston.com reported that the reason Kerry voted for the war was that he was advised that he would have to do so if he wanted to become president. So to become president he was willing to sacrifice how many thousands of lives?

Both: If anyone was paying attention to their statements while running for president, it was obvious they were trimming their political sails according to the way the winds blew from focus groups. Where were their "souls" then?

I do know Senator Bates, before he ran for offfice. He was my physician. Full disclosure, I literally trusted him with my life. So yes I do have a very special place in my thoughts and heart for him. Personally I do hold him in very high regard. As an elected Representative and then as Senator, he's worked very hard to represent his constituency honestly. He has shown the spine and gumption to stand up for what he's fighting for. At the same time he's shown the class and character to do so while staying focused on the goal and not participating in negative attacks. So far he's done an outstanding job for all Oregonians. We would do very well to have him as our U.S. Senator. I truly hope he does decide to run against Gordon Smith. Unfortunately I don't know Steve Novick personally. I've heard and read a lot of good things about him. I would confidently support him in a run against Gordon Smith, if Senator Bates is not the candidate. I feel like it's a given that the Smith campaign will eventually go "negative" against any opponent. That's the stock and trade of the R's it seems. In my view negative campaigning is disgusting and decietful. There's always more than enough on the table to debate without resorting to manipulating the truth, misinformation and deciet about an opponents private life.

Where were their "souls" then?

You are mistaking not following your religious beliefs for not following their own.

At the same time he's shown the class and character to do so while staying focused on the goal and not participating in negative attacks.

There you go, class and character. Are those things that are rewarded with victory in an election? Gore showed a lot of class and character in Florida. Kerry showed a lot by not going after the Bush and the National Guard as a bunch of draft dodgers during the Vietnam war and letting Bush deny responsibility for the swift boaters. Class and character were more important than winning. And the price of losing was largely paid by others.

Of course Oregon Democrats should call Smith to account. Otherwise this will just be another beauty contest and the guy with better hair and more name recognition will win.

"Going negative" with ad hominem attacks or lies (viz. the Swift Boating of John Kerry) is despicable, but calling attention to the voting record and the inconsistencies of your opponent is 100% legitimate.

You are mistaking not following your religious beliefs for not following their own.

I'm not sure what the preceding means, but for the record I don't have any religious beliefs. "Soul" is not exclusively a religious term. At the same time I doubt that many politicians have one.

"It could mean you're attacking a candidate on his record, where he's getting his money from, on big ethical problems, etc. You can be absolutely truthful and still go negative."

It all depends on one's view of "negative". One of the best ads I ever saw in print was an underdog legislative candidate running against a member of legislative leadership. It showed the candidate running in athletic gear (as in a race) with the caption "Why is this man running?". It then said "He is running because he doesn't like the way the incumbent has voted on................." The rest of the ad was a list of those things. (BTW, that underdog cut the legislative leader's previous victory margin in half, with very little organizational or financial support.)

I don't believe that is negative. Also, I think people are looking to vote for candidates who say "If I am elected I will...".

There have been candidates who used their time in the spotlight (major newspaper or broadcast interview) to say why they disliked the incumbent. They were given so many column inches or so many minutes, and the challenger mentioned the incumbent's name several times. How did that give the people who may never have seen/ heard of the challenger before any reason to vote FOR the challenger? Famously, a couple of legislators running for higher office not only lost their campaigns, but volunteers looked at that publicity for the challenger and complained to campaign staff, decided to volunteer on another campaign, etc.

Decision has to be made--which is more important: Expressing anger at Gordon Smith Electing someone to replace Gordon Smith?

If the latter, then the smart candidate would say "I wouldn't have voted for____ but instead would have voted for the ---proposal which I think was a better idea".

That shows a contrast without giving the incumbent unmerited publicity.

Congratulations to Kathy Shaw and Alan Bates for taking a stance on negative campaigning. They did it in Sen. Bates last election, and I respect them for it.
The Democratic Establishment in this State -- labor, the trial lawyers, the OEA and a few large well-meaning individual business contribuors -- can identify what they are against, but they don't want to talk about how to solve our real problems, and they don't want to solve them when it comes right down to it. They are more concerned with how to win elections, and defending what power they do have, than what to do to solve problems -- health care, funding education, a deteriorating environment, etc. This is how the Democratic Establishment, and its campaign consultants and pollsters, justifies negative and personal attacks on opponents (see Brading/Karen Minnis) -- it's basically a defense of the status quo involving their power positions. I would love to see someone run for the U.S. Senate in Oregon without simply being against the other candidate, no matter how odious the opponent's record is, and in Gordon Smith's case, it's pretty odious. We could build a responsive democracy around principles and solutions. How refreshing would that be? What a change from adversarial posturing and demonizing the opponent to gain advantage. The Republicans will never take this high road -- we progressives must learn to stake our claim on a democracy that really works to solve our problems, one that focuses on our platform and is not so controlled by the special interest lobby and their campaign money (most of which comes in for the Republicans but which we progressives have not learned to live without). It's a sea change, a signficant shift in direction, and Bates and Shaw seem determined to start by eschewing negative campaigning. It's a good first step. What sayest thou candidate Novick, from your career as one of these campaign consultants? Can you lift your sight beyond winning at all cost, including the absence of personal attacks, so-called negative campaigning? Your latest press release in this blog cites all these individual contributions. Are you going to eschew PAC money too? Are you more than just a smart and clever combatant, more than just a brilliant, highly verbal spinmeister? Or were your recent efforts against campaign finance reform just a logical step on the ladder to this campaign, a work mostly of self-interest as a consultant and candidate?

<hr/>