Smith '08: DSCC Recruitment Murmurs
Kari Chisholm
Willamette Week reports that the DSCC continues to recruit candidates to run against Gordon Smith.
The Senate Democratic Campaign Committee is twisting the arms of several Oregonians in its hunt for a D other than Steve Novick with the cojones to take on U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) in 2008.On that list: retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak of Lake Oswego, state Treasurer Randall Edwards and Portland developer John Russell.
McPeak has told WW he has no interest in elected office. ("I don't suffer idiots," he said.) Edwards has repeatedly said he's not running. Russell confirms he was tapped but isn't exactly charging out of the gate. "I was hesitant to even call you back,'' Russell tells Murmurs.
This group has some interesting pedigrees.
* Tony McPeak was Oregon chairman of Bob Dole for President in 1996, Oregon chairman of Oregon Veterans for Bush in 2000, an adviser to Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004, and is now an adviser to Barack Obama. See Wikipedia for more.
* Randall Edwards was once an aide to Senator Bob Packwood - and his wife, Julia Brim-Edwards, used to be a GOP campaign consultant. Other than that, he's been a reliable, though somewhat moderate, Democrat in the state legislature and in the State Treasurer's office. He's termed out in 2008 from the Treasurer's office, so a campaign may be in the offing.
* John Russell has never held elective office, though he was once the chairman of the PDC. He is presumably a self-funder: He's donated over $160,000 to federal campaign committees since 1996 - exclusively to Democrats. Here in Oregon, Russell and his company donated $25,000 to Ted Kulongoski, $5000 to Ben Westlund, and $5000 to Ron Saxton in 2006. (Sources: here, here, and here.) In 2002, he donated $4000 to Ron Saxton.
I find it hard to believe that this is the full list of folks that they're considering. Hopefully, they'll take a strong look at some of the progressive leaders in the Oregon Legislature. There's a bunch of talent and they're getting things done for Oregonians.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
5:59 a.m.
Jun 1, '07
Oh please God let it be Russell! The list of backroom property deals he has pulled off may even dwarf those of Sen. Betsy Johnson.
yip yip
Jun 1, '07
I'm tan, ready and rested. Plus I could use a job with good health insurance.
7:15 a.m.
Jun 1, '07
McPeak is smart. After all he's a graduate of Grants Pass High School.
Governor Kulongoski's statement in the big "O" this morning sounds like he knows there are more people considering a run against Smith. I look for a couple surprises.
Jun 1, '07
"Willamette Week reports that the DSCC continues to recruit candidates to run against Gordon Smith."
How pathetic has the DSCC and the desiccated leadership of the party become?
"Hopefully, they'll take a strong look at some of the progressive leaders in the Oregon Legislature. There's a bunch of talent and they're getting things done for Oregonians."
How bizarre. I was just talking with some long time Democrats yesterday what a bunch of uninspired leaders we've managed to send to Salem. To each his own, I suppose. You sound more and more like a fawning syncophant everyday Kari.
9:38 a.m.
Jun 1, '07
Kari,
As of just a couple weeks ago, i agreed with you that a (at most mildly) contentious primary would make Steve Novick a better candidate.
The more i hear from him, and about him, though, the more i think that he's the candidate. i'm already backing him, but i'm still thinking that (in some ways) a challenged primary DOES provide a candidate more legitimacy going into the general. However, in terms of financial resources, a primary could be devastating.
If Novick had a "war chest" the size of Smith's, i'd say "bring it on," to any number of candidates for Steve to beat in the primary. As it is, though, a very contentious primary could be very bad and could help re-elect a vulnerable Republican Senator, from a Blue state, in a Presidential election year. That would be bad for the state and bad for the country. We need to strengthen our position in the US Senate and i'm not sure the (dubious) value of a contested primary is worth risking that on.
On a related note, the DSCC needs to stay out of meddling in local affairs until the primary is over and a candidate has been selected. Steve can, and will, win this primary (handily) on his own.
Jun 1, '07
Russell would have a hard row to how even if he is the greatest candidate ever:
a)"$5000 to Ron Saxton in 2006. (Sources: here, here, and here.) In 2002, he donated $4000 to Ron Saxton. " has the man no sense?
b)almost as unknown as Tom Bruggere was in 1996
c) Did DSCC learn nothing from 1996 when every DSCC "Kerrey Millionaire" lost either the primary or the general? Would people offended by the shallowness of the 1996 campaign say "the DSCC wants me to support this guy, therefore I won't ask any questions?". I doubt it. Gordon won in 1996 in part because "whatever you think of Gordon he has a voting record and this other guy refuses to say where he stands on legislation". How would 2008 be different?
Novick would not allow the press to do the idiotic things done in 1996 (one famous national reporter said, in April,1996, "and in Oregon the chosen candidate is Tom Bruggere").
Love Gen. McPeak but can't see him give up his freedom to speak freely in order to run for office.
Jun 1, '07
Even with the financial considerations, a contested primary would be a good thing. The free press attention, seasoning as a campaigner, and building up of donor lists would more than make up for the costs of a primary race in dollars as well as momentum. If Novick cruises through an uncontested primary, he'll end up in November 2008 as still underfunded and unknown by most Oregonians. A contested primary is bad is if (1) there is already a top-tier, well-known candidate, maybe the incumbent, who doesn't need the free attention and experience of a primary race and who gets hammered and ends up as a battered primary winner, or (2) the party remains internally split in the general as a result of a tough primary.
Jun 1, '07
Thanks ph.
"(2) the party remains internally split in the general as a result of a tough primary."
can be prevented by an agreement in advance that (as apparently Al Franken and his primary opponent have done) the primary will not get nasty (as the 1992 US Senate primary was). A primary such as the 2006 2nd Cong. Dist. primary, where concentration is on the issues, would do this state a world of good as there haven't been that many serious debates on federal issues recently.
10:14 a.m.
Jun 1, '07
Love Gen. McPeak but can't see him give up his freedom to speak freely in order to run for office.
LT, McPeak has all the freedom to speak freely that he wants. He's retired. That's why he's able to endorse candidates at all.
Jun 1, '07
I find it hard to believe that this is the full list of folks that they're considering. Hopefully, they'll take a strong look at some of the progressive leaders in the Oregon Legislature.
I don't find it hard to believe that the DSCC people are looking at these conservatives and doubt that they will look at anyone with progressive credentials. It has been that way for a very long time. If I recall correctly Chuck Schumer and the DSCC supported conservative candidates in 2006 and they all lost. Looks like they never learned anything from that experience. Perhaps they figured Tony McPeak would draw money and support from the military-industrial complex. So, inside the Washington Beltway, what's the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Hang in there, Steve. Some of us independents and independent thinkers will stick with you regardless of your party's indifference or rejection.
10:29 a.m.
Jun 1, '07
Anon wrote, How bizarre. I was just talking with some long time Democrats yesterday what a bunch of uninspired leaders we've managed to send to Salem. To each his own, I suppose. You sound more and more like a fawning syncophant everyday Kari.
Are you kidding me? Have you even been paying attention to what's been happening down there? The Dems are nearly done accomplishing the entire Roadmap -- fulfilling the promises they set out to do.
Listen, I know there's lots of pent-up demand, but the damn Republicans took 16 years to screw things up - it's going to take longer than one session to fix things.
Sure, there are big things that I wish we could do right now (corporate tax reform, full marriage equality, universal health care, etc.) but most of those things require votes from Republicans or constitutional amendments.
They've gone after the low-hanging fruit, and they're hitting their marks. This is the best legislative session in decades for progressives.
10:29 a.m.
Jun 1, '07
In my more Machiavellian moments, I imagine a scenario like this: General McPeak decides to jump into the race as a "rabbit" (in long-distance running, the guy who goes out to set a pace that's too fast, drawing the competition to follow him and allowing a buddy to pace himself and swoop in and win) and spends the rest of 2007 absolutely battering Smith on his foreign policy choices. Round about Christmas, he decides he's suffered the idiots long enough and steps out of the campaign. Edwards/Novick now run against a wounded incumbent, nipping him in November.
Of course, this kind of thing never happens, right?
12:00 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Except Jeff, I think Gore tossing his hat in the ring upsets the front part of that plan. Not that Gore on the presidential end of the ticket works against Novick on the Senatorial side of the ticket (quite the contrary) but this far out, I think there are way too many variables to make any solid predictions.
That said, I think McPeak as a stalking horse is an interesting notion, but I don't see it happening. I think his DUI alone as shut off any serious potential he has to elected office, even as a "rabbit" as you call it.
12:12 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
If I recall correctly Chuck Schumer and the DSCC supported conservative candidates in 2006 and they all lost. Looks like they never learned anything from that experience.
Bill, what on earth are you talking about?
It's ONLY been seven months since the election. Have you already forgoten that Sen. Schumer and the DSCC successfully picked up SIX seats by defeating six out of seven targeted Republicans. And of those six my guess is that newly elected Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb, John Tester, Claire McCaskill and Sheldon Whitehouse would take great offense to you describing them as "convservatives"
Whacko lefties? No. Conservatives? No. Mainstream Democrats who care about working families? Absolutely!
12:58 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Jon, IIRC Tester beat out the DSCC's candidate in the primary; Webb was drafted by the people of Virginia and DSCC was mighty late to that party; and I'm not sure they had a hand in Whitehouse either (but don't quote me). Schumer did pick Brown, I know, because they rudely pushed Paul Hackett to the side to get Brown in there.
Maybe Bill was thinking about the D-Trip and Rahm Emanuel.
1:33 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Torrid,
However these candidates became the Democratic nominee, the fact is the DSCC spent millions of dollars and thousands of staff hours helping them win their respective races. Its simply not true that Schumer and the DSCC lost most of their races or preferred conservative Democrats over progressive Democrats.
2:10 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
we have Howard Dean and the 50-State Plan to thank far more than the DSCC for last year. the Beltway Dems fought and tried to humiliate Dean from the moment he became chair of the DNC, and they failed badly. they still resent him -- they really want to be the national power -- but even Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel are getting the message that it's Dean who knows what's going on and how to win.
it's no coincidence that the DC Dems got their asses kicked more and more until Dean took over the DNC. without him, it's likely the Rs would still have the Senate. because when we talk about Dean, we're not talking one person or centralized power. we talking the growing, activist Democratic grassroots base -- the real architects of the 2006 victory.
2:13 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
"Its simply not true that Schumer and the DSCC lost most of their races or preferred conservative Democrats over progressive Democrats."
I'd agree with the first part; not so sure about the 2nd.
Jun 1, '07
"Hopefully, they'll take a strong look at some of the progressive leaders in the Oregon Legislature."
How about Ben Westlund -- an Eastern Oregonian with a good progressive record that will appeal to the Westsiders.
Jun 1, '07
Don't discount the possibility that Oregon Repugs will oust Smith in the primary and nominate some extreme right-wing nutjob who's more to their taste. They're furious at Smith for supporting the Bush immigration "reform" (aka "amnesty") bill.
Jun 1, '07
Let us hope that the DSCC doesn't make the mistake they did in '96 under Bob Kerrey; recruiting a bunch of rich white guys who lost. Tom Bruggere (Kerrey's pal, as well as Goldschmidt's) came the closest of any of them, and he lost by three points to Smith. Even though CLinton won re-election by ten points, we lost three senate seats.
4:08 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
TJ, I know the DSCC was all in on Ford's losing bid. You are correctly pointing out that Webb and Tester were not DSCC recruited candidates, but rather grassroots candidates. I also agree that much of the D-trips efforts are inaccurately casting a larger shadow over the DSCC's efforts. Rahm's failed efforts like Duckworth but one of the most glaring examples.
IN short, I think you are nailing it.
4:13 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
I seriously doubt that. Smith is their ONLY statewide elected official in over a decade, and one which has a track-record of winning elections statewide. Don't get me wrong, I would love for them to primary out Smith and nominate a true mouth-breathing Lon May-Be-One.. er... Mabon type. That would allow the Dems to win it in a walk regardless of who they put up and let the DSCC allocate more money to other races that could be pick-ups.
Jun 1, '07
This article by David Sirota at the time of the 2006 elections is one that I had in mind when I made my comment above about Chuck Schumer. Another article indicated that Jon Tester was not Schumer's first choice for Montana.
Jon, IIRC Tester beat out the DSCC's candidate in the primary; Webb was drafted by the people of Virginia and DSCC was mighty late to that party;...
"... late to the party ..." Wasn't that after George Allen's macaca moment? Prior to which Schumer and the DSCC didn't think Webb was worth their support.
Jun 1, '07
There is another reason I don't trust Chuck Schumer. He voted for the war on Iraq.
Jun 1, '07
I still think you should recruit Betsy Johnson - If she serves Oregon half as well as she serves herself, she's got my vote! You should realize once DeFazio dropped, you have no credible contender and I am not a SMith fan.
Jun 1, '07
Probably the most disappointing update on the 08 Senate race so far. These are the candidates the DSCC is attempting to recruit?
These are all Republican-lite candidates! How many times does the DSCC have to repeat the same mistake? As it's been noted already, this kind of tactic hasn't work and it won't work in 2008. Let's elect a real people-powered progressive, not former Republican staffers who were bribed with DSCC money.
Note to DSCC--America is tired of Republicans, that's why we're in the Majority now. Let's not throw more at them.
Jun 1, '07
Sure, there are big things that I wish we could do right now (corporate tax reform, full marriage equality, universal health care, etc.) but most of those things require votes from Republicans or constitutional amendments.
They've gone after the low-hanging fruit, and they're hitting their marks. This is the best legislative session in decades for progressives.
Frankly Kari, given the objective potential based just on the numbers alone, that is the height of rationalization for a session of really minimal accomplishment. One really can't help but wonder, though, about why all the folks I hear singing this song could view the Democratic leaders responsible for this failure to excel as anything but mediocre. That may be at the heart of the reason we are not winning back the hearts and minds of the people in this state and across the country.
I'm not affiliated with the Novick campaign, and I don't agree with him every point of his platform (that may be in part because he is still shaping his message). But unless and until he comes out with an unquestionably "unprogressive" position on some issue, I don't see any reason to not get behind him. Particularly since the odds are that the folks being "recruited" are being recruted for all the wrong reasons. I say it's getting very close to the time for all those "leaders" that you inexplicably seem to feel have done so well to demonstrate more leadership than I think they have this entire session --- and possibly in their entire political careers --- by starting to works to raise funds and build support for Novick amongst all the constituencies he will need to beat Smith. Loyalty, properly given to those who deserve it, is one of the most powerful and important characteristics of a leader.
Jun 2, '07
Anon, if you like Novick, then knock yourself out supporting him. But there are those of us who look at the calendar and see it is June 2007, so there is plenty of time for other candidates to emerge.
Count me in the "virtures of a positive contested primary" camp. And I believe that if Alan Bates or some other legislator or other elected official known to politically active Oregonians (as opposed to some darling of the DSCC with few Oregon political connections), would contribute to the campaign, then if Steve Novick is the strong candidates his friends say he is, by this time next year we will have a nominee named Novick.
It may be that some Republican or independent / 3rd party candidate runs also.
There are only 2 attitudes which I think could hamper Democratic chances to replace Gordon Smith: a) "Trust the DSCC--they know better than Oregon registered voters who should be the nominee for US Senate " (how many Paul Hackett supporters have begun to forgive DSCC by now?)
b) "True Democrats support Novick for Senate and don't want anyone else to run".
It may come as a shock, but we can't know this far in advance who the primary electorate will be. Between now and next March or April, young people will turn 18, there could be people who move into Oregon and register Dem, or there may be some NAV so attracted to a Senate candidate that they register with a party.
Colin said this "DSCC needs to stay out of meddling in local affairs until the primary is over and a candidate has been selected. Steve can, and will, win this primary (handily) on his own". If Colin is right, then his prediction will come true--whether or not everyone who cares about politics signs up as Novick supporters more than 10 months before the primary.
Some of us would like to see the process unfold over the next several months --no need to make decisions now.
2:21 a.m.
Jun 2, '07
Let us hope that the DSCC doesn't make the mistake they did in '96 under Bob Kerrey; recruiting a bunch of rich white guys who lost.
Well, it's a damn good thing then that the DSCC doesn't have a single person in leadership (staff or senator) that was in leadership in 1996. The letterhead is the same, but that's about it.
Schumer and his team kicked ass in 2006. I'm confident they'll do the same in 2008.
Listen, put yourselves in the DSCC's shoes for a minute. We already know that they're considering a $3-5 million investment in Oregon in 2008. Is there any question that they'd spend 1-2% of that on a recruitment effort?
I love Steve Novick. He's a friend. But if you're going to invest $3-5 million, you're going to want to have examined all the options, exhausted all the possibilities, and made every effort to get the best possible candidate.
We all know that Steve can make it a competitive race, but if the DSCC is going to invest $3-5 million -- well, they're going to look for a candidate that fits a more typical bill: a statewide elected, a congressional, a legislative leader, or a millionaire self-funder. Steve is none of the above.
Jesse B wrote, Probably the most disappointing update on the 08 Senate race so far. These are the candidates the DSCC is attempting to recruit?
Um, not to overstate the obvious, but it's worth pointing out that these are the candidates that WW believes that the DSCC is recruiting. This was a WW Murmur, not a DSCC press release. Maybe WW is right, and maybe they're not.
5:32 a.m.
Jun 2, '07
but if the DSCC is going to invest $3-5 million...
Maybe they should let Oregonians decide who we want our candidate from --and for-- Oregon to be?
And then support that candidate.
Jun 2, '07
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Jun 1, 2007 6:26:19 PM
There is another reason I don't trust Chuck Schumer. He voted for the war on Iraq.
That is the most ridiculous comment I ever read. Let us not forget The motive behind the Iraq War was related to 9-11- which affected mostly the residents of NYC metro area. 9-11 made Bush popular. Members of Congress in both parties were giving Bush a free pass to get away with murder. The media's argument for the Iraq War was to prevent another 9-11. Remove a government that has alleged ties with terrorism. Democratic members of Congress who did not want to be percieved weak on national security no choice to support this war.
The biggest mistake Schumer and other Democratic members of Congress made was not challenging Bush's credibility.
The biggest question I would ask is how would Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have voted on the Iraq War Resolution.
10:36 a.m.
Jun 2, '07
Gunslingers are (appropriately) dazzled by the idea that millions of dollars seem destined for an Oregon race. After all, money, in the current system, is the number one most effective tool for winning.
These elected DSCC guys, however, are wearing two hats at the same time and it makes 'em look like clowns at the very least.
As allegedly progressive legislators their primary duty is to act in the interests of "We the People." As party ops they're to get more Dems elected. This puts them in the position of having to ignore the basic logic of sound gummint while they go all out to raise cash from people and organizations that they should be opposing.
<hr/>I got a call from some poor unsuspecting phone bank DSCC employee last week, and she got a diatribe from me.
I have my own dilemma. On the one hand I want to get more Dems elected, but what's the point if they continue to totally ignore corporate malfeance, the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, the virtual evsiceration of the Bill of Rights, election theft (through caging, crooked ballot counting machines and some timely help from a justice department riddled with cronyism and patronage), the myth of Free Trade, toadying to K street on the issues of lobby reform, toadying to the auto industry on fuel efficiency standards, and on and on.
There are some ethical (if mostly clueless) Dem legislators, but few are to be found in the leadership of the DSCC.
Jun 2, '07
"... late to the party ..." Wasn't that after George Allen's macaca moment? Prior to which Schumer and the DSCC didn't think Webb was worth their support.
Webb was the political establishment's favorite against fellow Democrat Hal Miller who pumped a million of his own into that primary. From Webb's primary win coverage (Washington Post 6/14/2006): "It was just that contrast that national Democratic leaders hoped to stoke. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Webb made a powerful connection with voters. 'He's an original, and that makes a difference to people,' Schumer said after Webb's victory."
Jun 2, '07
There is another reason I don't trust Chuck Schumer. He voted for the war on Iraq.
That is the most ridiculous comment I ever read.
Really?
(a) A bunch of neocons from the Project for the New American Century wrote a letter to President Clinton proposing war against Saddam Hussein. The letter was dated January 26, 1998 - more than four years before 9/11.
(b) Paul O'Neill, Bush's first secretary of the treasury, revealed in the book, "The Price of Loyalty," that in a cabinet meeting ten days after Bush's first inauguration in January 2001, ten months before 9/11, Bush was fixated on going after Saddam Hussein.
(c) The neocons who signed the aforementioned letter became part of the Bush administration and leading proponents for war. Donald Rumsfeld, a signatory to that warmongering letter, became secretary for war. (Robert Zoellick, another signatory, has now been nominated by Bush to run the World Bank.) One of those neocons and a primary architect of this war, Richard Perle, even admitted the war on Iraq was illegal.
(d) The links between Saddam Hussen and al-Qaeda and 9/11 have been thoroughly refuted and even admitted to as fiction by some of the pre-war propagandists. They were rejected in the first place by knowledgeable commentators on the Middle East. See Bill Moyers on Buying the War.
One of the great mysteries in this era of the information age is how people can still believe the lies and distortions that got us into this war despite the abundance of evidence contradicting them. Perhaps, Mr. Patel can shed some light on this issue if he can tear himself away from listening to Limbaugh, Coulter and their ilk and watching Faux News.
Jun 2, '07
Wasn't McPeak a Republican?
11:26 a.m.
Jun 2, '07
Simple question: why? What's the inherent value of "typical," and isn't there a significant chance that the better choice might be atypical instead?
My point is, maybe the DSCC should be looking to invest 3-5mil on a candidate who exemplifies the party platform and has the personal characteristics to win, rather than the milquetoast with the nice resume'.
I don't mean that they should not continue seeking candidates, but the idea that it's only smart or worthwhile to invest in the safe candidate bothers me.
2:37 p.m.
Jun 2, '07
McPeak was an independent, like most military officers. As mentioned in the post, he was the state chairman of Bob Dole '96 and of Oregon Veterans for George W. Bush.
2:45 p.m.
Jun 2, '07
My point is, maybe the DSCC should be looking to invest 3-5mil on a candidate who exemplifies the party platform and has the personal characteristics to win, rather than the milquetoast with the nice resume'.
Absolutely. Agreed. 100%.
If the candidate is another Tom Bruggere milquetoast with a nice resume, forget it.
But, as Tony Blair would say, I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago:
Um, not to overstate the obvious, but it's worth pointing out that these are the candidates that WW believes that the DSCC is recruiting. This was a WW Murmur, not a DSCC press release. Maybe WW is right, and maybe they're not.
I suspect the DSCC would rather avoid a milquetoast with a nice resume, too.
And finally, to Frank Dufay's question: Maybe they should let Oregonians decide who we want our candidate from --and for-- Oregon to be? And then support that candidate.
Well, yeah, but that's not how the world works -- and it'd be silly to expect it to work that way. The people that are the closest, day to day, to the real-life impact of a majority in the Senate are the Senators themselves.
So, no surprise, they're kinda interested in making sure they keep that majority. As we tell our pro-life friends, the "prayer method" isn't very effective. They've got limited funds to invest... and they're going to attempt to get the most for their money. So, no duh, they're going to attempt to recruit the best candidate.
Keep in mind - they don't have some kind of restricted budget that forces them to spend $3-5 million in Oregon. If they don't think the nominee is within striking distance, they'll shift resources elsewhere.
All this DSCC bashing is silly. If you want to beat Gordon Smith, we're going to need some $7-8 million bucks to do it. And it's simply not possible to raise that much cash in Oregon.
We're all on the same team here. We want to beat Gordon Smith. And we want a great US Senator. Ultimately, Oregon Democrats will decide who the candidate is -- that's what elections are for. But to suggest that the DSCC ought to go away is to ignore reality.
2:50 p.m.
Jun 2, '07
p.s. You can be damn sure that Steve Novick is doing everything in his power to get the DSCC's support. Because he's going to need it if he's the nominee.
Jun 2, '07
There is another reason I don't trust Chuck Schumer. He voted for the war on Iraq.
That is the most ridiculous comment I ever read.
Really?
(a) A bunch of neocons from the Project for the New American Century wrote a letter to President Clinton proposing war against Saddam Hussein. The letter was dated January 26, 1998 - more than four years before 9/11.
Their is no question Bush and his Neo Conned Advisors wanted to remove Saddam Hussien- They wanted to take him out in 1991-(First Gulf War).
What I was saying is that 9-11 attacks- which immediately resulted in Bush's popularity gave Bush a rationale of starting the Iraq War. The corporate media was kissing up to Bush and Members of Congress were chicken to question Bush
Democrats like Schumer and Clinton and the Corporate Media are guilty of being gullible and stupid for believing the 9-11/WMD/democray abroad hype to start the Iraq War.
Jun 2, '07
Democrats like Schumer and Clinton and the Corporate Media are guilty of being gullible and stupid for believing the 9-11/WMD/democray abroad hype to start the Iraq War.
That appears to contradict your negative opinion of my earlier point that Schumer's vote for the war was cause to distrust him.
p.s. You can be damn sure that Steve Novick is doing everything in his power to get the DSCC's support. Because he's going to need it if he's the nominee.
Kari: You may be right, but if Novick becomes beholden to Chuck Schumer and the DSCC, then there will be much less of a contrast between what his and Smith's positions will eventually become.
5:47 p.m.
Jun 2, '07
And finally, to Frank Dufay's question: Maybe they should let Oregonians decide who we want our candidate from --and for-- Oregon to be? And then support that candidate.
Well, yeah, but that's not how the world works -- and it'd be silly to expect it to work that way.
Wow. "That's not how the world works."
To run for Mayor of NY, and win, Bloomberg spent $74 million. Do I hear $100 million for the next election? $200 million? That's silly.
When did it all become about the money, anyway?
How "the world works" isn't necessarily how the world should continue to work. I offered to put together a dinner or somesuch for Steve Novick, but they wanted me to bring in a least a thousand bucks. So how's this...
I'll provide the keg of Bridgeport, the Oregon wine, the cheese, the awesome food...you be willing to fork over $25 per for the chance to meet with Steve (who I don't know, but I like what he's saying), and if I can get forty or more committments, I'll find out when he's available and set the date.
Think of it this way. You'll see we really can grow olives in our inner SE neighborhood...and that's just the beginning of what amazing things Oregonians --and Oregon-- can do.
If you may be interested, email me.
Jun 2, '07
Democrats like Schumer and Clinton and the Corporate Media are guilty of being gullible and stupid for believing the 9-11/WMD/democray abroad hype to start the Iraq War.
There are many accusations that can be directed with supporting evidence at "Democrats like Schumer and Clinton and the Corporate Media" but gullibility is certainly not one of them. The politicians (Republicans and Democrats) that voted for the war knew perfectly well what they were doing and did so for political expediency. In other words, to save or boost their political careers they were prepared to go along with a war that has become one of this nation's most monumental blunders. It has been defined as a war crime by authorities versed in international law and with hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and maimed and millions displaces it has evolved into a crime against humanity.
If anyone is looking for gullible people, check the polls that had around 75% of the people originally agreeing to the war and the 30% or less still supporting Bush and the 40% or thereabouts still believing the lies that got this war going in the first place.
12:42 a.m.
Jun 3, '07
When did it all become about the money, anyway?
Yeah, it sucks. It seriously sucks.
Oregon's not going to see a Bloomberg-style candidate, but $4 million is the ante. Gordon Smith already has $5 million, and can personally donate another $5 million anytime he wants.
From now until November 2008, it's going to take $250,000 a month -- $8000 a day.
Jun 3, '07
Um, not to overstate the obvious, but it's worth pointing out that these are the candidates that WW believes that the DSCC is recruiting. This was a WW Murmur, not a DSCC press release. Maybe WW is right, and maybe they're not.
Yeah, I got that when I read the post.
I find it hard to believe that this is the full list of folks that they're considering.
Nonetheless, it's who the WW thinks is on the list, and it's who we're discussing. Being the only information we have makes it no less disappointing in my opinion. It is further evidence that the DSCC continues to actively seek out and support losing, non-Progressive candidates in many primary battles. I find this detrimental to the Progressive, people-powered movement that many are trying to build.
Which to me is disappointing.
11:45 a.m.
Jun 3, '07
It is further evidence that the DSCC continues to actively seek out and support losing, non-Progressive candidates in many primary battles.
Except that that isn't actually true. Setting aside the silly notion that they deliberately seek "losing" candidates - it's not even true that they seek "non-progressive" candidates.
Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, even letting Bernie Sanders (I) run without Democratic opposition.
It's their SUPPORT for strong progressive leaders as candidates that convinces me that this isn't the full list.
<h2>(And please, oh puh-leeze, don't tell me about stuff that happened before Chuck Schumer ran the DSCC. New staff, new leadership is not responsible for ancient history.)</h2>