Editor's note: Apologies to our readers. For the last 105 minutes, we've had a post up here that wasn't quite up to our usual standards. We've corrected it and sorted things out internally.

I love that picture, even though I think it was placed in such a way as to highlight how short Steve is--above the fold of the print version is the top half of that picture, and then when you flip the paper over all you see is the part under the table--with his feet not touching the floor.

Pretty good bio piece. My only other comment would be that--given their equal standing in polling so far--that Bill Lunch might be out to his last name. :)

Man, are we really going to fall for the "genial dumb guy" thing again?

The #1 thing anyone ever writes about Steve (and with few exceptions the #1 thing anyone ever says about him) is how smart he is.

That's just a fact of life (and a good one at that).

And there are all kinds of ways of writing about it. How shocking is it that the Tribune would be a little snarky?

I do not need anyone to tell me how smart Novick or Merkly is or how nice they are. What I want to hear how how their leadership will approach the issues that face Oregon, The United States and the world. I do not care how tall either one of them are or the type of women they keep company with (as long as they stay away from mine). I want to learn why they feel they are the better candidate.

The Portland Trib is evidence why as time passes I rely more and more on good blogs like Blue Oregon and hopefully Wiseass.org (Mitch let me down and I will pummel you)

Fred

I just don't know enough about Steve Novick to know if he's the type of maverick personality that Oregonians will love.

Well, he's traveling around the state meeting people, so check his website and go meet him when he is somewhere near you. My experience is that people's doubts about Steve tend to evaporate after they have met him and talked with him for a couple of minutes, and many of them then become fervent supporters. (I say this based on a house party of 40 people and a lunch of about 20 more.)

Until then, a few adjectives and traits beyond just plain smart: articulate, witty, hardworking, charismatic, compassionate, honest, fearless, empathetic, strategic thinker, devoted to economic justice, confident but not arrogant. Yeah, you'll like him.

Joe Hil,

What comparisons do you see between Novick and Wellstone?

Fred

I'm all for Novick. Totally. Merkely is great and all, but where's the fire in the belly? Now if Novick would only accept some volunteer help....

Kristin.... It's worth noting that Jeff Merkley hasn't even announced his candidacy yet. He filed his paperwork six days ago, but he hasn't given a single speech yet.

He's got plenty of fire in the belly. Don't you worry.

(Full disclosure: I'm working on JeffMerkley.com. I speak only for myself.)

It's not news to anyone here that I am a Novick supporter, but I was taken aback to learn about, and I am really struggling with, that Iraq resolution Merkley voted for.

As it was a purely symbolic non-binding resolution of a state legislature, I can think of only two reasons to vote for it: (1) agreement with what it said; or (2) pandering / fear of the consequences of NOT voting for it.

Neither one of those reasons speaks to me. I'm guessing that I'm fairly typical of the Democratic primary electorate in that way.

If there was another reason for his vote, I think an awful lot of Democrats in Oregon would like to know what that was. I know I would.

Stephanie --

That resolution was created by Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis precisely for the purpose that it's being used now -- to divide Democrats.

At the time they did it, the popularity of the War was tremendously high. In retrospect, it's easy to look at it and say "I would have done something differently." But put yourself in the timeframe. The Democrats suffered big losses in the 2002 elections - and this was just a few months later.

As you note, it was a non-binding meaningless vote. A "yes/no" vote is a simple binary choice. But Jeff Merkley indicated the fullness of his views in his speech:

Colleagues, I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day. Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops.

He made it crystal clear. He wasn't supporting clause 1, about the president's "courage". He was supporting clause 2.

2. Praise the courage, dedication, rofessionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.

Don't fall for this GOP turd.

I get what you're saying, Kari, and if it had been a unanimous vote of the House I would be more inclined to accept that rationale for the vote.

But if five D's were brave enough or contrarian enough, or both, to vote no, well, then, I am inclined to think that something else was probably going on.

I don't doubt - in fact it's obvious - that the resolution was cooked up by Scott and Minnis and the other R's as a trap for the D's. This is a loathsome and all-too-common Republican tactic. And you're right, we shouldn't let them get away with this kind of thing.

But I keep circling back to the fact that five Democrats in the moment DID refuse to let them get away with it! Five Democrats, when tested in this way, refused to stroll into that trap. A couple of them felt a need to place statements into the record explaining their no votes - perfectly understandable under the circumstances - but they didn't pander by voting yes. And I guess what I'm saying is that if you're talking about profiles in courage, this vote was not Jeff Merkley's finest hour.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that his entire career should not be measured by this one vote, that he is a good man with a solid list of achievements. But if Hillary Clinton and other US Senate D's are fair game for their votes enabling the President to pursue this debacle, surely it is not off limits to question why a state legislator would cast a yes vote in this context. After all, Hillary presumably worried that if she voted no and was wrong, she would have been ignoring a grave threat to the safety of the United States. When you're talking about a non-binding symbolic resolution in a state legislature 2700 miles away, it's all politics, and it's only fair to hold people accountable for their choices.

Um, anony... Semantics: On August 1, Jeff Merkley issued a press release and an email announcing that he'd filed the paperwork. He hasn't kicked off his campaign yet.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be organizing my campaign. In a few weeks, I hope you'll join me as we kick off a campaign for new leadership in the U.S. Senate.

The apology above was for a technical glitch. One of our contributors (not an editor) got a bit over-excited about the Novick item in the Tribune, posted the photo, and a raw URL - no text, no discussion, no context. That's not appropriate - at least not on this blog, with our quality standards. You're right about how crappy the post was -- and the relevant individual has been admonished. 'Nuff said.

p.s. Anony... why all the meta-chatter? Take it elsewhere. Start your own blog. Ugh.

I doubt any open minded Portland Public School graduate will base their support in this Senate race on a BS vote on a nothing war resoultion. That would be as narrow minded and foolish as the supporters of Smith for thinking he is a good guy for votiing for the war.

What do I know? I am still upset Wyden did not do more to stop Bush from stealing the Presidentcy in 2000 and I will not even get into how he and the other Democrats that represent Oregon acted the first 18 months after 9/11. I am sure they are as dissapointed in themselves as I am.

Those of you wanting to gut a democrat over the support of the War might get what you want. It just might touch a few more people than you think. Lets move on to another issue that has relevance.

Fred

The article was fine. As an 'underdog' any press is good press for Novick, especially when it includes his amazing biography.

As a supporter of Novick and a fan of Merkley, I am glad Merley joined the race. By beating Merkley (<u>if</u> he beats Merkley), Novick will get the attention and support of the national party money on his terms.

Novick will be the Senator that will lead the fight for progressive causes with a fervor that will give a voice to people who didn't even realize they were lacking a voice in Congress.

The real turd here was the resolution drafted by Scott and Minnis.

And Merkley ate the turd when he voted for it. I don't like to vote for turd eaters.

With all due respect--are you kidding?

Merkley voted for a resolution to demonstrate support for the troops. It was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" piece of crap and everyone knows it.

(Oh and yeah--I'm going to work for the Merkley campaign in a week. I don't speak for the campaign right now--I speak for Carla right now)

I'm vehemently against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was a monumental error. Anyone who supported the invasion was incredibly short sighted and gullible, in my opinion.

Merkley didn't support the invasion and occupation. He wanted to show support for the soldiers and others who were sent there to fight. Those are our people. We're supposed to back them up.

And now--we're all sitting here trying to gaze at Jeff's navel to bitch about it because apparently we all need nits to pick between Merkley and Novick. It's ridiculous and irritating. If he'd voted no..then what? He didn't support the troops and so we can't vote for him for that?

Sorry..but this is a turd of a discussion--and it's not Merkley who is eating it.

Oh yeah...once again..this is just Carla. Not working for Merkley yet and not speaking for the campaign.

ps.ps. Kari... Since when can a contributor simply post a "story" on your blog without passing it first through your ample bowels?

Always. Every single one of our contributors has a password that gives 'em direct access to posting.

and yes, it was a d&mned if you do, d&mned if you don't situation for merkley, but, what, that isn't going to happen ever in the U.S. Senate? yes, it's a small nit to pick, but when it's exemplary of all the nits that have so many of us lifelong democrats frustrated with our national party, well, maybe it's the nit we all grab on to because it's local and we can.

Just so I understand--casting a vote to support the people who are about to put themselves in front of gunfire and bombs because they're ordered to is a "rolling over"? Cuz honestly, that's the premise on which the above comment appears to be based.

Senators are asked to cast votes on legislation with lots of stuff in it all the time. Sometimes they vote on the legislation based on the overall piece--even if there are sentences or sections with which they disagree.

The FISA vote this weekend was "rolling over". In fact Feinstein should be run out of California on a rail, in my opinion. But voting to support the people whose job it is to take a bomb or a gunshot even though there's a sentence about what a great guy Bush is--c'mon.

Again, this is the kind of picking over nits that's petty--especially when there are substantive issues we could be hashing. Like how to get out of Iraq. And trade. And poverty. And health care.

CAN people have this kind of discussion? Sure. Does it do anything to give us an insight into the individuals running for Senate? Not really.

Let's look for a moment at the text of the resolution:

Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;

and

Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;

and

Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:

That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:

(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President′s cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power;

and

(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

As for the arguments:

stop repeating and reinforcing Republican talking points.

WADR, verasoie, I'm not the one repeating and reinforcing Republican talking points. It was you who said:

Yep, that was the choice, vote for Bush's courage, or against the troops.

Again, WADR, you have swallowed and regurgitated the Republican talking points very succinctly. My whole point is that binary thinking of that kind was a trap laid by the Republicans, but it was a trap that five Democrats were smart / contrarian / brave / confident / whatever enough to avoid walking into. For whatever reason, Jeff Merkley was not one of them.

you're just carrying the Republican's [sic] water for them if you blame him for his response--- by design, there was no winning choice here.

Please reread the text of the resolution. I am not blaming anyone. I am simply saying, of course there was a choice. Five members of the legislature saw it and took it. Lots of them didn't. One of those was Jeff Merkley. I have not said that he as a human being was bad, cowardly, craven, weak, foolish, or any of those things. It is, however, my personal view that his VOTE was all of those things.

Good people sometimes make bad choices in life. When those people are politicians, they can and should be called to account for their choices.

Carla says:

It was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" piece of crap and everyone knows it.

Carla and I are in full agreement here. She acknowledges that the resolution was a trap, and a particularly nasty one, as do I.

But let's look again for a moment at the text of the resolution, especially the preambles.

Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;

and

Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;

and

Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,

That's not about the troops. Only 28 words in that resolution were about the troops. Nothing was stopping the Democrats from proposing their own resolution saluting the courage and gallantry of the troops while avoiding slavish sycophancy to the President's delusions and lies. But that didn't happen. Remind me, who was the Democratic leader then?

This is a very strange political year, and will either be, or will spectacularly fail to be, a transition in national politics. If it is a moment of transition, Steve Novick's message will defy conventional wisdom and resonate in rural Oregon. Despite what Bill Lunch says, Novick's positions aren't extreme by historical standards. Were this 1942, he'd be a very mainstream Dem. They are exteme only because the GOP has managed to govern from an unprecedentedly far-right position.

Rural Oregonians have voted for populists before. If this is the transition year some people suspect, they may really appreciate a guy who is visibly not the kind of Mitt Romney candidate (a caricature outwardly and politically) the GOP have offered for a generation. Gordon Smith has had the freedom to play populist while governing like a plutocrat. If Oregon is sick of this, Novick will find unexpected support.

I'm pulling for Merkley, but I am quite interested to see what happens with the Novick campaign. It could be an extremely important test of the political mood.

James X's last post did what I was about to do, return to the topic at hand. Thanx, JX. I saw Steve speak at the Washington County Democrats meeting in July, he is REALLY smart, and very engaging, full of fire and a terrific speaker. He has his fact straight, his mission is clear and his target is Slick Gordy. Then he jokes about being the candidate with a "hard left hook!" A very engaging fellow who, if he can stomache the pomp and politics of Washington, would be a great Progressive Senator for Oregon. (Shameless plug: there's a link to his next-day interview with Carl on KPOJ at http://www.washcodems.org/node/255) That said, I would not discount Jeff in any way. Having watched him in seesion many times on Oregon Channel, I thought he might not be particularly personable, but this was because he prefers to do his job and not worry about appearances. He attended the Washington County Democrats Summer Picnic (briefly, as he was suffering from a bad cold) and his presentation to the crowd was full of intelligence, enthusiasm, warmth, sincerity and humor. This is the Jeff Merkeley that Oregon will hopefully get to know as the primariy campaigns heat up. It will be a tough choice for Oregonians, deciding on who will defeat Slick Gordy next year. Based on what I've seen so far, both of them have an edge regarding the issue most of us really care about. The most important thing ANY Dem candidate in the general election should remember is to keep control of topics and not fall prey to Republican misdirection tactics. When you get swift-boated, fire back guns-a-blazing with the facts and show what a creep your opponent is for stooping to smears. That is what will win the respect of voters, and the election.

Stephanie V Nothing was stopping the Democrats from proposing their own resolution saluting the courage and gallantry of the troops while avoiding slavish sycophancy to the President's delusions and lies.

Um, Stephanie, that's not actually correct. Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott were certainly stopping the Democrats from making any sort of bill like that. That's how legislative politics works.

I hate to say this, because you people are generally all on the good-guys side, but judging by the track record established on Blue Oregon about the Kulongoski race, I'd say if you think Steve Novick is going to win, he's going down in a complete landslide.

Rats! I gotta start writing these in a seperate editor and running spell check before I post 'em. I hate typos!

judging by the track record established on Blue Oregon about the Kulongoski race,

Personally, I never partook of any of that, so clearly you are not talking about me. %^>

carla, yes, i would say it was rolling over, for the reasons that stephanie outlined better than i could.

Then frankly Triska--I think you're wrong. Casting a vote in support of soldiers when they're about to go to war (and in some cases give up their lives) isn't rolling over. I find that line of logic to be unreasonable.

Unless an individual is an espoused pacifist (which most Oregonians and Americans aren't, that I'm aware of), taking a stand for those who work for us in this capacity should be supported.

I'm not a lifelong Democrat. In fact--I haven't been a registered Democrat since I moved back to Oregon from Washington in 1996. I'm a registered Independent and a political progressive. I have however supported Democrats in the elections.

But honestly, it's this kind of stuff that really bugs me about party. A guy steps up to do what he thinks is the right thing in a situation where we're going to war and people are going to die..supports them..and that's considered "rolling over".

If calling things as they are doesn't "win you over"--I can't help that or control it. I also can't help if you see my comments as "dismissive". I can only be honest and forthright about what I think and believe..and my perception of what others are saying. And yeah--I think this is nitpicking and unfair. I get that you don't see it that way. But I'm not the only Independent to see it the way that I'm articulating.

While I understand the craving of some to pick this thing to the bone--I don't see how its constructive. And nobody who's engaging in it has demonstrated otherwise.

Casting a vote in support of soldiers when they're about to go to war (and in some cases give up their lives) isn't rolling over.

By itself, no. But by blindly and gratuitously expressing support for the enterprise, one becomes complicit in sending these brave men and women into harm's way for very bad, unworthy reasons.

I have never served in the military, but if I did, I'd sure rather my political leaders did their due diligence (with a healthy dose of skepticism) and debated vigorously the need for war, rather than rubber-stamping the President's rationalizations and then incidentally taking a moment to salute my bravery.

By itself, no. But by blindly and gratuitously expressing support for the enterprise, one becomes complicit in sending these brave men and women into harm's way for very bad, unworthy reasons

And if that's what had happened here, I'd agree with you.

I have never served in the military, but if I did, I'd sure rather my political leaders did their due diligence (with a healthy dose of skepticism) and debated vigorously the need for war, rather than rubber-stamping the President's rationalizations and then incidentally taking a moment to salute my bravery.

I agree. And again--if that's what had happened in this particular case, your point would have merit.

Triska--peace to you. And I'm glad we can agree to disagree.

I guess we will also have to agree to disagree, Carla, because that is certainly how it looks to me. James, I think that language should embarrass everyone who voted for it. It doesn't embarrass the R's, because for the most part they seem to be without shame of any kind. But it sure ought to embarrass every single D.

And although you don't have to believe me, I'm dead certain I would have felt this way if I had heard about that resolution a year or two ago, before ANYBODY (except poor Ty Pettit) was running against Gordon Smith.

Peace to all of us. We'll need it.

"Just so I understand--casting a vote to support the people who are about to put themselves in front of gunfire and bombs because they're ordered to is a "rolling over"? Cuz honestly, that's the premise on which the above comment appears to be based.

Since you asked--yes, it's rolling over. It was not a resolution to support the troops; that's the whole point. It was a sham resolution, and a trap. A yes vote merely validates the parameters of the argument--which in my view is where the mistake was made. Either you disagree with the vote but believe it's a valid choice to make, or you find the choice being offered to be insincere, designed only to score political points later. In neither case is a Yes vote then appropriate, in my opinion.

To be more succinct, what Jeff did was vote "Yes, but..." while Dingfelder and the other four voted "No, because..." To vote Yes lest you be accused of not supporting the troops is exactly the kind of vote I've seen cast in the US Congress, and exactly the kind of vote I do not want to see cast anymore.

That the GOP created a sham bill with no good vote is not the issue. The issue is how Democrats reacted to that sham bill at the time, and why some felt secure enough in their support of the troops to vote no on a sham bill...and most others, Merkley included, did not.

he hasn't given a single speech yet. He's got plenty of fire in the belly. Don't you worry.

Of course he WAS on Nick Fish, with an opportunity to show some of that fire. I didn't see it.

At the time they did it, the popularity of the War was tremendously high. In retrospect, it's easy to look at it and say "I would have done something differently."

In "retrospect" I can say I thought then we should have left the finding --or not-- of weapons of mass destruction to the UN.

In "retrospect" I can say I marched --with millions of people across the globe-- against the folly of this war before it started.

In "retrospect" I can say I already thought George Bush was the worst president in history.

In "retrospect" I can say I thought this war was a disaster in the making.

Jeff Merkley disagreed with my positions above at the start of the war. That's his perogative. I'm no great genius, and neither is he. But at least I wasn't so squirrly to feel the need to show my "support for the troops" by voting support for sending them off on a fool's mission to their destruction.

MILLIONS of Iraqis have fled Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of them are dead. Thousands of our troops are now dead or wounded. We took sympathy for America and its fight against terrorism, and destroyed that. There are consequences to what we do.

Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott may have run a turd up the flagpole, but no one compelled Jeff Merkley to salute it. In fact, not everyone did. But he did. As did a lot of Democrats.

Don't tell me he somehow didn't really "I pray no one get's hurt." Or downplay the significance. And don't tell me he had to. Some people here sound like a fifteen year old caught with a PBR in a paper bag. "I didn't know there was beer in there, I thought it was my homework!"

Don't whine. Don't make excuses. Own up to your mistakes. That's what we should be hearing, not how the resolution was non-binding. And how the bad, bad Republicans forced people's hands. A "trap."

Good grief. What we need in DC is more spine. Not more bullshit.

Among other things, I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth that Merkley acknowledges and has learned a lesson from this mistake, so that if he were to represent all of us in the United States Senate, where the stakes are higher, he would never again cast another lame, craven symbolic vote of this kind.

Because I know Steve Novick wouldn't. (And even if you support Jeff Merkley, in your heart you know that about Steve Novick too.)

Refusing to admit the mistake, rationalizing the vote ... reminds me of Hillary. And not in a good way. At least her excuse was that she had to prove her manhood or something.

Carla: I'm pretty sure Merkley figured nobody would believe he idolizes War Hero Bush, so there was really very little harm in praising the troops here. I think the language is more embarrassing to the GOP that drafted it.

James--Indeed you are correct. Any objective analysis lends itself to that conclusion.

Especially given the monumental effort and genuine success of the previous Oregon House Session--the notion that Merkley is some sort of Iraq War suckup is disingenuous at best.

Anyone who supported the invasion was incredibly short sighted and gullible, in my opinion. Merkley didn't support the invasion and occupation.

I don't know on what basis, Carla, you say that with this vote Merkley didn't "support" the invasion. I don;t know on what basis you can say he didn;t support the line --and lie-- that "Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction."

Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;

and

Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;

and

Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,

This resolution supports the rationale for the invasion, and, consequuntly, the invasion.

I'll repeat...I'll vote for Merkley in a heartbeat over Smith should he win the primary. But as I think I've consistently said here on Blue Oregon, Democrats hurt their ability to call bullshit on this war --and their credibility overall-- by rejecting the high road of truthfulness...for political expediency and opportunism and doing finger-in-the-air polling, instead of providing solid leadership.

The first time I saw Steve Novick was at the Willamette Week/Bus Porject campaign event. I didn't know he was short, or had a hook...but he was a Smith attack machine. That --I believe-- is what it's going to take to take Smith down.

You can't attack Smith on the war effectively if you weren't clearly against the war. And the war, in Bend and Seaside and Tualatin and Hermiston, is going to play a huge role in this next election if democrats are smart enough to turn away from the apologists and flip-floppers and put forward their men and women of principle for elective office.

I have to take some responsibility for that change in focus, as I scroll back through all the comments. Steve truly is an amazing guy and we are very fortunate that a man of his caliber is willing to put himself out there with only grassroots / netroots support, because he cares so passionately about Oregon and bringing our national government into better alignment with our shared values.

However, we are looking at a primary campaign, and one of the functions of a primary campaign is to help voters distinguish between their available choices. I do think that the discussion above has provided considerable illumination as to one key difference betwen Steve and his primary opponent ... and ultimately, that's what democracy is about.

They are legitimate concerns for a lot of people, and presumably most of the Democratic primary electorate. Long before Steve became a candidate, long before Jeff became a candidate, they made choices that will help illuminate them for us, and enable us to decide what they are really about, and who best represents us and our Democratic values.

<hr/>