Posted by: James X. | Aug 31, 2007 2:04:59 PM Rosenbaum's an interesting endorsement, given the recent controversy.

Can you expand on that, I am not clear on what you are talking about.

Hey, glad you asked! Out in Pendleton/Hermiston, last Sunday's front page had a nice story on Novick out on the hustings, with the headline Novick Impresses.

Is Blue Oregon more a part of a machine than I imagined?

Jeff Merkley just lined up an impressive set of Representatives to support him in the primary. Thats news and the implications should be discussed. Im sure if the Novick campaign had such endorsements they would send out a press release and BlueOregon would put it up for discussion too. The difference is with Jeff's extensive legislative experience he has shown his ability to get things done and garner support for his ideas with other elected officials. If you want someone that knows how to get things done thats Merkley. He knows how to pick his battles and not be marginalized in a legislative body.

then finding this article with a "Join Team Merkely" banner.

Please understand that the advertisements here are PAID sponsors. For quite a few weeks, the Novick campaign had an advertisement running. They're not running ads now, but that's their choice.

Also, I've verified (again) that we're getting notified of any and all news from the Novick campaign. When they make news, we'll report it. Not to worry. Both Steve and his manager have me programmed into their cell phones. They know exactly how to get on BlueOregon.

In short, make news. We'll report it.

Thanks, James. A few notes.

• As a consultant to the campaign, I'm obviously privy to all kinds of things that don't make it into print.

• As a consultant to the campaign, I certainly get their press releases. I also get Novick's press releases. When campaigns make news, we'll publish it here.

• One more time: Please do not assume that I am responsible for every word published here at BlueOregon. Jeff Alworth and Charlie Burr are my co-editors.

• Very, very, very soon, we're going to have a BlueOregon Fellow -- who will be the primary content creator of the "Voice of BlueOregon" news coverage. My wife and I are having a baby this fall; expect BlueOregon to take a major backseat to the wee one.

• Certainly, everyone can make their own judgment as to whether they believe BlueOregon is a credible source for news and opinion. If you don't believe it is, don't read it. Better yet, start a competitor. I'd love that.

p.s. TJ, thanks for the reminder about the East O story. I missed that one.

You know, I did too the first time. Steve linked it and I glossed over that it was a link. Then Jake mentioned it a couple days later.

Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 31, 2007 3:39:28 PM

(scroll)

And that is at all relevant to what you previously posted how BlueNote?

Jeff Merkley certainly is racking up an impressive roster of endorsements. Congratulations.

But where's the passion?

Seriously, where is the passion in the Merkley campaign? Don't offer up some lame excuse about how he has "only" been in the race for a month, etc. That's not relevant. There has been passion bubbling over in the Novick campaign since before Steve announced, and in recent weeks here on BlueO the passion and enthusiasm of Novick supporters has manifested itself countless times and continues to do so.

Maybe it's because Jeff Merkley was at least the 7th choice (by my count, behind DeFazio, Blumenauer, Hooley, Wu, Kate Brown, and Randall Edwards) of the DSCC establishment who recruited him to enter the race for reasons that are still mysterious to some of us. So it's not has if he's got what you would call "fire in the belly," and I don't detect any passion in his campaign so far, and none to speak of in his supporters.

Don't get me wrong -- I sure do see the vehemence, but vehemence is not the same as passion, and despite the vehemence with which his HR2 vote has been defended here, and the general praise for his handling of the speakership, I'm not feeling the love here.

He's a good man and a serviceable establishment candidate. That's fine. But does anyone go to the mat for that? And isn't THAT what we need in November of 2008?

For what it's worth, and it may not be much, but note that Jeff Merkley is the co-chair of the John Edwards for President campaign in Oregon.

(Along with Senator Margaret Carter and attorney Bob Stoll.)

Oh, and on the East O. I don't make it a regular stop, because they've always been a subscribers-only website. Not sure when that changed. I'll be checking in there now. (Or more accurately, our Fellow will be.)

Bluenote sez:If you want people who promise to be "realists" vote for Clinton / Merkley. If you want people who are willing to throw themselves on the grenade of justice rather than kissing corporate ass, choose Novick / Edwards.

Bluenote sez: .........was interested in Mrs. Edwards point about Hillary being potential poison to Dems. I think Hillary could torpedo the Dems in 2008 and I think Merkley has some of the same vulnerabilities.

But to his credit, Bluenote also sez: I freely admit I may be losing my mind..........

So, ok. We can agree on the last point anyway.

Hillary Clinton and her husband completely gave away the store on NAFTA; They appointed Corporatists to oversee Wall Street and the entire energy market was given over to Enron and other Texas buddies; They instituted the laughable "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy for the military; They got every damned insurance weasel in the room for comprehensive healthcare reform thus showing Cheney how it should be done.......and of course she's still weaseling on the whole Iraq deal and has been happy to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper.

Jeff Merkley worked for domestic partnerships; Went up against Big Tobacco to get some Oregon kids insured; Went up against the Safetycrats on the Helmet law repeal; Has called for getting the troops home ASAP; Called for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, and so on.

Get some sleep Bluenote.

How about a Edwards/Merkley ticket or Obama/Merkley.

Kari:

Congrats on the pending addition to your family! Kids can be a lot of fun. It's hard to believe Abby will be starting school next week.

This is a pretty good place to start:

Seriously, where is the passion in the Merkley campaign? Don't offer up some lame excuse about how he has "only" been in the race for a month, etc.

I'd like to share a story. Back in that mid-session continuum, I had a beer with Kari and asked him about Jeff Merkley. He was impressing the hell out of me. It was the first time he'd really come into my consciousness, and it was the first time I thought about him as a candidate for other offices.

A few weeks before he announced, there was a rumor floating around that he was considering running. I'd already done a bit of research into his background, and I literally got on the phone that afternoon to ask what I could do to convince him to run. It led to that three-part series I did on Jeff. I have never met him and am certainly not on anyone's payroll. I do tend to get excited about candidates from time to time, but even for me, that was unusual.

There's some passion, if only in one person.

Damn, I meant to add one thing to the reply to Stephanie--Jeff's not a seventh-tier candidate. The only better candidate in the offing was DeFazio, whose demonstrated strength in rural districts made him a first choice. But Jeff will run a more competitive campaign than many so-called "first-tier" candidates like Earl and Bradbury--who have better name recognition among casual voters, but who would have found no love in rural Oregon. Jeff will surprise a lot of people with his strength there--depend on it.

A last comment on BlueOregon neutrality: we're not. We didn't create this site as a news site or a place for Dems to dump press releases with equal access. We're so passionate about politics that many of us have made it a career. This is, as it must be said with regularity, not a downside. Blogs are good precisely because they're irreverent, individual, and personal. Trust me, the last thing anyone wants is for us to put up a veil of objectivity. (And that doesn't mean we're all for the same team, either. I don't actually know who Charlie's supporting in this race. I believe it's Novick.)

That said, we try to give everyone a fair shake. We know that the race between Novick and Merkley is a friendly contest and a tune up for the real test--a shot at taking out Gordon Smith.

Finally, Kari, Charlie, and I don't contribute all the content to the site. We have other posters and we invite YOU to post. Hell, Steve Novick WAS a poster on BlueOregon, and we invited him to continue to send us guest posts.

I personally don't mind in the least that people ask where our allegiances are and question our objectivity. Please continue to do so--it adds to the discussion and lets you know how to weigh our commentary. But it's another thing to wonder if we're secretly trying to rig the game. You have my personal guarantee (for whatever it's worth) that we will never do that.

I respectfully suggest that your words are merely code for a politician who is willing to sacrifice his or her principles for political expediency.

Yes he sacrificed so many principles while delivering the most progressive legislative session in two decades. I want someone who has a record of getting legislation that I like passed rather than hind sight and rhetoric as my Senator.

But it's another thing to wonder if we're secretly trying to rig the game. You have my personal guarantee (for whatever it's worth) that we will never do that.

For the record, Jeff, I totally believe you, but what I'm more concerned about are overt demonstrations of bias. I recognize, however, that even though lots of use BlueO as a public utility of sorts, we don't "own" it in the capitalistic sense, and that in that sense we are at the mercy of the goodwill and decency of those who do. Therefore, we need to rely on that goodwill and decency while also being vigilant and calling out incidents that disturb us. I guess we'll be taking our cue from Merkley's old job in the Reagan Administration: TRUST BUT VERIFY.

%^>

Why did Kari "fix the glitch" that let people know who was wordsmithing/posting which articles?

Because the "Voice of BlueOregon" is supposed to be the voice of BlueOregon -- all of the editors are responsible for all of those words.

When any one of us stakes a hard claim on an issue that divides lefties, we do it over our own name. But the Voice of BlueOregon is supposed to be neutral/progressive. Are we always 100% successful in that? Surely not. But we sure do try hard.

I know that that's not how most blogs do it, but we've been doing it this way for over three years -- you're new around, you're excused for misunderstanding.

EBT, I gotta tell ya: Please stop with the meta-chatter. You do a great job arguing the substance here. But you're not particularly interesting when you're imagining motivations of people you don't know.

Nice comments all around--thanks. Ted, you probably didn't invent this, but it's new to me (and heee-larious): "And if you don't agree, byte me." Gotta work that into my repertoire.

Jeff said: "We know that the race between Novick and Merkley is a friendly contest and a tune up for the real test--a shot at taking out Gordon Smith."

One of the problems I have with Blue Oregon (not the editors but some of the people who comment) is that a few of the threads have gotten rather nasty regarding this race. Granted, most of those people don't directly represent the campaign, but they do indirectly through their words and actions.

For certain reasons I am hesitant to support either candidate at this point. The bickering and bitching back and forth between Merkley and Novick supporters lately makes me even more hesitant to support either of them.

David, I agree, the bickering has been unseemly. In my own opinion, it's been pretty much coming in one direction, but that's my own reading.

On bias, please look at the right hand panel--there are 52 individual contributors to this site. There are three editors. And there is a space for guest columns.

LT, please look at what I said elsewhere.

No one is saying that Merkley needs to perform any public acts of contrition or self-abasement, but the HR2 vote is significant for two reasons:

1) it allows Smith to muddy the waters if his opponent in the general election is Merkley

(even though we all know that Merkley was always against the war, he's got this damn vote on his record and nothing you or I or Merkley or Novick can say will change that)

but more importantly, as I said in the other thread,

2) this vote may illuminate an attribute of Jeff Merkley that we consider undesirable in a US Senator or other legislative representative: namely, an inclination to get rolled, or to go along in the name of comity with bad Republican initiatives.

The vote is just the symptom. I'm much more worried about the disease.

Stephanie... at risk of reopening the HR 2 can of worms...

Your point #1 sounds like Battered Democrat Syndrome.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you basically arguing that Merkley shouldn't be the nominee because the Republicans have at their disposal an argument against him - even though their argument is bogus?

This is sort of like saying that Obama shouldn't be the nominee because the GOP is going to keep bringing up his middle name.

Yes, Smith will be able to "muddy the waters" "even though we all know that Merkley was always against the war" -- but is that a reason to oppose him?

Doesn't that just turn over our choice to Gordon Smith?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you basically arguing that Merkley shouldn't be the nominee because the Republicans have at their disposal an argument against him - even though their argument is bogus?

The Republicans will ALWAYS have a bogus argument to use. That's their game. The issue is what Merkley will do when faced with those bogus arguments.

If Obama changed his middle name to avoid attacks, THAT would be the same thing.

If Obama changed his middle name to avoid attacks, THAT would be the same thing.

:::rolls eyes:::

Dude, you've long since become unhinged on this issue. Your analogy is vacuous.

Obama changing his middle name to avoid attacks bears ZERO relation to Merkley publically distinguishing between a BS frame and his desire to send a semi-formal message to men and women in uniform, and their friends and families, that he respects and admires their dedication to service and duty.

In fact, Obama changing his middle name to avoid attacks would be MUCH more akin to a Dem being afraid to express admiration and respect for men and women in uniform for fear that it would be misunderstood. Both would be examples of fear-based motivation.

Merkley stared them down, refused to sanction the BS and courageously gave moral support to men and women in uniform even though he probably knew that some Democrat down the road would try to use it against him. That's not fear-based motivation. It's called standing on principles.

"BS frame and his desire to send a semi-formal message to men and women in uniform, and their friends and families, that he respects and admires their dedication to service and duty."

The message WAS the BS frame, don't you get it? And giving Bush his money was about "not cutting off funds," despite the fact that this too is bullshit. Or giving in on FISA. Or capitulating on another 200mil, as Democrats are poised to do this month. They are votes based on getting Democrats NOT to stand up against bad policy, and they are generated with fear--fear that Republicans might say something bad about them.

"courageously gave moral support to men and women in uniform"

How does this take courage? Platitudes are easy. You have stepped into some bizarro world where meaningless traps are the important votes, and stances on actual policy are superfluous. Afraid to express admiration--what ARE you talking about? Could the troops be any more BATHED in empty support than they are right now? I hope all that symbolic support keeps the shrapnel out next time there's an IED in the road.

I guess the way I would put it is to say that legislative resolutions are pretty weak and meaningless avenues for the expression of support of fighting men and women... UNLESS, of course, they come with tangible expressions of that support. Maybe additional budget for supplies and equipment, or improvements in the troops' living conditions, or restrictions on the duration and frequency of deployments. Now THAT's support.

I guess the way I would put it is to say that legislative resolutions are pretty weak and meaningless avenues for the expression of support of fighting men and women...

Completely agree.

Which is why the Hillary analogies are bogus and why this entire "controversy" is bogus.

You may not like it, but it's not bogus.

the obstinate refusal of so many posters here to accept ... The absolute stonewall that this idea has received from so many here

<h2>Actually, not that many - other than Mitch. The whole HR2 thing has largely been a one-sided conversation.</h2>