Of key importance:

"I liked it," said Dale Thompson, who helped organize the picnic. "I thought it's encouraging to get anyone to come here. He made connections. He relates to the people really well."

Thompson said he was impressed with how Novick was able to differentiate himself from Merkley without attacking him and was impressed by how Novick presented himself.

Steve is a Democratic candidate who can distinguish himself without attacking his primary opponent, AND who can communicate effectively with rural Oregonians. Endorsements are great, and Steve has some for sure, but Democrats don't need to be about top-down establishment-driven candidacies.

one of the things i like best about Steve is that he comes off as being well informed, yet doesn't pretend to know everything about every issue.

he's also smart without being or coming across as "Mr. Smartypants." He'll take a position but will be willing to learn more about a position from people he's talking to.

Scott,

Thanks for the invite! We're already in conversations with folks down there about a trip, so stay tuned. And, of course we'd be more than happy to sit down with you in a professional capacity.

People can catch Steve this weekend at the Democratic Party of Oregon booth at the State Fair in Salem between noon and 2.

And then he'll be at the Portland and Eugene Labor Day picnics on Monday.

Have a great weekend everyone!

I know that Novick has been offering to do joint appearances around the state, but Merkley has yet to take up the challenge.

I don't know if you'd call it a joint appearance, but they appeared jointly (first Merkley, then Novick) at the MoveOn rally this week.

I thought you were there?

I think Thom is referring to this, posted here on BlueO, where Novick suggested joint appearances/debates between him and Merkley and Merkley welcomed the prospect.

From that post:

For his part, Jeff Merkley said on KPOJ this morning that he would be pleased to join Novick and looks forward to the opportunity to talk about why one of them should replace Gordon Smith.

I think that the voters in the Democratic Primary would be best served by as many as these appearances/debates as possible, so that they can make their decisions between these two very decent candidates.

IMHO, these debates should get underway as soon as "scheduling" allows. It will be a great way to generate publicity for the race and highlight why either Merkley or Novick would make a fine replacement for Gordo. It would be a shame to wait until January...

I'm not sure much of the public is aware that there's an important Senate race coming up here in Oregon and we have the best opportunity we've had yet to send Smith packing. When I talk to non political junkies, they're often not aware that there's a race coming up. Joint appearances would likely raise the profile of both candidates more so than solo appearances.

Initially I was going to put up some tongue in cheek complaint in here about Kari secretly favoring the Novick campaign, since he bumped this up out of a comment and a newspaper; he wasn't informed about it by the Novick campaign itself.

But then the thought struck me - why didn't the Novick campaign tout this to BlueOregon? What's going on out there?

I was glad to read some pro-Steve Novick stuff in this article, and the positivity is most welcome. Next up, maybe his staffers need to be told about the concept of "free media", like BlueOregon. Steve is going to need a lot of that to win.

Novick favors a swift end to the Iraq War and made a point of noting that Merkley signed a 2003 Oregon House resolution praising George Bush's courage for entering Iraq.

An equally... forthright statement would be if Merkley were to point out to a crowd that Novick has stated in no uncertain terms that he would not have voted in favor of supporting the troops going into Iraq.

Half truths are half lies.

open minded Oregonians might contend that people like Bill and Stephanie got caught in a GOP trap

Except that we never said that "he's no different than Gordon, they both supported then opposed the war."

We said, we think it was craven and foolish to vote for a resolution in support of a war he opposed.

Steve Maurer asked... But then the thought struck me - why didn't the Novick campaign tout this to BlueOregon? What's going on out there?

For the record, they did. It was in a phone call, while I was driving, on the day I got Rogue'd, amidst other topics. I just plain forgot about it. Jake's doing a fine job.

Colin Maloney wrote.. When I talk to non political junkies, they're often not aware that there's a race coming up.

Yeah, I'm hoping so too. The key will be getting in front of audiences that aren't made up of political junkies. At this stage in a campaign, it can be real hard to build an audience that isn't made up of the supporters on both sides, or political junkies that will make up their mind based on other information.

Candidate time is the scarcest resource any campaign has; it's best used to actually move voters that wouldn't otherwise move.

I don't know if you'd call it a joint appearance, but they appeared jointly (first Merkley, then Novick) at the MoveOn rally this week.

Based on that description (and I wasn't there), that isn't my idea of a "joint appearance."

Ideally, a joint appearance would be a lot more interactive (among all of the above: candidates, press, voters).

I too hope that we can get a lot of them going on, and plan and site them so that the maximum number of ordinary Democratic voters will attend.

Agreed. 100%.

But let's not pretend that they've never appeared on stage together.

Thank you, Bill, for making my point for me. Just like Merkley supporters do when challenged on the 2003 vote issue, you want to immediately bring up the full context. And you're right, the full context clearly isn't capable of supporting the assertion that Novick didn't want to support the troops. Yet his statement certainly could be construed to make it sound like opposition to the troops is what Novick is about. All it would take is stripping away context.

Half truths are half lies, inconvenient though that fact may be.

My concern with Novick isn't that he can't connect with the rural vote. Moreover my concern isn't really that he can't win the general election, because if he is the best candidate there is no shame in losing. My concern rather is that Novick isn't the best candidate. He might be the smartest guy in the room but he is also a divisive person. I do not believe that Novick has the disposition to sit in conference and work in the best interests of the state with someone like Senator Larry Craig. No matter any personal feelings about Sen. Craig, his vote and the vote of the person who will surely replace him are important to our state, if only to the timber counties. There comes a time in every legislator’s career where he or she must swallow his or her pride and vote for an imperfect bill or work with imperfect people to do what is in the best interests of our state, and I am unconvinced that Stave Novick is that person.

My concern with Novick isn't that he can't connect with the rural vote.

Did you read the article?

Steve is more than capable of connecting with "the rural vote." And he's able to do so because he realizes that a lot of the same issues that matter to "the urban vote" or "the suburban vote" also matter to "the rural vote."

The rural/urban divide isn't nearly so wide as many make it out to be, and Steve has been spending a lot of time in Eastern, Southern, and Coastal Oregon. His support doesn't just come from us in the Willamette Valley.

From the summary (even):

"I think that rural people are at least as likely as people in the cities to be without health insurance and rural folks don't like the idea of huge tax breaks for multi-national corporations any more than urban folks do," he said.

...isn't that he can't connect...

note to self: don't get entangled by double negatives.

never mind.

I am not arguing that Novick can't go to Southern Oregon and speak in a manner that appeals to the activists that might attend one of his events. (Double negative duly noted). Rather, and for example, his recent attacks of Merkley's vote in support of the troops shows me that Novick, who has never been placed in a position where voting either way will have negative repercussions, is too smart (or too naive) to do what is politically expedient.

too smart (or too naive) to do what is politically expedient

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Seriously, political expediency certainly has its purposes, but I'd rather be represented by a Senator whose default is not set to "whatever is politically expedient."

And that's Novick for sure.

"Yet his statement certainly could be construed to make it sound like opposition to the troops is what Novick is about. All it would take is stripping away context."

What self-respecting candidate wouldn't say bring that on? Much easier than trying to defend the actual purpose of the bill. Supporting the troops is a platitude. Supporting US policy is a substantive declaration, IMO.

As for expediency, I bring up Dr. Phil--how's that working out so far? Has it been the expedient choice the last month?

Perhaps "politically effective" would be a better way to phrase it.

I absolutely identify with the desire to be represented by someone whose default isn't to compromise principles upon the alter of expediency. That value is a huge reason why I remain a dedicated Independent/NAV. But making the perfect the enemy of the good often equates to ineffectiveness, and Oregon needs effective representation.

If Senator Bernie Sanders made a stand upon principle then as the lone honest-to-god Independent in the Senate he would forge his own path. I would admire such a principled stand more than the English language allows me to express effectively. But it would leave him utterly ineffective, both for his constituents and for the nation. So he took the path of expediency/effectiveness and joined the Democratic Caucus, just as he did when he was a Congressman. And he did it as a matter of course. It was a foregone conclussion when he won election to the Senate even though nobody on the planet questions his dedication to being and remaining an Independent rather than joining the Democratic party.

Oregon needs a principled Senator who won't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Torridjoe leads with his chin: Supporting the troops is a platitude.

Tell that to a roomfull of veterans and let us know how well it went over.

Naturally, you'll be wanting to qualify what you meant. We know what you meant, TJ. Sometimes, and even most of the time, claiming to "support the troops" is or at least can be a platitude. I agree. But we both know that there are any number of ways of "supporting the troops" which in fact are not "platitudes" by any measurement.

But of course you didn't qualify your assertion. And you're the same guy trying to pin the "he signed a 2003 Oregon House resolution praising George Bush's courage for entering Iraq" tail on Merkley.

A half truth is a half lie.

EBT, my understanding is that lestatdelc is a Novick supporter. He has said so here repeatedly. He has a problem with this particular issue, but I have not seen any indication from him that he has abandoned his support of Steve.

It bears saying that a lot of us (including you, me, lestatdelc, and others) who support Steve have significant disagreements with him over one issue or another. One of Steve's strengths as a candidate is that he engenders a level of trust that enables us to move beyond the paradigm of seeking perfect agreement with a candidate on issues - instead, we support Steve because we agree with him on MOST issues, and we are confident that his values are well aligned with our own.

And Kevin, "supporting the troops" is a platitude. Like all platitudes, the proof of it is in the execution. And I know that Steve supports the troops in the most important way -- by wanting to get them out of harm's way as quickly as possible.

EBT: The irony of the whole thing, is that this whole debate was brought to the readers of Blue0 by a current Merkley supporter. Lestatdelc was the first to spray the August 3 Roundup with Merkley's HRes 2 problem.

Lestatdelc is on record as a Novick supporter, not a Merkley supporter. Are you calling him a liar?

Stephanie: And Kevin, "supporting the troops" is a platitude. Like all platitudes, the proof of it is in the execution.

So you're saying that my telling my best friend from highschool that I hoped he'd make it back from Iraq (either time) safe and sound was just a platitude? IOW, an expression of sentiment as a means of lending heartfelt moral support is a platitude?

A half truth is a half lie.

Kevin, why so emotional?

"Supporting the troops" is a platitude because everyone says they do it and only some people actually DO anything in furtherance of their expressed support.

By providing emotional support to your friend, you transcended the platitude. If you baked brownies and mailed them to a soldier, or sent paperback books and Gold Bond powder, or even emailed with a soldier or soldiers to express that support, you transcended the platitude.

But when people who don't know any soldiers vote Republican and drive around in 15 mpg SUVs with yellow ribbon magnets on them -- well, that yellow ribbon is expressing a PLATITUDE.

And when politicians vote for resolutions that support sending those troops off into harm's way for insufficient reasons, but throw in a salute to their bravery, well, I consider that a platitude too.

East Bank Thom: You trash-talk as only an anonymous teenager on the internet could. Do you honestly believe your own statements about Merkley? How do you reconcile your belief that he is some sort of congenital appeaser with his stewardship of the House Democrats' 2006 campaign effort or of the Oregon House itself during 2007?

I presume you are not personally effected by anti-gay discrimination, attempts to deny emergency contraception to rape victims, school funding, or any of the other issues on which Merkley led a tiny majority to aggressive victories, but could you really talk your shit to those who are with a straight face (that isn't hidden behind your super-hardcore hair)?

That you are personally introducing so much acrimony and bullshit to what ought to be a conversation between adults speaks poorly of you. I would say it speaks poorly of your candidate as well if did I not have the feeling that he probably also thinks you're a blowhard.

Kevin, why so emotional?

Hmmm... maybe because I'm not making up the bit about my best friend from HS. Or maybe it's because Merkley's statements about that particular resolution at the time, and his vote, mirrored my understanding and sentiments at the time. But the truth is that it's a combination of the two.

And when politicians vote for resolutions that support sending those troops off into harm's way for insufficient reasons, but throw in a salute to their bravery, well, I consider that a platitude too.

Fair enough. Of course another way to look at that would be to say that would-be politicians who wouldn't have lent moral support to troops and their families unless it were pristinely framed just to their liking, but still want to be viewed as actually giving a damn about the lot of a soldier and his/her family, could reasonably have their alleged support for troops called into question.

If passing an ideological litmus test is more important than lending moral support to folks who have no say in their fate, some of whom won't survive it, then it seems to me that the issue of misplaced priorities is very much an open question.

That is where good judgment comes in to play, and Novick has shown he has that quality.

Ah... you appear to have the advantage over me. Could you please point me to Novick's legislative voting record so that I can assess this good judgement that you say Novick has shown he has?

Thanks!

PS: Half truths are half lies.

despite the appearance of another circular firing squad (go Dems go!), i want to say this is one primary vote i am looking forward to. Steve is my guy in this, but if he loses, damn, i'm going to have someone great to support! i am so proud of how Jeff Merkley led the House after 16 years of abject, partisan failure by a succession of lunatic Rs. like holy water drives out the demons, Merkley's application of real democracy to that body has now driven out even more of the nasties.

Novick or Merkley, we are going to send Gordo back to his ranch so he can sit on the porch and shell peas as he stares into the sunset. we have two great options who have enough sense to use the debates & primary to demostrate why Smith has to go, and whoever prevails will have the unwavering, full-bore support of the other.

it's rare when you have two choices you can be proud of. let's enjoy it.

"Tell that to a roomfull of veterans and let us know how well it went over."

I think it would go over great. Supporting the troops is a platitude. ADVOCATING for the troops--that takes effort. Veterans know bullshit from action. Paying for flights home (ALL the way), full mental health care, equipment delivered as promised, stop losses rejected, one-on/two-off deployment schedules...I guarantee you that's what veterans care about, and I support ALL of it. My idea is actually a 100% tax exemption for households with a member in active duty overseas during at least 3 months that calendar year, and first 50K exemption for ALL other active duty, reserve and Guard personnel. And I believe high-paid Iraq mercenaries get what they signed up for. I bet they'll let me have the donuts at the VFW hall.

Naturally, you'll be wanting to qualify what you meant. We know what you meant, TJ. Sometimes, and even most of the time, claiming to "support the troops" is or at least can be a platitude. I agree. But we both know that there are any number of ways of "supporting the troops" which in fact are not "platitudes" by any measurement.

Actually, I was pretty clearly discussing the resolution, what was a platitude and what was substantive--given that I addressed the two articles of the resolution. It seems you (and Jeff) still believe that the first article of the resolution was a sincere, honest attempt to praise the troops like you were praising your friend...as opposed to a naked attempt to use who-could-oppose-it language to entice otherwise rational Democrats to endorse the war language. Steve sees the resolution as Republican garbage, therefore: one part bait, one part bull. Why would you endorse either? Do you really think your heartfelt wishes for your friend is what Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis were feeling when they put that in there? Really?

whoops. Bolloxed the blockquote!

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.

From here I'd have to say that it looks like three and a half parts bull, one and a half parts bait. But I'm with you, TJ.

Do you really think your heartfelt wishes for your friend is what Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis were feeling when they put that in there? Really?

Do you really think my friend even knows who Wayne Scott or Karen Minnis are? Much less what their political goals were? Really?

Your problem (and Novicks) is that you're so caught up in partisan politics that you can't even begin to relate to a soldier who doesn't give a flying rat's backside about it.

At best... at BEST, my buddy probably heard a passing mention from one of his two brothers who still live in Oregon that the legislature had made some sort of statement of support for the troops. I'd bet my next paycheck that that's the MOST info he got and that it was very likely the extent of his brother's understanding of that resolution expressing support for their kid brother.

While you (and Novick) get all caught up in arcane partisan political maneuvering, a HUGE swath of the population just gets sound bites. That's just reality.

The sound bite that Dave (my buddy) would have heard about, if Novick had had his way, is that the legislature had considered and then REJECTED a statement of support for him and his fellow soldiers.

If you never demand more from your representatives than hiding from, or surrendering to, GOP tactics, then your never going to get anything better.

Until you figure out how to step outside of your partisan/ideological ivory tower and meet apolitical Oregonians at their own level you will continue to see a numerically inferior GOP exert a disproportionate influence upon the process.

Merkley's handling of the 2003 resolution demonstrates, IMHO, that he knows how to relate to them. As much as I admire and respect the choices made by the 5 who voted no, their handling of it was likely utterly lost on apolitical Oregonians.

So the real question here is do we want a Senator who is more comfortable in a partisan/ideological ivory tower or do we want a Senator who can relate to most Oregonians while still fighting for progressive change?

Geeze. Does anyone posting actually believe that there's any doubt about where everyone else stands?

I'm hoping that the Novick campaign Oppo Research Team will send Torrid and Stephanie and Bill and Lestat some new material for Continuing and Relentless Sliming Effort in support of the latest Children's Crusade.

Maybe after the Labor Day break, I guess.......

<hr/>

When there were no candidates out there, I came out for Steve too, but if this Gordon Smith enabling crap is to be the entire primary effort of the Novick Blog Team, color me disgusted.

And disappointed.

Try out some new material for God's sake.......

Pat Malach: Honestly, I think you're a Republican who's playing a wee game here.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

Bill Bodden: Read Novick's bio. People don't build up a record like that by making dumb decisions.

I've read his bio and Googled his statements to the best of my ability.

I'm wondering if you can explain to me why a former Justice Department lawyer's idea of Constitutional accountability for Alberto Gonzales was apparently for Oregonians to vote Gordon Smith out of office while Jeff Merkley called for Gonzales' Impeachment?

"Do you really think my friend even knows who Wayne Scott or Karen Minnis are? Much less what their political goals were? Really?"

Huh? Why is that even relevant? The point was that your expression was heartfelt and genuine support for your friend. Minnis and Scott were doing no such thing with HJM 2, and you know that.

"Your problem (and Novicks) is that you're so caught up in partisan politics that you can't even begin to relate to a soldier who doesn't give a flying rat's backside about it."

First of all, if he doesn't give a rat's ass about it, why are you defending his honor by validating it in the first place? Second of all, the partisan politics belong to MERKLEY in this case. The non-partisan reaction to that bill is that it's bullshit to vote for a bad war because you're baited into it. The partisan reaction is that you can't be seen rejecting the bait, because it could make being a Democrat harder.

"I'm hoping that the Novick campaign Oppo Research Team will send Torrid and Stephanie and Bill and Lestat some new material for Continuing and Relentless Sliming Effort in support of the latest Children's Crusade."

Uh, none of us brought it up. That would be Kevin. And who's sliming anyone?

Pat, my anger is directly at the GOP. You have no idea... As an ex-Republican I am, if anything, harder on them than I am on Democrats because when I finally pulled my head out of my posterior I felt intimately betrayed by Republicans, particularly by conservative Republicans!

That I don't dedicate very many pixels to the OGOP isn't an indication that I'm not angry with them, it's an indication that I see them as quite literally beyond redemption! I don't know how to express it any more sincerely or honestly than that.

I dedicate far more pixels to progressive Democrats because I have common cause with them (you all) and because as an ex-GOPer, ex-Dittohead, ex-conservative I know very well how these frames play outside of the progressive community.

In addition, I only recently came out of the closet as a progressive, kicking and screaming along the way. Which at least partially explains why I've never voted against Gordon Smith before now and why I am going to this time. But I'm not satisfied with just voting against Smith. I want to vote for someone that reflects my values and goals! I have a vested interest in the Novick/Merkley race even though as an Independent I don't get to vote for either of them until the general election.

It may surprise you to know that I'm not a knee-jerk Merkley supporter. I simply call it the way I honestly see it and let the chips fall where they may.

and what level are you implying here? ... that "apolitical Oregonians" are too stupid to understand when Bullshit is being called out.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. Apolitical Oregonians aren't even paying attention! Why do you think that voter turnout is so pathetically low compared to so many other Western nations? Scorched Earth tactics by both major parties have turned off a huge swath of the electorate. They get the sound bites from the MSM and tune the explanations out. Many of them are blissfully unaware of the distinction you and TJ and Novick have drawn on that 2003 resolution BECAUSE THEY TUNED YOU OUT LONG AGO.

Torridjoe: Huh? Why is that even relevant?

With all due respect, I rest my case.

You mean well, TJ. You really do. And I both recognize that and honor it. But you simply can't see beyond what you understand, and it seems clear to me that you just don't understand how non-progressive Oregonians view this stuff.

IMHO, and I'm well aware that it is just my opinion... Jeff Merkley does understand. His handling of the 2003 resolution demonstrates it, IMHO.

"With all due respect, I rest my case."

This makes no sense. You're not even listening or paying attention.

Your support of troops = real Minnis' support of troops = total bullshit

Get it now? Whether your friend has heard of Minnis is irrelevant. You are trying to conflate the two sentiments, which is ridiculous, and which is where Jeff went wrong--he took Minnis seriously. It wasn't serious. It was bullshit. You can make statements of support to your friends every day, but Jeff was never tasked to vote on that. He was voting on GOP bullshit. And he validated it.

Non-progressives understand that Democrats have shown incredible weakness the last six years, watching as we've headed into the toilet. This was another example of why.

"Why do you think that voter turnout is so pathetically low compared to so many other Western nations?"

Voter turnout is very high in Oregon, and has surged the last two elections. The facts don't support you here.

Sadly, the facts do support me. Oregon is only high compared the the rest of the United States.

"Oregon is only high compared the the rest of the United States."

Are you voting in some other state??

EBT, you're filtering reality through the lenses of a political junkie. Hell, I hadn't read the text of the floor speeches until this GOP frame was floated. And I AM into politics. I guaran-friggin'-tee you that my buddy is vastly less interested in politics than I am.

This is what lestatdelc has been trying to get you guys to see. Those of us who are into politics will readily grasp the distinction between the pro-Novick frame and the substantially similar GOP frame. Many, many Oregonians won't. And contrary to the immenently arrogant insinuation being floated here, it's NOT because they are stupid!

Kevin, I'm not sure you're visiting this thread, so I may not get an answer... but I'm curious about one thing you said: "Scorched Earth tactics by both major parties have turned off a huge swath of the electorate."

I see scorched Earth tactics from the Republicans, but I simply don't see that from the Democrats. In fact, the chief Progressive criticism of Democratic representatives isn't that they refuse to listen to Republicans, but rather that they're too accommodating. In fact, that's what Jeff Merkley is being accused of here.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but granting it for the sake of argument, how can you then assert that Democrats have engaged in scorched earth tactics?

I wanted to speak to this "intelligent but divisive" um, crap. Sorry. That's my first incendiary comment on Blue Oregon.

But seriously. After seven years of "I have capital. I intend to spend it" "Africa is a country", on and on -- Bush administration Dark Ages kind of mind numbing complete nonsense I am so incredibly eager for what Novick has to offer I can't wait to vote for him.

In short, Novick = Intelligent Discourse. A well thought out argument. A cogent discussion. A thoughtful comment. Ag! Can we have it now? Novick could be one of the soldiers of the American Reniassance.

As for divisive, anyone with true intelligence knows how to get the job done. I'm not worried about that at all.

Steve, litmus testing is one form of scorched earth politiking. And it's what I've been seeing from one side in this contrived controversy.

I would readily agree that it's not on par with GOP litmus testing, but it is akin to it and differs largely because progressives aren't F%$#ing brainless sheep and so we handle it differently. But it would be a mistake to assume that the silent majority who almost always decline to vote view it from the same perspective as those of us who are into politics.

Perhaps this will seem obvious but Repubs who litmus test don't see it as scorched earth politiking either.

this contrived controversy

You may not like it, but for whatever it is worth, I give you my word that it is not "contrived." I can speak only for myself, but it is fully authentic, at least where I'm concerned. This is something that bothers me deeply, and I'm happy to STFU about it as soon as everyone else does, because I'm developing HR2 fatigue just like the rest of us here, but it's not a "talking point" for me. It is a profoundly unsettling issue.

Two related things have gradually come to strike me about this whole debate.

First is that, probably due to pressure of time. neither the majority of Oregon House Dems who voted for the bill, nor did the minority who voted against it, figured out any more creative way out of Republican ploy. But now, four years later, neither candidate looking back offers any ideas that would avoid what bothers some folks about Merkley's vote and others about what a straight no vote would mean to various people who might not be in a position to spend time on the nuances.

For example, supposing the Democratic caucus had agreed to abstain on the bill, i.e. not vote against it, and then passed a clean "support the troops" resolution pointing out that the need to do so was due to Republican leadership's partisan game-playing.

Secondly, can I suggest that it would be a better use of our time at this point to toss around ideas about how to avoid taking the bait in either sense, faced with such ploys? And call on both candidates to do the same? Whether or not Steve Novick has taken the other side of the bait, as some have suggested, BlueOregon has taken it hook, line and sinker on both sides.

For example, supposing the Democratic caucus had agreed to abstain on the bill, i.e. not vote against it

Unfortunately, under Oregon law, legislators may not abstain from voting.

Kari: While factual, that piece of information is sure to be ignored by the reductivist mudslingers who have somehow decided that Jeff Merkley is the devil.

Thom: So do you have an actual response to my question? Would you look a family with same-sex parents in the eye and tell them their newfound legal status was brought to be by a guy who--in your words--dishes out "handjobs" to the Republicans? I contend that you have no idea how to seperate puffy rhetoric from actal political courage, and you are demonstrating that again and again in this thread and others on this topic. Indeed, your reductivist thinking IS typical of children.

And also, yes, Rosenbaum is now running for Senate. If you have any evidence that she had already decided to do so back when I wrote that she had not, I am sure you would love to share that. But you don't; rather, you are just trying to avoid answering my question. But I use my real name and my real reputation when I participate in the conversation here on Blue Oregon, and I am more than comfortable with that opening my words up to scrutiny. It is kind of like how some candidates have real voting records to stand on and others can just claim they would have voted the "right" way on everything.

I understand that you support Steve Novick. Heck, I love Steve Novick and I have been a Merkley guy since before he announced. What I am interested in learning is how you extrapolate one vote in 2003 to a pathological smear of Jeff Merkley that runs entirely contrary to the opinions of anyone who actually knows the guy. I know that you weren't in the Capitol to listen to the angry protests and threats from anti-gay religious extremists, corporate lobbyists, and other shady characters, but do you really think that the Democrats' 2007 legislative agenda could have been led into action by someone who LACKS political courage?

And finally, do you really think that Steve Novick would stand behind your screeds and insults? Do you think you are doing anything but marginalizing him as the candidate of, by and for the utter cranks?

I agree. This shouldn't be blown up as the apocalypse by Merkley detractors.

Oh, I'd say we're well past that point. I can practically watch the progression just in TJ's treatment of it (at LO and here) as it went from a partisan talking point to seeing it as a potential wedge issue that could benefit Novick. His treatment started out pretty damn fair, IMO, and progressed to strident and shrill.

One massively lop-sided aspect of all this has been how the litmus testing has all been one-sided. I haven't noticed any Novick detractors who have argued that voting no would have been wrong. I have myself repeatedly stated that I actively respect the 5 Dems who voted no even though I would have handled it virtually identically to how Merkley handled it if I'd had to vote yea or nay on it. All of the attacks have been coming from one quarter - Novick partisans.

And every time you say "apolitical voters" just won't get it, you're talking down to them. That's never a winning strategy. In fact, most would call it arrogant.

I would respectfully suggest you crack a dictionary. "Will not" (won't) and "can not" (can't) are not synonyms.

So I suppose that's a "no." Believe me, I have no interest in any sort of personal argument with you. I was interested in an answer to the rather simple question of how you reconcile your personal insults (and, yes, the level of your vitriol against Merkley, especially the gay-baiting "handjob" line, is far more personal than substantive) against Merkley with his actual record of leaadership in the last legislative session, but I am not too stupid to recognize that I clearly won't be getting that answer.

I will gladly leave this entire conversation now.

Oh, and one more thing: no way did I use "a lot of foul language." That was a moderate amount of foul language at most.

I don't think any counterproductive Novick/Merkley partisan (people who post opinions about other Democrats that their own candidate would likely distance themselves from), should be passing out "troll" monikers. It's one of those so-utterly-hypocritical-they-refuse-to-even-recognize-it sorts of things.

Sure, I'd love Kevin to give us his last name. Or better, to show up at a Washington County Democratic party meeting to join our large and constantly growing ex-Republican caucus. But when he talks about ordinary people not having the same views as flaming partisans, that's just pure common sense, and anybody who doesn't realize it is a fool.

Oh, I'd say we're well past that point. I can practically watch the progression just in TJ's treatment of it (at LO and here) as it went from a partisan talking point to seeing it as a potential wedge issue that could benefit Novick. His treatment started out pretty damn fair, IMO, and progressed to strident and shrill.

I beg your pardon? This is what I said the first day I addressed the issue at LO: "The Iraq vote was not a vote to 'support the troops;' it was a baiting tactic to get Democrats on the record for the whole shitbag we all now hold. And instead of thinking 'I don't want to be seen as not supporting the war,' Novick's point is that the proper response is 'This bill is a bullshit bill, and you don't vote Yes on bullshit, even if there's a lollipop hidden in the manure.'

I'm glad you think that's fair. How have I deviated at all from that position?

I would submit that no one is suggesting a No vote would have been wrong, because it wouldn't have been. It was a vote against the war, the proper vote for people against the war. And you're wrong about "Novick partisans;" who are Steve Duin and David Reinhard...members of his campaign team? And you're also distorting the discussion by using the phrase "litmus test;" multiple people have stated plainly that it is no such thing for them, even if they do believe it's a point against Jeff.

Speaking of distorting the discussion--Patton, Patton. What's happening to you here? Coming on to attack people's HAIR? You've done Jeff no favors here, buddy. Look at this garbage:

• reductivist mudslingers who have somehow decided that Jeff Merkley is the devil.
Find me ONE person involved in this who has honestly even called Jeff a bad guy. Mudslingers? Is that how it's going to be? Only vainglorious words, lest you be a mudslinger no matter how truthful the comment?
• your reductivist thinking IS typical of children.
People who disagree with Patton or Jeff are not mature enough to speak, it appears.
• It is kind of like how some candidates have real voting records to stand on and others can just claim they would have voted the "right" way on everything.
I guess Steve doesn't have the right to answer questions about how he would have voted, and one bill has now become "everything."
• pathological smear of Jeff Merkley
Again with the demonization of anybody who dares review his voting record...
• utter cranks
You're calling me a CRANK? I mean, really. I've had some fairly sharp disagreement with Kevin here, but even in his frustration he has kept his cool and stayed on point.

Patton, man, I think you need to step back and re-evaluate your approach here. The point has been made, the Novick campaign has other things to talk about this week and beyond, and until I saw you going this overboard I was beginning to pull back myself. But I gotta say, the reaction from you and others in the Merkley camp has been to treat a TB tine-test as if it were a fishing knife to Jeff's throat. Jeff has made his case as to why he chose the vote he did; we can all decide whether that was the right choice in our eyes, and how important it is in the grand scheme of things. YMMV, and all that.

Steve, et al:

You can find my last name here

As for the WaCo Dems... I would undoubtedly find it interesting to talk to other recovering Republicans. That's one of the things that I've found enduringly fascinating about my fellow writer at PK, Becky, who some of you may remember as Bill Sizemore's former assistant who turned State's Witness and helped convict him.

I gotta be bluntly honest here, though, and point out that I have no interest in joining the Democratic Party. I'm quite content to remain an Independent/NAV.

Speaking as a recovering Republican myself, I know that it is oddly stressful to change party affiliation. Like Kevin, I did not go directly into the D column. I lived in New York at the time and I briefly took roost in the Liberal Party there. But after the 1980 Javits-Holtzman-D'Amato debacle, I realized that third parties often did more harm than good, and I also realized that I cared enough about what happened within the Democratic Party that I wanted to stake out a little piece of it for myself and see what I could do there.

Peace to you on your quest, Kevin. I hope we'll get you over here sometime. It's really quite pleasant.

BTW, Torrid has met me in person more than once and knows a fair bit about me via a close mutual friend. I'm willing to live with his assessment of whether I'm a troll or not. Even though we clearly disagree very strongly on this HR2 issue, I don't think it would be stretching the truth to say that we have a mutual respect which transcends a mere political disagreement. For my part I would say that it definitely does.

Speaking of which...

Find me ONE person involved in this who has honestly even called Jeff a bad guy.

Nobody has put it in so many words, I agree. But surely you can understand how equating him with Hillary, which you yourself have done, is tantamount to the same thing in many folk's eyes.

If this whole HR2 thing were simply a disagreement over the most efficacious way of dealing with a GOP frame then that would be one thing and I seriously doubt anyone would have gotten ruffled feathers. But that's not how you and your pro-Novick friends have framed it. You flamed and then acted offended when flames were returned.

Get a clue already... you are entitled to view HR2 however you like. But by insinuating the Hillaryesque frame with Merkley you are insinuating it by extension with those of us who have zero problem with how he handled that vote. In fact I can't think of a single person who spoke up against your pro-Novick frame who has expressed any support for Hillary whatsoever. Most of us are already on record as supporting other candidates.

TJ: Of course I'm not calling you a crank. That is why my comment was addressed to "East Bank Thom." I had hoped to stay out of this thread, but I like you and if you honestly interpreted my comments as directed at you I do think yo deserve an explanation.

I never made any of those comments about you. It was very clear that I was addressing East Bank Thom. The guy actually said that Jeff Merkley gives "handjobs" to Republicans. I didn't make that up. Do you support that accusation or think that it bespeaks any sort of basic social maturity on behalf of the person who made it? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess is that your answer would be "no."

TJ, the broader point you are trying to make in that comment is just entirely off-base. I was very clearly not saying that anyone who disagrees with Merkley's vote is making a "pathological smear." I accused one specific person of doing so--after he made a cheesy, homophobic remark about Merkley's character. I have no doubts that I made the object of my comment clear: it was East Bank Thom. I don't want to get into some sort of weird personal argument with you (I respect you as a blogger and activist), but your comment really reads like feigned indignation. You should re-read my comments upthread and decide if you really think any of it was directed to you.

Please answer me one question: do you think East Bank Thom's "handjob" comment about Jeff Merkley is childish? If not, then we have an honest difference of opinion. If so, you should really revisit your view of my characterization of it as such. I know you are smarter than to conflate gay-baiting personal smears with "looking into" Merkley's "record."

Kevin, I personally certainly don't "equate" Jeff Merkley with Hillary Clinton.

But I have said here before, and I say again now, that his HR2 vote (and his failure to acknowledge that it was a mistake) reminds me of her Iraq war vote, and not in a good way.

In fairness, her vote was a much higher stakes vote than his. But precisely because the stakes were so much lower for Merkley (nonbinding resolution in a state legislature 2700 miles away), and the consequences of being on the "wrong" side were basically nil for him, I would hope that he would have chosen to vote his conscience. But it appears that he didn't, since he opposed the war, but chose to vote for the stupid trap resolution anyway.

That suggests to me that he was trying to inoculate himself against allegations of somehow failing to "support the troops," which signals to me a fundamental weakness of spine.

It's the weakness of spine that concerns me.

I see neither a mistake (HR2 and the Iraq War vote simply are not analogous) nor the slightest hint of any weakness of spine.

Let's agree that neither of us can compel the other to see it any particular way. And let's further agree that if we could somehow climb into the other's mind and life experiences that maybe we might see it differently.

It seems clear to me that we agree on much more than we disagree on.

Now how about a hug?

Cyber hug?

((( )))

[grins}

Aww hell. You guys are ruining Kevin's and my special moment now.

Kevin:

I don't think it would be stretching the truth to say that we have a mutual respect which transcends a mere political disagreement. For my part I would say that it definitely does.

Not only is it not stretching the truth, I think it's pretty accurate. We're good, Kev.

That said, :)

"surely you can understand how equating him with Hillary, which you yourself have done, is tantamount to the same thing in many folk's eyes."

I equated what he did with what Hillary has done. She's not my top choice (or 2nd, or 3rd maybe), but I don't think she's evil. Some folks probably do. But I can't make a comparison using someone other people demonize? If I say Jeff's bearing is Kennedyesque (which I'm not sure if it is, just an example), am I slamming him because some people really REALLY hate the Kennedys?

and then

If this whole HR2 thing were simply a disagreement over the most efficacious way of dealing with a GOP frame then that would be one thing and I seriously doubt anyone would have gotten ruffled feathers. But that's not how you and your pro-Novick friends have framed it

I submit that's EXACTLY how we've framed it. The vote was a GOP trap, and Jeff didn't handle it right. That's 100% of the argument being made, as far as I see it. If you are seeing it some other way, then let's fix that. At least I know I can speak for Steph and Colin.

Patton: "Please answer me one question: do you think East Bank Thom's "handjob" comment about Jeff Merkley is childish?"

Childish might not be the word I'd use--lest "douchebag" be taken from the blogger's lexicon as well--but I have to say honestly I think it was over the top in this situation, yes.

I can accept and understand you were directing yourself at Thom, but there are two points to make if I may:

*if you're talking about one person, using the plural forms of "crank" and "mudslinger" is confusing. I'm sure you can see why I felt included.

*Even if it's just about Thom--and again, I think there certainly could have been more decorum coming from him (sorry Thom)--do you want to bring yourself to that level? If the image you want is that Jeff's folks are above all that, you missed the target this time. And going after personal characteristics like hair--that's a no-no no matter what, I'd think.

I appreciate the courtesy you're giving me in reply. I trust our personal/pseudoprofessional relationship remains undimmed overall.

Bill & Stephanie.... Here's a question: Should I have done my usual "stay on topic" coaching on this post -- when the comments headed into HR2 territory, given that the post had nothing to do with that topic, and we've had many other threads on it?

I'm cognizant of my dual role here, and want to avoid starting another round of meta-accusations, and yet I'd like to see the Merkley/Novick discussion head toward other issues and less-well-tilled soil.

Thoughts?

I equated what he did with what Hillary has done.

Fair enough. The difference is vanishingly small to moot. By extension you're saying that he would have voted to give Dubya a blank check and that's a totally vacuous assertion. It's an intellectual house of cards, TJ!

For the record: Hillary embodies virtually everything that I find repugnant about the Democratic Party. But that's an issue for another time.

I submit that's EXACTLY how we've framed it. The vote was a GOP trap, and Jeff didn't handle it right.

1. Drawing distinctions between parts one supports and parts one doesn't support is and always has been totally fair game on any non-binding resolution. It's a freaking expression of sentiment by a STATE LEGISLATURE for Christ's sake! It bears ZERO resemblence to voting to abdicate Constitutional authority to the Prez so that he can wage war when, where and why he wishes. ZERO resemblence.

2. He handled it perfectly. I would have handled it the same way.

Kari,

The post did address it:

Novick favors a swift end to the Iraq War and made a point of noting that Merkley signed a 2003 Oregon House resolution praising George Bush's courage for entering Iraq.

The resulting thread has been on topic, if only on one part of the topic.

If the image you want is that Jeff's folks are above all that, you missed the target this time.

I don't in any way speak for (or work for) Merkley's campaign, formally or informally (although I have friends who do). And I was not really trying to defend Merkley either (do we really think he would need MY help?)--it was more about online political discourse itself. What Thom was doing was hiding behind anonymity (and that's where the hair comment came in--look at his blog) to launch personal attacks that no responsible person would make with their name or reputation attached. It is my belief that such actions not only cheapen the value of online political discourse broadly, but that they also undermine what are often valid and important justifications for bloggers/online activists to maintain pseudonyms (I think you can understand this one, TJ, right?).

I do have rather strong opinions about that matter, and upon further reflection the only thing I wold retract about my comments are the spelling errors. I also believe that by wrapping his comments in gay-baiting "handjob" language Thom is very much dipping into the Republican punchbowl of loaded language and adolescent innuendo. I am simply not the type of Democrat who will countenance that sort of dishonest and destructive crap.

I asked the guy a simple question, he refused to answer it , and I accepted that. In my quest to have a reasoned conversation with East Bank Thom, I have--as he might proudly point out--failed. And I promise I won't try again (he thinks I am boorish and ill-informed, and he is entitled to that opinion). But, TJ, I respect you too much not too think that we can find some sort of common ground. We do at least agree as progressives that our mutual interests are not served by gay-baiting personal attacks against either candidate, right?

Kari, thanks for asking. I have no complaints about your relatively hands-off stance in this thread, and I'm confident that we'll be engaging in robust discussion of other things very soon.

%^>

Ah yes, Kevin. Sorry 'bout that. You're right. Nevermind. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

"gay-baiting "handjob" language"

OK, I see where you are finding yourself offended now, and why there's a disconnect for me. I think the word handjob was used in the context of someone offering another person a supplicant's pleasuring, ie kowtowing or rather menially serving a superior. I didn't at all make any negative gay context. I'm not here to make Thom's biz public, but somehow I don't see the motivation for him to make that reference either.

I mean, sorry to have to explain this out, but I had assumed from the jump that the implication was of Merkley doing the bidding of the Republicans, in that way that they so seem to enjoy, like it's sex for them because actually sex is too dirty. The image I had was of simple, ungendered submission. And really, how does Jeff give Karen Minnis a handjob? (Don't answer that).

If we can put this misunderstanding to bed, then it seems as if maybe the post-Labor Day period can start fresh with everybody, eh?