I agree with Senate Guru - the entire thing is dishonest and shameful. It's a textbook example of a contrived issue.

Contrary to Torrid's assertion (and his advocacy of and for Novick is well established) there are two ways to deal with a "bullshit bill." One is to vote no. The other is to do exactly what Merkley did - very publically draw a stark line between the bullshit part and the nonbullshit part and vote your conscience.

Unless NWR has proof that Merkley ever supported W's Folly (aka Iraq War), and the 2003 resolution certainly isn't it... as even Torrid openly concedes, then reasoning and honest folk can draw the appropriate conclussion that he's lying. Personally, I don't pay any attention to what NWR has to say on any subject.

I don't see Steve Novick attacking anyone here. I see a lot of people throwing that word "attack" around, but saying it doesn't make it so.

If asked a question by reporters, a candidate has a right and even an obligation to give an honest answer.

Further, in a primary where the two candidates are both generally within the same ballpark ideologically, small differences are where the clues are as to who would be a better nominee and eventually, a better Senator. Since when is it unfair or unreasonable for a candidate to characterize his views fully and truthfully in order to draw a distinction between himself and a primary opponent?

I thought the whole point of having a contested primary was to test the candidates' weaknesses by forcing them to compete with each other, to find the one with fewer exploitable weaknesses in the general election. If it turns out that this is a big weakness for Jeff Merkley, we are much better off finding that out now, while there is still time to nominate someone else. The Merkley forces don't want us to think that way. They want us all to assume that Merkley's nomination is a fait accompli. But it isn't, and it certainly doesn't have to be.

Remember: eventually, our candidate is going to be forced to deal with the issues the Republicans bring up. So let's figure out NOW which of our contestants is better able to do that.

The thing is, Merkley knows that voters can understand the difference between a procedural vote and a substantive one. As Speaker, he let the House GOP exhaust themselves as they lost battle after battle even as the more moderate Democrats failed to fall for their tricks.

Even before that, Merkley as House Minority Leader successfully overcame a 6-seat deficit to retake the Oregon House from the Republicans. He certainly dealt with the issues Republicans brought up; in fact, he was better at these issues than the GOP themselves.

That's all beautiful, but that and $2.05 will get him from downtown to Gresham on the MAX.

In short, he may have avoided some other Republican tricks, but he fell for a really big one, even though he knew exactly what was going on. The Iraq resolution was a foolish, craven vote on his part, and he should not be surprised that he has to defend it. Unlike five other brave Democrats, he walked into a purely symbolic Republican trap with his eyes wide open.

Well, guess what? Not all Republican traps are symbolic. Some of them, like the Patriot Act, have real life consequences. But if you don't have the good sense or the courage or WHATEVER to avoid the purely symbolic trap, how on earth are we supposed to have confidence that he won't be voting for whatever ginned-up "emergency" legislation gets put before him in the Senate?

As for LT's points, I would only say, this is what primary campaigns are for. The voters get to decide what issues are important to them, and then they get to vote on that basis. I don't see anyone telling the voters how important this issue is. But it's fair to say that to some of us, it's very important. And I would encourage LT and others to ask Steve the questions that are important to them, weigh his answers with an open mind, and decide on that basis.

I believe fair-minded people will say Merkley goofed but will refrain from tossing him overboard to the sharks.

How did he goof?

1. The resolution not only was non-binding, but it wasn't even legislation. It was an expression of sentiment! Nothing more.

2. Merkley clearly, publically and at the time made it clear that he didn't agree with the BushCo spin about Iraq.

Where's the goof?

And let's not fall for the "the GOP are trying to pin it on him" definition of a goof because we all know better. After seeing Kerry get Swiftboated and the outrageous lies before that about the Wellstone funeral, just to name two major examples, we all ought to know better than to let the GOP define reality for us.

The goof was in rising to the bait laid by the Republicans.

The goof was in casting a Yes vote on a resolution saluting the "courage" of a deceitful, foolhardy President and his cabinet.

The goof was in lacking the courage to vote his convictions (if, as his defenders say, they were his convictions at the time) that the invasion was wrong.

The goof was in trying to have it both ways. That's not leadership.

The goof was in rising to the bait laid by the Republicans.

He didn't bite. Insinuating otherwise doesn't change that simple fact.

The goof was in casting a Yes vote on a resolution saluting the "courage" of a deceitful, foolhardy President and his cabinet.

It was also a resolution expressing support for our troops.

The goof was in lacking the courage to vote his convictions (if, as his defenders say, they were his convictions at the time) that the invasion was wrong.

If we are to accept your rational here then a "no" vote could only be seen as expressing zero support for men and women in uniform who have absolutely no say whatsoever over where the President sends them or what their job will be when they get there.

The goof was in trying to have it both ways. That's not leadership.

Assuming Novick et al actually did wish our troops the best, isn't he trying to have it both ways too? Or does Novick simply not support our troops? Can't you see how rediculous your argument is? It smears Novick and Merkley alike, just for different things.

This is an utterly absurd, contrived non-issue. Using it to grind a partisan axe cuts both ways whether you want to accept that reality or not.

Kari et al, can one of you close the italics tag I left open?

Thanks!

LT, I don't know who first asked Steve about it, but perhaps we can all agree that it is OK for him to answer the question fully and truthfully? Nobody is saying or expecting that this problem of Merkley's should "make the case for Novick" in your eyes or anyone else's. It is just one piece of a large and complex puzzle (many of the pieces of which are not even visible yet).

If you take a look at Steve's website you will find considerable information about Steve's positions on issues and the philosophy of public service that has brought him to the point of becoming a candidate for the Senate.

He's got an email link on there and my experience is that he's pretty good about responding to email. The campaign phone number is on the site too.

When I look at www.jeffmerkley.com, I learn that he supports the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales. While I applaud his position, there is nothing else on the site that is the slightest bit useful or probative of his future inclinations as a legislator.

I disagree with Steve on a number of issues, and I fully expect that more will emerge. But I don't expect any public servant to agree with me 100% of the time. I do prefer to vote for those whose values are well aligned with my own, and from my observations of Steve's own statements and his earlier career I have found sufficient comfort to believe that they are.

Kevin, five Democrats had the courage to vote against that stupid resolution, and a couple of them placed statements into the record stating the reason for their votes. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a guy as smart as Jeff Merkley didn't do the same thing. But the fact that he didn't causes me to wonder, why not?

I'd like to take a moment to add here that the very title of this posting not-very-subtly slants the dialogue against Steve.

Steve Novick has NOT attacked Merkley. I can't speak about the Republicans, but to lump Steve and the Republicans together is an ugly little rhetorical trick and I hope it does not fool anyone.

I am not going to pick up most of the substance of this thread because Steve will be writing a guest opinion for Blue O on it for tomorrow.

But I do have to take issue with you LT for saying, "Those of us who live downstate don't see Steve Novick all that often."

Steve was in Lane County today for the county Dems Chili cookoff. He was in Gilliam & Wheeler counties yesterday for a Democratic picnic. You can read more about that trip in today's East Oregonian (sub required):

Part of that strategy is attending small gatherings like the Wheeler County picnic, where Novick's message, both in a speech and in small talk, played well with the Democrats gathered for the three-hour event.

"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.

"I think he's really got his thoughts together. He's not doing this as a fluke," Thompson said. "I think he really convinces people that he has a chance."

We are running a campaign that connects with Democrats across Oregon and your asides only undercut your credibility.

Sorry but Merkley voted the right way on the non-biding resolution, stated he disagreed with the war but supported the troops when this bullshit resolution was brought up by the GOP 2 days into the invasion (before our troops even got to Baghdad).

Novick is fucking it up by legitimizing the GOP crap as even a legitimate disagreement. That there are alleged Democrats and "progressives" saying Merkley "goofed" on this is beyond pathetic. Way to do the GOP work for them.

The only proper reply Novick should have given is calling this for what it was, that this was a GOP trap BS bill and it is 100% fraudulent that the GOP think this immunizes him for throwing the lives away of the troops for pushing this war in the first place.

That Novick is giving tacit agreement that this is a legitimate "controversy" and that this is substantive difference in opposing the war (the implied narrative in the media) is bogus.

Merkely stated at the time invasion was not the correct policy for us to pursue, but was voting to support troops who were ordered to put there lives on the line is the exact opposite of a goof.

While I usually respect TJs take on most things, he is flat to wrong to try and spin that voting no in the resolution is the same as calling it an illegitimate resolution. It is a crap argument. Either the resolution has moral support for what it says or it doesn't. Merkely clearly (at the time) voted to give moral support for the troops in the line of fire, even though he disagreed with putting them in that situation in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to think otherwise, or claim that it showed poor judgement on Merkely part is a fricken idiot.

While it is far form a make-or-break issue, and Novick or Merkely would be a critical improvement over the jack-off that is Gordon SMith, Novick and his supporters trying to make hay out of this and not calling it a bullshit GOP stunt which it is, are showing they really don;t get it.

But hey, lets have the two candidates who hold the position form the get-go that the invasion of Iraq was going to be a mistake attack each other over a GOP stunt, instead of attacking the GOP jack-off who actually voted to get our troops killed. Way to go idiots.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 6:50:24 PM Kevin, five Democrats had the courage to vote against that stupid resolution, and a couple of them placed statements into the record stating the reason for their votes. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a guy as smart as Jeff Merkley didn't do the same thing. But the fact that he didn't causes me to wonder, why not?

Maybe because Jeff is smart enough and empathetic enough to realize that 2 days into an invasion it is more important to vote in support of our troops and their families during what for them is one of the most highly-stressful things they will face in life, even while disagreeing with the policy that put them into the line of fire. Perhaps it is more important to do that than it is/was to register a meaningless protest against wording that lauds Bush in a GOP stunt of a non-binding resolution.

Furthermore, since Jeff did have entered into the record that he disagreed with the rationale for invasion at the time, not sure why you see it as more commendable for the 5 who voted no (and would have, if running for the Senate, been attacked as voting against supporting the troops by the GOP spin-jockeys).

I certainly have more respect for Jeff voting for this and saying exactly what he was voting for and stating he disagreed with the invasion, than I do for those who voted no, even though I can accept why they voted no. But I do not have much respect for alleged Democrats and progressives saying this was a bad vote by Jeff. It wasn't. Furthermore Steve hasn't shown the best judgement as to how the media narrative gets devleoped and the GOP in pushing in this, and his earlier statements are validating it whether he sees it that way or not. Again, not a deal-breaker per se since I think Steve would make a great Snators (as would Jeff) but Steve needs to learn from this and see that the media will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative in order to get the Democrats to attack each other (conflict sells column inches). THis is what the problem is, that even though they both agree the war was wrong and should not have been launched, the narrative is levearaging his words to create Democratic confilct instead of the larger more subtantive point that Smith is the one who voted to get our troops killed over fictitious WMDs (the most meaningless of terms) in the first place.

Where have you folks been the last six years? Have we not watched time and time again as Democrats find themselves bullied, shamed and tricked into voting on bills devoid of real meaning? Where they take seriously the nonsense the Republicans have spouted, and give compliance lest someone from the GOP say mean things?

We went to war, we signed the Patriot Act, we destroyed habeas corpus because Democrats took the bait from Republicans and made the safe vote they thought would avoid criticism.

But that's not why you vote for things.

Maybe because Jeff is smart enough and empathetic enough to realize that 2 days into an invasion it is more important to vote in support of our troops and their families during what for them is one of the most highly-stressful things they will face in life, even while disagreeing with the policy that put them into the line of fire.

Why is it more important to "vote in support of our troops?" That's the trap--trying to make Democrats vote for the resolution because they're afraid someone will say "they didn't support the troops." And so rather than reject the bait, most Democrats went along. When Kevin says "it's more important to say you support the troops," the game's already over, because at that point you've validated the legitimacy of the argument--that whether you support the troops or not is based on how you vote on a symbolic measure.

he is flat to wrong to try and spin that voting no in the resolution is the same as calling it an illegitimate resolution.

That's not really what I said; what I said was that you can't vote Yes on a bill you consider illegitimate, without legitimizing it.

We've got a problem with how national Democrats handle the tricks and traps Republicans spend their whole legislative lives trying to set. We had some of the same issues in the state legislature, with Democrats repeatedly believing they could negotiate in good faith with Republicans--and getting screwed almost every time, and falling victim to the lame threats by voting safely. I for one, want a candidate who isn't prone to that kind of approach.

I do agree with the above statement "Steve needs to learn from this and see that the media will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative in order to get the Democrats to attack each other (conflict sells column inches)."

I think Steve probably sees that the media and the GOP will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative REGARDLESS of what they do. Which is rather the point--playing along with their reindeer games only feeds the narratives that play out poorly for Democrats. A Democrat of the strongest conscience sees that bill and says "this is a piece of junk. You think by throwing in 'supporting the troops' you're going to get me to sign onto Bush's courage and our righteous cause? Forget that--you want me to validate this war and I won't do it."

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 8:43:44 PM Why is it more important to "vote in support of our troops?"

Because our troops are literally putting their lives on the line and 2 days into a military engagement deserve that more than lodging empty gestures and refusing to vote that Bush is "courageous". That people don't get this is baffling. I have been, and remain, staunchly against this war and the frittering away of our troops lives and bodies for a lie of a war. A war of choice which is the biggest strategic disaster in our nation's history I might add.

But agree or disagree with the policy, anything an elected representative to show moral and emotional support for those who volunteer to put their lives in harms way on our behalf (which regardless of the merits of any particular conflict is the very essence of military service) commands our respect and support.

Just like I may disagree with the validity of some laws or policies, and think that some cops are jack-offs, I can and do respect those who serve the public by putting themselves in the line of fire for the common good.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 8:49:21 PM I think Steve probably sees that the media and the GOP will spin anything he or Jeff says into a GOP framed narrative REGARDLESS of what they do.

Yes and no. If Steve had responded in a fashion of calling it out as a fraudulent resolution and a trap, THAT would not be anywhere near as spinnable AND would have been the smart and legitimate move. The "I would have voted no" line wasn't the smart move and frankly, a weak sauce line given the story in play.

Which is rather the point--playing along with their reindeer games only feeds the narratives that play out poorly for Democrats

Voting "No" which Steve said he would have done is playing their game too and strikes me as opportunistic to try and draw a difference between him and Jeff on an "issue" which is lame at best. And to put it bluntly, the claim that voting no is rejecting their "reindeer games" is bunk TJ. You honestly think that is a legitimate argument/defense?

I can and do respect those who serve the public by putting themselves in the line of fire for the common good.

So, are you implying that Jackie Dingfelder, and Mitch Greenlick, and the other three D's who didn't vote for that resolution ... DON'T (or DIDN'T) support the troops? Nonsense. Of course they did, and do. They found a way to communicate their support of the troops without sucking up to George W. Bush.

the Dems go all internecine and start attacking the yeas

NO ONE IS ATTACKING THE YEAS.

(BUT, bonus points for elegant and proper use of the word internecine!)

However, some of us don't like the idea of the yea vote on this resolution, even though (or perhaps precisely because) it was symbolic in nature. This kind of trick is a favorite of the Republican Party. I'd like to elect a Senator who won't vote for this kind of symbolic resolution, and who also will be brave enough not to walk into more substantive Republican traps like the Patriot Act.

Others may not care about this issue. But the beautiful thing about democracy is, every voter gets to decide for himself/herself how important it is. I am not claiming that it is the defining issue of Jeff Merkley - only that it matters to me. By the same token, you don't get to say that it doesn't matter at all - only that it doesn't matter to you.

So, are you implying that Jackie Dingfelder, and Mitch Greenlick, and the other three D's who didn't vote for that resolution ... DON'T (or DIDN'T) support the troops? Nonsense. Of course they did, and do. They found a way to communicate their support of the troops without sucking up to George W. Bush.

So did Merkley! You can't have it both ways.

If voting FOR the 2003 non-binding, non-legislative resolution means that those who voted for it were in for every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it then by that EXACT same logic everyone who voted against it was against every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it. And it's impossible to spell military without crossing t's and dotting i's.

Which is it?!?

If Merkley can't have it both ways than neither can you.

Can't you see how patently absurd this is!!??

Trishka,

I don't know about anyone else but to me "support for the troops" can be as simple as empathizing with the fact that they had/have no choice in the matter. They were being (and still are) into harms way without being asked whether they want to or whether they approve. All indications are that their Commander in Chief doesn't particularly care whether they agree with his rationale or not.

One can vehemently oppose a war and still empathize with troops and wish them well and hope that most of them make it home alive.

I guess what I'm saying, Kevin, is that offered a choice, I'd rather my elected officials found a non-legislative path to expressing support for the troops IF the legislative path goes by way of sucking up to George W. Bush.

YMMV.

"Torrid, now I think you're just being ridiculous. There is no relationship or slippery slope between a non-binding res like this and the voiding of the US Constitution."

There's no relationship between an illegal war and the voiding of the Constitution? News to me.

"And to put it bluntly, the claim that voting no is rejecting their "reindeer games" is bunk TJ. You honestly think that is a legitimate argument/defense?"

Yes, absolutely--we all know that "supporting the troops" is the trap set to get a Yes vote. So rejecting that ploy obviously means voting no. And again, in any case you can't claim a vote is illegitimate and then support it.

"If voting FOR the 2003 non-binding, non-legislative resolution means that those who voted for it were in for every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it then by that EXACT same logic everyone who voted against it was against every single crossed "t" and dotted "i" in it."

Nope. Voting for it means those who voted for it were either in favor of the war, or too politically afraid to be seen as not "supporting the troops" to vote against it.

Stephanie V wrote If asked a question by reporters, a candidate has a right and even an obligation to give an honest answer.

Yes, of course, he does. (Well, he can decline comment, but set that aside for now.) But the honest answer is this one: "Jeff Merkley and I both agree that going to War in Iraq is wrong. Oregon Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for conflating the support of our troops with supporting the war."

That's what Novick should have said. Instead, he bought into the swiftboating of Jeff Merkley.

Stephanie V wrote Steve Novick has NOT attacked Merkley.

Of course he has, Stephanie. Right here:

"A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.

That's a clear parroting of the Republican line that Jeff Merkley was somehow in favor of the war. He's against it, has been against it since the beginning, and no amount of wishing or hoping from NW Republican, the Oregon GOP, or Steve Novick will make it so.

"A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.

That's not an attack. That's an observation.

And once again, here's the resolution. Check out those preambles, ladies and gentlemen! Read 'em and weep!

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.

Call me wacky, but I'd rather support a candidate who didn't vote for that.

Preambles don't count.

I think it's worth trying to figure out where people stand on the issue, but in political and substantive terms, I think trying to pin motive retroactively is a fool's errand.

Substantively, Democrats of good intention who opposed the war had two choices; take a consistent line against all acts, political and legislative, of the supporters, or oppose the war and try to support those who were compelled to fight in and die in it. In 2003, we weren't certain what would happen. I argued in my blog for months before the invasion that it was stupid, racist, and ridiculously misguided. But when the bombs started falling, I expressed hope that despite all these things it would work out--Iraqis might find unity and the US might accidentally make the Middle East a less divided place. Find that post, and you could argue that I was insufficiently antiwar, despite my constant opposition.

People also recognized that whatever the facts on the ground, Americans and Oregonians were dying. Their families were suffering. Offering a procedural show of support isn't a demonic thing.

Politically, I get why Smith and Novick find themselves on the same team--neither wants a Merkley win in the primary. Novick is making his play, but I don't think it will amount to anything; a vast majority of Oregonians supported the invasion and still find themselves in something other than a perfectly antiwar stance.

This isn't about to derail Merkley's campaign. Far from it; it actually demonstrates something essential about Merkley. He works to pass the most progressive legislation possible, and recognizes the value of certain gestures to create comity. You might ask which candidate, Novick or Merkley, is likely to actually be able to implement a progressive agenda. This issue helps shed light on that question.

It's also worth mentioning that Novick wasn't in office during these very difficult times. It is easy to play gotcha when you weren't in office.

I guess what I'm saying, Kevin, is that offered a choice, I'd rather my elected officials found a non-legislative path to expressing support for the troops IF the legislative path goes by way of sucking up to George W. Bush.

I both respect and agree with what you've expressed there, Stephanie.

From where I sit there is nothing substantively different about the path that Merkley took and the path that the 5 who voted against it took. They just went about it in different ways.

So instead of continueing to dance to a conservative's tune, how 'bout we put this behind us and find ways to change the tune to one that both benefits and better reflects Oregonians rather than semi-literate wanna-be Texans who we know don't care about what's good for Oregon?

That's a clear parroting of the Republican line that Jeff Merkley was somehow in favor of the war. He's against it, has been against it since the beginning, and no amount of wishing or hoping from NW Republican, the Oregon GOP, or Steve Novick will make it so.

You're making a conflation that isn't there--that being FOR something, and not being sufficiently OPPOSED as to show true leadership, are the same thing. It baffles me how y'all don't immediately see this as of the same piece as holding Clinton accountable when she validates the frame of Republicans being stronger on terror, or that impeachment is unwise because it might mess with Democratic chances for the Presidency in 2008, or that we have to pass a FISA castration because the administration warned us about chatter, and so we can't be seen as not supporting listening in on terrorists.

Democracy is hard. The Republicans seem to enjoy making it even harder. It is entirely valid to consider candidates based in part on how they might respond in such uncomfortable situations. It's not at all a matter of being FOR the war; rather that when called to comment on the justness and necessity of the Iraq conflict, most Oregon House Democrats in 2003 opted to endorse the bait of "support the troops" and swallow the bile pus that was the intended guts of the bill. Make no mistake, that's the part the GOP wanted you on record for. Some refused the bait and spoke their dissent--quite bravely given the times.

IMO it's possible to be right on an issue, but not "leadership right." Being leadership right is doing it when it might cost you, and fighting through the nonsense filters, particularly the "but this will hurt Democrats" filter. Feingold's first withdrawal bill was leadership right. Kucinich, whatever else I may think about him, is leadership right on Cheney impeachment. Maybe Wyden will turn out to be leadership right on FISA next month; he sounds like it and I hope so.

As Darcy Burner says, more AND better Democrats. Let's set the bar high.

"He works to pass the most progressive legislation possible, and recognizes the value of certain gestures to create comity."

1) Was that resolution the most progressive legislation possible, or to approach it differently--did he support decidely NON progressive legislation?

2) How much comity did it earn him in the 2007 session? How did all that cooperative spirit and goodwill work out for him once he showed a certain gesture to the House Republicans?

Comity got Democrats several months of wasted time while Republicans pretended at negotiation on M37, until finally the only thing left to do was make a bill and vote on it. That would have worked, had another effort at comity led one Democratic member to refuse to vote yes unless a Republican did too. Thus failed, we all get to vote on that bill as M49 instead. That's just one example of the value of comity this year.

I'm all for bipartisanship. But it's not a one-way street, and until some of that trust is earned back the adults have to take over from the wingnuts who refuse to govern. The country is demanding Congress to be much more assertive in its powers, but in the short term those powers will largely not come through compromise but via the wielding of the majority's authority, confident in the backing of the people to move aggressively.

"That would have worked, had NOT another effort"

left out the not, sorry

I wrote... That's a clear parroting of the Republican line that Jeff Merkley was somehow in favor of the war. He's against it, has been against it since the beginning, and no amount of wishing or hoping from NW Republican, the Oregon GOP, or Steve Novick will make it so.

TJ responded... You're making a conflation that isn't there--that being FOR something, and not being sufficiently OPPOSED as to show true leadership, are the same thing.

TJ, TJ, TJ... I'm not the one making the conflation. It's Steve Novick and the GOP that are conflating Merkley's two-part position (against the war, for the troops) with being in favor of the war.

Here's Novick again: "A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.

I love Steve Novick, I really do. And I love him because he can craft a brilliant sentence like this one -- where the casual reader puts the emphasis on "against" but he can hang his hat on "strong".

In other words, the casual reader hears "Jeff Merkley was for the war" while Novick defends himself by saying "No, I just meant Jeff Merkley wasn't strongly against the war."

It's a brilliant tactic, used many times to skewer Bill Sizemore, Ron Saxton, and many other right-wings shills. But to use it against Jeff Merkley, in service of a right-wing talking point, is just plain wrong.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 9:10:03 PM So, are you implying that Jackie Dingfelder, and Mitch Greenlick, and the other three D's who didn't vote for that resolution

Don't be an idiot. Your entire screed is becoming unhinged.

Posted by: James X. | Aug 26, 2007 9:32:21 PM I respectfully disagree with both Lestatdelc and Stephanie. I don't think this resolution is either an indicator of whether a rep "respects those who serve" or is "sucking up to Bush," since the res is nonsense, along with attempts to score campaign points with it.

Sure it is. Albeit in the form of a political trap of a non-binding resolution. But 2 days into a military conflict I come down on the side of voting for a resolution that explicitly supports the troops even though it is polluted with the Bush crap and the WMD canard. I find it far more respectful in that context with coupled with a floor speech why you don't agree with the rationale for invading but supporting troops in combat.

What is BS is making political campaign fodder out of voting for suporting the troops 2 4 years ago, on that we agree. I also find it troubling that Steph and Novick backers are doing just that.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 26, 2007 9:48:00 PM I guess what I'm saying, Kevin, is that offered a choice, I'd rather my elected officials found a non-legislative path to expressing support for the troops IF the legislative path goes by way of sucking up to George W. Bush.

So your hatred of sayign something good about Bush, even it is somethign you don't agree with, outweighs expressing for the troops and their familes when the bulltes are flying?

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 26, 2007 9:55:50 PM "And to put it bluntly, the claim that voting no is rejecting their "reindeer games" is bunk TJ. You honestly think that is a legitimate argument/defense?" Yes, absolutely--we all know that "supporting the troops" is the trap set to get a Yes vote. So rejecting that ploy obviously means voting no.

Sorry TJ, but that is not a solid argument at all. Voting present, or refusing to vote is rejecting their trap. Voting no is playiung it just as much as voting yes. Though as I have said upthread, I respect it more to vote yes to give moral support for those who serve if you include it with the caveat that you also make clear you do not support the war or the invasion, which is what Merkely did.

If Novick had simply said that the vote was a trap and the GOP in the here and now are making a ridiculous and fraudulent attempt at gotcha, I would have heartily applauded Novick on it. Instead he says "I would have voted no" and thus legitimizes the GOP argument in the media narrative. You can say he isn't legitimizing it, but that doesn't wash given that is exactly what the media narrative has been in the AP crap.

Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 12:40:11 AM Aren't you the same guy that stirred up this shit-storm here on BlueOregon in the first place?

No. I wasn't being quoted agreeing with fraudulent GOP framed bullshit. That was Novick.

Mitch, what is truly sorry is this. In your desperate attempt to mitigate your guy's mistake, you would legitimate Merkley's spineless fence sitting by employing the same argument as George W. Bush in using his signing statements to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

My guy? Funny, I have raised over $350 for the Novick campaign, but I guess facts don't matter.

As to your absurd analogy, so by your "logic" those who voted no on the resolution but made floor speech to say they do support the troops, that is the equivalent of George Bush signing statements and talking out of both sides of their mouths?

ROFLMAO

Your post is pure blather.

Thom, we impute motive all the time when we talk about politicians, but let's not, as TJ has regularly done here, actually fool ourselves into thinking we know what someone's intention was.

TJ, you and Novick offer the classic liberal purity test on a lawmaker who has had to actually legislate. I think we've spilled enough ink on the issue that our positions are pretty clear, but I will reiterate this point: Novick is pure because he's never held office. You find me a politician who can pass your purity test, and I'll show you a woeful legislator who has burned too many bridges to ever actually push through progressive laws.

Thom, we impute motive all the time when we talk about politicians, but let's not, as TJ has regularly done here, actually fool ourselves into thinking we know what someone's intention was.

What makes you assume I didn't know what Steve's intention was? Isn't it possible that I had a chance to discuss it after Cain called Novick, but before the piece was picked up? It's more than possible, actually. Read Steve's piece today.

From Mitch:

Sorry TJ, but that is not a solid argument at all. Voting present, or refusing to vote is rejecting their trap. Voting no is playiung it just as much as voting yes.

First of all, the only options available to Jeff were Yes or No; you can't abstain or refuse to vote, by Oregon law. Secondly, to vote no is to say "I will not take your lame bait in order to validate your bogus premise that we all support Bush's war." Not playing the game is refusing to take the bait.

LT:

But those who think that concentration on a 2003 legislative vote is short term thinking (is it really more important than the long term goal of having a Democratic Senator in DC to vote on confirmations of the new president's cabinet appointees?) may consider this another reason why they aren't sure about Steve.

This IS long term thinking. It has almost nothing to do with the measure itself, and everything to do with the way a legislator addresses the tricks and traps set up by a dishonest opposition in order to set the terms of the debate. The short term resolution forces some of us to ask the long term question: Who can we count on to show leadership and reject those attempts, no matter WHAT the topic? Tomorrow it may be FISA, or torture, or science over politics.

Hindsight is 20:20, folks.

Let's take ourselves back to 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed. The country was scared shitless. We had just suffered the largest one time civilian loss in our nation's history, and within our borders. Many things were passed in that period that we look back on with regret, but to accuse the Democrats of being "spineless" at this point is just silly.

Let's take ourselves back in time to 2003. Bush was riding high with approval ratings in the 70s. The country and most of the national political establishment was solidly behind the war in Iraq. There were a small number of voices that were objecting to the build up to the war, but they were drowned out. Democrats were running scared, and the results of the 2002 midterms and the subsequent 2004 election pretty much confirmed that the party was in serious trouble on national security issues.

It's very easy to point fingers and say if only the party had opposed the war from the start, if only they had tried to defeat the Patriot Act, if only they had voted no on resolutions "supporting the troops" that may have been meaningless on policy grounds but were very, very politically dangerous, that things may have been different.

But more likely, it would have provided additional ammunition for the GOP to hammer Democrats in 2002 and 2004.

Hey, you may think that a resolution supporting motherhood and apple pie is "bullshit" but this bullshit happens all the time in legislatures. Democrats are just as good at proposing symbolic resolutions as Republicans are. Most times, you just hold your nose and vote for it.

That's politics, folks.

What makes you assume I didn't know what Steve's intention was?

I was talking about Merkley, not Novick.

OK, now I'm confused--how do we not know what Merkley's motivation was, when he wrote a speech to tell us about it?

I am fascinated how quickly this tempest has eliminated the Iraq war as an issue that Merkley could use against Smith in the 2008 campaign (if Merkley is the candidate).

It has been a well accepted fact in politics for a long time that any legislator is more vulnerable to attack than a candidate without a public voting record. And if the Iraq war is to be the general election issue it deserves to be, we need to nominate a candidate who has the ability to demonstrate the sharpest contrast with the status quo. Jeff Merkley is a good man, but he is just not the guy who can do that.

East Bank,

If you really believe Bush's use of executive orders or violations of FISA are comparable to Nazi Germany, then we have nothing to talk about.

There have been periods of legislative dominance in American politics. There have been periods of executive dominance. If you want to point at one period where checks and balances were in peril, it would be during the Civil War.

Sad periods in our executive branch history: Jackson's treatment of the Indians. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and federal takeover of border state governments. Wilson's jailing of Eugene Debs and anti-war protestors. Roosevelt's court packing scheme. Bush's violation of FISA.

All bad times. And the Constitution survived. We didn't end up with a fascist dictatorship.

The parallel is just incredibly weak and needlessly provocative.

Add Japanese internment.