Steve, I certainly believe that the primary is the exact place where candidates should highlight their differences, so that Democrats can make their decision. So no complaints from me about your pursuing this, if you feel it's important to voters.

Yet I'm not sure this is exactly the strongest argument to make. Sure, the Republicans will try to bring this vote up. But if Mr. Merkley had voted "no", refusing to praise the "courage, dedication, professionalism, and sacrifices" of the troops, do you think they wouldn't bring that up? In fact, don't you think they'd bring it up even more?

It's perfectly within the bounds of the primary debate to make the argument that voters are unable see through this kind of GOP rhetorical gamesmanship. I'm just not sure I believe it.

I really don't understand the purpose of this post. Is the reader supposed to believe you will be a better Senator than Speaker Merkley because you will throw more of a fit about nonbinding resolutions?

I understand why Novick would not want to focus on substantive legislation--given Merkley's concrete history of sheparding a broad and aggressive legislative agenda that made Oregon better for Oregonians--but I don't understand why "vote for me and I will do a better job of raising a partisan stink" would sound like an appealing platform to someone with Novick's obvious intelligence and political judgment.

We all know that Novick has loads of policy smarts. Isn't it a little insulting to Oregon Democrats that he then chooses to use his time communicating with primary voters to focus on GOP gotcha politics?

Here is a transcript of then Rep. Jeff Merkley's floor speach on HR 2 during the 2003 Legislative Session.

Rep. Jeff Merkley Floor Speech on House Resolution 2 (As Delivered) March 21, 2003

Colleagues, I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day.

Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops.

I praise our sons and daughters – their courage, their professionalism. I pray now that the fighting will be brief; that the casualties on both sides will be sparse; that international aid to rebuild Iraq will be swift and abundant; that the terrorist repercussions will be few or none; and that there will be a new Iraqi government soon that will rule with wisdom and will provide the opportunity and freedoms for every Iraqi citizen to survive.

May that be the outcome.

Wow, U.P.L. You don't make it hard to guess what you think the "right" answer is, do you?

As someone who agrees that outright protectionism is bad, I wonder exactly what you consider a environmental and labor riders to be "deal killing". Killed by whom? Democrats? Or plutocrats?

I am in favor of free trade agreements that help push first world standards of labor and environmental protections into the third world. I am not in favor of free trade agreements that import third world plutocracy and misery into first world countries, like the United States.

Steve,

Thanks for clearing the air as to what your position is. I happen to agree with you, but I'm sure that there are those who disagree with you on this issue who will also appreciate the more fleshed-out explanation.

I don't understand why "vote for me and I will do a better job of raising a partisan stink" would sound like an appealing platform to someone with Novick's obvious intelligence and political judgment.

You don't see the obvious disappointment with a Democratic Congress that has refused to raise much of a partisan stink these last six years? Americans--not just Democrats, but as much as a fourth of Republicans--want Congress to fight administrative overreach and the triumph of lies. The resolution was a lie wrapped in a flag. I want to know which candidate can unwrap the flag and expose the box of shit underneath.

Sometimes there is just no substitute for raising hell.

I prefer to be represented by someone who knows when that is.

As for "supporting the troops..."

A lot of this gratuitous posturing originates in the myth that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon. While it is certainly true that some veterans of any war will have a bad experience upon returning from the front, a 1971 Harris poll found that 94% of Vietnam veterans reported a positive experience at homecoming.

Everybody supports the troops. Some of us just wish they didn't have to BE "troops," so they could just be young Americans living their lives among their families and friends.

This entire "controversy" is contrived, inherently demagogic and a rank insult to the intelligence of Oregonians. Merkley made his position crystal clear, as lestatdelc demonstrates, and it is flat out dishonest to insinuate that he didn't or that he somehow flip-flopped.

Please, feel free to disregard my point of view here. I am not a Democrat. I'm just one of those "nonaffiliated" voters which both parties have to have in order to win anything on a state-wide level. The stunningly self-evident display of partisan fratricide on display by Novick & company is indistinguishable from the kind of partisan fratricide I've seen Oregon Republicans practice as a matter of course. And it reminds me afresh why joining either party doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

A lot of this gratuitous posturing originates in the myth that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon. While it is certainly true that some veterans of any war will have a bad experience upon returning from the front, a 1971 Harris poll found that 94% of Vietnam veterans reported a positive experience at homecoming. Everybody supports the troops.

Stephanie,

While I agree that spitting on returnees was rare to non-existent, we did not have a positive experience at homecoming. I doubt that you could find more than a handful of Vietnam vets that would say that today and I would question the content of that poll. Most of us would have shrugged and said, ya ok, to make the pollster go away. While being screamed at as baby killers was rare, it was common enough to make people dump the uniform as soon as we could. There were no parades, no welcome home events excepting small family gatherings. Some of us didn't even get that. Mostly we were just ignored.

"Merkley made his position crystal clear"

I'm baffled how "vote yes, explain no" is a crystal clear explanation.

Also--- "It is easy to say now, fully informed by 20-20 hindsight, that one would stand against the inevitable hurricane-force backlash due at the time to anyone repudiating the troops' mission."

Five of them did--and it appears they all survived the windstorm.

John, I certainly wouldn't dispute your firsthand experience as a returning veteran, but I think we agree on the larger point.

And TJ: yes, exactly. If the vote on the resolution had been unanimous, I would be much more receptive to the idea that it was somehow perceived as mandatory to accede to it.

And if it was, as everyone seems to agree, just a symbolic Republican gambit ... then, as a voter, I think I am within my rights to say I'd rather vote for someone who doesn't vote for that kind of thing, but instead calls it out for what it is.

Two points. This resolution was passed the day on March 21, 2003--the day after the US began the invasion. That date is not insignificant; the debate on whether it was right to go in or not was over. The procedural vote would have carried FAR different implications if it had been voted on a week earlier--and would make Novick's case a lot stronger. It sheds a different light on Merkley's floor speech and you can see the significance in the words "Today I rise to praise our young men and women..."

Second point: Novick has never served, so we can't know if he'd have joined Jeff Merkley if he'd been compelled to vote the day Oregon citizens were headed into battle.

Novick has never served as an elected official, that is.

I think we would see real courage if the Legislators would add one line to the infinite Supplemental Appropriations Bils that are funding this unending occupation and bloodbath: "All (supplemental) funding for military and supporting actions in Iraq must be part of the Budget, and no part may be from borrowing from lenders" OK, That came out sorta funny. I know that's a contradiction, Supp vs Budget, but the idea is no Supplemental spending for Iraq, all Iraq spending must be in the budget payed for by the people. In real time. Individuals and businesses. According to ability to pay (OK I went too far there!) If this is the defining action of our time, the battle between good and evil, lets put our money where our mouth is. And I mean our money today, not some future money from our kids and grand kids. Steve Novick, Jeff Merkley, you are suddenly, magically now both US Senators. What say you?

we can't know if he'd have joined Jeff Merkley if he'd been compelled to vote the day Oregon citizens were headed into battle.

See, I think we CAN and DO know. And I think everyone here who knows Steve Novick or anything about him knows to a dead certainty that he would never have voted for that thing.

Look at it again:

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

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

The Steve Novick I know would have choked on that, would have denounced it with wit and verve, and would have ridiculed the Republicans for serving it up. In fact, I would venture to say that if Steve Novick had been the Democratic leader in 2003, not only would he have provided actual leadership by voting no himself, but a lot more than five Democrats would have felt that they had sufficient political cover to vote no as well.

That's what leaders do. That's what leadership is.

(who knows? maybe if Steve had been the Democratic leader, even Merkley would have felt he had enough cover to vote against it)

TJ, Stephanie, et al... you win. Steve Novick utterly opposes the following:

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

I accept your frame and it's logical conclussions. To wit...those who supported the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore supported all of it. The reverse being equally true, because logic demands it, those who opposed the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore opposed all of it.

Steve, thanks for dispelling any misperceptions that you might be capable of even the slightest empathy towards men and women who don't get a say over where the President sends them or what they have to do once they get there. Ditto for the family and friends (and I am one of the latter) of those very same servicemen and servicewomen.

Afterall, I'm simply accepting YOUR frame here.

I accept your frame and it's logical conclussions. To wit...those who supported the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore supported all of it. The reverse being equally true, because logic demands it, those who opposed the resolution, public qualifications aside, therefore opposed all of it.

Actually the logic doesn't demand it at all. A No response would be properly indicative in any case where you simply do not agree with all of it. The Republicans purposefully set up what is called in polling a "double-barreled" question: more than one concept is being posed, but only one encompassing answer (a Yes or No vote) is possible. To answer in agreement to the entire question, on a logical basis one has to agree with ALL parts, otherwise the only possible answer is No. If Vote = Y when A and B and C are true, then if any of A,B or C are NOT true, then Vote must = N.

"thanks for dispelling any misperceptions that you might be capable of even the slightest empathy towards men and women who don't get a say over where the President sends them or what they have to do once they get there."

Again, this interpretation makes the strange case that the GOP was actually serious in seeking "support for the troops," rather than just using a catch phrase as bait for nervous Democrats.

To answer in agreement to the entire question, on a logical basis one has to agree with ALL parts, otherwise the only possible answer is No. If Vote = Y when A and B and C are true, then if any of A,B or C are NOT true, then Vote must = N.

Are you suggesting that this should be the rule for all legislative votes? That one has to agree with every single aspect of the entire bill in order to vote yes?

Certainly, there are plenty of situations where compromise has been reached - a little "I'll give you this, you give me that" - and a majority vote can be achieved.

Setting aside the HR 2 question for a moment, is this really the way we want to approach politics? That each legislator should vote against every bill that is not 100% exactly as that legislator would have written it?

I'm not sure we'd ever pass a bill.

Certainly, there are plenty of situations where compromise has been reached - a little "I'll give you this, you give me that" - and a majority vote can be achieved. Setting aside the HR 2 question for a moment, is this really the way we want to approach politics? That each legislator should vote against every bill that is not 100% exactly as that legislator would have written it?

Is that what it was now, a compromise? I'll give you "courageous George Bush" if you give me "support the troops?"

I never said a legislator should vote against every bill that is not 100% exactly as they would have written. What I said was that Kevin's logical construct doesn't hold water, because a Yes vote indicates affirmation of the entire bill overall, while a No vote indicates a level of disagreement with all OR part of it, such that agreement was not possible. Furthermore, you AND Jeff know as well as I do that the "support the troops" part of that bill held no meaning whatsoever beyond the ability to bait Democrats into voting for it. That was the sole purpose of it--to create a trap. Your position here seems to suggest that Jeff actually sat and considered the merits of the bill as if it were not a trap vote.

Kari, I would add this: no matter how you feel in your heart of hearts about each and every clause of the bill you are voting on, if you vote Aye, you are nonetheless accountable for each and every clause.

Legislators find ways to make their peace with that. But they are public servants and they know, or should know, that they are responsible for their choices.

It's hard to credibly denounce a war when you are voting for a resolution that supports it.

EBT and Stephanie, if you really think that Merkely was voting to support the war you are deluded.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 27, 2007 4:08:26 PM Kari, I would add this: no matter how you feel in your heart of hearts about each and every clause of the bill you are voting on, if you vote Aye, you are nonetheless accountable for each and every clause.

So Novick doesn't believe the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of freedom is praise worthy (especially when the bullets are flying)...?

Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 27, 2007 6:25:52 PM EBT and Stephanie, if you really think that Merkely was voting to support the war you are deluded. Hey Mitch, why don't you pack up the straw men and take your act on the yellow brick road. I'm getting really close to registering (D) just to vote hook and spite you.

How is it a "strawman"...? Stephanie clearly thinks, and specifically said that Merkely was voting in support of the war, despite the fact Merekly said that he didn't support the invasion on the floor of the state house.

I'm getting really close to registering (D) just to vote hook and spite you.

Wow. That will certainly teach me a lesson, considering I have been raising money for Novick's campaign. Go on, I double dog dare yeah to vote for Novick. I triple dog dare ya to contribute to his campaign as well.

"Even TJ initially acknowledged that "trying to pin the war-supporter tag on Merkley (is) an absurd and pointless gambit."

Initially? "Even" me? Please point out who has claimed (other than Republicans) that Merkley supported the war. I don't believe anyone has, least of all me. "Even" Reinhard doesn't believe it, he makes clear.

"So Novick doesn't believe the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of freedom is praise worthy (especially when the bullets are flying)...?"

You don't actually think that was what the bill was about, do you? You still can't see that it was a trap vote, and that was the bait? It wasn't a serious proposition, and in any case it's a meaningless platitude.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 27, 2007 7:30:12 PM I don't believe anyone has, least of all me. "Even" Reinhard doesn't believe it, he makes clear.

Stephanie V made that argument in this very thread.

You don't actually think that was what the bill was about, do you?

Lame dodge TJ. YOU said that every sentence in a resolution counts. So by YOUR standards Novick voting no would mean he doesn't think the believe the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of freedom is praise worthy. That is the bullshit YOU employed TJ.

You still can't see that it was a trap vote, and that was the bait?

TJ, I said over week ago when Novick first commented on this legitimizing the GOP talking points about it that it was a trap vote. But your bordering on hypocritical statement that every sentence counts as you try to dodge by waving your arms that its a trap (which I repeatedly stated LONG ago that it was before most around here) doesn't address the fraudlent argument you are trying to leverage.

It wasn't a serious proposition, and in any case it's a meaningless platitude.

So its meaningless to military families who are two days into a battle unless you voted for praising the troops and explicitly saying it was a vote only for the troops, then it is voting to support the war and bad judgement, a mistake, lake of courage, etc. But when you say every sentence counts in the resolution, those who voted not to praise the professionalism of the troops, well those votes don't matter.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 27, 2007 7:37:36 PM Two days after the invasion, you would have had to waterboard me, pull out my fingernails and make me hang out with a bunch of Portland hipsters drinking that watered-down PBR crap to get me to vote for a resolution praising the courage of George W. -- no matter how many jingoistic clauses you tacked on behind it.

So you would have had to waterboard me, pull out my fingernails and make me hang out with a bunch of Portland hipsters drinking that watered-down PBR crap to get me to vote for a resolution praising the professionalism of people who are being shot at as part of their duty in serving us all (whether you agree with the war or not)...?

BTW, it was two days after the invasion began, not two days after "the invasion", semantic perhaps but this was as the combat was beginning not after the fact.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Aug 27, 2007 8:44:18 PM

Not a "strawman act". Flows from what your hyperbole presents.

Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 27, 2007 8:43:33 PM And, anyone paying attention should have known 9 months before the invasion that the Shrubbery's arguments for war were a crock.

Which is what Merkely said on the floor, that the rationale for the war was unconvincing.

Could someone please point out to me where I said that Jeff Merkley supported the war? Because I don't think I ever said that.

Because if he did, at least he would have been voting his conscience on HR2 (which was, after all, a resolution in support of the war), and I'd have to respect that. But when I said that his vote was craven and foolish, that was because I take him at his word when he says he never really supported the war, he just voted for a resolution supporting the war, because it also supported the troops. (Despite the fact that since the first Gulf War, no American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine has ever been allowed to feel unsupported at any time, so trussed up in yellow ribbons is the homeland.)

The vote was wrong no matter what the rationale, in my estimation. But my opinion of him would improve if he would acknowledge that the vote was a mistake. The way he clings to his rationalizations reminds me of Hillary, and not in a good way, as I've said before.

Your post is pure sophistry Stephanie. Pathetic.

You can disagree with me if you like, but that doesn't mean my argument isn't valid - only that you have a different opinion.

The resolution put forward by the Republican-controlled legislature seems like a no-win situation:

(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 in the defense of freedom.

Think about it--you vote against it and WHAM--the attack ads say you voted against the troops as they march into battle. You vote for it and WHAM--you jeopardize your credibility to denounce Bush as the lying dipshit he is. As politics, it's pretty darn close to perfect--props to Wayne Scott! But as a predictor of who would be the better senator it tells us nothing.

This kind of bill is pretty common, common enough that I wish Novick and Obama and all the others out there who keep bringing up past votes about Iraq would stick to telling us their plans for fixing our problems NOW. (Seriously Steve, this is crap and you know it.)

As for Merkley losing his "moral high ground" to challenge Gordon Smtih--give me a break. Anyone who's paying even the least bit of attention knows there's a world of difference between the two men clearly shown in the long pattern of legislative action the two have taken and no one's credibility hangs on a single vote for a non-binding resolution.

No Stepahnie, your argument is pure sophistry and disingenuous bullshit.

lestatdelc, just because you don't understand my argument, that doesn't make it either sophistry or bullshit.

I will paint it by numbers for you.

1. Jeff Merkley was philosophically opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I have never accused him of supporting it philosophically (only politically, as recited below).

2. Despite the fact that he was philosophically opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and despite the fact that he knew the legislation was a Republican trap, he voted for a toxically worded symbolic resolution in political support of the invasion, because it contained the magic words "support the troops" and he was afraid of being pilloried by the Republicans if he voted no. He also gave a floor speech on the same day reasserting his philosophical opposition to the invasion, in an effort to have it both ways.

3. His Aye vote was not only craven and foolish, it was also unnecessary (as five other D's had the courage to vote No, with no significant adverse political consequences). That vote causes me and others to have concerns about Merkley's intestinal fortitude when confronted in the future with other, more dangerous Republican traps (e.g. Patriot Act), and to lack confidence in the way he might vote on such things.

4. Beyond craven, foolish, and unnecessary, that vote would impair his ability in a general election campaign to call out the contradictions on Iraq in Gordon Smith's record.

5. The Iraq war deserves to be front and center in the campaign against Gordon Smith.

6. In order to have the best chance of winning, the Democrats should not nominate a candidate whose ability and credibility in bringing this issue to Smith would be impaired in any way.

7. That means Steve Novick.

8. In addition, I and many others who support Steve Novick believe that he is fundamentally a person whose philosophical and political positions will be in coherent alignment, to minimize the risk of future embarrassments of the kind perpetrated by Merkley.

There, does that help?

5. The Iraq war deserves to be front and center in the campaign against Gordon Smith. 6. In order to have the best chance of winning, the Democrats should not nominate a candidate whose ability and credibility in bringing this issue to Smith would be impaired in any way.

I think #5 is obvious, but I have to say I don't quite share the view in #6. I don't think Merkley's advantage on Iraq vis a vis Smith is compromised by this. I don't see it as much of an issue in the general. No one who is honest can call it a flip-flop; he was always against the war.

Where I found salience, was in the comparison with Novick in terms of whether Jeff might be a leader in ending the capitulation to dirty politics that we have come to expect from the GOP these last few years. I don't want anybody to be someone they're not, and my take is that vocal, hardnosed repudiation of Republican bullshit is just not Jeff's style. We need consensus builders and people with bipartisan ability in Congress-but frankly I think we've got enough of those, and not nearly enough fighters. I want a fighter for this seat.

I have said from the beginning this primary will be about style and dynamism/vision, rather than substantive policy differences. The 2003 Iraq resolution just happens to be an illustrative issue in differences of style and vision, IMO. Again, I don't think this hurts Jeff if he makes it to the general, but it does show that the two men will have different approaches to the office.

If I were Merkley, I'd apologize for the vote, than turn it back on Smith by challenging him to apologize for his vote for a war that he himself said was criminal.

Apologizes mean a lot in politics, more than some people think.

I understood your bullshit sophistry clearly Stephanie before your enumerated ranting upthread. Your craptacular load of dung about "craven" motives is just that. Dung.

Posted by: Carl Fisher | Aug 28, 2007 12:29:28 PM If I were Merkley, I'd apologize for the vote, than turn it back on Smith by challenging him to apologize for his vote for a war that he himself said was criminal. Apologizes mean a lot in politics, more than some people think.

What should Merkely apologize for? For saying he did not support the rationale for the invasion but wanted to express support for professionalism of the military as combat is underway?

Mitch, you know I like you, and it's difficult to be so publicly disagreeable with you on this subject. But I think one "sophistry," "bullshit" and "dung" per person is enough on a subject, don't you? The people you're arguing with are not Republican trolls, they are people you've had positive discussions with before, who now disagree with you on this issue. Not only does that last post add nothing but the last (angry) word to your argument, it starts to poison the well. Jake and Kari have shared some conciliatory words today on remembering who we are and what our eventual goals are, and I think those on both sides of this question should follow their lead.

It's not even Labor Day. We're going to be working and fighting hard for our favorite candidates until May--and then we've got to turn swords into ploughshares, or at least re-aim the swords. :)

So everybody (including me) take a deep breath and remember: we're deciding between better and best here. Let's keep it in perspective.

Love, Dad

TJ, given that the Stephanie has repeatedly called Merkely a craven, fool, who voted to support the invasion, I do call it a bullshit argument, and sophistry for her to claim otherwise and is political dung.

I said over a week ago that using the fraudulent GOP frame to attack a candidate who was and is against the war was troubling and doing the GOPs dirty work for them. You and I (and most everyone here) knows it was a GOP fabricated and contrived "controversy" yet some here are buying into the validity of the very same GOP gambit of getting Democrats to attack their own, even ones who were and are opposed to the war. Merkely is neither craven, a fool or dishonest and has been against this war form the start. Yet we now have alleged Democrats calling him that because of this GOP narrative, which is what I cautioned against over a week ago and where I draw the line.

As for re-aiming the swords, no need to on my part. I have always said that they should be pointed at Smith, who actually voted to send the troops into combat in the first place (unlike Merkely or Novick)... instead of trying to draw primary blood between two more than qualified and capable candidates.

Well, I tried.

You might check your sources, though. No one has called Merkley craven or a fool. His vote was referred to as craven and foolish. Certainly you agree all of us have been foolish in our lives, without actually being fools?

And I don't need the GOP to help me analyze the candidates. To suggest that now I'M being duped into registering a criticism of a candidate, is a fair bit insulting.

Do what you like. I'm not the board police. I was just trying to ratchet down the rhetoric so we can all get to May without hating each other.

Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 28, 2007 4:42:51 PM But Mitch, why are your swords out for me? Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword, and your fabrication that i have ever claimed that Speaker Merkley was pro-war cuts to the quick.

Except I never said you said Merkely was "pro-war"... I stated (accurately) that Stephanie said Merkely voted in support of the war, which is not accurate to what Merkely did. You seemed to be supportive of Stephanie's position, if you weren't agreeing with her statement then I will gladly acknowledge that you disagree with her statement. However what I claimed Stephanie stated was, and is, accurate since it was her own words:

Stephanie: "It's hard to credibly denounce a war when you are voting for a resolution that supports it."

So do you agree with her statement or not?

Ugh. This is the reason why I hate primary season.

You should see the D.U. It's such a swamp of fratricidal hatred, I can hardly read it anymore.

I reserve the right to say whatever I want about any vote of any legislator in any legislative body.

I never called Jeff Merkley a name, and in fact, in the other thread I went out of my way to ask for the namecalling to stop. But don't tell me I can't criticize a legislative act of a legislator, for God's sake.

Novic, you do not need to attack another progressive to show that you are different. If you can not show the party respect now, then can Oregon really trust you in the future.

You and Merkly need to be vetted by the Oregonians that are tired of Smith mis-representing the values of Oregon. If you want to show your worth to Oregon in this race. Run against Smith and embrace the people you want to support you. Give the working call Dave, Debbie and Diego's of Oregon an opportunity to learn how you approach things and ask you questions.

The right person will win this race and the right person is the one that is focused on running against Smith more than they are on the Progressive standing next to them.

Fred

So I am dense because I was correct surmising (which you now confirm) that you do indeed support Stephanie's erronious claim that Merkely was voting in support of the war.

Glad we cleared that up.

Well stated Fred.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 28, 2007 5:50:07 PM I reserve the right to say whatever I want about any vote of any legislator in any legislative body.

Nobody said you couldn't.

"The right person will win this race and the right person is the one that is focused on running against Smith more than they are on the Progressive standing next to them."

The one that runs against Smith in a primary should probably concentrate on the challenge before them first. That doesn't have to mean dirty politics, but if you don't explain why you're better than the other guy, why should I vote for you instead of him?

Hopefully by doing what I long ago articulated, 'I can better articulate why Gordon Smith is a terrible Senator and needs to be replaced' (i.e I can kick Smith in the nuts harder and more effectively.

I would also add who would make a better legislator. I think the first is a fair open question, the later one where there will be little daylight between Novick and Merkely since either would make outstanding Senators since they both are solid policy-wonks.

Novick I think might be a little deeper on policy wonkishness in domestic areas, whereas Merkely might have minor edge in being a legislator and dealing with (and within) a caucus.

How many angels...? when will Democrats stop fighting each other over who is more pure, and take a look at the real issue-Gordon Smith? I realize that we must make a decision in the primary between two Ds, but my main criterion for that choice is who is the better candidate against the incumbent. I want to see who has the better arguments against Smith, not who can conjure up some hair-spitting difference between the two Democrats.

How many angels...? when will Democrats stop fighting each other over who is more pure...

When will Democrats stop pretending that this is about purity and realize it's about tactics?

The Iraq war was a fiasco before it was even begun. But once the AUMF vote in Congress was over in October 2002, there was almost no vocal opposition to the war from major Democratic Congressional leadership for years. There was plenty of criticism about how the war was handled, but the years of GOP propaganda that went into convincing people that there was some sort of relationship between the war in Iraq and an act of terrorism on 9/11 or future terrorist threats to the US were so unopposed that almost half of the public still believes Saddam had some al Qaeda ties, even if they're sick of the war in Iraq.

Even now, most Democratic "opposition" to the war is based more on the failure of the Bush administration's plans than on the proposition that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

That's not an argument about purity. What Congress needs are people who are willing to act as opponents to bad legislation and policy. That means more than just voting the right way when the opportunity arises. It's advocacy for what's right and against what's wrong. It's willingness to take a stand.

Steve Duin has an interesting perspective on this today.

I n the nine months that remain before the 2008 primaries, these questions should shape the choices you make:

As we can see in the ongoing spat over Merkley's salute to the courage of President Bush in taking this country to war -- not to mention his embrace of the administration's weapons-of-mass-destruction charade -- both parties have issues. Novick would never have voted for that 2003 resolution; that Merkley did suggests he brings a different level of anger and activism to this campaign.

LT -- to the best of my knowledge, nobody has said that this vote should be the deciding factor in who wins the nomination.

Correctly, you note that some of us are angry about it. But our issue goes beyond the mere fact of one particular vote. Our issue is that this vote may illuminate am attribute of Jeff Merkley that we consider undesirable in a US Senator or other legislative representative: namely, an inclination to get rolled, or to go along in the name of comity with bad Republican initiatives.

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

LT,

since you mention it, in the five days since I made that last post above, I had moved on to other things.