Personally, I was laughing at the sinister portrait of you they used in the article. It's a black-and-white version of the one you normally use, but it's all grainy and distorted. Your smile looks rather malicious in that light!

I love it! Congrats!

All right, this sucks. I thought I was the controversial one. Damn you and your fame.

(Can you imagine getting Rogue back in '04? Somehow blogs aren't quite as laughable as they once were.)

Willy has gone off the deep end lately. Recently they nominated David Wu, because he didn't vote against the Iraq funding even though he took the same position as most Dems and has been solidly against the war. Meanwhile, Brian Baird announces a truly outrageous bait and switch position and he doesn't get the moniker.

Congratulations Kari. I too have been smeared by WW.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: W.W. sucks.

Every year that rag runs a "good", "bad", and "ugly" on our local state representatives and congressmen. But, as they use lobbyists to decide who is "good" and who is "bad", their ratings get a little off. Why, if you don't sell laws to the highest bidder, you just never make it above "ugly".

The W.W. sucks so much it's shared stalls with Republican Senators in a public bathroom.

So congrats, Kari! Maybe next you'll see N.W. Republican run an expose on how awful you are.

Kari -- don't you ever learn?

In your post, you failed to capitalize "Champagne." Outrageous Rogue-ishness!

You must be flayed again! :)

At least they didn't find out about your dog fighting ring and lewd encounter with Mike Riley at PDX. Wait, scub that.

Mazel tov!

I tried to say a few semi-kind words about you over at wweek.com to put it in some context. %^>

"Meanwhile, Brian Baird announces a truly outrageous bait and switch position and he doesn't get the moniker."

Perhaps that's because the "Willamette" stops flowing once it hits the Columbia at the border, the other side of which being who Baird represents (not that they don't cover the Couv once in a while...)

And don't forget the Rogue for Tina Kotek and Basic Rights Oregon - which they got in celebration for finally passing domestic partnerships! Woohoo!!!

I would hope that and bulls--t accusation thrown up against Steve Novick by Republicans would get similar treatment in BlueOregon. I have no reason to believe that that it wouldn't.

Again, I think Steve's biggest argument is that he is (to turn it into a catch phrase) "something completely different". Buying into, and focusing on, Republican framing of a Reinhard/Republican framing just doesn't seem like it's a winning issue to me.

Oh, and my bulls--t alarm is clanging like crazy. It's only already committed Novick partisans who're trying to make a big deal out of this, while the people who pretend it's beyond the pale for Steve to even mention it are all committed Merkeley partisans. Nobody has actually changed their mind on which candidate to support based on it.

That's about the very definition of a political sideshow.

"Nobody has actually changed their mind on which candidate to support based on it."

I can recall at least four or five people who have at least claimed that their vote was strongly affected by this issue, both against and for Merkley. So I'm not sure that's right.

Kari,

What next? Appearing in a police line up?

Kudos!

I’m so fucking jealous.

And Carrie can be relieved that she got billing (just slightly) ahead of your dog.

Pace yourself man. It's a long way to the finish line.......Many kudos and brickbats ahead........

There's been no actual change of opinion that I've seen, torridjoe. Only posts from people on one side or the other saying how much it validates their already held opinion of the candidates, and declaring their fervent belief that their side of the argument will bring more people to their way of thinking.

Maybe Jagermeister's "lit a fire" post might be a Novick switch (if only because it's a one-liner, so it's hard to tell who he supported before, if anyone). But even that's shaky. There have also been people affected by the triple-endorsement of Merkley, but that is a different issue.

I'm not Steve's campaign manager, but I still think that for him to have a chance against an established candidate, he needs to come out with bold proposals, funny ads. This excessive focus on why you shouldn't vote for the other guy - Smith, Merkley - just doesn't seem like it will work. Voters like positives.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Kari,

You need a shirt that says, "I'm a Rogue. WHY AREN'T YOU?"

"There's been no actual change of opinion that I've seen, torridjoe."

Throw in jagermeister (who I counted originally), and there are three people who say they have now made up their mind:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/08/steve-novick-th.html#c80814969 http://www.loadedorygun.net/showComment.do?commentId=773

Note that one is for Merkley now, the other for Novick. And there are others who were less explicit but seem to fairly strongly indicate that the issue has resonated with them one way or the other.

And don't forget the Rogue for Tina Kotek and Basic Rights Oregon - which they got in celebration for finally passing domestic partnerships!

That one was interesting coming from a paper that endorsed Christian Coalition founder Bill Witt over Sierra Club chair Charlie Ringo in 2002.

First of all... congrats, Kari!!! And I absolutely enjoyed the way you wrote it up. Sarcasm applied with a very light hand is a thing of beauty. It's one of your better pieces of craftsmanship, IMO.

I would hope that and bulls--t accusation thrown up against Steve Novick by Republicans would get similar treatment in BlueOregon. I have no reason to believe that that it wouldn't.

I absolutely agree.

Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 1:32:26 PM Purity tests definitely polarize leaners. The deciding factor is how valid you see the test. I'm particularly curious about Lestatdelc. As he says, he was raising money for Novick, but was also the most passionate defender of Merkley here. Where does that leave him now?

Basically the same place I was before this (though I question the wisdom and ability of some of my fellow Novick supporters to see the whole game-board and their criterion or litmus tests for assessing candidates).

That I think both Novick and Merkely would make outstanding Senators. This kurfuffle is not a deal breaker for me. But the adoption of GOP frames to cause internecine purity fights when both our candidate have and continue to oppose the staggeringly disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation and the person who should be getting politically skinned alive is Gordon Smith who full-throatedly voted to launch this war in the first place.

In my mind it is analogous to the GOP getting Democrats to start punching each other over the color of the drapes while Smith and the GOp go about setting the house on fire.

This is why well over a week ago (actually back when the GOP first threw up their desperate stunt about this resolution) I said that this was a misguided GOP initiated framing of a set-up which I hoped Novick would NOT take the bait on in order to try to differentiate himself from Merkely. Since it was intended by the GOP to sow division and try to inoculate Smith from being rightly kicked in the balls over being a party to getting hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered and their lives destroyed, including over 3,700 plus of them being our own military.

I still think Novick can be a great Senator, though I hope he and Novick supporters realize you can call GOP bullshit 'bullshit' without circling the elliptical firing squad. If Novick had acknowledged that the vote was a damned if you do, damned if you don't vote, that was being used as a desperate political stunt by the GOP to deflect attention and culpability where it belongs, Gordon Smith one of the real enablers of this unmitigated disaster which is the Iraq war in the first place. Not only would the fire be directed at the person who actually deserves it (Smith) ...but we ALL could have backed and supported it.

Of course it would have denied Kari his popping the bubbly for being such a rogue as per the morons at Willy Weak, but then I think all us progressives and Democrats would be better off for it.

Hmmmm....

Well I guess I just have to stand corrected about there being no one affected by this. I flat out missed the Warner one liner, and I haven't been chasing this thing around all the blogs, just B.O.

Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote.

The Larry Craig minor misdemeanor, however, is huge. And hilarious. All in all, I'd rather have this Merkley "scandal" to chew on than that one.

They wanted to weigh in on the Novick/Merkley dustup, so they looked for a villain on the Merkley side to use as a hook.

I think the WW wants to skate on Novick cred while they can (they had that wonderful article about him a few months ago), but 20 to 1 they endorse Merkley.

But the adoption of GOP frames to cause internecine purity fights...

How was voting for the resolution any less of an adoption of "GOP frames"? The "frame" was that you had to vote for all of the other garbage in the resolution to "support the troops". Couldn't someone have just said "I support the troops" without acceding to the rest of the frame?

First of all... congrats, Kari!!! And I absolutely enjoyed the way you wrote it up. Sarcasm applied with a very light hand is a thing of beauty. It's one of your better pieces of craftsmanship, IMO.

It was either sarcasm, or admit that pretending Novick is participating in any "swiftboating" was patently ridiculous, I guess....

If Novick had acknowledged that the vote was a damned if you do, damned if you don't vote, that was being used as a desperate political stunt by the GOP to deflect attention and culpability where it belongs,

Isn't Novick's argument that it WAS a desperate stunt rather than a real bill? It's Merkley that apparently doesn't believe that, given that he has reiterated that he took the bill at face value and considered all parts seriously. And that was Novick's point: it was a garbage vote, and I would never have come close to validating it with a Yes.

Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote.

As regards the 2003 Iraq vote, most likely. But the approach a prospective Democratic Senator might take when faced with the worst desperate BS the national GOP has to offer, will resonate with many Democrats in this election IMO.

"I think the WW wants to skate on Novick cred while they can (they had that wonderful article about him a few months ago), but 20 to 1 they endorse Merkley."

Or, they might just legitimately wonder why members of Team Merkley got defensive enough to call his opponent a swiftboater because he dared comment on Jeff's record when asked.

Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 2:40:54 PM How was voting for the resolution any less of an adoption of "GOP frames"?

The GOP framed the resolution when it was before the house in Salem as a trap. You had to vote one way or the other. Vote 'yes' and you are 'praising Bush' and 'cheering the removal of Saddam', vote 'no' and you are 'voting against the support of and the professionalism of the military'. Then re-framing that vote four years later as it being about 'supporting the war'.

They are using that vote to claim that someone who voted and stated explicitly at the time that they were only voting in support of the military while saying and that they do not support the rationale for the war (which is what Merkely did at the time).. to now claim that they have no moral ground to rightly criticize those who actually supported the war is buying into the current framing.

The "frame" was that you had to vote for all of the other garbage in the resolution to "support the troops".

Close, there were two different frames, one then and one now. What you say above was the framing within the resolution, the frame I was talking about which you are referring to is the later one. That current frame being used by the GOP (and now some Democrats) is to frame that resolution as a "vote for the war" in order to fraudulently charge that those who opposed the war but supports the troops (and made that clear on the floor when they voted) are hypocrites or weak, in order to sow division and try and take the heat off of Smith (who actually DID support the war form the get-go). That is the current re-framing the GOP are desperate to employ and which I am referring to in that post.

Couldn't someone have just said "I support the troops" without acceding to the rest of the frame?

Which is what Merkely did, and which people are trying to discount. Merkely said he did not accept the rationale for the war, but was voting only to support the troops. Merkely is rejecting the current attempt to reframe it, Novick's (or more precisely some Novick supporters are) leveraging it in order to differentiate himself from Merekly.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 2:47:26 PM It was either sarcasm, or admit that pretending Novick is participating in any "swiftboating" was patently ridiculous, I guess....

TJ, the cognrats on the sarcsim was about Kari's write-up on being named a rogue.

"TJ, the cognrats on the sarcsim was about Kari's write-up on being named a rogue."

Yes--and Kari's choices were to recognize that he was being called out for stepping over the line in a race where he has claimed several times to be seeking a clean primary...or to blow it off with sarcasm and let the allegation that Novick is participating in "swiftboating" stand.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 2:47:26 PM Isn't Novick's argument that it WAS a desperate stunt rather than a real bill?

The stunt is claiming that Merkely is a hypocrite for voting yes to support the troops as they were entering combat while stating at the time he didn't accept the rationale for the war. You are not saying that, but the GOP are, and the internecine fight is the result.

it was a garbage vote, and I would never have come close to validating it with a Yes.

You validate it by voting no as well TJ. That is the point you miss. You either vote yes and state what you don't accept in the resolution (the rationale for the war) or vote no and explain what you really do accept in the resolution (that you praise the courage and professionalism of the military).

Wow, that's the rougishest Kari comment they could come up with? The are slipping! ;)

So TJ, you are not suggesting Merkely would be weak because he voted in support of the troops while stating at the time he rejected the rationale for the war, and that he might be a weak on the national level as a Senator?

Sounds like somewhat swift-boatish to me with that implied assertion from some.

Merkely is not a weak capitulating legislator which is what you seem to have been implying.

You validate it by voting no as well TJ. That is the point you miss. You either vote yes and state what you don't accept in the resolution (the rationale for the war) or vote no and explain what you really do accept in the resolution (that you praise the courage and professionalism of the military).

No you don't. You say strongly and firmly, "This is a bullshit vote designed to trap me into voting in support of this war. You can forget that, suckas." Then you sit down.

The mistake is in pretending that "support of the troops" was a valid, serious effort to poll Representatives on their support of the troops, rather than an empty platitude to trap Democrats.

It's very simple: what did the GOP want Democrats to do, to serve their own ends? Vote Yes. What is the smartest thing for a Democrat to do in that case? Vote No. Always.

That current frame being used by the GOP (and now some Democrats) is to frame that resolution as a "vote for the war"

Nowhere that I've seen has Novick said Merkley's vote was a "vote for the war". He's said it didn't strongly express opposition to the war but that's not the same thing.

Are you talking about some other "some Democrats"? Can you be a bit more specific? I think that Novick has clarified what he meant by his statements in much the same way as you claim Merkley clarified his vote. But one argument has more consistency than the other.

Isn't Novick's argument that it WAS a desperate stunt rather than a real bill?

Dude! It WASN'T a real bill. It was a freaking non-binding resolution.

It was either sarcasm, or admit that pretending Novick is participating in any "swiftboating" was patently ridiculous, I guess....

Torrid... take a deep breath, buddy!! As lestatdelc pointed out, I was commenting on Kari's witty post. There is a fundamental difference between writing style (ala "craftsmanship") and the substance of whatever is being written about. I obviously happen to agree with Kari about the substance, but my props were 100% about his good humor in how he responded to WW.

Not everything is about making some sort of anti-Novick dig... Lighten up!

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:31:30 PM

And the VFW mailers go out the next day pointing out you call supporting out troops as hey are deployed in combat a "bullshit vote".

Show me a single one of the 5 Dems that voted no saying what you said TJ.

"Merkely is not a weak capitulating legislator which is what you seem to have been implying."

Ah, and there lies the debate, does it not? In much the same way that you misapprehended Stephanie yesterday, however, do not confuse a weak, capitulative VOTE with the person who casts it.

Steve was asked about it, and said "No way I'd vote for that BS." I favor the candidate that takes such an approach.

I'm pretty sure you know what a swiftboating is--misleading or lying about an opponent's record, usually in an area where they have a purported electoral strength, in order to smear an opponent and force a timewasting defense. Since Steve has only talked about what HE would or would not do, and what he believes Democratic voters are looking for, the test fails at the first clause. If nothing else, the allegation is that Merkley voted yes on HJM2. Is that a lie?

Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 3:32:29 PM Are you talking about some other "some Democrats"? Can you be a bit more specific?

Look through these threads. There are numerous Democrats and NAV progressives buying into it and saying that Merkely voted for a resolution in support of the war.

"Show me a single one of the 5 Dems that voted no saying what you said TJ."

Show me who is smearing them for not supporting the troops.

Posted by: James X. | Aug 29, 2007 3:33:12 PM Steven, you say, "Still, my political nose says this is all totally an insider's issue, with it having almost no effect on the real vote." I don't believe that's true. Anyone who first hears about this from the Rogue article would understandably come away believing Merkley supported the war. Even in the blogosphere, I found four people claiming Merkley was pro-war back then. That changes votes. And that, TJ, as well as other completely baseless conclusions people have drawn from Novick's "concern" about Merkley, is why people like Lestatdelc, who is on Novick's team, and myself, who is on no one's team, got so "defensive" in speaking out.

BINGO.

Torrid... take a deep breath, buddy!! As lestatdelc pointed out, I was commenting on Kari's witty post." So was I. His choice was to take the criticism seriously and either defend it or retract it; or to simply blow it off as pretty much a joke, failing to address the WW's editorial point at all.

"There are numerous Democrats and NAV progressives buying into it and saying that Merkely voted for a resolution in support of the war."

Dude, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID. You've read it; did you miss the whole part about supporting the President and the whole operation?

There's a difference between that and being ideologically opposed to the war. But there is no doubt, no how, that the resolution was in support of the war. If it wasn't, there was no need for Merkley to declare opposition to the war as he was voting Yes in support of the resolution.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:38:31 PM "Merkely is not a weak capitulating legislator which is what you seem to have been implying." Ah, and there lies the debate, does it not? In much the same way that you misapprehended Stephanie yesterday, however, do not confuse a weak, capitulative VOTE with the person who casts it.

Oh Bullshit TJ. You are entering how many angels can dance on pinheads territory.

You think that a 'I am not saying he is a weak legislator but his legislating and votes are weak' is a substantive and meaningful distinction?

I am not saying he is a shitty driver, just that his driving is shit.

ROFLAMO

"You think that a 'I am not saying he is a weak legislator but his legislating and votes are weak' is a substantive and meaningful distinction?"

Claiming people said something they didn't, sure isn't. As I said before being foolish at times does not make one a fool. I did not say his "legislating and votes" are weak, I said his vote on HJM2 was. Are you denying some of us the opportunity to believe that?

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:39:41 PM "Show me a single one of the 5 Dems that voted no saying what you said TJ." Show me who is smearing them for not supporting the troops.

None of them are running for Federal and/or statewide office, or you bet they would. Hell they did it to Kerry who was a silver-star recipient for fuck's sake. I woudl also add those 5 leg seats are overwhelmingly Democratic so the electorate is not even the same audience as a statewide Federal level race. If those were hotly contested swing districts and any of those 5 were running for the Senate, and any one of them said 'this is a bullshit vote' there would be such mailers or at the least be grist for the grapevine chatter networks in vets and military circles.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:49:32 PM "You think that a 'I am not saying he is a weak legislator but his legislating and votes are weak' is a substantive and meaningful distinction?" Claiming people said something they didn't, sure isn't.

Oh come on TJ, that is the substance of what you are saying and implying.

As I said before being foolish at times does not make one a fool. I did not say his "legislating and votes" are weak, I said his vote on HJM2 was.

So he was just having a bad day and there is no implication in what you are saying that you think he will be weak in the U.S. Senate?

Nice try.

Are you denying some of us the opportunity to believe that?

I was not aware I had the ability to deny people what they believe. If I am, I need to get me my own show.

(wry grin)

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 3:44:30 PM Dude, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID. You've read it; did you miss the whole part about supporting the President and the whole operation?

Which Merkely said at the time he was not voting in support of.

It is dishonest to leave people with the impression that Merkely supported the war, which IS what omitting the fact that Merkely stated what he was not convinced of in the resolution. THAT is buying into the current GOP meme and current framing whether you recognize it or not. Most people will read that and erroneously come away with the impression the Merkely supported the war but now doesn't.

Step back and look at the whole board TJ. Look at the narrative being pushed by what you are saying and what the takeaway is vs. what we (you, me, and even that ass-wipe Reinhard) know to be true. That being the fact that Merkely did not support the invasion, thought it was a bad move and not the correct response to terrorism and said so at the time.

What you are pushing leads people to get the exact opposite of that truth.

Jeff Merkley is not some kind of delicate hothouse flower to be protected at all costs.

The best theory I can come up with so far is that an awful lot of the outrage around here is predicated upon an unspoken assumption that Merkley is the presumptive nominee, and that therefore it is especially dangerous to contrast him sharply with Steve in a way that might help Smith in a general election campaign against Merkley.

This is nonsense on stilts.

The purpose of a primary campaign is for the candidates to draw the clearest, sharpest possible contrasts between themselves, and in so doing, to enable the primary voters to decide whose strengths and weaknesses best qualify that candidate to go into the general election against the other party's champion. By definition, then, if during a Democratic primary campaign the voters learn things about Candidate M that might give an edge to the Republican, then by the same token, if Candidate M is doing his job, they are also learning things about Candidate N that might give an edge to the Republican. Then the voters weigh the relative importance of what they've learned, and vote accordingly.

It doesn't have to be a vote on HR2. It can be anything. Now is the time for all of this. Let the candidate emerge who has the best chance of beating Smith, whether or not it is the establishment's presumptive nominee. Because whatever slings and arrows are suffered in the primary campaign, the survivor can only expect a hundred times worse once the Republicans get going.

This is the big leagues. No delicate flowers need apply.

"None of them are running for Federal and/or statewide office, or you bet they would. Hell they did it to Kerry who was a silver-star recipient for fuck's sake."

Yeah, and Kerry fucked up pretty badly in failing to respond like a candidate with some stones, didn't he? The swiftboating didn't stick because of the swiftboaters, it stuck because of Kerry.

But you strengthen the point--would you rather have to debate your position on the substantive issue of the bill (in this case the invasion of Iraq) or on the airy platitude designed to trap you into voting for the substantive part? Which is easier? "I know I voted yes, but I don't actually agree with the war part;" or "I know I voted no, because it was a bill designed to get people to support the war, and I don't support the war"?

"Show me a single one of the 5 Dems that voted no saying what you said TJ."

Show me who is smearing them for not supporting the troops.

BINGO!

The obvious answer is that many of us recognize this entire "controversy" as a standard GOP frame and we simply don't buy it. Why have you bought it?

Step back and look at the whole board TJ. Look at the narrative being pushed by what you are saying and what the takeaway is vs. what we (you, me, and even that ass-wipe Reinhard) know to be true. That being the fact that Merkely did not support the invasion, thought it was a bad move and not the correct response to terrorism and said so at the time.

I believe the takeway is that Merkley had a chance to vote against the invasion, and missed the chance.

"The obvious answer is that many of us recognize this entire "controversy" as a standard GOP frame and we simply don't buy it. Why have you bought it?"

That's not the controversy. The controversy is that Merkley bought the frame.

Kevin is making my point, I think.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 4:15:55 PM I believe the takeway is that Merkley had a chance to vote against the invasion, and missed the chance.

You may believe that, but I have to tell you, that is not the takeaway most will get from it. Most will come away thinking that Merkely supported the war by voting for the resolution, which is not what his position was or is. So the GOP toss out the frame, Novick leverages it to his own primary advantage, you push it, and the takeaway for most reading the traditional media narrative will come away falsely thinking Merkley (one of the best legislative leaders we have had in decades) supported the war. Well done.

"Most will come away thinking that Merkely supported the war by voting for the resolution, which is not what his position was or is."

Ahh...and whose fault would THAT be? I didn't cast a confusing vote.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 4:33:44 PM Ahh...and whose fault would THAT be?

Those pushing the fraudulent narrative and omitting the salient details about the vote and the position stated surrounding said vote.

In the absence of the vote, there is no narrative.

"Those pushing the fraudulent narrative and omitting the salient details about the vote and the position stated surrounding said vote."

Then why not blame them, instead of us??

seriously, it sounds to me like you all are taking novick to task for not speaking in a way that would make his opponent look as good as possible. in a political campaign! how dastardly of him!

trishka is also reinforcing my point: this all begins to make sense only if you just assume that Merkley is the nominee and that we must not scuff him up too much before sending him out into the world. But if he can't withstand Steve Novick's rather gentlemanly scuffings, and a bunch of liberal blog postings, he will shatter into a million bits when Smith and his surrogates tear into him.

Posted by: trishka | Aug 29, 2007 4:40:51 PM seriously, it sounds to me like you all are taking novick to task for not speaking in a way that would make his opponent look as good as possible. in a political campaign!

What you miss is, Novick could have made the same points about the GOP bullshit, hit Smith and not added ammo to a circular firing squad, which would have made him (Novick) look better, and not have pushed the GOP memes forward.

This primary race is NOT just about Novick winning or Merkley winning. It is also about doing so in a way that does not bloody and divide the party to ultimately achieve what this primary race IS about, replacing Gordon Smith as Senator.

I posit that is a major problem with Democrats that we tend to not think strategically about the larger board in play. If Merkely or his supporters were to push negative GOP initiated memes against Novick that leave a fraudulent take-away, I would be defending Novick just as much (if not more given the institutional resources being put to misuse and that I support Novick).

There are ways to frame the argument and the debate which can raise yourself without attacking someone who is ultimately on the same side and might end up the nominee. You want that nominee bloodied and the party divided?

I don't.

Furthermore, how would this angel-on-pinheads fight over the vaporware that Merkely is a war supporter (he OPPOSES THE WAR and did so before it occured and does to this day) were to playout and Novick gets the nod and Edwards is at the top of the ticket. Or Clinton for that matter?

You think Novick and supporters can be like this at Smith over Iraq in that context?

Novick can and should punch hard... at GORDON SMITH but do so in a way that is not scorched earth where many on the same side are torched as well. He hasn't done that yet and I am banking that he won't, but that is something that Democrats and progressives need to be constantly aware of (more so than their horse winning primaries).

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 4:43:49 PM "Those pushing the fraudulent narrative and omitting the salient details about the vote and the position stated surrounding said vote." Then why not blame them, instead of us?

Beacuse you are 'them' in this case.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 29, 2007 4:40:41 PM In the absence of the vote, there is no narrative.

And here on earth there was a vote that had to be taken on the odiously framed resolution the GOP put out. And if Novick had hit back against the GOP for pushing that narrative instead of leveraging it, it could have been unifying for Democrats and progressives and hurt Smith and the GOP, which would have helped him not just in the primary, but regardless of who gets the nomination, helped us all in replacing Smith.

But if he can't withstand Steve Novick's rather gentlemanly scuffings, and a bunch of liberal blog postings, he will shatter into a million bits when Smith and his surrogates tear into him.

Hear, hear.

Now cue the accusations that Novick supporters are Smith surrogates.

Now cue the accusations that Novick supporters are Smith surrogates.

DING! DING! DING!

Beacuse you are 'them' in this case.

Thanks for playing!

Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 29, 2007 5:17:55 PM Now cue the accusations that Novick supporters are Smith surrogates. DING! DING! DING! Beacuse you are 'them' in this case. Thanks for playing!

ROFLMAO

Total misreading of what I posted. I was saying that TJ is in this case one of those who are omitting the salient point and hence leaving people with the fraudulent take-away (i.e. the Merkely was pro-war) thoguh I do not think that was or is his intention.

But it is funny that you think I was accusing TJ of being a Smith surrogate. I knew he was up to no good when I was giving him a lift back to work from the Novick announcement rally.

(snot bubble)

Miles, I'm with you.

TJ, Stephanie & Co... set down the cans of gasoline and listen to the bridges burning.

Seriously.

Denial is not an effective campaign strategy.

At last, something we can agree on.

DANG! I was all set to be gracious for a couple of minutes there.

Thank you for bringing me back to my senses.

I try never to be distracted by glibness. %^>

I wish you would reread what Miles wrote above, which I think is quite neutral, and which translates into nice un-heated rhetoric a fair extract of what the two sides are saying to each other.

As long as half the people here are saying that this issue is literally "nothing," we can't get anywhere. If on the other hand we could agree that we are talking about something, but acknowledge that the Merkley people consider it irrelevant, then I think we would have made some progress.

Any chance of that?

But it is funny that you think I was accusing TJ of being a Smith surrogate.

"pushing the fraudulent narrative"

"not have pushed the GOP memes forward."

You may have a soft spot for tj, but I didn't get a ride from you.

when did I push a fraudulent narrative or omit the detail that Merkley is not pro-war? For heaven's sake, one commenter has quoted me on the subject four or five times with exactly the same point--where I say that obviously Merkley was and is against the war.

The frame I'm pushing is by no means fraudulent: Merkley had a chance to use the vote to call out dirty GOP tricks and express his firm opposition to the war, but didn't. And that he knew the troops article was pure bait, but he felt he should take it anyway.

I have to echo Stephanie's reference to how Miles summarized it. That's what it boils down to. But the hyperbole about "burning bridges" (please, I spent the latter half of yesterday trying to slow people down from getting personally agitated beyond the discussion) and bloodying Jeff Merkley in a firing squad primary...! THIS is bloodying? For God's sake, Novick never even explicitly said anything about him! He was asked a question and explained how he would have voted and why, and why he thinks Oregonians would want that vote cast his way if it could be cast again. If that's bloodying, maybe some folks need a new hobby.

Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 29, 2007 8:57:17 PM when did I push a fraudulent narrative or omit the detail that Merkley is not pro-war?

TJ, for the umptenth time. It is the take-away that you are leaving when you post the things like you did over a Willy Weak's blog, whether that is your intention or not. Scroll up and reread what James X posted at 3:33:12 PM in this thread about what people are coming away with from the very flogging that is being pushed by you and others.

"It is the take-away that you are leaving when you post the things like you did"

So don't say I'm pushing a fraudulent narrative, if all I'm doing is saying something that someone ELSE can distort. What other people do with my point is not in my control--and I'm certainly not NOT going to make it out of fear that the GOP will turn it into something uniquely stupid as they do. That's the same paralysis I'm trying to avoid in my Senator.

Furthermore, their stupid attempt at smearing Jeff failed miserably. Not even Reinhard is repeating the "he's pro war" talking point.

TJ, re-read the comment up-thread I have refereed to several times now. That is the point you miss and the washing of your hands which is bogus. There are ways to call the GOP on their bullshit without adding to a negative false narrative which is getting pushed by what you are posting.

It's not a point I miss; it's a point that's silly. If I'm not saying Merkley is pro war (and I have done nothing but repeat that he's not, OVER and OVER, far more than his speech really merits), how can you possibly argue that I have anything to do with it? The GOP were saying he was pro war a MONTH ago. How did I have anything to do with that?

There may be ways to call the GOP on their bullshit, but I still can't figure out why you think that has anything to do with what I'm doing. The GOP aren't part of the discussion about how Jeff responds to GOP baiting, because then they'd have to admit that's what they did.

The GOP aren't part of the discussion about how Jeff responds to GOP baiting, because then they'd have to admit that's what they did.

Come now, TJ. You're not that nieve. Heck, I could pretend to be a GOPer operative here and easily spin it as other than an admission that we did it. You could too and you know it.

Take your meds tonight, OK? You're hyperventilating.

East Bank Thom, you're new around here - having shown up in mid-April 2007 - so you're forgiven for not knowing how deeply this whole question has been discussed, debated, investigated, and detailed.

You think you're being an original critic, but you're not.

My co-editor, Jeff Alworth, outlined our guidelines for ethical blogging in July 2006.

In September 2006, The Oregonian published a front-page Sunday story about Oregon blogs, with a big chunk on me, including an in-depth investigation into the very question you're raising.

I'm not responding to you because you're being silly and boring. And you're heading into troll territory - beating a dead horse long after everyone else has moved on.

Fair enough, Peter. You're right about the excessive use of sarcasm. I should have said to EBT, "I'm not responding to the particulars of your allegations because..."

I'm quite alright with people disagreeing with my ideas and arguments. I wouldn't blog otherwise. But when anonymous people who have never met me start accusing me in public of unethical behavior, well, don't surprised if I'm going to hit back.

Folks who don't believe BlueOregon is credible or fair are perfectly welcome to leave. I personally don't understand why EBT is hanging out here if he's so disgruntled. What's the point? Life is short.

As for "threatening to ban him", I did no such thing. I simply said, "...you're heading into troll territory." We have many, many, many trolls here that we haven't banned. We've only ever banned about a half-dozen commenters.

But let's make one last thing clear: No one has a right to comment on this blog. It's a privilege. This is a private space, paid for by my company. We operate it as a public service, but that doesn't mean we give up our right to manage it as we see fit. I can ban anyone I want, for any reason I want, with or without notice, at any time I want. I'm much more judicious than that (far more than most other blogs), but it's a totally acceptable approach.

This is relatively analogous to the family that lets the neighborhood kids use their pool. If one kid starts crapping in the pool every day, he gets disinvited pretty quick.

Good night and good luck.

Keep up the good Kari, just thought you should come speak at the First Unitarian Church, you would find a very receptive crowd, much more then the staff from WW.

I'd be happy to, Dave. Contact me off-list.

IMO, not a rogue, but a maverick.

You're right about the excessive use of sarcasm.

Kari, you really think saying someone is "off their meds" is an example of sarcasm?

It's not. Calling someone crazy because you don't agree with them is simply an ad hominem attack.

Sarcasm -- as I thought I explained to you a couple of weeks ago -- is the use of words in a derisive manner to convey an ironic or opposite meaning. If someone says: "Honey, I'll be home early tonight" and is answered by the statement "I'm sure you will", the rejoinder can have an unironic meaning or an ironic meaning depending on the circumstances and the tone in which is conveyed.

The sarcastic reading of "Take your meds tonight, OK? You're hyperventilating." then you're telling EBT that your real message is he shouldn't take his meds and that he's not hyperventilating.

This whole thing about passing off mean-spirited attacks as "just a joke" is soooo familiar from somewhere...

http://www.americablog.com/2007/03/coulter-faggot-isnt-offensive-to-gays.html

If you say it, own up to it. If it's right, stand by it. If it's wrong, apologize.

Clearly, DP, I don't have a good working knowledge of the word "sarcasm." I just took Peter's characterization of my comments thusly at face value. I'll try harder next time. Or maybe I should just learn not to post at 2 a.m.

And a hat tip to you, Erika.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 29, 2007 11:24:53 PM Take your meds tonight, OK? You're hyperventilating.

2am gets earlier every night as fall approaches.

IJWTS that now that all the self-congratulation has worked its way through the system here, a little bit of introspection might be in order.

I posted over at wweek that I think Kari's intentions are good but he has some blind spots that impair his ability to understand why some of us don't currently subscribe to his characterization of BlueO as a perfectly equitable forum for our discussions, and has been known to become a little bit defensive sometimes when we air those concerns. I would ask only that Kari be mindful of our concerns, and consider appearances, before reflexively assuming that it will all be OK because everyone knows he's a fair guy.

Hey Kari, considering the attention your recent notoriety is receiving (and its accompanying traffic), I'm reminded of the old PT Barnum saying, "You can say anything you want to about me, just make sure you spell my name right!"

Keep stirring the pot, Kari!

I would ask only that Kari be mindful of our concerns, and consider appearances, before reflexively assuming that it will all be OK because everyone knows he's a fair guy.

You got it, Stephanie.

$50 billion more for Iraq coming right up!

There's certainly a lot of dry Democratic powder built up over the past five years. It doesn't appear as if anyone has a match.