trishka,

Having enjoyed Steve Novick's visit to Medford way back in March when he was exploring his run for US Senate I can tell you he will get a column from me after he campaigns again in Medford on October 20. Jackson County Dems want full exposure to their candidates before voting in May.

Step back, let BO report. Jeff hit the right note, it is fascinating to some of us wonks to see what goes on behind the curtain. The internal workings of any campaign is really complicated. It takes several volunteers, staff and long hours to pull off every aspect of a campaign.

Expect a good mix of reports from BO. I'm betting Steve Novick would appreciate support from his supporters who post about his policy statements and positions more than pounding the keyboards about how much coverage is going on or not. A couple of bloggers ride along and report and a County Chair shares her impressions of a campaign stop...not to worry. I guessing Steve Novick isn't worried at all.

As I'm about to update this with yet more content, I should offer this defense: this is an experiment in blogging for me, and I will make the offer right now to travel around with any of the campaigns for a couple days. I'm hoping to try to give the sense of what these things are like and what the experience of politics is on the trail. Also, it's instructive to see how the different crowds respond to the same speech--you see how the interests of constituents differs by region.

Jeff, i hope you weren't surprised by the enthusiasm of Corvallis. person for person, there's no bluer place in Oregon. the energy there for great Democrats is unmatched. lots of deaniacs who got involved in local politics after 2003; Sam Sappington, the Benton Dems Chair, was one of them. and in a plac the OWD (where the very first Dean for America Meetup was held in March 2003, half-a-dozen of us meeting and wondering why we felt compelled to come out for a man we knew almost nothing about except he had the guts and wisdom to loudly oppose Bush's war), the noise does ring out.

Steve's call for an impeachment investigation is another indication of his independence.

Should read:

Frohnmayer's call for an impeachment investigation is another indication of his independence, and Novick thought it useful to get on the bandwagon.

Which would be a sentence that most closely fits the facts here........

I'm just sayin'........

and Novick thought it useful to get on the bandwagon.

If you look at Steve's statement, it is far more extensive and different in focus than anything that previously came out of Frohnmayer.

Steve openly acknowledged at the end of his statement that he had been skittish about taking this position because he did not want to be accused of recklessness, and he THANKED Frohnmayer for his courage in taking the lead. But he went out of his way to itemize the Administration's impeachable offenses in a way that went far beyond Frohnmayer's statement. Bandwagon? I'm not sure they're even on the same wagon, although they are clearly headed toward the same destination.

Finally, I would like to thank John Frohnmayer for raising this issue in this campaign. If an underdog Democratic candidate had been the first to raise the issue, I have no doubt that I would have been accused of partisanship and recklessness. Perhaps I should have done so in spite of that. But independent John Frohnmayer’s courageous statement put the issue squarely on the table, and made it impossible for any candidate, myself included, to sweep it under the rug.

trishka, no i'm in Pdx now. i went to Jeff's kickoff on Monday; it was great to see Barbara Roberts again. i remember in 1988, days before Dukasis finished kicking that election away; as we waited near PSU for him to show up, she spoke to the crowd and was hilarious. and then some time later, after the murder the Ethiopian student (i'm sorry, i forget his name), she spoke at the march & rally in his honor, and her passionate, compassionate side came out. it's such a pity that between M5 and the religionists who were then running the Leg that she only got one term. she, and Oregon, deserved better.

tomorrow, Steve Novick officially opens his HQ here in Pdx. i'll be there, being a Novickian, where they won't just have people talking -- they'll have food! w00t. i can't wait til Steve & Jeff debate and demonstrate to the state what's it's like when a party has so many great people, it can spare 2 of its best to run for a single seat. i'm hoping they'll look to bring out the best in each other.

hey t.a.! I look forward to meeting you tomorrow.

Funny, Merkley stated before John announced or Novick called for impeachment hearings, that investigations and hearings should take place and impeachment should never be off the table some two weeks ago at the Drinking Liberal gathering at the Lucky Lab.

Just sayin'

it's funny (to me) but because of blogging here at BO, people know me. they recognize my face. and so far, no one has hit it. i had somebody really run down the whole blogging world the other day, but i managed to get her to agree that it's the anonymous ones who are problematic (chicken, i say). the others are real people and when they don't hide, and you get to finally meet them, they turn out to be terrific. 2 weeks ago it was EBThom; tomorrow i'll meeting Stephanie and who knows who else. (but i'll be late; i have to check out a house so i can move into the city at last.)

why would anyone think Merkley would toe a DLC line? the DLC is GOP-Lite, and they are the ones who did the most to turn control of Congress over the Rs. their brilliance turned Al Gore's campaign into an embarrassment -- and a disaster for America. the "C" in DLC is for Corporate, and i'm not sure when Merkley ever came out in favor of corporations over the people.

yes, he's the DSCC's choice, but not their first choice. Schumer, 3000 miles away from what is going on in Oregon, decided a "nobody" like Steve Novick had no chance against Smith and finally got a "name". it turns out that name is also a terrific candidate, and someone who will disappoint Sen Schumer rather frequently, i think. (well, he would if he beats Novick in the primary, but no one is conceding anything yet.)

feel free to oppose Merkley on the issues or something relevent. but don't get dirty and accuse him of hanging with the DLC. that's just mean.

impeachment hearings, a formal step toward drafting articles of impeachment.

Not exactly. You have "impeachment hearings" after the articles are drafted and introduced as legislation. You'd have oversight hearings up until that point.

Remember: bill drop, hearing, markup, passage. That's the basic order. You don't have hearings on a bill until it's been introduced, whether it's a bill of impeachment or porkbarrel spending.

And yes, Steve Novick just caught up to where Merkley was at Drinking Liberally -- impeachment isn't off the table, and oversight hearings should proceed, and if the facts lead to impeachment, then so be it.

And yes, Steve Novick just caught up to where Merkley was at Drinking Liberally -- impeachment isn't off the table, and oversight hearings should proceed, and if the facts lead to impeachment, then so be it.

That's not the conclusion I've come to. I agree with Thom, and all three of us were sitting at the same table Kari, that Merkley sidestepped the issue.

Steve has presented well thought out rationales as to why Impeachment is warranted, not just repeated Dem Establishment approved talking points to appease those of us who are pushing for Impeachment. Blumenauer, Hooley and Merkley all came out with very similar sounding statements regarding "investigations" around the same time. My guess is that there was a "green light" given to allow the to the Impeachment crowd to "win something" without actually promising anything.

We've already had "regular-type" investigations, and there's been a predictable pattern to them. The Dems in Congress request documents or people to testify, the Bush Administration stonewalls, the Dems hold press conferences and give up.

I think a lot of us are looking, specifically, for Impeachment proceedings to begin. Contempt of Congress could be among the charges. Steve's position is far more detailed than anything Merkley has put his name to, or even alluded to at the Drinking Liberally event.

Colin... I just went back and re-read Steve's statement. The call for "impeachment investigations" is a little off -- since you'd have investigations first, then draft and introduce articles of impeachment, then have committee hearings (and then a committee vote, and a House vote.)

But it does seem that Novick has gone one step further; without quite saying it, his statement seems to imply that he's ready for the hearings that come after the articles are drawn up and introduced.

It's not quite clear until you get to the second-to-last paragraph.