Thank you, Paulie.

As Democrats and Progressives we- unlike our conservative Republican brethren and cisterns- win when we debate issues. They have vastly more experience with personal attack politics and I think it's best left that way.

Paulie - what a bunch of BS. If you can't admit that Merkley, Greenlick, and Nolan crossed a line, seriously calling into question their character and leadership ability, much less whether they are the kind of people we should want to represent us, than YOU are part of the reason the Party right now is rudderless and impotent as a force for change at the state and national level.

You're a typical example of the clueless arrogance polluting our Party. If you can't admit we have some lousy elected leaders like these three, and you don't want people like some of us who are outraged by this behavior in the Party, fine, at least have the guts to say that. But don't delude yourself into thinking, in that really ugly, condescending, (and not really) "progressive" style, that you have the right or what it takes to lecture anyone like this.

This has reached the point that the only thing I want to know right now is what Meredith Woods-Smith and Trent Lutz have to say about this behavior by three elected D's, and clueless whiners like you.

And by the way, the typical NW/Oregon "passive-aggressive" style of your post is another big a part of the pathology that seriously hampers the Party. There is no mistaking what you mean by a declarative statement (unless you want to admit you really aren't bright enough to be lecturing like this) like "Take on the Republicans not each other."

If we are going to become battle weary lets make certain it is because we are battling for our Democratic values;...

What exactly are "Democratic values"?

Democratic values = go along, get along. If you say you are a democrat, that's good enough for me.

What is a Democrats greatest enemy? A Republican? No! Another Democrat that seems to think that their view is the ONLY view.

These are the same people that can mouth off online, but lack the courage to face someone in person. Tail between the legs cowards that cannot stand up for their beliefs.

Any future election losses can be blamed my simply looking long and hard in the mirror.

@anonymous:

So what's with the ad hominem attacks? Attack the message, not the messenger.

The post with 150 comments makes reference to a congressional resolution on the Iraq war, which, in the eyes of the public, leaves everyone in a bad state: voting in support of the resolution resulted in being smeared for supporting an unpopular war; voting against the resolution resulted in being smeared for not supporting the troops out in said war.

With that resolution, how did they cross a line for voting, whichever way they chose? How, exactly, does it call into question their character? Or their leadership ability?

Outrage is certainly useful. Focussing it on the people who are bringing the message doesn't eliminate the message - it instead brings more people supportive of the message; focussing it instead on the message by deconstructing the message and showing it's flaws, and how it doesn't stand up as a result, causes the message to be discredited, and causes the messenger to be scrutinized more when they bring another message around.

Thats great Paulie, and just to round it up for you, I found some other Morris-the-Cat-Democrats for you to pounce on when you find the time. I mean, it is a travesty for partisan Democrats to go on witch hunts within their own party cause god knows we can do no wrong. Next on your list...

Open Left's Bush Dog Campaign.

The Orange Website of Doom sniping at Democrats.

My point is simply this, you are masquerading as a big tent Democrat yet you say...

We need to lay off our fellow Democrats and go after Senator Gordon Smith and Representative Greg Walden.

and you would like for those of us with a critical eye towards the future of our party to keep quiet about potential weaknesses within it. Wake up! The entire blogosphere is about transparency, accountability, and empowering dissent. In fact it is these values that largely give us Democrats an edge over top-down control Republicans.

Our ability to call it like we see it makes us stronger, by urging us to bite our tongues you are pushing skeletons into the closet.

You should think critically about the value of intraparty tension and the strength of this open medium before you try to shrink the tent by throwing those of us who think this post was bull shit out of the public dialog.

And just to be clear.

I think that this post was bull shit.

Of course Kari knows that Isaacs and Merkley approved Greenlick and Nolan's attack on Steve Novick. A big part of Kari's role in Democratic politics to hit people so his clients don't have to get their hands dirty. He understands better than most how that game is played.

So what's with the ad hominem attacks? Attack the message, not the messenger.

Sarah, sorry, but your junior high mentality doesn't cut it. In case you are too ignorant to notice, Paulie was making attacks on people who dared call out the kind of Democrats like him, Merkley, Greenlick, and Nolan who are doing damage to the Party with their arrogant sense of entitlement. In that context they deserve criticism for their behavior. And so do you for your stupidity.

Mr. Novick's argument for his candidacy, that Mr. Merkleys "war vote" makes him vulnerable and substantially less able to attack Mr. Smith's war support, isn't only appropriate at this time, its necessary.

The fact that even good anti-war democrats have a problem with Mr. Merkleys vote, shows that it will be an issue through the general election.

And, in defense of the Merkley camp's strategy of using proxies to challenge Mr. Novick's "niceness factor" and embarassing him into dropping this real issue, while that isn't the strategy that would work in a general election, Mr. Merkely needs to show that he is at least capable of handling this problem tactically and strategically.

If Mr. Merkely is able to neutralize this issue in the primary, he will be a better candidate for the general election, though he's still going to be facing a huge obstacle as I doubt Mr. Smith is going to be silenced by reprimands from Ms. Nolan and Mr. Greenlick, or cleverly snide remarks by people on Blue Oregon or other blogs.

And If Mr. Merkley can't neutralize this argument for Mr. Novicks candidacy, then he shouldn't be the demo nominee.

aw, gee whiz. I really do have more important things to do right now, but this is some rather interesting theatre. In fact, it is interesting enough that I'm compelled to comment. Anonymous, did you really have the nerve to accuse Paulie of lacking guts when you're too afraid to comment with your real name? You're a coward and an idiot.

Wayne Kinney, did Jeff Merkley's campaign cross the line here or does the blame lay solely with people who responded to the attack?

If we want to win elections, maybe we should think strategically about the value of primary elections. Read this post, about the value of primary elections before you (Wayne and Brian) bother chanting jeers at dissenters.

Granted, its a piece about challenging incumbents, but the substance is dead on.

Wayne Kinney - As I said in another comment on the main thread that started this, MY COMMENTS ARE NO MORE OR LESS ANONYMOUS THAN MY VOTE - which is all weasel politicians like Merkley, Greenlick, and Nolan, and whiny losers like you, care about.

A little historical context may be in order for the chronologically (and more so mentally) challenged here. The famous Reagain quote: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican" that sad cases like Paulie are reprising, is first to him in his 1966 gubernatorial campaign. He was admonishing "go along to get along" liberal Republicans who were attacking "true red" Goldwater Republicans. It was later attributed to him in the 1976 GOP primary when he admonished "go along to get long", Nixon-pardoner Gerald Ford for betraying the values, odious they may be, which have led the GOP to political power for nearly 30 years now, and which "go along to get along" Democrats are doing everything they can to not actually stand up to for their own personal political gain. Merkley's vote, and attack snakes Greenlick and Nolan's excuse-making, are prime examples of this.

So it is more than a bit interesting, and truly pathetic, that "go along to get along" Democrats like Kinney, Paulie, Merkley (he who is even too back-boneless to do his own insulting and stands by unapologetically as proxies to do it), Greenlick, and Nolan are reprising this sentiment to attack faithful Democrats who are saying we need to start repudiating the "go along to get along" Democrats if we are to regain moral and political leadership in this state and country.

Kari, tell your boy if he wants to start to set things right he can start out by publicly repudiating Greenlick and Nolan for their churlish blog post. He can go on by saying excuse-making for their votes, like he, Greenlick, and Nolan have done is wrong, as was voting at all, rather than taking a position of conscience by not voting, was wrong. While he's at it, he can express unequivocal personal disapproval of Kulongoski, his #1 endorser, who supported the war at a time when unwavering, aggressive opposition from every Democratic governor, and every Democratic legislator at the state and national level, would have actually made a difference.

Pat, you've already said where you stand on the Merkley/Novick divide. I think your stand is bleeding into your analysis.

People have said that his vote lacked political courage. People have said that he's going to get tagged for playing both sides of the issue by El Gordo. People have said that his willingness to vote this way differentiates him from Novick, and not in a good way.

Is there any of that that you really disagree with?

Pat Ryan at once demonstrates the height of slime and low of intellectual integrity that distinguishes the Merkley attack worms. Based on his comment with it's patently false statements about the criticisms leveled at Merkley and his supporters in this matter, it's pretty evident that Ryan wouldn't know what moral and intellectual integrity is if it bit him in the behind.

The only thing here I have seen Merkley criticized consistently, fairly, and clearly accurately for based on the record, is for being an object example of a venal politician who has failed to exhibit any significant true leadership qualities, and who apparently cares more about doing what he can to get elected than anything else. Such as running a campaign almost totally based on saying "look how many of the political and power elite support me". That is what makes Merkley a completely undistinguished face him in the crowd of "talk big", but "vote like a coward" Democrats. He talked big for the record, and voted like a coward. He continues to talk big, but hides behind supporters who attack on-point critics who see through the BS. And that analysis of the facts is not contradicted in any way by the defense his pathetic supporters are offering that "good" Democrats wouldn't criticize him purely because he is a Democrat.

Finally Pat, contrary to your apparent childish "either-or" view of matters, when I re-read many of the criticisms of Merkley I don't see many arguments in support of Novick. I will say it would be useless for Novick to tell me to knock off aggressive, legitimate criticism of a poor excuse for a leader and embarrassment of a Democrat like Merkley --- unless he offers reasons that are unknown to the public record right now --- because I'm not one of his supporters. I am quickly deciding Novick is the better risk than Merkley to take in the hope of the Democratic Party regaining moral and political power, but that has little to do with Novick and everything to do with Merkley and his idiotic supporters like you. I would quickly become a Novick critic if he and his campaign tried something as stupid and arrogant as that without providing evidence which demonstrates Merkley is something he has not demonstrated himself to be in his entire political career so far.

Thanks Wayne.

You are basically saying that your job at the DNC is to make sure that Democrats don't challenge candidates and elected officials, and to stay quiet when political campaigns cross the line. Now I see why Democratic politicians are often so unresponsive to the activists that help elect them.

Charlie, I'm not saying that Kari orchestrated this hit on Novick. I'm saying that he also plays the role of hit man and understands better than most how those games are played. I'm just not buying his statement that Jeff Merkley is not responsible for the acions of his campaign.

Wayne why is it okay for you to criticize activists who cross the line but not campaigns that do the same?

Chris Lowe and Colin Maloney - You'll just have to believe whatever makes you feel good about yourself whether Merkley critics like me are real Democrats, and in my case how people I choose to work with on political action in the real world think of the views I express. I consistently seem to find and work with a lot of people who uphold what "Democrat" used to mean and are very effective in making political change, have a shared disgust with how electeds like Kulongoski, Merkley, Greenlick and Nolan do not remain faithful to those values, and have a lack of respect for people like you who go a long ways to earning it by whining about how critics are wrong and unfair, and otherwise throwing accusations you don't have the facts to defend.

And Colin, as I said before, but which I'll repeat, my comments are no more or less anonymous than my vote and the votes of the majority of the electorate who really don't care whether the debate proceeds in a way which makes you happy. You, like far too many folks here, will learn that first you attack the substance, and second you take your well-deserved lumps when you say things that prove you aren't capable of doing that. You are not entitled to any more than that, just like Merkley is not entitled to a job he and his supporters seem to be under the false impression that he is.

Furthermore, you can chose to ignore all you want, it just demonstrates that you are under the tragically mistaken belief anybody cares to convince you personally of anything. As some very skilled political mentors taught me many years ago, no one cares if people like you are convinced because you are maybe 15-20 votes at most here, and therefore don't count for anything that matters. What does matter is if the wider readership and electorate is educated. When they see people like you whine and carry-on, while leaving substantive criticisms based on facts go unanswered, they believe you and the candidate you are supporting have nothing real to offer them. As only a fool would argue otherwises, above all else this is what the GOP continues to prove to our detriment. The interesting thing is how this becomes more true for most individual voters as they accumulate more life experience. So I really encourage all of you Merkley supporters to leave valid criticism of what this matter really represents unanswered, or even better whine in outrage at the temerity of the critics who would dare to not recognize your entitlement, because that is all to the good when it comes to taking back the heart and soul of the Party. That's the hard reality of politics and there is nothing you can do about it.

I'd like to hear what the people like NP really have done in Democratic campaigns. Have you volunteered in previous years for a Democratic candidate? Have you ever been to a county, district, or state central comm. meeting? Ever run (or helped a friend run) for party office? Ever been a volunteer coordinator, canvasser, national convention delegate, member of a party standing committee?

Let me be very specific about this. I've done all of the above, and yet have been called "not a real Democrat" because over the years I backed the "wrong" primary candidate, voted "wrong " on a party resolution, had the gall to ask people who came to a county meeting just to pass one resolution if they would promise to be volunteers on Democratic campaigns in the next election.

HOW DARE I ask such a thing! TRUE Democrats supported the resolution and would never do anything as subversive as asking for a quorum before voting on such a resolution!

Morris the Cat Democrats are what some of us would call ideologically pure. Either that or the kind who say "Our candidate won the primary yesterday--you owe the nominee your unquestioning support and volunteer time because you backed the primary loser". (And then wonder why people decide to be involved in other campaigns or none at all.)

Those of you who actually know Steve, ask him how well that latter attitude worked out for the Bruggere campaign 11 years ago.

I say RIGHT ON PAULIE!

And NP, I agree with this:

Posted by: liberalincarnate | Oct 13, 2007 1:53:31 PM

These are the same people that can mouth off online, but lack the courage to face someone in person.

If you don't like that attitude, contact the Novick (or any other) campaign and commit to the amount of time you can spend every week for the next several months until the primary. Even if it is only a couple hours a week, a well managed campaign would be thrilled to have such a committment.

Chris wrote: "To me Democratic values are more along the lines of fairness, equality, understanding our common humanity and that individual differences are part of that common humanity, protection of human and civil rights, seeing all people as needing to belong to communities and needing support from them at times, seeing government as one tool, and a legitimate and often effective one, that we can use to support one another, recognizing there are legitimate goals that cannot be achieved merely by individual effort or by markets, rejection of hyper-individualism and fetishizing of free markets, sense of responsibility to the future especially in ecological matters but also in creating and passing on decent lifeways, sense of responsibility to support the poorest, weakest, most sick or injured among use, and to reduce the forces that might make others people poor, weak and hurt or sick."

Chris you must not have been paying attention when the Clintons were co-presidents. That was when they maintained sanctions against Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives. Of this, Madeleine Albright, the Clintons' secretary of state, said "We thought it was worth it" with "we" surely including Bill and Hillary. When it looked like Rolf Ekeus and his U.N. team were about to prove Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction in 1998, the Clintons arranged to have them removed from Iraq so they could keep the sanctions going and start up of a bombing campaign. Then there was NAFTA that has caused so much misery to farmers in Mexico and others in the lower economic strata. So much for the "responsibility to support the poorest, weakest, most sick or injured among use, and to reduce the forces that might make others people poor, weak and hurt or sick."

Jamais Vu --

I think of Steve Novick's campaign as virtually all about himself versus Smith. To me, he has devoted only a tiny amount of time to Merkley's mistake on the resolution (and I'm sorry, but I view it as a mistake). He has allowed his supporters, like myself, to think of Merkley as a good guy who is presumably also a war opponent and simply had a momentary lack of judgment. All legislators have cast mistaken votes. Symbolic votes in particular are not that big a deal, though it is also fair to discuss them, if done civilly.

Give Steve a chance, please. He is an inspiring politician. Oregon needs him, and so does this nation. Practice yourself what you are preaching to the Novick camp. Don't let a difference of opinion on a minor matter (in this case, whether it's legit to question an opponent's vote on a four year old resolution) affect your own judgment. If you're a progressive, you need to support Novick, not because Merkley stinks -- he's actually quite good -- but because Novick is amazing. Amazing doesn't mean "perfect," however. Novick and I disagree on things as well (like his support of Edwards, assuming Gore doesn't run).

Ha! You're giving me waaaay too much credit. I build websites for campaigns

Shucks, Kari. Don't forget your weekly 15 minutes of spin on KPOJ. Not only do you get to reach many more people, but you also get free advertising for your blog (and thus free advertising for your clients!).

You're not really an honest actor here. On the one hand, you say you're just a web guy, doin' this labor of love. On the other, you're a media consultant running "the biggest blog in Oregon" and "the media takes [your] lead." There's no use denying that you've tried to use your keys as chief editor here to do the work of your clients. That's to be expected. Pretending otherwise, that's where you lose your credibility.

Paulie You are "spot on" with this position. There comes a time when progressives have to end debate and come together to defeat the common foe. Now is the time to do just that and defeat Sen. Gordon Smith. And this opinion comes from a progressive Mormon, if you can believe they exist. Also in the spirit of full discloser, my Jack Russell Terrier, Pookie, loves cats ... for chasing.

Ha! You're giving me waaaay too much credit. I build websites for campaigns - and I host a blog that has a consistent readership of some 6000 people or so (best guess); a pittance in a state of 3.5 million.

Kari, that's a beautiful non-denial. All anyone needs to do is go back through your posting history to see that I am telling the truth. In addition to Steve Novick, I've seen you go after other Democrats like Rod Monroe though I've never seen you contradict one of your clients on this blog. Not once.

I think people who write columns on this website are missing the point: People are more bothered by the fact that two Oregon reps are telling folks what to make issues and what to leave candidates alone on.

Its clear it was a move by Merkley....its clear the two reps did with Merkley's approval. If you can't see that Kevin, you are as ignorant as some of the comments Kari posted suggesting Merkley had no clue this was being posted.

Let it go. Quit putting posts about it...and most of all, Kari, quit playing dumb....its insulting.

Holy Cow! Paulie apparently touched a very, very raw nerve. A lot of you must have a lot of pent up frustration. What you may not know is that Paulie frequently has complaints about the party. Then she goes to work to make things better.

I think Paulie is right. There is a set of Democrats that spend their time complaining about "the party" rather than doing things to help/improve it. I think there are three reasons:

1.) It's easier to complain and wait for other people to fix things (and then complain about they way they fixed them) than to fix them yourself. My grandfather mastered this hobby.

2.) People don't really know which organizations do what. The relationships between the state party, county parties, congressional district committees, FuturePAC, SDLF, DNC, DSCC, DCCC can become pretty confusing. I run into a lot of armchair "activists" who are upset, but don't really know who they're mad at. Who is to blame if your favorite candidate doesn't receive a big check? The answer is: it depends (but you might start by looking at your candidate).

3.) People are naturally hesitant to do something new. What if the people at the county central committee meeting don't like you? What if everyone laughs at your idea? What if someone tells a joke that everyone but you gets? Those are natural worries. The truth is, if you show up willing to do a little work, everyone will love you. If you show up with a chip on your shoulder and tell everyone how stupid and dishonest they are, they'll hate you. Party activists are human beings. Treat them with tact and civility.

We're all on the same team. That doesn't mean we agree on everything (we're not Republicans, for God's sake), but it does mean we all pull in the same general direction. We each have only so much effort to expend . We can use that effort to move closer to the general goal or we can use it bicker over narrow differences in our respective Utopias.

Where do you want to put your effort?

Just a damn minute, Mr. Barnhart.

Unless you have a horse in the ENDA race, I think you need to back off characterizing those of us who disagree with B. Frank on ENDA as "near-sighted, self-destructive [vehement]... single-issue activists."

There may be some, even many of those folks, among those of us who decline to "compromise" on this issue. But there are also a very large number of us who have also paid "some heavy dues" but who simply don't believe in throwing other people off the boat because it increases our (very slim) chances of making it to the dock.

You need to look at the number of reasonable "mainstream" GLBT organizations and individuals who have refused to join HRC and Congressman Frank in saying to the transgender community "Sorry. You're just not as politically acceptable as we are so we'll have to come back for you later.... when it's more convenient...maybe."

Sorry to intrude this semi-irrelevant post in an otherwise infuriating and frustrating debate, but I couldn't let Mr. Barnhart's ad hominem attack against ad hominem attacks go unrefuted.

This is in today's Washington Post. Is it something we all can agree on? Or is it something to debate? Is everyone here in favor of campaign reform?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/13/edwards_sharpens_view_on_lobby.html?hpid=topnews

Edwards Would Ban Lobbyists' Donations Former North Carolina senator John Edwards (D) proposed Saturday banning lobbyists from contributing to federal campaigns, part of his growing effort to cast himself as the candidate to clean up the election system. He also said he would expand public financing of elections.

Describing the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), as "the poster child for what's wrong in American politics today," Edwards said, "They talk about changing the system, then they conduct business as usual." He added that in the next election, "we're not going to have an auction, we're going to actually have an election."

All due respect, Stephanie, what is Steve's one liner answer to "why are you running for US Senate"? Understandably, if you are not currently in Oregon, you may or may not know the answer to that.

What keeps Steve awake at night--don't recall ever hearing that. What is Steve's mission, other than defeating Gordon Smith and his long list of issues? Does it involve constitutent service, Wyden's every county every year town hall meetings, or just pushing legislation?

I have looked at Steve's website many times, listened to the Sunriver video, seen him speak once in person, and have known him for years. Off the top of my head I don't know the answers to those questions. But then, I have other things to think about in Oct. 2007 than 2008 statewide campaigns.

Something I noticed on the "issues" section of the website:

Novick's website has a list of 10 issues. The first is health care and the next to the last is about defense spending and contains the only line about veterans.

Today there was a David Broder column about health care saying nice things about Wyden's plan.

Here is what Steve's website says:

Health care Our employer-based system of providing health care also undermines American companies' international competitiveness: European companies aren't weighed down by health care costs.... would favor an interim approach to getting health care to more people, such as those proposed by Senator Ron Wyden and former Senator, and presidential candidate, John Edwards.

Here is the Broder column URL :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202149.html

There is a diff. headline there, but in the SJ the headline had Wyden's name in it.

Here is the opening of the column.

By David S. Broder Sunday, October 14, 2007; Page B07

As the United States prepares for the next great debate on its ailing health-care system, support is growing for a shift from the traditional employer-based financing to publicly subsidized individual health insurance.

A measure co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah to convert to such a system has attracted a total of nine sponsors. Last week, presidential candidate John McCain introduced a variant that is a partial step in that direction. <<

The next to the last of Steve's issues is: Prioritized Defense Spending ........................And, of course, we shouldn't be skimping on health care for wounded soldiers and veterans.

Veterans issues are an immediate concern to more Oregonians than some activists may realize.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=blogs02

October 14, 2007 Thinking about Oregon's soldiers Please remember to keep Oregon's -- and the nation's -- troops in your thoughts and prayers. That includes regular, reserve and national guard soldiers, aviators, sailors and marines. Here is a press release the Oregon National Guard sent Saturday: The Oregon Army National Guard mobilized an aviation battalion today in Portland Air National Guard Base for service in Iraq. <<

Here is my question: What is the level of Steve's passion for improving veterans health care? Does he realize that even as a new Congressman in the 1980s Ron Wyden had a reputation of being more concerned with veterans issues than some other members of the Oregon delegation of either party?

What does Steve understand as the concerns of family members worried about veterans health care--whether it be a newly returned Iraq vet or an aging Vietnam vet who has surgery scheduled at a VA hospital and will need to have a relative there as an advocate? Has Steve talked with any such relatives about red tape they may have encountered?

Is anyone on Steve's campaign researching why some Oregon counties have veterans services listed on their home page and others do not?

These are current issues important to more Oregonians than some activists may understand. 2 or 3 decades ago, those of us advocating for better treatment of veterans saw it as a badge of honor that those of us who questioned the Vietnam War were more likely to advocate for veterans than the "Give Em Hell in Vietnam, we're behind you 100%" crowd --esp. those like Quayle and Bush and Gingrich and the rest of that crowd who didn't serve in Vietnam.

How many people here ever saw the Woodruff ABC special about treatment of TBI and other combat brain injuries, or read the Washington Post story about problems at Walter Reed? Can any of our US Senate candidates name the 6 proposals of the Dole- Shalala Wounded Warrior Comm. which will take over 20 concrete actions to implement?

Or is that too much detail for bloggers to care about?

If the Iraq War ended tomorrow, there would still be lots of veterans who need our help.

After skimming through all the comments in this thread I get the impression that some of Merkley's alleged supporters are causing him more harm than Novick and his supporters are doing. My first opinion holds. Merkley made a mistake signing the Karen Minnis/Wayne Scott resolution, but in the scheme of things there were many more important issues to discuss. One of the problems is that Merkley supporters don't seem to be able to admit it was a mistake even if on a scale of 1 to 10 it was probably just a 2 or 3, and they are the ones that have mostly kept this nickel-and-dime issue alive. Otherwise, it might now have been in a historical dustbin except in the minds of the few who are keeping very close tabs. Seventy years ago my grandfather taught me it takes a good man to admit to being wrong. Seventy years later with lots of opportunities to put that advice into practice I consider it one of the more important lessons I learned. Now it is time for others to learn the same thing.

Disclaimer: I have been a Novick supporter since I read Steve Duin's column about him in the Oregonian. The more I learn about Steve and Jeff and Jeff's supporters, the more I'm convinced I've backed the right person.

Stephanie, I was very impressed until I got to this:

What concerns me about not only Merkley, but any other candidate recruited by the DSCC to run for office, is that the passionate sense of mission may not be there.<<

If you like Steve because he has a better speaking voice and is louder (Jeff needs some voice coaching) that is fine. I happen to like the way Jeff talks (nary a sour note to my mind--sometimes Steve's wit hits a wrong chord with me). That is a matter of taste. Indiv. votes have been decided by less! Nothing I have seen so far from Steve has convinced me he could build coalitions with those like Sen. Snowe or other moderate Republicans.

It is ironic that we are arguing about a guy who worked in 1996 for the DSCC-recruited candidate who had never held office before. Assuming you will be back in Oregon in the not too distant future, you and Steve might have a face to face discussion about what he learned not to do from the Bruggere campaign. He and I have had an email exchange about something that happened he hadn't known about. I'd called and asked for more detailed positions than what was profiled in the full page Oregonian profile, and someone from the Bruggere campaign had mailed me a copy of the Oregonian profile.

Steve was angry to learn that, as he had written the policy papers. But that mistake can't be blamed on the DSCC, only on the person who stuffed the Oregonian page in the envelope, and lack of supervision of that person which allowed that to happen.

Thank you for your information. But are you saying that if Chuck Schumer hadn't called Merkley and recruited him to run, Jeff would currently be running for re-election with the hope of being Speaker for another session? On what evidence?

I would like to do away with all caucus campaign arms and have all money donated directly to candidates so that the FEC/ C&E reports would be very clear about who was supporting which candidate.

But absent that, I have a hard time believing that Jeff wouldn't have run for US Senate unless DSCC asked/told him to do it. You may "know" what DSCC and Schumer think, but I'd like more evidence.

Something about DPO and Wayne Kinney, it is not DPO's job or even permitted for them to take a position on a Primary candidate. That includes making judgements about their campaign style or methods. After the Primary DPO has control of its financesand other resources and can use them how they please, including not spending money on a candidate.

DPO would have to have a huge reason to say something negative about a Democrat - it would require a situation of political suicide to not do so.

I can't speak for other County Parties, but most of them adhere to neutrality. Baker Co does and I am at this point necessarily so because I am so intimately involved in something that requires the all the Democratic candidates be treated very well.

I will scarcely sit still for an idea that candidates are not allowed to criticize each other. What I have said repeatedly is that the heat is too high and personal attacks are being made that may not be forgiven and that would be bad. Wayne has indicated the same thing, not that campaigns can't criticize but that it would be nice if we can play together afterward. You folks that keep getting angrier and angrier are not helping.

"Nothing I have seen so far from Steve has convinced me he could build coalitions with those like Sen. Snowe or other moderate Republicans."

On what issue? When was the last time Republicans indicated they were ready to build a coalition or brook a compromise on ANYTHING important of late?

So, all Rs support any action of all other Rs, all Ds support all actions of all other Ds, and independents are just spectators?

Sounds like someone who doesn't want the votes of anyone with Republican relatives because one party is the good guy party, the other is the bad guy party, and we should all just learn to deal with it.

Except, that is not the reality of 2007. It took a very short time to find this story of bipartisan US Senate cooperation (check the SCHIP Senate vote numbers), and as I recall there are others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101400494_2.html

Last week, Pelosi said Democrats were making some progress and hoped to "peel off about 14 votes" to override the veto. Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who sided with Democrats on the vetoed bill, also were working to sway wavering House GOP lawmakers.

Grassley has been a thorn in the side of Republicans he disagreed with going all the way back to challenging the Reagan Administration when he found out they wouldn't allow a civil servant to testify in his committee---so he went to the Dept. and said "this man is coming with me to testify in committee".

If to be a loyal Democrat is to smear all Republicans the way some Republicans answer any tough question with "but the Democrats....", then I see no reason to stay Dem. after the May primary. I look at individuals.

But then, as the grandchild of an anti-machine Republican, and someone who admired Republicans named Ben Westlund and Max Williams (and Lane Shetterly hasn't been too bad either), I don't believe the "all Rs are bad" hype. Maybe because I have friends who are Republicans. Try it some time. You might gain new insight. And you might convince a Republican to vote for one particular Democrat you know and admire, the way I have.

What did he teach you about what kind of man refuses to say he was wrong about something for which he firmly believes he was right?

If he believes he is right then he should stand by his belief. Only a fool or someone who is subservient would admit to being wrong if he was convinced he was in the right. The problem is that some people can't admit to being wrong when the evidence proving they are wrong is convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ad hominem attack deleted. -editor.]

Kari,

When you post a comment suggesting Merkley had no clue the post was being made by the two reps, when you work for his camp, and you have clearly been around politics enough to know this kind of action isnt taken without going through the proper channels, then you should expect some criticism...it was just a pretty naive statement on your part. Secondly, if you want to talk about the issues, instead of "attacks" or "negativity" then maybe you should run a filter for what gets posted on BO. If im not mistaken, this discussion was sparked by a posting by two reps on the "negativity" of Novick (approved by BO)...followed by another post of similar ilk....so which one is it? Or is it that you dont want it discussed when its not to your benefit (and for the record, I like Merkley and WILL vote for him....I just find this petty on his part and a possible lesson learned for when he goes up against Gordon....hopefully).

The comments are pretty ridiculous, but maybe, its a result of a pretty ridiculous column....just a thought.

Kari writes: I read Stephanie's comment above and choke on my coffee. I think, "Are you kidding me? Of course, Novick attacked Merkley? What the hell else would you call it?"

If criticizing someone's VOTE as a legislator is considered an "attack", then count me as one person in favor of attack politics. I can't imagine any good coming from a neutered political environment where it's considered improper to criticize someone's public stands on the issues. If that's what Paulie's post is getting at, count me out.

Kari,

Thanks for ending your participation on this thread. I suggest others do the same. It has become a toilet -- a place for so-called progressives to dump garbage about other progressives. To reiterate: people shouldn't be voting AGAINST Novick or Merkley, they should be picking one to vote FOR. If I didn't know better, I'd think that a number of the posts above were made by Smith plants.

One, and probably the primary, reason this debate has gone on is that Merkley and his supporters ignored a rule from Nixon's fiasco. It's not the crime but the coverup. The "crime" was Merkley voting for a resolution endorsing the "courage" of Bush. Essentially, not that big a deal, but it grew legs and the Merkley camp not only let them grow but kept them supplied with growth hormones. So, that someone would say "I'd think that a number of the posts above were made by Smith plants." is not surprising.

Paulie, Circling the wagons is one way to handle criticism. Although I don't think more "inclusion" is the byproduct of circling wagons.

A more thoughtful path for the Democratic Party would be to take the criticism seriously and try to figure out why so many people whose values should put them squarely in the Democratic tent no longer feel the party represents them.

Why -- with the conservative movement and its standard bearer in the White House lain prostrate before the Republic, completely exposed for the fraud it is -- are the Democrats still being out-communicated by them? Why are Republicans still controlling the agenda? Why do most voters trust Democrats just slightly more than Republicans?

Why do so many liberals believe the Democratic party no longer represents them? Those are the questions of the day.

Rather than getting the party faithful to close ranks against the "Morris-the-cat" Democrats, they should look inward at why there are so many damn cats out there to begin with.

Clean up the snakes out of your own snakey house, as a wise fella once said. And maybe the party will actually be more inclusive.

This morning Jefferson Smith was on KPOJ. He was refreshing!

In answer to why he is running, he gave 3 reasons: 1) 2) 3). One liners for each, not paragraphs.

When asked about the importance of education, he talked about the details of the David Douglas school district, incl. how many students are on free and reduced lunch, what the current size of the school is, and why there needs to be more concentration on meeting the needs of the students.

He also talked about learning to fundraise.

Nothing about ideology or about an opponent, and all delivered in that cheerful, energetic Jefferson Smith voice.

Seems to me Democrats running for offices higher than legislature would benefit from following his example. Rather than debating the meaning of inclusive or some of the other debates on BO, talk about specific issues in detail. Candidates might even get voters who aren't willing to vote anyone's straight party line to be impressed with one candidate's issues and vote for that candidate.

Or do Democrats want the votes of those who voted Bush/Hooley in 2004, or for both John Kitzhaber and Gordon Smith in the 1990s? Or only those who vote straight party?

paulie, i was off-line all weekend and just read your original post, so am a little late to the conversation.

i have a question for you. is it your experience that lecturing, scolding, and generally shaming people is an effective way of getting them to alter their behaviour to something you deem more positive?

to be honest, when i read your screeds, i have to fight my immediate impulse reaction, which is to say "screw the democrats. i'm not going to waste my time trying to effect change with such a nasty bunch of scolds".

i think that you & i & most others here ultimately want the same outcomes. i'm just thinking there must be a more effective way to lead people into action, other than belittling and scolding them?

"be the change you want to see" is the thing that always pops into my mind whenever i'm presented with this sort of quandary. it's tough to draw parallels between on-line discussion and off-line activism, but they aren't mutually exclusive. maybe saying positive things about some off-line interaction that you had with a volunteer, as an example to inspire people, perhaps? and lose the negatives & the name-calling?

also: for the record, i am a novick supporter who does not agree with or in any way condone the anonymous ad hominem insults that have been posted on this thread. it's inappropriate, ineffective, completely out-of-line, and does more harm than good to steve novick's campagin. it gives opponents a justifiable handle to grab onto & fight against, leaving the more civil & reasoned voices to get drowned out in the hullabaloo.

I like lightly salted popcorn with plenty of butter, and this comment thread truly delivers!

As to the idea that county party organizations stay neutral in primaries, that's not what I've seen across the river in Clark County. Oh sure, the county party is "officially" neutral, but you better believe that party insiders have already made their bets. I'm not saying they do this in lockstep, just that long time party activists tend to gravitate a particular way.

What did you all think, that primaries would prompt the breaking out of guitars around the campfire, singing "Kumbaya"?

As to the idea that county party organizations stay neutral in primaries, that's not what I've seen across the river in Clark County.

One of the best county chairs we ever had in Marion County was scrupulously neutral in primaries--and there were some really hotly contested primaries when she was chair.

That may or may not be the way other counties do it. But count me as someone who thinks neutrality is wise so that no one can say after the primary, "what do you expect from a county chair who supported....".

After 30 years as a volunteer, I was previously at one time on State Central Comm. I remember a primary years ago where a former DNC member and someone who had run for DNC but lost were on opposite sides of a hotly contested primary. So please, spare me the generalizing about "long time activists and party insiders".

One year a unity event involved a large spaghetti feed for all comers at someone's farm. The 3 of us who cooked much of the spagetti sauce the night before (and who hadn't all supported the same primary candidate) are still friends. I think that should be the goal of 2008 primary candidates--that sort of coming together after the primary. But that requires arguing issues and not character or personality. It IS possible to disagree on an issue and respect those with another position. And a month after the campaign, if the nominee is willing to do the outreach to enable all activist Democrats to enable " guitars around the campfire, singing "Kumbaya", it will be a more welcoming and potentially successful fall campaign than if the primary was so nasty that volunteers for the losing candidate decide they have better uses for their time than to campaign for someone who insulted them and their friends.

I've been involved in both kinds of campaigns, and it is a lot easier to spend precious spare time on a campaign where all are welcome than a campaign where the winner says has the attitude "we won, therefore no one has the right to be offended by anything we did in the primary".

Kari wrote:

"For what it's worth, I've been doing battle for quite some time with someone posting a bunch of pro-Smith comments (using many, many anonymous handles) from an IP address somewhere in Virginia."

From somewhere not far from Arlington, I would wager. When an elected official has millions of dollars in the campaign chest, there are all kinds of things you can pay to have done.

Many of the messages from both camps follow from the belief that winning an election is all that counts: Slime good Democrats - not a problem if it leads to a primary victory. Curtail discussion of relevant issues - just fine if it better positions our candidate in the general election. It seems to me that if Democrats have no underlying principles of integrity, respect, and dedication to the democratic process; that we are not likely to perform better than candidates of that other party which seems based on winning at all costs and looting with all alacrity.

Thanks, Tom. Maybe your words will get through to those who don't realize the great "threat" of John Fronhmayer is not how many votes he might get in Nov. 2008---it is "sorry, folks, your primary has gotten too nasty, I'm going to investigate that 3rd party candidate". Screaming SPOILER will not convince people they have to take sides in a nasty primary.

There is a line in Steve's biography on his website something like "returned to Oregon to work on the Bruggere campaign". Why did he decide to work on that campaign rather than one of the other ones? If he worked on a DSCC-endorsed campaign then, why are some of his supporters saying things along the lines of "DSCC-endorsed candidate who lacks passion"? Merkley is not Bruggere--both in passion and ability to speak about issues.

1996 is perhaps the most recent instance where people voted for someone in the primary who didn't have money and powerful friends, just political experience and specific ideas / proposals on actual issues. This is not a dig on Steve (we have discussed this) but if he was writing position papers for a candidate not choosing to use them, why would people have voted for that candidate in the primary simply because Bruggere had powerful friends (incl. DSCC and national reporters saying before the primary, "in Oregon, the candidate is Bruggere") and outspent primary rivals by figures like 10-1 and 100-1?

As it turned out (check the Sec. of State website for yourself) slightly more people voted in the 1996 primary for someone else than Bruggere--but because there were multiple candidates, the vote was split.

And then in the general, people who were were uninspired by the 3 slogans of the nominee (I fought a war, I founded a company, I'm not Gordon Smith) either tuned out or somehow got connected to a 3rd party candidate (in my case, I was introduced to one who actually answered every issue question I asked, always in detail and sometimes with wit.)

THAT is why 3rd party candidates led to the election of Gordon Smith--not some "spoiler" conspiracy, but people saying "at least Gordon has a voting record and the other guy could get into office and we'd be stuck with 6 years of a guy who didn't tell us where he stands on anything and we're supposed to take him on faith??" Or, as a friend said when he he heard I was voting 3rd party, "you mean you decided not to choose between the slick one and the chinless one".

I registered NAV after the 1996 primary and stayed that way until well into the 21st century. I felt as if the Democratic Party I'd devoted thousands of hours of my spare time to volunteering with (incl. state cent. comm., being a national convention delegate, lots of campaigns) no longer existed.

This quote from Tom expresses how I felt that party no longer existed and was replaced by something I no longer recognized. " It seems to me that if Democrats have no underlying principles of integrity, respect, and dedication to the democratic process; that we are not likely to perform better than candidates of that other party which seems based on winning at all costs and looting with all alacrity."

So, all of you who have already signed on with a campaign, please be aware we don't have to play your game. Steve is supposed to be really smart. Can he tell us why he would have supported the Webb amendment on troop deployment? Has Chuck Hagel or any other combat veteran of either party (incl. those elected last year) said or done anything he admires?

Same question to Jeff.

Or, continue your little games and run the risk people tune out and maybe investigate Frohnmayer. Your choice.

Just read the Washington Post online and have a challenge for both camps.

Steve's "And, of course, we shouldn't be skimping on health care for wounded soldiers and veterans. " is better than Jeff's comments on the Iraq war but not mentioning veterans.

I wonder if either campaign (or Frohnmayer's campaign) is willing to respond to this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501324.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

A Duty to the Wounded Our Newest Veterans Need Help Now

By Bob Dole and Donna E. Shalala Tuesday, October 16, 2007; Page A19

It is time to decide -- do we reform the current military and veterans' disability evaluation and compensation systems or limp along, placing Band-Aids over existing flaws?

It has been more than 2 1/2 months since our commission presented its six pragmatic recommendations to improve the system of care for our injured service members and their families. Our recommendations are eminently doable and designed for immediate implementation. While progress has been made, more work remains. And the clock is ticking.

Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
The vast majority of the steps needed to implement our recommendations must be taken by the administration. Since unveiling our report, we have met frequently with officials from the White House and the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. We are pleased that they are moving forward with several critical changes, including the development of recovery plans and assigning coordinators to oversee the care of our most seriously injured troops.

We have also testified before Congress and met individually with lawmakers. Overall, we are buoyed by the strong bipartisan support being given to the proposals.

Despite this support, however, it is clear that our recommendations are being swept up in a decades-long battle to reform the entire disability system for all service members. It is important to remember that our commission was tasked with improving care and benefits for those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we hope that our recommendations will help many others, our mission was to make the system work better for this new generation of veterans. ....................

torridjoe,

I was writing about posters on BlueOregon threads. I do not know which of those, if any, are operatives of Steve's or Jeff's campaign. I did read some nasty adjectives applied to Reps. Nolan and Greenlick. It would be possible to disagree with what they wrote in support of Rep. Merkley without being nasty.

I also believe calls to end mention Jeff's vote on HR2 to be heavy-handed. It's an issue, though it's not the only issue of import, for sure.

As Kari noted, I found some of what was said from each side to be regrettable.

No, Stephanie, that was not an attack about you. I was friends of 2 of those gentlemen with ideas but little money which Bruggere defeated. Believe it or not, there was even a candidate I had supported in a previous election who made a face at me because I said I was friends (for longer than I had known the candidate) with the 2 gentlemen---DSCC supported Bruggere, therefore as a former volunteer I was supposed to take orders from this person and also support Bruggere. I would hope the 2008 campaigns would be smart enough to "lay down the law" to their supporters that no such nonsense happens this time.

In an ideal world, something like what has happened on previous campaigns will happen in 2008 (candidates battle over ideas but are on speaking terms with each other and make clear to their supporters that the other candidate is their opponent, not an enemy--and a unity event is planned for after the primary).

Steve may remember that when I took a friend to see him speak some months ago at Marion Demoforum, I wore a button for one of those candidates (distinctive because it is a piece of wood with no lettering on it, but people involved in politics back then either knew the meaning behind the buttons or asked and found out). I asked Steve if he recognized the button and he said yes.

Not everything said is an attack on a single person. I like people who talk current issues. I like people who say "I am supporting this person because...". I DO NOT like people trying to guess motives. If I wanted to imply that someone was speaking talking points and not their own opinion, I would not hint. I would ask straight out, "who wrote your talking points for you?".

One thing I would like to know, Stephanie, is how many Oregon statewide campaigns you have been involved with.

Jefferson Smith often uses the slogan "not left, not right, but forward". I think that would be a good thing to remember. There are those of us still offended by some of the nonsense that went on in 1996 with Bruggere, there are those clearly offended by Jeff's 2003 vote on the resolution. As the old saying goes, either of those and a few bucks will get you a latte.

Check out Chuck Butcher's blog which is a current BO topic. Is he right? Is he wrong?

One more thing: Stephanie, you said:

I think it is a greater risk that some supporters of the unsuccessful candidate won't want to participate, than that those who do will be made to feel unwelcome. That scenario runs both ways in my mind, no matter who wins the Senate primary.<<

I have seen all different reactions to the question of whether primary losing activists support a nominee. There was a wonderful primary in the early 1990s which some people called the ____year riddle. Someone who had been a polarizing county chair and long time activist had been of the "support the nominee without asking questions" persuasion when his candidate had won a major nomination. There were people in this particular year hoping his candidate would lose the primary so some people could throw "support the nominee" back in his face.

In an ideal world, most of the supporters of the US Senate candidates have not yet signed on because they are busy with their own lives, with M 49 & 50 or whatever, and figure out who to support for US Senate next year.

My point has always been that it would be good for the process that the whole debate over the 2003 resolution be decided this year, lest some of those new volunteers say "If you're still fighting about something which happened that long ago, I'll find another campaign to work on".

That is not a dig against any individual, just a memory of an old friend who said "I stayed far away from the 1992 US Senate primary because it got too nasty".

Campaigns which focus on current issues ("Steve at least mentions veterans on his website, when will Jeff, and when will they both discuss the subject in some detail?" sort of thing) are more likely to succeed than the ones which continue old battles.

Thanks, Stephanie.

Hope you are heavily involved in Steve's campaign. Nothing for learning the Oregon political process like involvement in a statewide campaign!