Great! Thanks, I post this on the old blog yesterday, but this is a much better link to distribute.

OH GOD! If we begin publishing videos of Novick's rants it's going to cost us moderate Dems out here East of the Cascades more than one election in November. Merkley has the Senate seat pretty much nailed down unless Steve costs him the election by scaring the hell out of the moderates.

So, we should vote for Steve because he is not an elected official, everyone voting in the 2008 primary really cares about a 2003 symbolic resolution (we are supposed to like people who raise their fist instead), because he supports Kroger for AG, and we shouldn't ask him to speak more about himself and less about his opponent?

It is a classic mistake to say "vote for me because these things are wrong with my opponent".

This sounded like the speech I heard him give at Marion Demoforum. That didn't inspire me to vote for him, didn't impress the young friend I took to the speech.

I'm still an undecided voter.

This was my first opportunity to hear what Novick has to say about many important issues. Unfortunately, healthcare was not part of the debate or did I miss that when I tuned out to answer a phone call. I found Novick to be very reasoned - didn't hear any ranting at all. I agree with Novick on all issues discussed. But then I'm not East of the Cascades - thank GOD!

Well well well Leslie!

Indeed, you would not be happy living East of the Cascades as a moderate Democrat. You see, over here we Liberal Dems take pride in our tolerence of other's opinions, while OBVIOUSLY from reading your post, you urban "progressives" consistently lack tolerance of diverse points of view. We also take pride in being LIBERALS and see no need to hide behind the phoney "PROGRESSIVE" nonsense. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. A progressive is just a liberal running scared.

Oh well. We all need to unite and work a smart campaign season, and above all win that Senate seat!

pdxskip's first post here only proves that blueoregon is d&mned if they do & d&mned if they don't when it comes to steve novick. don't cover him and they're exhibiting too much bias towards merkley. do cover him & they're costing democrats the election.

sheesh already.

Stephanie--listen to Steve on Part 4. He says Merkley is an elected official and people are down on elected officials, from the national level to the Oregon legislature.

Steve spent a couple minutes saying things like,

"Merkley is an elected official and a member of the legislature...", "there are differences in passion and style..." and then talks about the 2003 resolution.

"Oregon Democrats are a little unhappy with the Democratic establishment..."

Steve took a couple of minutes saying those things--minutes he could have been saying "as the Democratic nominee, I would be better than Jeff because I could talk about..." or "if I were in the Senate today, I'd be supporting....and you can count on the fact that if elected I would support legislation to..." but instead chose to frame it as "I'm not Merkley, you should vote for me".

Stephanie, a very close friend of mine, and Oregonian who was living in DC, came out to Oregon a couple decades ago to work as press secretary to a struggling US Senate candidate. Shortly before he arrived, that candidate had a wonderful opportunity--an above the fold interview in a local newspaper--and spent most of the interview talking about the incumbent.

When my friend arrived and asked for my support, I said only if the nominee could talk less about the opponent and more "if I am elected I will". Lo and behold, the nominee must have listened to him because the campaign changed tone from "the opponent is wrong" to positive reasons for electing the challenger.

How do I know that a nominee Steve wouldn't fritter away a similar opportunity mentioning an opponent's name more often than his own?

Stephanie, Steve and I go back a long way--have known him longer than Jeff Merkley. But we have some differences.

I don't think people act as groups ("Oregon Democrats believe..." or "this is how people react to ballot measures"), I believe they think and act as individuals. I don't care if 80% of registered Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of all elected officials (doubt that is an accurate number, but even if it is accurate...). That doesn't mean I can be peer pressured into voting Novick for US Senate and Kroger for AG simply because they are not elected officials.

And about "nominate Steve to the US Senate because Jeff voted the wrong way on a 2003 resolution". I DON'T CARE! For someone who has never held public office to nitpick the voting record of someone who has a voting record is not appealing to me.

Steve and I have had email exchanges, and one of them was about just that point. I said something like, "OK, you don't like Jeff's 2003 vote, but even if the war ended tomorrow, there would be lots of Iraq vets for this country to deal with for years to come. When are you going to have more than one sentence about vets on your website?"

Steve's emailed response contained this: "I don't think that you will see that much of my web site is dedicated to the 2003 resolution. I promise that you will see more detail on veterans' issues from us."

When will we see Steve say, "If I were in the US Senate, I would back Sen. Webb on veterans issues" or something substantial like that?

Stephanie, if Steve wants my vote, he will talk more about Steve and less about Jeff. If he only wants the votes of those who are still angry about the 2003 resolution, he should talk about it at every opportunity. But there may well be people who register Dem in the next several months to vote in the various primary races (incl. current NAVs, people who move here, people who turn 18 and register for the first time). Do you know for a fact that those folks care more about a 2003 resolution than about current 2007-8 issues?

For all the grief some people give Sal for backing John Frohnmayer, when was the last time he mentioned other candidates for US Senate?

OH GOD! If we begin publishing videos of Novick's rants it's going to cost us moderate Dems out here East of the Cascades more than one election in November.

There are moderate Dems East of the Cascades? And they see rants in the video clips above? They've been taking too much LDS!

it's weird to me that the conversation is focussed on what amounts to a few minutes out of the whole interview, and those few minutes being in response to a specific & direct question - how are you different from jeff merkley?

anyway, i think that this interview finally completely sold me on novick as a candidate. and here's the thing that did it. i was nodding along in agreement with all of his responses to the questions (save for the impeachment, but it's a delicate & nuanced enough issue that i can respect his position if not agree with it.) but there was one answer i didn't like. and that was when he talked about what would happen in iraq if we pulled out, and made the reference to the ethnic cleansing in serbia/croatia in the 90's.

i just finished reading a novel that addressed the genocide that went on there, and it was so heart wrenching that i recoiled at steve's answer. like - NO! we can't just accept that there will be mass bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. that's too horrible.

but i thought some more about it, and the thing is - that's what is going to happen. that's the realistic answer. and it dawned on me that steve novick didn't give a bullsh&t answer to the question that was designed to make me (the voting american public) feel good. this is an answer that hurts - that there is going to be mass bloodshed & mayhem & pain & ugliness after we leave iraq and we don't get to feel good about it.

whoa. everything his supporters have been saying about him is true - he's a politician who doesn't give bullshit answers. even when the answers aren't pretty or palatable.

merkley seems like a decent kind man, but i think i'm sold on novick now.

It's about time we have some joint Novick/Merkley appearances/videos. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- this is the way to beat Smith. Have these two middleweights duke it out until the winner emerges into a heavyweight. Get the state talking about their ideas -- what makes them different from each other, what makes them different from Smith, and what they'll do if elected. In short, create a buzz for the Democrats ... and Smith will soon seem irrelevant.

I see a lot of negativity in this thread. Now isn't the time for that. Tell us what you LIKE about a candidate, not what you don't like about the other guy. I happen to think Novick is the most exciting politician since Wellstone, but that doesn't mean I'm in the mood to Merkley-bash. I've called Merkley "charisma-challenged" in another thread, but I've apologized for that and certainly believe people can grow over the course of a campaign. Those who don't get while many of us think Novick is "all that" should assume the possibility that he'll grow as well. Focus on why you like your guy, please, and have faith that the Democratic voters will get it right, whatever that choice may be.

Novick says he supports Edwards for president as the candidate with the most consistent platform.

I saw the NewsHour interview with Edwards. Quite impressive. Most of the answers were in the form of declarative sentences, such as "I will if elected...." or examples of what the country should/ should not be doing, or "We decided as a family..." or "I would have voted...", stating the affirmative in a way which showed exactly what he thinks.

Steve has talked about style and passion. There is no doubt about the passion behind the Edwards campaign, but his style tends towards elegant answers. When asked about Sen. Clinton's vote on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, he said something like "She had her reasons for voting the way she did, and she has the right to her opinion. I just would have voted differently". That is an elegant answer.

I happen to agree with Kevin when he says, I would have handled it exactly the same as Merkley did in 2003. Bringing it up time after time simply reinforces why I'd prefer Merkley over Novick. He handled it beautifully and that's the kind of reasoning, even-handed approach to contentious issues which I believe Oregon needs in our new Senator.

For all of those who are Novick supporters, I have no problem with your support of Steve. I'm just saying I have known him for many years and he is not the most inspiring candidate I have ever known. If he inspires you, by all means knock yourself out! Oregon politics is helped when inspired volunteers get involved in campaigns--esp. if those volunteers have not been active for years or decades but are relatively new to the process.

TJ, I have now watched all 4 segments of the interview. And here is what I consider a summary of those 4 segments, written in the Edwards style of stating the affirmative in mostly simple declarative sentences. (For those who have dialup connections, it should help them understand what this discussion is about.) In some cases, I played the segment (or part of it) more than once to make sure I quoted accurately. Let's have a debate about what Steve actually said.

Steve is in many ways an admirable person, but nowhere is it written that political activists need to make their 2008 primary candidate choices in the fall of 2007.

Summary of Steve's comments in the above clips:

Steve admits there are important arguments on both sides of the impeachment debate and comes out pro-impeachment . He talks about Bush, Cheney, Rice in that context. He says the precedent for impeachment is the Watergate articles of impeachment. He admits it will be divisive and could distract from other issues, that partisanship is a danger in the current climate but impeachment would help people realize that there are checks and balances in a democracy.

No easy solution to Iraq—we need to get out lock, stock and barrel. Quotes George Packer saying extreme positions make more sense than middle of the road, but we owe Iraqis what Baker & Hamilton said about trying to pull together a coalition to work out a multi-lateral solution if that is possible.

How do we deal with the possibility of a bloodbath? Horrible thing to contemplate, but it could be very rough in Iraq no matter when we leave. Gordon Smith’s positions are an issue of judgment, and his judgment on many issues has been bad.

About the Lieberman-Kyl resolution on Iraq, Novick would have voted no. Iran is scary in many respects incl. nuclear weapons. Quotes Sen. Webb saying that resolution could have been interpreted by this administration as an authorization for war.

Basic position on global warning---income gap between rich and everyone else, and global warming are the two biggest issues facing this country. Endorsed Sanders Boxer bill on global warming.

Al Gore would win, sorry he isn’t running for president—there is a parallel to Nixon 1960/68 and Al Gore 2000 / 2008. Consistent platform is why he supports John Edwards now. Oregon stands to benefit from alternative energy sources like wave energy, wind, and geothermal energy.

Talked about fundraising in answer to a question, said his goals were smashed and he was glad about that.

Asked about differences with Merkley. Makes a joke about 10 fingers vs. 5 fingers. Says Merkley is an elected official and he is not. Then brings up the 2003 resolution which elected official Merkley voted for. Novick says “Democrats have gotten tired of that sort of thing and are looking for those who will raise their fist and vote no.”

Asked about Merkley’s establishment support, Novick says, “I think that Oregon Democrats are a little unhappy with the Washington DC Democratic establishment and having their support is not necessarily going to be a benefit for Jeff Merkley”.

Asked about Measures 49 and 50—says he supports both. 49 is critical to the future of the state. Supports John Kroger for AG.

Talks about living with the hard left hook—only one hand. Gave the example of buying an ice cream cone and having to take the change before taking the cone and people with physical disabilities want others to know they are just regular people.

They have been taking too much Mormons?

No, that stuff Timothy Leary used to push.

Anyway, it will be fun when our fellow Democrats from East of the Cascades catch up to us - I'm sure, if we're patient, we'll hear what they've got to say.

Rant indeed!

Stephanie--listen to Steve on Part 4. He says Merkley is an elected official and people are down on elected officials, from the national level to the Oregon legislature.

It looks like recent national polls showing a decline in approval of Congress into the teens suggest people are indeed "down on elected officials." And comments on recent threads beating up on Blumenauer, de Fazio and others indicate something similar for Oregon.

pdxskip: I was surprised with your claim to be a liberal Dem. I thought you were a troll. Did you ever respond to my question and give your definition of "liberal"?

Disclaimer: I'm a Novick supporter because as an independent (NAV) I like Novick's independence.

Bill, I wouldn't conflate Congressional approval ratings with approval ratings for any and all elected officials. If you've got stats on the approval ratings for Oregon's legislature then let's have 'em and see if they actually corrolate with Congressional approval ratings.

I don't have stats on Oregon but comments on this site and other sources indicate a lot of resentment which ads against certain measures are exploiting. If you can prove me wrong, go ahead and as penance I'll make a donation to Steve Novick's campaign.

Novick is on the attack in this interview and, without a question from a host, at the Summit -- see the video on this site. There is not much difference between the espoused views of Novick and Merkley. But Novick has never held public office, and is clearly behind a candidate who led the Democrats to a Majority in the House, and then, as Speaker, led them to a truly outstanding session.
So, as the current game is played by Novick's well-known advisers, you attack the opponent. Never mind that you will probably lose anyway and that you will be helping the Bush-Smith forces you say you oppose.
I predicted Novick's me-first, attack-the-opponent approach on this site a month ago, and I predict that you will see this attack on a single vote will highlight Novick's primary advertising. Democrats will see through Novick's posturing, but Republicans will have the ammunition in their minds in the Fall. If you have watched Novick in action, this scenario was not hard to predict. I am saddened by the cynicism of it, by the fact that Novick, after his time as Chief of Staff in the State Senate, would attack the legislature as being unpopular, and would attack Merkley for an uncharacteristic, no-win vote. But I expected it. It is in keeping with Novick's self-centered character.

Novick is on the attack in this interview and, without a question from a host, at the Summit -- see the video on this site. There is not much difference between the espoused views of Novick and Merkley. But Novick has never held public office, and is clearly behind a candidate who led the Democrats to a Majority in the House, and then, as Speaker, led them to a truly outstanding session.
So, as the current game is played by Novick's well-known advisers, you attack the opponent. Never mind that you will probably lose anyway and that you will be helping the Bush-Smith forces you say you oppose.
I predicted Novick's me-first, attack-the-opponent approach on this site a month ago, and I predict that you will see this attack on a single vote will highlight Novick's primary advertising. Democrats will see through Novick's posturing, but Republicans will have the ammunition in their minds in the Fall. If you have watched Novick in action, this scenario was not hard to predict. I am saddened by the cynicism of it, by the fact that Novick, after his time as Chief of Staff in the State Senate, would attack the legislature as being unpopular, and would attack Merkley for an uncharacteristic, no-win vote. But I expected it. It is in keeping with Novick's self-centered character.

Damn, I thought it was a joke about Mormon influence.

I'm trying to grasp the concept of moderate Dems East of the Cascades - who are influenced by Mormons?

We Dems are lucky, we have two great candidates, and the race between them will be interesting.

I hope someone will ask Steve to reconsider his bad position on capital gains - he wants to raise the tax rate. Here's some advice to the contrary:

"The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy." - John F. Kennedy, 1963

<hr/>