Smearing Jeff Merkley with GOP talking points
By State Representative Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) and State Representative Mary Nolan (D-Portland).
This past weekend Democrats in Oregon came together in Sunriver in the common cause of advancing progressive values. The energy was high, the passion was clear. And the harmony nearly lasted.
It is an unfortunate fact that political campaigns are often about airing dirty laundry in full public view. In Oregon at least, Democrats usually reserve their sharp barbs for Republicans. Unfortunately, what should have been a unifying experience turned ugly when Senate candidate Steve Novick went on the attack against Jeff Merkley in their Sunday joint appearance. He launched the same attack in an appearance on "Outlook Portland with Nick Fish," and again in his speech at the state AFL-CIO convention Monday in Seaside.
Instead of taking aim at Gordon Smith and his failed leadership, Novick used these occasions to smear one of Oregon's true progressive leaders. It is a crass attempt to turn Democrats against one another, an effort that serves only his selfish personal agenda. And what's worse, he based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party.
On March 21, 2003, just as the first American soldiers and Marines were planting their boots in the sands of Iraq, the Republicans who controlled the state House put forward a resolution filled with praise for those troops and President Bush, war-mongering against Saddam Hussein, and broad statements about the threat Iraq posed to civilized society.
Anyone who looks seriously at the resolution recognizes it for the rubbish it is. It was a blatant and transparent attempt to put Democrats in a bad future political position. The GOP calculation was this: if a Democrat votes against this bill, we'll say they don't support the troops; if a Democrat votes for it, we'll say you are a Bush-admiring war supporter. Either way, they've got you. It was a move right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
As legislators we had only two choices: yea or nay. We couldn't skip the vote. We couldn't vote "present." We couldn't even offer an alternative. So, five Democrats, including the two of us, said "nay." Others, like Jeff Merkley, said "yea." But whatever vote a legislator cast, there was no "right" choice.
There was, however, a right thing to do. And Jeff did it. Before he cast his vote for that resolution, he made a clear and unambiguous statement of disapproval for the war and for the resolution.
He stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and said forcefully:
I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. …… Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops. …
At a time when public opinion polls in favor of the war in Iraq approached 90 percent approval, Jeff Merkley stood up and spoke out against it.
Steve Novick is a bright guy and a good campaigner. He can take apart a ridiculous Republican talking point like no one else. He really should know better.
Attacking Jeff for his vote is the equivalent of attacking us for our vote. It is the same as saying we were not willing to support the troops. That is neither fair nor correct. Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech and his decision was to show his support of the troops by his vote. We felt voting no was our way of attacking the war, but we both certainly support our troops, especially when wrong-headed leaders send them to fight a foolish and unjust war.
Our passionate commitment to changing this kind of demagoguery and false leadership in Washington, D.C., is why we will be working hard to make sure Jeff Merkley is our next United States Senator.
We are with Jeff because he stands up for what he believes in, regardless of how politically popular it may be. He doesn't engage in petty backbiting of the kind Novick is all too willing to embrace. Jeff sees a problem, finds a solution, and works like hell to get it done. That's what Oregon needs in a United States Senator.
What we don't need is an opportunist so narrowly focused on a short-term political gain that he loses sight of what makes us proud to be Democrats.
When he went on the attack against Jeff on Sunday at Sunriver, the energy in the room immediately evaporated. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are tired of that kind of politics. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are ready for a candidate, and a Senator, like Jeff Merkley.
|
October 11, 2007 |
guest column | Comments (179 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Oct 11, 2007 4:25:30 PM
Whichever of these fine candidates wins the primary, I will support. But this gets to the heart of my hesitance about Novick: by acting like every political compromise is a betrayal he implies he won't make compromises to gain accomplishments. Sorry, but compromise is the essential component to being effective. As the authors point out, there was no win vote this one, it had no bearing on the war, and Merkley made his own position crystal clear. I suppose we can thank Steve for giving Jeff a chance to refute these silly "charges" in the primary, but that's about all.
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:29:00 PM
With respect, there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause. So, assuming that Mr. Novick wants to present himself as an alternative to the DNC/Hillary war machine, how would you suggest that he do so, except by aggressively pointing out the differences between himself and Mr. Merkley?
Or is the point of this post that anti-war Dems should quietly lie down in front of the DNC/Hillary machine and allow themselves to be run over for the sake of party unity?
Posted by: Scooter | Oct 11, 2007 4:29:20 PM
Here's a talking point:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
What changed since then... Oh yeah, the inspectors were removed and the Oil for Food Program was corrupted.
Posted by: Patton Price | Oct 11, 2007 4:31:24 PM
Terry-
There was video of those remarks posted here like one or two days ago.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Oct 11, 2007 4:33:21 PM
No one is "attacking Jeff" whether "for his vote" or for other reasons.
However, many of us, including me, are criticizing that vote. This is our right as citizens, voters, Democrats, and progressives.
No one is criticizing your votes. In fact, I wish, as do many others, that Jeff Merkley had exhibited the amount of backbone you did that day.
From where I sit the "smearing" is all originating with the Jeff Merkley camp, and it's damned unattractive.
Here's a look at the resolution he voted for:
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441;and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq;
and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President′s cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power;
and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
That's horrifying to me. It isn't mandatory that my Senator have a stainless steel left arm, but I insist on one with a little bit more steel in his spine.
Posted by: trishka | Oct 11, 2007 4:33:40 PM
this is so tiresome.
look, the only reason jeff merkley doesn't get accused of negative campaigning is because his entire campaign consists of "vote for me because X, Y, and Z prominent democrats say so" or "vote for me because of my record in the state legislature".
heaven forbid he put a little substance in his campaign, and, for example, talk about the differences between him and steve novick.
of course if he did that, he might get accused of negative campaigning (oh no!).
sheesh. the only reason his hands are clean is because he hasn't SAID ANYTHING yet. when he starts running a real campaign and stops hiding behind endorsements, then let's talk about who's being negative and who isn't.
sorry, jeff merkley seems like a really nice guy, but his campaign so far really sucks in my opinion. i'm seriously SERIOUSLY worried about what will happen if he wins the primary. if this is preview of what we can expect from a general election campaign, we all might as well save our energy and get used to another 6 years of gordon smith.
c'mon, you all can do better than this. i hope?
Posted by: colin maloney | Oct 11, 2007 4:37:17 PM
I wasn't in Sunriver, so please take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but I saw the video of the speech in question. Given the applause that followed Steve's speech, it doesn't seem to fit with the suggestion that the, "energy in the room immediately evaporated." The particular piece in the speech didn't get a lot of applause, but Steve (in general) seemed to get enthusiastic approval.
I think it's unfair to describe what Steve said as a "smear." I think it's fair to say that he used his interpretation of particular vote of Speaker Merkley's to emphasize a difference between the two of them. That is, after all, what primaries are for.
For an alternate take, I'd suggest reading Randy Stapilus' (over at Ridenbaugh Press) take on the moment. It seems he was there, and doesn't come anywhere near describing the remarks as a "smear."
Posted by: Kristin | Oct 11, 2007 4:39:58 PM
Negative campaigning vs. negative campaigning by proxy -- still the same thing. Of course, the Merkley campaign just knew NOTHING of this article. Gee. Running for Senate is the big leagues and you can't put a shadow over your past.
Posted by: jraad | Oct 11, 2007 4:43:21 PM
look, the only reason jeff merkley doesn't get accused of negative campaigning is because his entire campaign consists of "vote for me because X, Y, and Z prominent democrats say so" or "vote for me because of my record in the state legislature".
heaven forbid he put a little substance in his campaign
By the way, he got accused by Stephanie V upthread.A possible reason why the reasonable aren't accusing him of negative campaigning is because what you just mentioned are examples of, wait for it, POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING.
heaven forbid someone run on their record!
Posted by: unabashed Novick fan | Oct 11, 2007 4:44:28 PM
Steve is my guy, but . . .
Rep. Greenlick makes some good points, particularly when it comes to not parroting the Republicans' talking points. If Steve and his camp want to go on the attack, I hope they will stick to any policy positions where they truly differ. Everyone knows it was the Republicans and Smith's camp who originally pitched the House resolution story to the media when Merkley announced for the Senate, and while I support Steve, those are some strange and unacceptable bedfellows for most Democrats.
Debate over. Novick was anti-war, Merkley was anti-war. Next issue. What about global warming, reversing the Bush tax cuts, supporting veterans, health reform, etc.?
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 4:45:36 PM
With respect, there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause.
With respect, I flat out don't see the alleged similarities. furthermore, I submit that all of this has far less to do with what Merkley did in 2003 than it does the fact that he's not Steve Novick and stands in the way of what Steve Novick wants.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:28 PM
there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause....
Ayup. and a lot of them are Merkley supporters, like me. A lot of others are Novick supporters like you. Others probably support the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The difference here seems to be that Novick and many of his supporters (see above) are trying desperately to graft the Democratic Leadership Council ideology onto Merkley.
Reps Greenlick and Nolan are trying to move the debate to a little more.......shall we say.....intellectually honest arena.
I suspect that they'll have some trouble with this as it seems that this one instance is all you guys have and you will not easily give it up no matter how petty and inconsequential it seems to the rest of is.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:52 PM
DNC/Hillary war machine
The DNC that's led by Howard Dean - that noted anti-war candidate? I'm so confused.
Posted by: Ron Buel | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:57 PM
Steve Novick has never held public office. He doesn't have a voting record. He can be a forceful critic, which, incidentally, he is very good at.
But Steve loves a fight, he loves being on center stage, he loves being the ONLY ONE who is right.
It was not hard to predict on this website a month ago, which I did, that Novick would attack Merkley, and I am predicting right here and now that he will do so in his advertising.
Novick, when all is said and done, has two choices that he and his well-known advisers can see -- lose or attack the likely winner of the primary. Novick is on what he sees as a holy mission, one that centers around his own ego. He will attack, as we have seen. And the purist will lose anyway. And he just may help Gordon Smith in the doing, which is a real crime because it goes exactly against what he says he is doing -- running against Gordon Smith.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 4:50:24 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:29:00 PMWith respect, there are still a few folks who oppose the DNC/Hillary war machine, and some have trouble differentiating Mr. Merkley from the DNC/Hillary cause.
Wait a second, are you trying to suggest that Howard Dean is part of the "war machine" and that you lump someone like Merkley as part of a the war machine because you are having trouble differentiating between them?
Are you serious?
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Oct 11, 2007 4:50:52 PM
Novick was anti-war, Merkley was anti-war. Next issue.
Thank you, UNF! Couldn't agree more. Next issue, PLEASE.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:14 PM
Posted by: Ron Buel | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:57 PM
I disagree with your negative assessment that this is about Steve Novick's ego. I think he is a forthright, honest, and yes, legitimate candidate who, like Merkely, is a solid progressive. I think your insutling dismissive attiude does nothign but show what divisive crap YOU (not Merkely or Novick) are throwing out there.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:30 PM
Debate over. Novick was anti-war, Merkley was anti-war. Next issue. What about global warming, reversing the Bush tax cuts, supporting veterans, health reform, etc.?
That's not the debate. Watch the video. In fact, Mr Greenlick and Ms Nolan spell out what the debate actually is, although they apparently missed it too:
"Steve Novick is a bright guy and a good campaigner. He can take apart a ridiculous Republican talking point like no one else."
...and the concern is that Mr. Merkley may not be able to.
As for "what about the issues," Novick has been WELL out in front of Mr. Merkley in articulating those issues, specifically. He did it again today, talking about the Senate's tabling of tax reform for hedge fund managers. What's Mr. Merkley's take?
I really like Mitch Greenlick, but this is preposterous stuff. Smear? Are they taking THEIR talking points from the campaign of John Morrison in Montana last year?
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:42 PM
My typo (DNC) should be (DLC) and is acknowledged.
They did not teach typing in law school, but that does not excuse my stupid mistake.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 4:57:46 PM
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 11, 2007 4:49:52 PMThe DNC that's led by Howard Dean - that noted anti-war candidate? I'm so confused.
Beat me to it. BlueNote's unhinged rant made me do a double-take.
Posted by: LT | Oct 11, 2007 5:00:54 PM
What we don't need is an opportunist so narrowly focused on a short-term political gain that he loses sight of what makes us proud to be Democrats.
When he went on the attack against Jeff on Sunday at Sunriver, the energy in the room immediately evaporated. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are tired of that kind of politics. Clearly, Oregon Democrats are ready for a candidate, and a Senator, like Jeff Merkley.
Thanks for the simple, positive, declarative statements.
There are 2 kinds of "negative" campaigning. One is the intelligent sort, as depicted by Tom Friedman. If he were running on a higher gas tax or a carbon tax, and an anti-taxer went after him, he said he would welcome that.
He'd just say "My opponent favors a tax, he just doesn't call it that. There is a price to be paid in the form of high energy costs paid to foreign countries. He wants US money to be sent to countries like Saudi Arabia to pay for energy. I want Americans paying for energy to be paying the money into American coffers".
That sort of rhetoric is issue based and proposes a solution to a problem.
Then there is the other kind, which implies all good people think the same way. For instance,
"everyone should vote for Steve because Jeff voted wrong on a 2003 resolution".
First of all, Steve and his supporters are basically saying "if you don't think the 2003 election is a major factor in who should be the 2008 nominee, we don't want your vote". They may believe all Oregon Democrats think like they do, but are they willing to gamble the primary on that?
Or is it that they don't have specific solutions, so they are building a campaign on someone who has never held elective office attacking the voting record of someone who has held elective office? (Worked real well for the Bruggere campaign, didn't it--Steve should remember that.)
That kind of "gloves are off, all is fair in war and politics" attitude can have unpredicatable results. Phil Keisling and Mary Wendy Roberts were primary candidates of equal quality a decade and a half ago--that was until early 1992 when they were competing for the OEA endorsement. In proof of what my friend Julie might describe as "if they act like that, you know they know they are losing", Mary Wendy launched an attack against Phil. By golly, she had copies (which her campaign was eager to pass out at Democratic gatherings) of something Phil had written years before when working as an E. Coast journalist--about the poor quality of DC schools. That was supposed to show why he "didn't support teachers" or some such rot. Actually, it was a reason why some of us who knew both of them wondered why she should get our primary votes if that was how she intended to campaign.
A few years before that, I was at a Democratic Platform Convention and there was more than one hotly contested statewide primary going on. A friend running in a statewide primary was speaking to a luncheon audience. It was the kind of banquet room with circular tables, and the people whose seats were not facing the podium had turned their chairs around to face the podium.
I was shocked when my friend started saying things against an opponent. At that point, the sound of chairs scraping the floor showed that people who had turned their chairs around to face the podium decided to turn their chairs back around to the table and finish eating.
Turned out what what my friend said was accurate, but how many votes did it gain him? That didn't help him win the primary. Too bad, he might have been successful winning the general if he'd had a better primary strategy.
For those on LO and elsewhere who say negative campaigning is a fact of life:
It didn't work in the 1992 US Senate primary. AuCoin ran ads which might now be described as Swift-Boat nasty. There were people who refused to get involved in the primary because they had better things to do than get involved in such nastiness. Once AuCoin won the primary (in a 330 vote recount), people he had alienated didn't work on his general election campaign. Bill Clinton running for president had a hopeful message and was a more attractive candidate.
Not only that, don't let anyone tell you that the bitterness of negative campaigning is wiped from everyone's memories by the end of the election year. A member of PCOL said he was still angry (to the point of wanting physical punishment) about a particularly nasty Republican attack on a Democratic incumbent in 1990.
And there are those who believe AuCoin's failed nomination to the Forestry Board a few years ago failed partly because people who wondered why Heffernan shouldn't remain on the board were joined by people AuCoin had alienated at some point in his life.
This was on Counterpunch as part of that debate. http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03232005.html
I thank the legislators for writing this column. For the Merkley folks, please stay positive and talk about specific issues.
For the Novick folks, yes we know you are offended by the 2003 resolution. Do you plan to go door to door saying "Vote for Novick in the Senate primary because he would have had more sense about the 2003 House resolution than Merkley had"?
Won't people who hear that ask "who cares about a 2003 resolution?" or "why elect a newcomer when we can have a presiding legislative officer to run against Gordon who got elected to the US Senate as a legislative presiding officer?" .
I know this is long. I also know that for many years I have been nagging friends who said "But you see, negative campaigning works" by asking
"in which recent race?".
Sometimes in the short term in very specific circumstances, a candidate employing nasty tactics wins. But even then, does everyone agree to support everything that candidate does, or demand they prove they are worth taking seriously?
Sometimes it blows up in their faces. Like the push poll "Suppose I told you the incumbent has been arrested for drunk driving 3 times" which accidentally called the radio commentator who happened to know the incumbent had been stopped once, never arrested. So the next day, the push poll was the subject of a radio commentary, and the incumbent won re-election.
Or the time I was going to vote for one candidate for St. Supt. but after hearing a nasty radio ad I voted for my second choice instead.
I could go on. Like the "voice of Hitler " ad (on top of the "Mike Kopetski is so liberal he is hip" ad) which resulted in Mike Kopetski defeating Denny Smith in a year only 5 incumbent congressmen lost.
Let me end this way. Some campaigns are absolutely sure of their target audience, and aim at that audience as if they know it will be a majority of voters. If it is not a majority, they wonder why they lost.
Steve Novick, the last time I looked (few days ago) has only one line on his website about veterans. Yet, we are supposed to be so angry about the 2003 resolution we will forget that.
I will be watching for which candidate first starts talking seriously about veterans issues. And if it happens to be John Frohnmayer, all the screams about "you can't even look at anyone other than Jeff or Steve or else Gordon will get re-elected!" will fall on deaf ears as far as I am concerned. There are those of us who believe individuals make voting decisions, and they may not be made in ways campaigns predict.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 5:01:16 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:42 PMMy typo (DNC) should be (DLC) and is acknowledged.
So you are saying that Merkely is hard to differentiate with the DLC?
That is even more divorced from reality than your "typo" (funny the L key is nowhere near the N key).
Neither Merkley or Novick are anything like the DLC. Quit while you are behind.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Oct 11, 2007 5:02:36 PM
> parroting the Republicans' talking points
I haven't seen anyone "parrot Republican talking points" in the ten weeks we've been discussing this issue. Personally, I have stated my own strongly held opinion on this vote.
We can all predict what the Republicans will say and do about it, however, if we give them a chance, and that is one good reason for an undecided Democratic voter to consider supporting Steve. Because Jeff Merkley, in voting for HR2, handed the Republicans a weapon to use against him. Don't we all want to beat Smith? How is it that it is somehow wrong or improper to point out that the other candidate in the primary is not vulnerable to that weapon? I want the Democratic nominee to win. Isn't that what we all want here? If Merkley is damaged goods due to the HR2 vote, isn't it better to find that out now, while we still have an alternative? How is it better to stick our heads firmly into the sand and keep repeating to ourselves, "it's not an issue!"
Ultimately, is it all about beating Smith, or is it all about protecting Jeff?
Mitch and Mary, with all due respect, you can't wish this away or flatly deny its importance and pretend that that is the end of the story. It happened. Votes have consequences. Merkley is a legislator and can be held accountable for that vote or any other that displeases the Democratic primary electorate. He will also reap the benefits of other votes he cast that make the primary electorate happy. That's how it is with legislators.
Your loyalty to Jeff is understandable and laudable, but this post is not your finest hour.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 11, 2007 5:03:39 PM
Mitch Greenlick writes, "Anyone who looks seriously at the resolution recognizes it for the rubbish it is."
So apprently Jeff merkley looked at it seriously, determined it was rubbish and then put his stamp of approval on it by voting "yes."
That's pretty silly, Mitch (Greenlick).
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 11, 2007 5:09:55 PM
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 11, 2007 5:03:39 PMThat's pretty silly, Mitch (Greenlick).
Thank you for the parenthetical distinction there.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Oct 11, 2007 5:11:03 PM
Please, people, we're talking about elected officials here.
Repeat after me:
Representative Greenlick
Representative Nolan
Speaker Merkley
Adding these titles will make all of those 'with all due respects' above actually seem respectful.
Posted by: colin maloney | Oct 11, 2007 5:11:40 PM
BTW, if anyone wants to make their own decision about how to interpret Steve's remarks, they can see the speech in question on Google Video right here.
(Steve starts at about 17:15 into the video)
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Oct 11, 2007 5:12:43 PM
There has been a lot of unnecessary candidate bashing from both sides, as Novick and Merkley can both be considered progressive Democrats. I'm not choosing a favorite in the primary but it's clear that Merkley's vote for HR2 would weaken his ability to criticize Smith on Iraq adventure. I do not know that this would be a fatal weakness, but it would be significant.
Posted by: Jamai Vu | Oct 11, 2007 5:13:13 PM
Gordon Smith voted for the war. Jeff Merkley voted for a resolution supporting the troops sent to fight it.
Which decision do you suppose swing voters will be more likely to care about? I tend to doubt they'll care about either. The question of "what are you GOING to do" in D.C. will matter more.
I would add to LT's very good post that launching personal attacks on Gordon Smith is also likely to fail. If Steve wants votes he needs to show he won't take that bait. This is not a good start. Our candidate will need to answer any "swift-boating" right away, but initiating it will show one thing: more politics as usual. If you stand for politics as usual, the voters have less reason to throw out the incumbent.
Posted by: Jesse Cornett | Oct 11, 2007 5:15:36 PM
Rep. Nolan & Rep. Greenlick,
I was in that room with you and share your feelings about Candidate Novick's comments.
I am a huge fan of Steve's but am having an increasingly more difficult time matching the Steve I know and the candidate Novick I see and the attacks from his campaign and its supporters.
Posted by: Purple | Oct 11, 2007 5:21:09 PM
If this is the best Merkley can do when attempting to avoid a steel left hook....how low is he gonna sink when $4 million dollars of the Gordo machine are bearing down on him.
To me this shows how weak both candidates are: Novick in his backpedaling on "campaigning against Smith" and Merkley and his staff not having the competency to handle an issue as minute (in the grand scheme of things) as a resolution that was voted on in 2003.
As Stephanie V said, this has been discussed for 10 weeks. Smith is included in a Wash Post piece involving Cheney and Klamath Falls and we hardly hear about it anymore, yet Merkley is still haggling ove a ridiculous resolution cause he cant seem to properly answer it and let it go away?
Things dont look good.
Posted by: john f. bradach, sr | Oct 11, 2007 5:27:35 PM
B.S.
Today's Iraq death count of Americans is 3821.
I stand by my posts in late August, when Merley said he had no regrets on the vote:
*****
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | Aug 28, 2007 9:57:11 PM
I don't buy it!
The text of the Resolution is below.
Jeff Merkley suffers HILLARY'S AFFLICTION, no regret at having cast this vote.
The Resolution, 2003 HR-2 enhanced the fraud which launched the War, making us all party to an international war crime and violation of our treaties. The premise was pretext.
The Website I use to track the Iraq deaths says 3732 Americans (including one of my family) are dead as a result, as of today. It always lags, so we know the toll is higher. God knows how many Iraqis and others, and the wounded and the Trillon Dollars, just because those elected, who watched the Bush Administration's incredible marketing campaign in the fall of 2002 and early 2003 were afraid to stand in the road and say, "Bullshit".
________________
72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session
Enrolled
House Resolution 2
Sponsored by Representative KROPF; Representatives KNOPP,
RICHARDSON
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq; and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now,therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power; and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and
sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
----------
Adopted by House March 21, 2003
----------------------------------
Chief Clerk of House
----------------------------------
Speaker of House
*****
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | Aug 30, 2007 8:26:20 PM
I am remembering that Bush demanded Saddam document his disarmament, and Saddam produce 50,000 pages. As near as I can tell, Bush did not have them read before he pulled the trigger that killed so many.
It makes me wretch each time I read the Merkley Resolution, "Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet ***."
Posted by: David English | Oct 11, 2007 5:28:59 PM
LT said, "I will be watching for which candidate first starts talking seriously about veterans issues. And if it happens to be John Frohnmayer, all the screams about "you can't even look at anyone other than Jeff or Steve or else Gordon will get re-elected!" will fall on deaf ears as far as I am concerned. There are those of us who believe individuals make voting decisions, and they may not be made in ways campaigns predict."
Where you said veterans issues I wanted to insert (or any other) in terms of my own opinion in at least considering a candidate (including Frohnmayer).
I'm sick of these DP sponsored columns about (or defending) Merkley (otherwise referred to as the "Merkley lovefeast") on BO.
In terms of the arguments about whether the vote was relevent or not, I think it should be discussed. It seems to me like the overall attitude is lay down in the road and vote for Merkley. Sorry..I'm just not buying it.
(Disclosure: I have not decided who I'm voting for and do not support a particular candidate).
Posted by: David English | Oct 11, 2007 5:31:07 PM
meant lovefest...that was a typo.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Oct 11, 2007 5:36:19 PM
Sorry, but compromise is the essential component to being effective.
That's a rule and is often valid but like all rules it has had its exceptions throughout history. Gandhi and MLK, Jr are two of the good guys who didn't compromise. Lenin and Hitler were a couple of the not-so-good guys who knew when to dig their heels in and not compromise. Compromise has its virtues, but you also need to know when to draw the line otherwise you become a patsy.
Posted by: genop | Oct 11, 2007 5:42:21 PM
Not having a dog in this fight, pointing out the weakness is healthy for the eventual goal. Defeating Smith. If we are talking about it imagine how the dark side will drool. This is a modest blip, but needs to be dealt with. Thanks for the elaboration, now I would like to hear the issue neutralized by Jeff Merkley so we can move on.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Oct 11, 2007 5:58:55 PM
I appreciate the Representatives sharing their thoughts on this issue, but I must respectively disagree with them on several points.
First, as has been argued ad nauseum on this site Steve’s criticism is not a repetition of GOP talking points. The matter at hand is a question of judgment – not the GOP line about whether Speaker Merkley truly opposed this war from the beginning.
But if echoing GOP talking points is the crime at hand, it is hard not to see this vote as an endorsement of the false GOP talking points for the Iraq War. Merkley supporters seem to want to elide the plain language of the resolution (and I appreciate others who have already posted it above), but lets look at the text of HR 2:
Whereas the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; and
Whereas the dictator Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq; and
Whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; now,
therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon:
That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly:
(1) Acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush, the President's cabinet and the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and express our support for the victorious
removal of Saddam Hussein from power; and
(2) Praise the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom.
The fact is that this vote is difficult to reconcile with Jeff’s statement that he opposed the war from the beginning and raises questions about his judgment in being willing to stand up to GOP tactics. This vote will trouble Democratic voters in this primary and will be used against him as long as he is running (irrespective of whether Steve Novick is in the race or not).
A few additional points for consideration:
- If this resolution is simply “rubbish” and “political positioning,” as the authors contend, does that mean that votes this year by Republican House members against HJR 9 (a resolution calling on President Bush to begin withdrawal of troops from Iraq) are also meaningless? Representative Greenlick, as a co-sponsor of that resolution, what do you see as the difference in the two cases?
- The authors also assert that Jeff Merkley offered a “clear and unambiguous statement of disapproval for the war” on the floor and that “Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech.” Based on the transcript previously posted here by the Merkley campaign, I see Mr. Merkley stating that he is “not today persuaded” that Iraq is a threat to the United States. I see no attack on the war, nor any mention of George W. Bush. Perhaps there is additional comment after the transcript, but I haven’t seen it.
- Finally, I must say that I am surprised by the language used by two senior members of the Oregon House in this post. You indicate Steve is driven by “short-term political gain,” that he is “crass,” and driven by a “selfish personal agenda.” Steve Novick entered this race when elected officials across Oregon were giving it a pass. He took on Smith because he couldn’t live with himself if we allowed Gordon to have another six years in office. He didn’t need the promise of millions in financial support to induce him to run and he has taken on the challenge at a substantial personal and financial cost to himself. I would have expected better.
Posted by: Taoiseach | Oct 11, 2007 6:04:51 PM
Finally, I must say that I am surprised by the language used by two senior members of the Oregon House in this post. You indicate Steve is driven by “short-term political gain,” that he is “crass,” and driven by a “selfish personal agenda.”
Mr. Weigler, elected officials are in fact capable of speaking the truth.
Posted by: dannyk | Oct 11, 2007 6:19:33 PM
we need an informed public. if steve doesn’t do it who will? karl rove?
thanks steve.
p.s. are you the right or the far left barrel?
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 6:22:12 PM
I'm not choosing a favorite in the primary but it's clear that Merkley's vote for HR2 would weaken his ability to criticize Smith on Iraq adventure. I do not know that this would be a fatal weakness, but it would be significant.Thank you. I know at least for stephanie and myself, and I'm sure many other Novick supporters who I won't speak for, this is really all that's being said.
It does not make Merkley a war supporter.
It does not make Merkley a liar.
It does not make Merkley a flip-flopper.
It IS, however, an issue to consider.
What it does is muddles the best issue Democrats have against Republican incumbents next year. THE best. And for myself, I worry it is emblematic of his style, and if so I have a style preference for someone else.
This, apparently, is a smear. Your post and my response. Take THAT to your grave, pal! :)
Posted by: M.Anon | Oct 11, 2007 6:26:54 PM
I do not want to see any most posts like this from sitting elected Dems.
You are handing a load of talking points over to the RW blogs on a silver platter.
Dumb. I don't like it.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 6:30:00 PM
"If Steve wants votes he needs to show he won't take that bait. This is not a good start."
I beg your pardon? The implication here is that Steve has already laid personal attacks on MERKLEY. What an extrapolation from "Merkley has a problem here" to personal attacks against Gordon Smith. It's meme creep, and I'm not going to let it pass unchallenged.
Posted by: M.Anon | Oct 11, 2007 6:30:09 PM
If this is the best Merkley can do when attempting to avoid a steel left hook....how low is he gonna sink when $4 million dollars of the Gordo machine are bearing down on him.
Exactly. Jeff can come here and defend himself as he deems necessary. This post by the two of you poisons the well of our party. And it really pisses me off.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 6:41:08 PM
I know at least for stephanie and myself, and I'm sure many other Novick supporters who I won't speak for, this is really all that's being said.
So if two sentences from Tom is all you've been trying to say for the past two-and-a-half months:
A. We should have gotten Tom in sooner as I'm sure that you and your candidate are eager to move on to actual issues and policy.
B. Since team Novick has been beating this horse (or puppy as the case may be, TJ) so repetitively, and completely disregarding the responses from Merkley's camp; Now that Reps Greenlick and Nolan have stepped in to try to clear up your confusion, and you've got Tom finally stating your own argument succinctly, can we assume that the Steveminions are finally going to give it a rest?
My guess is that having found only one needle in the haystack, you will continue......er........needling.
Just guessing though.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 11, 2007 6:43:39 PM
"Mr. Weigler, elected officials are in fact capable of speaking the truth."
Of course they are. And ironically both did so proudly and with principle on that resolution. Today I think mostly they're covering a colleague's butt. Which they could have done POSITIVELY, as to more properly defend Mr. Merkley's decision if they wished. Again with irony, as someone pointed out upthread, the tack chosen was to be negative, personally so. Petty opportunist, et al? Shall we add that to the pile on one side, along with raving hypocrites and assholes?
Classic projection--they are smearing Steve here by accusing him of the same. Now THAT is dirty pool in anybody's book.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 7:02:01 PM
Posted by: BlueNote | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:42 PMMy typo (DNC) should be (DLC) and is acknowledged.
I'm not sayin' that I'm brighter than anyone else here but... it seemed self-evidently a typo to me and I responded as if you'd not made the typo.
That said, I stand by my earlier comment. I flat out don't see the alledged similarities. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it seems to me to be more the product of equal doses of conflation and wishful thinking than the product of reality.
Posted by: Galen | Oct 11, 2007 7:08:01 PM
I would love for the good Representatives to answer this question:
If Speaker Merkley wins the primary, do you think his 2003 vote will make the general election marginally more difficult for him, relative to if he had casted the opposite vote, or had not faced that choice at all?
Other Merkley supporters, by all means, feel free weigh in on this one too. It's really a simple question.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Oct 11, 2007 7:10:33 PM
Please, people, we're talking about elected officials here. Repeat after me: Representative Greenlick ...Representative Nolan
Taoiseach makes a good point. Unlike Merkley, Both Greenlick and Nolan rejected this "rubbish," yet they are sitting representaives -- walking talking proof that Merkley could have rejected this rubbish as well and still win an election.
It should not go unnoticed that in their attempt to "defend" their Man from this alleged smear, they manage to accuse Novick of being "Crass" in service of "his selfish personal agenda."
No unnecessarily negative smear there?
And what's worse, you say Novick "based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party." That's an argument that already earned Willamette Week's Rogue of the Week.
A cynic might get to thinkin' that your sensibilities about negative smears are, uh, situational, to put it gently.
By the way, Mitch and Mary, that sounds like a great name for a 70s folk group. You guys otta git some instruments and take this act on the road, 'cause it ain't sellin' here. Voters are a little smarter than you think.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 7:19:16 PM
but it's clear that Merkley's vote for HR2 would weaken his ability to criticize Smith on Iraq adventure.
That echoes the GOP/Novick meme which seeks to artifically divorce that vote from it's context. Context which Greenlick and Nolan pointed out in the post.
The reality of the matter is that voting No was every bit as much of a playing the GOP game as voting Yes because the entire thing was framed by the GOP.
Anyone who thinks that, should he win, Novick wouldn't be taken to task by Smith for opposing the troops (he says he'd have voted no...) has frankly taken leave of their senses. And you know what? It'd be EVERY BIT AS VALID as whatever Camp Smith would try to do to Merkley for voting yes should he win.
I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted by partisans with a patently obvious partisan axe to grind.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Terry | Oct 11, 2007 4:21:19 PM
So why couldn't Merkley have voted no, like you did, Reps. Greenlick and Nolan, and then given the speech explaining his reasons?
It's puzzling to hear Novick described as petty and opportunistic without hearing just what he said in his so-called "attack" speeches on Jeff Merkley.
Perhaps you might provide the sordid details. Otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that the only negative campaigning is emanating from the Merkley camp.