Nah, I doubt unions will matter at all in this election. Unions in Oregon don't have much political pull. When was the last time they did anything that mattered?

The time when a union endorsement carried meaning [translation: votes] has [sadly] passed. Thank you, Ronald Reagan, et al. But, it does provide Jeff Merkley another news-cycle moment, however brief.

Are you kidding me? The unions, particularly the government workers unions own the democratic party in Oregon. In the past two years Gov K has GIVEN several thousand represented positions to AFSCME though voluntary representation w/barely 50 percent of cards signed.

I don't think Kurt has his "facts" straight. But, even so, AFSCME can make a difference when they want to.

In 2006 they (and other unions) really helped Kulogoski beat Saxton. Of course Saxton said he wanted to fire every state employee and then hire them back for lower wages and benefits. I can see why the public employees union would oppose him.

AFSCME also supported some (gasp!) Republican candidates -- like Karen Minnis (who won) and Billy Dalto (who lost).

Bert, go back and look up the home health care workers and find out who they are now represented by. If not AFSCME, then its SEIU. Either way, gov K voluntarily recognized them after barely 50 percent of cards were signed. About 1 year earlier he did the same thing w/another state group.

AFSCME and many other unions can make a difference with money and volunteers, and theirs is a valuable enforsment. They will certainly sway some of their members, however, there are far more Republicans and NAVS among the rank and file than many people realize. AFSCME represents a lot of corrections workers, many of whom tend to be conservative. AFSCME ensorsed a lot of R incumbents for the legislature last year. They tended to give "automatic" endorsements, which supposedly meant that the members voted with AFSCME 80% of the time. I found that VERY hard to beleive with many of the Rs they stuick with. It was more like "make Karen Minnins happy". Now that the winds ahve shifted they are playing nice with Speaker Merkeley.

I would like to say thank to you, wise guy or girl who said that my "qualifications are ledendary". As all of you that the media, including BlueOregon, Democratic Party and etc are said no one word about me as an official candidate for US Senate. Well, they are afraid me and are retaliating for I named the media a cancer of our society and because I blame the death of our soldiers in Iraq on the media and Democratic Party: they blocked my election in 2006. The Council 75 of AFSCME endorsed Merkley. Don Loving named Merkley prudent politician. Really? Merkley, who can't help state in very simple task: reduce heavy traffic, Merkley who gave Driver Licenses to illegal immigrants, Merkley who helped Kulongoski to raise salaries to lazy, overpaid state agencies directors to $158,000 , when so many children have no health insurance. And it is Democratic Party? Shame! And I have an evidence that Merkley violated our laws, does not support the Constitution of the USA, and on base of Amendment XIV, Section 3 - he can't hold any office. And Council endorsed this not convicted yet criminal. The Members of unions are boss, not council, and as we see from last election the People of Oregon rejected unions' endorsement to increase taxes, to rob smokers, and many members of union helped to do it. Unions are buying politicians, but not me!

Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator www.getenergized.com

Goberman's lame attempt to insult Merkley merely reinforces why I like Merkley.

Those of us who support Novick do so not because he's the best of a bad lot, but because he's the best of the best. In fact, I would rather see Novick in the Senate than any other individual in America. That's hardly a slap on Merkley, who seems like a legit progressive. I simply think that Novick is not merely a progressive but someone who will help to confront the non-progressives in the Democratic party about what they must do to earn the name "Democrats" rather than "Republicrats." It will take someone of Novick's extraordinary rhetorical gifts to make that happen, not just another solid progressive. We already have enough of those in the Senate, and they're not getting the job done -- witness the President's hammer lock on power to date.

Thank you Daniel, this is the spirit of the best primary campaigns:

Those of us who support Novick do so not because he's the best of a bad lot, but because he's the best of the best. In fact, I would rather see Novick in the Senate than any other individual in America. That's hardly a slap on Merkley, who seems like a legit progressive.

Like the respectful tone of the AG candidates appearing before Marion County Dems, I believe voters (and Democrats) are best served by debating policy, not by digs at opponents.

(On that note, pundits are beginning to say Edwards could be helped in Iowa by sniping between Obama and Clinton.)

On your last point, go to http://www.charlierose.com/ and watch the interview with Charlie Rangel (Dem. Congressman from Harlem and now a committee chair). He is frustrated with the rule of 60 in the Senate and wishes that Democrats would force Republicans to actually use the filibuster so that Americans can see the debate out in the open---they pass good bills in the House which don't go to Conference Comm., they just get bargained to get the 60 votes.

LT,

As they say in the military, "permission to speak freely, sir!"

I've always liked Charlie Rangel. And like Merkley and Novick, I view him to be a true progressive, at least in spirit. But look who he is strongly supporting for President -- the poster child for the Republicrat Party, Hillary Clinton.

That, my friend, is a microcosm of why the Dems are bankrupt. That's why Novick simply has to win the election for Senate.

That said, I think it stinks that Merkley is running against Novick because I would like both of them in the Senate. It's not that we don't need Merkley too. But we desperately need Novick -- he'll light a fire under the belly of the party, and no time too soon.

That said, I think it stinks that Merkley is running against Novick because I would like both of them in the Senate. It's not that we don't need Merkley too. But we desperately need Novick -- he'll light a fire under the belly of the party, and no time too soon.

So, David, you are unhappy a congressman from the district housing a former president's office supports the wife of that former president for President? Seems to me it could be a situation of personal rather than political support, like the people over the years who have been confronted with a situation where multiple people they like and admire run against each other and they have to make a choice if they want to publicly support someone. (AG and Sec. of State in Oregon will confront lots of people with that problem.) Or are you saying he had no right to make a decision you disagree with?

Recently I attended a baby shower for a relative put on by college friends of the expectant mother. All those young women are college grads in their late 20s with professional jobs who went to each other's weddings.

I asked the hostess if she was paying attention to anything in politics, and her response was that other members of her family pay attention to politics but she doesn't.

Daniel, may I humbly suggest that someone who will "light a fire under the belly of the party" is less important than a Howard Dean or a Barack Obama who will excite those who didn't think there was anything interesting about politics? Every single Blue Oregonian could unite on the same candidates for US Senate, AG, Sec. of State and that wouldn't decide the primary election.

Even primaries are as likely to be decided by people whose friends convince them to check out a candidate than by gung ho political activists, or any sort of ad.

Just my humble opinion after 30 years as a political volunteer.

LT, you're preaching to the choir when you mention the virtues of Obama's candidacy. That's one of the reasons I was so frustrated when Rangel came out for Clinton. Of course the support is personal. Then again, that's part of the problem. There always seems to be one reason or another for Democrats to take positions contrary to the progressive agenda (if I may use that word). Clinton, quite frankly, doesn't deserve Charley's support -- maybe she could have had she voted differently on some pretty crucial vote, but as it stands now, she is as responsible for the War in Iraq as the rest of the Republicrats. In fact, unlike Edwards, she hasn't really even apologized for her vote. And besides, if you ask me, she's not electable in the first place. So Charley may be helping not only to prevent us from electing a progressive but rather to usher in four more years of Republican (not Republicrat) leadership. I don't think we can afford that sort of "personal" decision-making on the part of our leaders.

Kevin,

Certainly, my post was incomplete and you pointed out a potential flaw in my logic. Sometimes, fire brands can simply piss people off to the point where they can't get anything done. After all, politics is more than simply a debating contest; it is also about personalities getting along with one another and using rhetoric and other devices to bring others to their side of the table. I said nothing in my earlier post about Novick's ability to do that.

Here's what I left out. As I've said before, I've known the guy for 26 years. We were at Harvard Law together, and I watched him closely as this kid -- he was only 18 when he matriculated -- mixed it up with a variety of people about a variety of political topics. And these people I'm talking about had some pretty gargantuan egos -- maybe not as great as Senators, but pretty gargantuan.

The fact is that everyone loved the guy. Perhaps people cut him slack because of his disability, but I don't think that was most of it. Novick has an incredible sense of humor and a basic sweetness about him that is palpable. It's nearly impossible to know the guy and not love him, even if you find yourself disagreeing with him on certain issues.

When Novick turned 40, his former office at the DOJ threw a party for him to which I was invited. (Some Oregon folks came out and, having heard that I've known Novick for so long, treated me like I knew John, Paul and Ringo back in Liverpool; it was strange.) Anyway, Novick was treated by his former DOJ colleagues with the same kind of reverence that he received back in law school. Call it charisma, if you must, but that word alone doesn't do the guy justice. It's a combo of intelligence, wit, warmth, empathy, sense of humor, and passion for important public policy issues that this guy brings to the table. When I introduced a friend to Novick for the first time last week, the guy's initial impression was "He's really a sweet guy, isn't he?" "Sweet" is not exactly a synonym for "alienating."

I'm a native Washingtonian who has lived in the D.C. area for 40 years. Trust me when I say that he would do great in the legislative branch of my city. He might alienate some people, I won't deny that, but you can't please all people all the time, right? What you can do, if you're as talented as Novick, is inspire the hell out of most people -- or at least most Democrats. And I suspect that while he might not be as potentially inspiring to Republicans as, say, an Obama, Novick will at least gain their respect.

So, you see, I don't come at this as hating Merkley, right? Hell, how can I dislike a guy who went to Stanford, probably around the same time I did, and who has used his education there to work for progressive causes in one of my favorite states. Novick likes Merkley, and I have seen no reason why I shouldn't also. Time after time (and yes, I am excluding that resolution, which did bother me -- because I REALLY hate that war), I find that Merkley's positions are my own. I don't come here to criticize Merkley -- I did it once and have regretted it -- but only to praise Novick. And to those who say that Novick is inexperienced, all I can say is Tiger Woods was inexperienced at the beginning of the 1997 season, but those of us who knew his game didn't have to be told that he has talent and it wouldn't be long before he'd show that talent to the world.

Thanks in advance for indulging me such a long post.

Didn't AFSCME also endorse Karen Minnis the last cycle when she ran against Brading? Nuff said about this choice and their choice making.

Kevin,

I do appreciate your perspective. And I'm not trying to take anything away from Merkley. But I know what I've seen from Novick over 26 years, and I know my city. I think he'll do great.

You mentioned the HR 2 resolution as an indication that Steve's past performance is (relatively) weak. There we must part ways. Legislators in Oregon may indeed come out against Steve on the top, but since Merkley is one of them and Steve is an outsider, I hardly take their views as objective assessments. All that I can say is that Merkley's vote on that resolution bothered me (as someone who has demonstrated against the war on a number of instances), and I assume it didn't thrill Steve. So he pointed that out. No big deal. It doesn't make Merkley a war hawk, but it doesn't make Steve a negative campaigner either. A candidate has a right to point out substantive differences with an opponent, and if you don't think that's a substantive difference, you must not hate that war as much as I do.

I admit that a lot of what politics is about is "getting along" and "playing the game," and to be a Steve Novick is to ruffle a few feathers. No question about that. Well, all that I can tell you is that in my city, we have 535 legislators, more than half of whom are Democrats, and virtually all of them spend most of their time "getting along" and "playing the game." Look what that attitude has done for the Democratic Party? It's turned the Party into a bunch of lap dogs -- much like the bichons I have but a whole lot less cute.

If you are satisfied with business as usual, than absolutely, Novick isn't the guy for you. And even if you're not, there's a chance that notwithstanding my opinion, Steve's act won't make it in Washington, so you might as well elect Merkley. But can we really afford to be that risk-averse? Can we really afford to look at an immense, charismatic talent like Novick and say "Sorry, I'm opting for the safe bet?" Can we really afford to ignore such a stratospheric upside?

Personally -- and now I'm being as candid with you as you have been with me -- I've seen a lot of legislators come into my city with solid resumes from their home states (including my own home state of Maryland), only to bore the hell out of me once they get to Capitol Hill. They get along, but they don't shake things up. And even if they vote against the GOP, they don't affect the national discourse, which the GOP typically seems to dominate. To be honest, I see Merkley in that solid, but pedestrian mold. I like him, but I don't see him as a match for the national GOP. Oh he'll cast some good votes, but he won't influence the discourse. He doesn't have the charisma -- not even close.

Novick is different. At worst, he'll be like Merkley: good votes, but ultimately not a change agent. But ... with a little bit of luck (as Henry Higgens might say), he'll be a national voice to be reckoned with -- an articulate spokesman not only for what's wrong with the GOP, but what's wrong with the Republicrats (that's our Party).

It isn't easily to pull off what I'm hoping for, and maybe Novick won't, but again: can we really afford NOT to take that chance?

"I admit that a lot of what politics is about is "getting along" and "playing the game," and to be a Steve Novick is to ruffle a few feathers."

Some months ago, I took a young friend to see Steve speak. I have known him for years and wanted to know how a young person would react.

The most positive comment was "nice guy but..."

I respectfully submit that (leaving out current and former legislators if you wish--a finite number) the winner of the nomination will be the one who impresses the most people of all ages who may or may not be paying attention in Nov. 2007.

The deciding factor may be the endorsement of a personal friend, a speech on a solution to a particular problem, an ad which convinces them to vote for (or against) the candidate in the ad,a news story which attracts their attention, a public appearance nearby which they are taken to by a friend or otherwise make time for in their busy schedule.

So far, it seems the AG candidates are doing a better job of talking to the general public while the US Senate campaigns seem more interested in battling for the votes of insiders.

LT,

I don't disagree about your comments regarding the U.S.Senate campaigners being more interested in battling for the votes of insiders. I blame this, however, squarely on Merkley, but Novick has offered an alternative and Merkley has decided not to take him up on it.

Some might think I'm being a Novick partisan here, but believe it or not, this has nothing to do with helping Novick win as opposed to Merkley. In this one instance, I'm only thinking about how to get a Democrat elected -- either Democrat. Months ago, Novick proposed that he and Merkley should jointly tour the state together. They would make a series of appearances in which each would make his respective case about why he in particular could do the best job in replacing/unseating Smith.

The beauty of this idea is that it would likely bring both of these individuals into the limelight. They would stop competing for "insiders" -- to use your apt word -- and would be attempting to communicate to Ma and Pa Oregon, as well as to the media.

I have come across with the impression that Merkley might think his best strategy at this point is to collect endorsements from insiders, raise more money than Novick in a low-key campaign, and silently earn himself the nomination. (The key word being "silently.") But my problem with that is that if EITHER of these guys wins in a low-key primary campaign, he probably loses to Smith. I think Merkley and Novick need each other to generate hype. And if they do, I suspect we will have a Democratic Senator. I don't who will win, but it wouldn't be Smith.

Kevin,

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I certainly wouldn't attempt to disabuse someone who likes Merkley of his opinion. I have nothing but good things to say about Merkley. Truly, I didn't like his approach to that resolution, but I also don't think the resolution renders him unfit for office.

You say that you are jaded about the political parties. You and me both, believe me. You know Merkley and you like him a lot. I know Novick and I like him a lot. Perhaps that's the bottom line here. And really, all that I would ask is that your guy take up my guy on his offer to tour the state jointly and let the state -- not just a few legislators -- decide for themselves which guy resonates best with the people. No "democrat" can ask for more than that.

Daniel, I think I see where the problem is in regards to the question insiders vs. everyday folks.

You said "Novick has offered an alternative and Merkley has decided not to take him up on it".

As someone who just finished a Thanksgiving holiday which involved 7 adults and one child (age range 88 years to not quite 1 year old), I had no idea what you were talking about.

It took Kevin to say, "I really don't see much advantage to Merkley in doing joint campaigning with Novick. Seems to me that Novick stands to benefit much more from that than Merkley does. ".

If you can't specify what Novick's alternative is and only say he has an alternative, how are you going to interest voters who haven't been following the campaign this closely? Remember, many of us don't live in Portland and have lives outside of politics.

Kevin and Kari,

First of all, I don't speak for Novick's "camp." I'm living 3000 miles away from that camp. I talk to Steve sometimes, but he doesn't go through a briefing book with me. He has his life and I have mine. Google my name -- you'll see that my life isn't simply about Oregon politics or Steve Novick.

Secondly, I can say one thing for sure in response to Kari's point -- if Steve Novick gives his word about something, he'll honor it. If "the deal" is that the two make a bunch of joint appearances for the purpose of taking on Smith, not each other, Novick will honor that. Period.

Third, I think, Kari, that Kevin's post illustrates the flaw in the logic of your post. Kevin was candid about this: it's not in Merkley's interests (as Kevin sees it) to take Novick up on his offer. Apparently, Merkley feels the same way. Have the two made ANY joint appearances? Sure. But not nearly the number needed to get the attention of the Oregon electorate at large, and not just a few people in a few places. As long as Merkley picks his spots so sparingly, then Novick would probably feel free to say whatever he wants to (which is not to say he wants to go negative). "The deal" -- hands off each other, hands on Smith -- should be limited to the two of them touring together in earnest ... more like John and Paul than Peter versus Paul.

Finally, with respect to Kari's point that Merkley has been positive and Novick negative, all that I can say is that I read Blue Oregon, and Kari's minions here are at least as negative as Novick's. So the "mud slinging" debate seems like a false one. And once again, it is missing the point. The issue should be how to get both of these men's ideas and personalities in front of the general electorate. You know how I come out on that. If you think either of these guys can beat the smooth, "moderate," well funded Smith without working together much more than they have been, I think you've been going south of your border and smoking some of that Humboldt Home Grown.

I just want to thank Kevin and Daniel for truly respectful and informative posts. You both make excellent arguments for your candidate.

As for the joint appearances, conventional wisdom is that Merkley has more to lose. And CW may be right. But unlike a lot of progressives, I'm starting with the assumption that Smith will be very hard to beat in the general. He has successfully positioned himself as a moderate (whether he is or isn't doesn't matter, he has positioned himself to be viewed as a moderate by the media and casual observers), he has the power of incumbency, and he will dramatically outspend his Democratic opponent.

If you start where I am, the traditional campaign that Merkley is running begins to make less sense. If he coasts to the nomination -- and barring any missteps I think he will -- he starts at a huge disadvantage. However, if he engages Novick with joint appearances and has to fight with Novick for the nomination, he will "earn" the nomination in a way that raises his profile and makes him more formidable. It's counterintuitive and certainly not the advice that any political consultant will give him but let's face it, if he can't beat Novick on issues, style and substance, he can't beat Smith.

Disclaimer: While I do not work on any campaigns and couldn't build a website if my life depended on it, I have met Steve Novick on a few occasions and think he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Seems to me this depends on the tone of the joint appearances.

However, if he engages Novick with joint appearances and has to fight with Novick for the nomination, he will "earn" the nomination

I was not impressed with the tone of the Sunriver joint appearance, which I saw on video online. Jeff seemed to be in need of voice coaching (his voice dropped off at times and it was hard to hear some of the words at the end of sentences. Steve has a wonderful speaking voice and said some good things, but there was a part of his speech which went over like the proverbial lead balloon---with the sound on the computer speakers turned all the way up, there was dead silence after what Steve apparently thought was one of his great lines.

Contrast that with a recent joint appearance of the AG candidates. VERY different in style and experience, but respectful "we agree on this", "we will have to disagree on that" discussions of policy.