Come on!!! this pundit talking crap is ridiculous!!! i am so tired of pundits spouting shit and then no one ever looking at their statement logically or with consideration for history and their previous statements... Democrats don't completely sacrifice their independence and personally beliefs for the good of their political party... REpublicans do that which is why they have consistently put the republican party ahead of the american people... The fact that Merkley made a statement that some other democrats don't agree with doesn't make him inexperienced, stupid, or a loser it makes him a Democrat. The Democratic Party has better ideas, better policies, and better values than the Republican party, In large part that comes from the fact that our candidates don't come from an organization that squelches debate or descent, Like republicans. Trust me sometimes i wish all our elected would get in lock step, but look at what happened to this country and the republican party because of their desire to enforce party loyalty above all else... As I see it, it is the debate, discussion and conflict within the democratic party that makes Democrats better. it forces our ideas to be more fully formed, it forces our policies to take into account more considerations, opinions, ideas, pitfalls, and finally this means our politicians must address a larger variety issues intelligently and with care. the result of this is smarter policies, better ideas, and better government. Democrats are better because of candidates and electeds like jeff merkley and steve novick and the opinions they unabashedly bring to the table. They aren't stupid, weak or inexperienced, because they speak thier minds. they are democrats through and through and this just shows that they would represent us the people long before they represent their party and that is the way it should be and that is why i am a Democrat and not a republican.

Now that Merkley's sponsor, Chuck Schumer, has announced he will support Bush's see-no-evil-in-waterboarding poodle for Attorney General, it will be interesting to learn what Merkley has to say on this vote and Democratic Senators Schumer and Feinstein.

As for Byrd, he is a former Klan member who denounced Dr. King the 60's, brags that a painting of Stonewall Jackson hangs on his office wall, and several years ago used the term "white-nigger" on TV. Unfortuantely, I don't think calling Byrd a racist would evan phase him. I was appalled when Obama sent out a fundraising letter for Byrd last year. Byrd certainly didn't deserve it.

Merkeley just gave me some serious hope that if he does beat Steve Novick in the primary, I'll be able to support him enthusiastically. (Overcoming a large chunk of my reservations about him generated by the hogslops slung up on his behalf on this blogsite by Mitch Greenlick and Mary Nolan.)

Merkeley could fart in Robert Byrd's face on his first day in office and Byrd would only wave his little pocket copy of the Constitution with one hand and hold his drool cup with the other and remember nothing of the event 10 minutes later.

Stephanie's list is a hall of shame that will, apparently, be more deeply engraved after the Senate vote on Mukasey.

The irony of this whole thread is that this same types that are now criticizing Merkley are the ones that tried to get him to run against Novick in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, Novick is the clear choice for the progressive community in Oregon; he's the most talented progressive since Welstone. And But I agree with what others have said that if for some reason Oregonians go nuts and don't select Novick, the fact that Merkley is pissing off some of the Washington insiders would only make me more optimistic about the kind of Senator he could become.

Seriously, the Democratic insiders have gotten to the point where they are little more than Republicans without the balls.

This ain't good.

Grit your teeth all you want. Rothenberg is respected and Roll Call is read by the money Merkley needs to raise. The message that's a problem for Jeff isn't just that he took on Democrats. It's that Rothenberg is saying he's an amateur.

Not a great message for your (prospective) donors.

So, you want us to visualize whirled peas? (One of my all time favorite bumper stickers)

We are in big trouble if it is more important to please money (didn't realize money is able to read until I saw "Rothenberg is respected and Roll Call is read by the money Merkley needs to raise. ") than it is to have a discussion of issues important to Oregonians. Does either candidate agree with what Sen. Biden recently said about Iran, for instance?

Seems to me that is how Gordon got elected--folks on the other end of the country telling Oregon what to do in a US Senate election (I seem to recall after Wyden was elected to the US Senate there were those saying "All Ron did was win, but he didn't run a professional campaign and we are now going to show how that is done" Well, I'll take an Oregonian winning by trusting his own judgement over someone who takes outside advice and loses--any day of the week!).

Spare me "professional" campaigns paying more attention to people famous outside of Oregon than to what Oregonians want. It did not work in 1996 (one thing Wyden and Smith have in common is the number of people voting 3rd party in 1996 in each election exceeds the R vs. D margin).

And while we are at it, spare me any more mention of the 2003 resolution. I wasn't at Sunriver but neither were most people who will be voting in this primary. But thanks to technology, I was able to listen to Jeff and Steve's speeches. I had the sound turned up all the way when he got to the part about the 2003 resolution, and I didn't hear any cheers for that part of the speech. I heard dead silence until he got to a different part of the speech.

There was an old SNL skit with the line "hear me now and believe me later". That's how I feel about this--every mention of that 2003 resolution and comments like " the hogslops slung up on his behalf on this blogsite by Mitch Greenlick and Mary Nolan" is another reason to vote for Jeff Merkley. I've known Steve a long time, not always agreed with him, not always shared his point of view. Anyone who thinks that 2003 resolution is going to make me join the Novick campaign needs to think again.

And for those who may not have read that earlier topic, a refresher course and a question. Larry, Why do members of the House give up the right to express an opinion and defend a friend because they jumped to the defense of Merkley? Is every state rep. supposed to support Steve over the Speaker because Steve's campaign says so? If Steve's campaign believes in telling us how to vote instead of asking for our vote, why should he be the nominee?

I went back and read that post, and for the benefit of those who didn't read it, type "Greenlick and Nolan " into the search engine here at BO and you can read it yourself. I think more highly about the 2 state reps after reading it--which I think they had every right to post (just as 2 friends of Steve would have every right to say similar things about Steve if they thought he'd been attacked unfairly).

Here is some of what they said: 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...................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..................

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..............

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.

LT

Every time I see something from Novick, he's focusing on some issue of substance (like the environment, or Bush's cabinet appointments). Every time I hear from one of his supporters, they're talking about what an inspired, honest politician he is. The focus, in short, is on Novick, not his rival.

Merkley seems also to want to talk about issues, though he is less up front on some than Novick (including the big issue of the day -- whether to confirm a Bush appointee who was sponsored by Schumer). Merkley's supporters, by contrast, include some who are obsessed with a resolution that Merkley supported back in 2003. I happen to think the resolution was quite obviously a stupid mistake, but I have also moved on from it. It's legit for Novick to mention it, but it's no reason by itself to vote against Merkley. It's frankly not that huge a deal (to me). But you seem to want to raise it as an example of how negative Novick is campaigning. That smacks of desperation on your part.

Could it be that you also realize that Novick is an incredible talent who can only be defeated if he is Swift Boated (e.g., if people lash into him with venom about some red herring)?

Stop being the pot who calls the kettle black. You're the one who is being extremely negative, not Novick and not Merkley. Does Jeff really approve of your rhetoric? Would Jeff adopt your characterization of Steve as being "crass" and "selfish"? I don't think so. I think more of Merkley than that.

In short, I support Novick because of Novick, not because I dislike Merkley. The fact is that I like Merkley. What I don't like is the sad desperation on the part of some of his supporters. The candidate deserves better. If he deserves to lose on the merits, let him lose with dignity, and not with the image of his supporters sliming his opponent. And that is really the difference, because when Novick criticizes Jeff, he never does it with ridicule, sharp rhetoric, or ad hominem attacks.

When I've gone over the line in support of my candidate, I've apologized, and I've never gone as far over that line as you have. You owe Novick an apology as well.

LT

Every time I see something from Novick, he's focusing on some issue of substance (like the environment, or Bush's cabinet appointments). Every time I hear from one of his supporters, they're talking about what an inspired, honest politician he is. The focus, in short, is on Novick, not his rival.

Merkley seems also to want to talk about issues, though he is less up front on some than Novick (including the big issue of the day -- whether to confirm a Bush appointee who was sponsored by Schumer). Merkley's supporters, by contrast, include some who are obsessed with a resolution that Merkley supported back in 2003. I happen to think the resolution was quite obviously a stupid mistake, but I have also moved on from it. It's legit for Novick to mention it, but it's no reason by itself to vote against Merkley. It's frankly not that huge a deal (to me). But you seem to want to raise it as an example of how negative Novick is campaigning. That smacks of desperation on your part.

Could it be that you also realize that Novick is an incredible talent who can only be defeated if he is Swift Boated (e.g., if people lash into him with venom about some red herring)?

Stop being the pot who calls the kettle black. You're the one who is being extremely negative, not Novick and not Merkley. Does Jeff really approve of your rhetoric? Would Jeff adopt your characterization of Steve as being "crass" and "selfish"? I don't think so. I think more of Merkley than that.

In short, I support Novick because of Novick, not because I dislike Merkley. The fact is that I like Merkley. What I don't like is the sad desperation on the part of some of his supporters. The candidate deserves better. If he deserves to lose on the merits, let him lose with dignity, and not with the image of his supporters sliming his opponent. And that is really the difference, because when Novick criticizes Jeff, he never does it with ridicule, sharp rhetoric, or ad hominem attacks.

When I've gone over the line in support of my candidate, I've apologized, and I've never gone as far over that line as you have. You owe Novick an apology as well.

This from LT: "And while we are at it, spare me any more mention of the 2003 resolution."

Nobody has talked about the 2003 resolution for some time and it probably wouldn't have been mentioned in this thread had it not been for LT's comment, which I hope will prove to be the only one.

Disclaimer: I'm a Novick supporter because of his qualities not because of defects I might or might not see in Merkley.

Ohhhhhh let us quake in our shoes........he made a pundit mad! Mr. Rothenberg is part of the "Washington Village of Wise Elders Who Are Wrong About Almost Everything These Days". Let him stew. The Democratic Party didn't get to where it is today following their advice before the '06 election. In fact they should use him and David Broder as reverse barometers; listen to what they say and do the opposite.

Rothenberg probably thinks Mr. Mukasey would make a fine Attorney General as well and probably applauds Senators Feinstien and Schumer for folding like a cheap suit on the question: Is water-boarding torture?

If Mukasey is confirmed I will be ashamed to be registered as a Democrat.

Bill, My reaction was to this Larry McD comment: (Overcoming a large chunk of my reservations about him generated by the hogslops slung up on his behalf on this blogsite by Mitch Greenlick and Mary Nolan.)

Larry has a right to express his opinion, but on a blog anyone has the right to respond.

I happen to respect Rep. Greenlick and Rep. Nolan for the post they wrote here. It WAS in response to mention of the 2003 resolution.

Bear in mind I have not decided yet how to vote in the primary. My vote will be based on:

a) what the candidates say about issues important to me(incl. veterans issues, education, health care)

b) my impressions of Steve and Jeff formed in the time I knew them before they announced for US Senate, and any speeches I hear them give.

I am glad either/both men inspire bloggers here. But I've been involved in US Senate and other federal elections (some very hard fought) in past decades, and the fact a candidate inspires someone else doesn't matter nearly as much as whether Jeff's or Steve's campaigns compare favorably to those previous federal candidates I campaigned for.

Daniel Spiro said, "....a resolution that Merkley supported back in 2003. I happen to think the resolution was quite obviously a stupid mistake, but I have also moved on from it. It's legit for Novick to mention it, but it's no reason by itself to vote against Merkley. It's frankly not that huge a deal (to me). "

I'm glad to read that.

If no one else badmouths a couple of members of the 2007 House majority for having the "gall" to stick up for the Speaker they admire, I would gladly never mention it again. There are SO MANY other, more current, issues to discuss.

Here's the quote from Jeff Merkley:

“Any Senator who votes for this nomination should be drummed out of office,” he said. “The U.S. should be an example in the world. But this administration, backed by supporters like Gordon Smith, has damaged our reputation around the world almost beyond repair. Confirmation of Mr. Mukasey would be a continuing disaster.”

Good for Jeff. I agree, and along with Smith that means Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein should be drummed out of office for joining Smith in backing the Bush Administration.

I have an evidence that Merkley does not support, rapes and lynchs the Constitution of the USA. It is a crime and on base of Amendment XIV, Section 3 - he can't hold any office. It is a law - I didn't make it. Endorsing Merkely, not convicted yet criminal, is endorcing crimes against us, the People.

Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator www.getenergized.com/vote.html

<hr/>