I heard Steve Novick speak at the Washington County Democratic central committee meeting many months ago.

During a question and answer session I asked him "During the 2000 Election no senators stepped up to contest the fraudulent election results not even Senator Wyden. Steve, would you be Oregon's voice for Justice and speak up even if it might be unpopular?"

Steve's answer was "Yes."

Right there I had decided that Novick is the one and started to give money as often as I could afford to do so. Steve will be a misfit in the Senate, and that is exactly what we need. Oregon is a laboratory for progressive ideas, and we need to remind the rest of the country that you don't always have to conform to the standard ritual.

Steve Novick is on our side and will make a great replacement for Gordon Smith. I think that Steve will be to the left of even Senator Wyden which is very important for our state, because a good number of people are further left then Wyden.

I have had the opportunity to spend time with both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley over the past couple days and I have heard and asked uncomfortable questions, we are very fortunate to have two men of this quality vying for the nomination. I, personally, face a conundrum regarding publicly picking one or the other, and that is that it would seem disparaging of the unselected one, and I don't see that as accurate.

I'm going to have to really think about this, I can't remember the last time I had this much difficulty and the two men are not the same interchangable pieces of a puzzle. I suppose they could take that as a compliment from me, that despite the obvious differences, the "qualifying" characteristics of each that they do not have in common are so balanced.

I'd like to compliment Vicki Walker, Jeff Merkley, and Steve Novick for their presentations in Baker City and their professional behavior, Baker County and surrounding areas were well served and rewarded by candidates who spent a great deal of time, energy, and money to come and see us.

We thank you.

Steve Novick is the closest thing we have to Paul Wellstone. I think he is the most talented progressive in American politics today.

As a progressive, when I look at the Democratic party and what they're accomplishing on Capitol Hill, it makes me want to pull my hair out. The party has done incredibly little to deliver on the mandate of 2006. And the reason is obvious: the party is commonly represented by uninspired, machine-buttressed politicians, rather than electric orators who have some gumption. I'm not suggesting Merkley would be just another uninspired tool (I really don't know Merkley well enough to evaluate him), but I am positive that Novick would stand out in FIGHTING HARD for a progressive agenda. And he wouldn't just fight, he bring the kind of charisma and natural sense of humor that would make it difficult for his ideological opponents simply to dismiss the guy. In fact, the more you know Novick, the more you like the guy. Trust me on that. I've only known him for 26 years.

Great post, and interesting comments by Chuck.

I have known Steve for years and know his assets and liabilities. When he spoke to Marion Demoforum, his Q&A was excellent, but his speech sounded like he was only talking to people with considerable political background. There were 2 people under 25 at our table (one was my 18 year old guest) and I'm not sure he made a good impression. My young friend said things like "nice guy but...".

Even if everyone on BO thought Steve was the greatest thing since sliced bread, that wouldn't win a general election if young people aren't excited by the campaign.

Steve has the best speaking voice, deserves credit for the information on veterans issues on his website, and is obviously sharp as a tack. Unfortunately, some of his wit and humor is also sharp, and not always appropriate. Having been in situations where swing voters were prepared to keep an open mind on a challenger until that person said ---, that concerns me. (It also concerns me that Merkley has been heavy on the pictures of his travels and light on the issue substance for those who have not had the opportunity to see him in person but have looked at the website.)

Steve may be the closest thing to Paul Wellstone, but Paul was more positive and humorous in a way Steve isn't always. More importantly, Steve would need to gain the votes of swing voters (the folks who voted Bush/Hooley here in the 5th Dist.--I know people like that).

Which is why Adam's paragraph

"Steve Novick is on our side and will make a great replacement for Gordon Smith. I think that Steve will be to the left of even Senator Wyden which is very important for our state, because a good number of people are further left then Wyden."

concerns me.

A good number of people admire Wyden because he is himself and doesn't try to be anyone else, and he does those 36 town halls--every county every year. Would Steve (or Jeff) make that sort of pledge? Can they think on their feet the way Wyden does when the audience is not a purely Democratic audience?

This is why I am waiting until next year to decide on this primary.

LT,

As a young person, I must quibble with the notion that Steve doesn't speak to youth. Many of my friends and I have volunteered for Steve's campaign and we're not alone. I'm an unpaid staffer on the campaign right now, but I wasn't always. At first, I just heard Steve's message, felt inspired and decided to help out. While the nature of political discourse in this country (and this state) often turns the younger generations away from politics, Steve definitely doesn't. He's exciting, inspiring and, without a doubt, something different.

That's mostly what we're looking for, as students or just as young citizens: something different. We've grown up with a stalled and staggeringly stupid status quo. We want genuine change. We don't just want the word "change"--which gets thrown around every four years but is rarely supported by action. We want a clear and unequivocal shift in the way this country does business. I know I'm not alone when I say Steve symbolizes that to me.

In fairness, I should say that Steve isn't alone in inspiring youth. Candidates all over Oregon have brought young people into the fold, but I've never before felt the spark that comes with Steve's candidacy.

So maybe the kids sitting at your table didn't take to Steve, but I know many teenagers and twenty-somethings who feel very differently.

Disclaimer: I am an unpaid staffer on Novick for Senate, but speak only for myself.

the party is commonly represented by uninspired, machine-buttressed politicians, rather than electric orators who have some gumption.

The party is represented by politicians and aparatchiks interested primarily in their own pursuit of personal power and status as their lack of regard for the voters' wishes expressed in the 2006 elections shows. Steve Novick's record practically guarantees he will work for the people which is why I am all for voting for him. Jeff Merkley has a lot to be said in his favor but the fact that Chuck Schumer recruited him tags Merkley in my mind with a big question mark.

There was a story some time ago explaining John Edwards' vote to authorize Bush's war on Iraq. This story, which seemed to be legitimate, had Edwards opposed to giving his vote for the AUMF, but Bob Shrum worked on him and changed Edwards' mind over his wife's objections. If Schumer wants Merkley's vote, he will be more likely to work Jeff over than work on him. Jeff may go to Washington intending to be his own man, but it will be harder for him to achieve that status than for Steve. I have positive feelings for both but much more positive feelings for Steve - and no question marks. I'm inclined to believe that Steve's negotiating skills are much stronger. It will also strengthen Steve's position if he goes to Washington obligated only to the people and without debt to the DLC or the DNC.

both have helped engineer takeovers of an Oregon Legislative chamber.

Back the truck up. Was Steve working for the Senate Caucus or the SDLF during the 2002 election? No. So he didn't "help engineer" anything.

This is offensive. Let Steve run on his resume. Don't start making sh*t up.

Me too.

I agree. Novick didn't engineer any takeover in the legislature. In fact, I recall his constant rants about all the Democrats in marginal districts not being "progressive" enough and high-tailing it out of there.

Jeff Merkley has a proven record of winning seats and he was responsible for the takeover in the House. Let's call it like it is.

so not only has steve taken the oregon senate with a 3 cycle plan (2 of which he was not involved), but now he also won the governorship for the democrats too?

c'mon.

I think it's dishonest to equate Steve's work in the senate to Jeff's work in the house. I hope no one is trying to insinuate that.

I am not the one taking inferential leaps over multiple election cycles...

Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 11, 2007 11:07:59 PM

You gotta back up. The flip didn't start in 2002. Ask Kate Brown whether Steve had anything to do with the Senate flip or not.

Basically you're saying he engineered the OR Senate Dem takeover the same way Rep. Bob Matsui engineered the U.S. House Dems takeover. Except he didn't get the flu and die before it happened.

Fine if you want to draw that parallel, but your argument isn't convincing to anyone who has paid attention to the state legislature in the last 10 years.

This is why I support Steve.

Steve does not allow himself to get drawn into the trap of right-wing talking points.

He is relentlessy focused on the issues like a laser beam, and he conveys his points powerfully, clearly and concisely - this is exactly what Gordon Smith fears.

Smith does not want to debate the issues. He wants to swiftboat and he wants to demagouge and he wants to obfuscate. Steve will not let that happen.

These two men are tough seasoned political warriors, they aren't the same, but they're not so different that supporters of one couldn't work for the other in the General. These guys know how to be tough and WHEN to do it, that's the difference between activists and pros. They will only engage in toughness when there is a real payoff and little blowback, the amatures will just start throwing punches, damn who gets hit.

I keep trying to make that point and people keep getting hot and bothered. Please, these guys know what they're doing and why they're doing it and need little other than the positive reinforcement like Charlie's post and some others that Jeff's gotten. These guys will have to try to draw out the differences between them, but I'll give you odds that not much actual negatives will be in evidence, much more of 'I'm better on this' than 'he stinks on this.'

When you start feeling hot, remember that your candidate is a pro and has dealt with a lot worse and not gotten mad about it, it is politics not jacks, a politician expects it to be something other than easy.

This is an embarrassment of riches, don't spoil it by being stupid, they're tough grown ups and know how to handle themselves, they don't need surrogates going nuts over every perceived insult or exaggeration or...

I spent time with 3 candidates that I really like, for different reasons that there is neither time nor space to go into, but I do find it unappealing to have these people dragged down by their supporters - that's darn silly. If you've spent enough time with any candidate to like them enough to get emotional about them, you also should have enough respect for their abilities to let them handle issues.

If you've got something real nice to say about your candidate I've left an invitation on my blog, just don't come starting fights, yes, you too Sal. But I'm serious, act like grownups.

A great piece by Charlie almost gets lost if one tries to read all the comments that try to cast stones instead of celebrating the fact that we have two excellent candidates to choose from, either one of which, I am convinced, will beat Smith. I, too, have met both candidates and I have a favorite but that doesn't mean I will not work just as hard in the general election for whicever candidate wins the nomination.

This thread has become quite fascinating, when you think about it. It started out as a really refreshing effort to explain why so many people (myself included) are incredibly inspired by Steve Novick as a politician. But then somehow, it deteriorated into a shouting match over claims that 3rd parties have made about Novick's credentials compared to Merkley's.

Folks. Do you want a progressive change in this country or don't you? If you do, open your mind to why SO MANY people truly love Steve Novick. For that matter, if people have nice things to say about Merkley (other than that he's "better than Novick or Smith"), open your mind to that as well.

If, however, you're not interested in progressive change. If you merely like to score debator's points for your favorite candidate, then try to pick apart the words of their supporters -- twist them and turn them until you can shake out all hyperbole or imbalanced claims. Then take your analysis, come on to Blue Oregon, and do your best to turn what could be an opportunity to get people enthusiastic about an Oregon Democrat into just another political cesspool.

Keep doing it. And then pat yourselves on the back, for you will have just contributed to the re-election of Mr. Gordon Smith. If there's anything that could get him to win, it's an active effort by Democrats to sap the enthusiasm of their fellow Democrats for either of these candidates.

First of all, let me say that I agree with Chuck Butcher: "These two men are tough seasoned political warriors, they aren't the same, but they're not so different that supporters of one couldn't work for the other in the General. These guys know how to be tough and WHEN to do it, that's the difference between activists and pros. They will only engage in toughness when there is a real payoff and little blowback, the amatures will just start throwing punches, damn who gets hit."

First, let's go back to early threads when Steve Novick was the only announced candidate and people were saying it would be a good thing to have another candidate in the race to test and prepare them for the real battle against Gordon Smith. Now we have people getting exercised if others go beyond a narrow, undefined limit in criticizing Jeff Merkley. If we adhere to that philosophy, then future discussions are more likely to be bland and boring. To be honest, I expected to be attacked for having had the temerity to suggest I was concerned about Merkley's relationship with Chuck Schumer. I'm obviously not the only one with that concern, but it should be easy for Merkley to explain that and perhaps resolve it. This sort of thing could also work to the advantage of the eventual nominee to run against Smith. If there are any questions or concerns about the candidate get them out in the open sooner rather than later and resolved as quickly as possible.

How about if we have two criteria, among others? In the case of both candidates let's be sure to be honest and fair and let's not exaggerate perceived negatives and positives.

Steve was at our house on the 4th for a house party, and the people in attendance ponied up a decent amount of money. I think that Steve Novick is the Senator Oregon deserves, but whether you support Steve or Jeff, don't forget to get out there and beat the bushes for support. If we want a grassroots candidate that represents voters instead of institutions, we need to open our wallets.

Vote Hook!

Jeff Alworthy, I've appreciated your support and enthusiasm from the first, but there is no way that I have the resources to go after Walden. That campaign should have started in Nov 06, it is all about voters knowing the candidate exists and is a possible. The kind of out in front of the people effort involved is virtually full time campaigning and that takes resources of large scale. Frankly, just a Primary would bankrupt me even if contributions covered direct costs, I still have to support a household and I do that with a nail apron on and hammer in hand at the job sites which isn't being in Medford or etc and that's required.

Walden isn't impossible for the right candidate, and even more likely with a 2 cycle run, but 2 things, one: Democratic voters have agreed I'm not it two: I cannot afford such an effort

Neither is a systemic failure, a person is responsible for how they run their lives and I haven't aimed mine at an independent income source, and as for the voters, they really should get to choose who they want to represent them and if it isn't me there's no reason to hold that against them. I made a lot of mistakes, some were amaturism and some were economically dictated, but even minus those the vote margin was too large. As an example, the voter's pamphlet photo was horrid, a result of not knowing I had the funds for it until the day it had to be filed, I knew it wasn't too hot a picture, I didn't know it was that bad...

Just to make it to May 21 would require $35K, that is not going to happen. $200K in the general fund would make for an inadequate campaign, and I'd need 1 year income to cover my home. That's a lot of scratch I ain't got.

If you'd like to be finance director and show me the $5K exploratory money by month's end with 25K commitments through May 1 you might be able to pique my interest, I think you'd knock yourself out and frustrate yourself no end raising $500, much less $5K. Even with a relaxed attitude toward it, politicking is stressful and sometimes frustrating, add in shoe-string budgets and sweating loan payments and groceries and it's a recipe for insanity.

But I do thank you for the belief, it is damn flattering.

Henry,I did not say Steve "does not speak to youth". I said a particular 18 year old who was my guest was not overly impressed, and that I noticed references in the speech (like "Kitzhaber says ..." about health care) which were not familiar to my guest (I asked her and explained the references later. )

"Youth" doesn't vote--individual young people vote.

With the overwhelming number of Republican lemmings in Walden's district, the only point in a Democrat or other non-Republican running against Walden is to let the voters know they have a choice and for them to say they would prefer someone other than the incumbent. One of the problems is it appears that a large portion of people in Walden's district don't know or care enough to vote.

Getting a non-Republican elected to the 2nd Congressional District needs to be looked at in the long term with a campaign starting as soon as possible to educate the voters as to why they should vote for someone other than Walden. But it won't happen in '08, but an educational campaign should begin now and continue until success is achieved.

For the record, I supported Scott Silver to be the Democratic candidate, but I have to admit I enjoyed the mischievous thought of being able to watch Chuck on C-Span giving his fellow representatives in the House some of his inimitable straight talk.

Thanks Nick.

It is about time, finally we both have Steve and Jeff on the record on veterans issues. They both now have the level of detail we deserve. Anyone who has known a vet who had a medical problem and it took them a year to get a VA appointment (then in some cases to be told "you should have come to us earlier about this" ) should realize these are important issues.

I have written both campaigns nagging them to post comprehensive veterans proposals, and they finally have done that. Steve gets credit for going first. They both deserve credit for the level of detail--now let's get these details debated in public and hopefully get lots of veterans involved in this primary.

Now about some of the above comments.

Stephanie, how long have you known Steve? I've known him a lot longer than I have known Jeff. But bdunn is right--no matter how good Steve's work was for Bruggere, I have seldom seen a candidate be so clueless about issues. Maybe it was because the candidate was clueless about politics in general. I'm not supporting anyone yet, and "he worked on the Bruggere campaign" is not a point in Steve's favor with me given my support for the other candidates in that primary. Even if all the other campaigns mentioned would have gone the other way had Steve not been working on them, that's biography, not a reason to vote a particular way in the 2008 primary. I'm glad Jeff listed those bills in the Oregon House, but without the federal list of issues I wouldn't have taken that page seriously.

Can we please stop the arguing about the background and start talking about issues? Is Novick really going to get the votes of people who have voted for Gordon Smith in the past by quoting from a 1998 WW Winners item or this from Stephanie?

Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 11, 2007 11:23:28 PM

I would also add that the Legislature's record of progressive achievement this session (for which Merkley has been taking the credit) would have been a lot shorter without a Democratic Governor in the State House, and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002. <<

OK, let's say Steve singlehandedly provided everything that people like Stephanie say. Is that going to win over the votes of people who voted for Mannix in 2002 but might consider voting to retire Gordon Smith in 2008?

Kevin made a good point. Why can't we drop all the sniping and just say "I support ---- because...."?

I got an email from a friend who voted for Gordon Smith in the past. I sent the link to this topic to that friend yesterday. He responded "Interesting, and I am a little put off by Gordon as usual, and I will keep my antennae up for Steve. "

At the moment, I am not sure if this friend is registered with a party. It is a long time until the registration deadline. But it is more likely that this friend might consider registering Dem. and voting for Novick if substance is being discuss than if there is a big debate about who scored which Democratic victories in the past. This is my favorite swing voter, who voted Bush/Hooley in 2004. Debates about what Steve and Jeff did in the past are just that--not the way to convince swing voters.

Personally, I never set out to slag Jeff Merkley in this discussion

Well its hard to tell by what you wrote.

I would also add that the Legislature's record of progressive achievement this session (for which Merkley has been taking the credit) would have been a lot shorter without a Democratic Governor in the State House, and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.

You were trying to belittle Jeff's accomplishments in the house, to which apparently he didn't do but, "took the credit", by claiming Steve's work on a campaign in 2002 allowed it.

I thought it was a great article by Mr. Burr and agree with Mr. Alworth that it was the best argument for Novick so far. However, this is because Charlie didn't make the hackneyed argument you did.

And I never accused you of lying. Nowhere did you claim Steve's work in the senate equated to Jeff's work in the house.

I must say that although I am holding my preference for now until I see more, I do like the way Steve Novick handles Lars Larson. Novick does not let Larson play his games and as an independent, I like what I hear. Has Merkley taken on Lars Larson?

I am a little concerned about Steve's notoriety. It appears at the moment Merkley is much better known to those outside the Metro/Organized Labor/Environment circles. Many Democrats that I know in Eastern Oregon aren't even familiar with him. That is not to say that nobody knows him. It is just to say that the name "Jeff Merkley" rings a louder bell. Steve has alot of great experience, as does Jeff, so they both could offer Oregon alot representing us in the Senate.

All that aside, I think that both candidates are pretty palatable regardless of who your favorite is. I would like to finish by saying, don't be too quick to treat them like football teams, as each have a pretty equal chance at unseating Smith. That is the main goal anyways, isn't it?

~Erik

I must say that although I am holding my preference for now until I see more, I do like the way Steve Novick handles Lars Larson. Novick does not let Larson play his games and as an independent, I like what I hear. Has Merkley taken on Lars Larson?

Comments such as these explain why I continue to believe Steve would be the better candidate. He impresses me as the more skilled when it comes to use of language and debating so that I'm less concerned about him being dominated by the DLC and other members of the Democratic oligarchy.

Stephanie, who are you calling Merkley interns?

Agreed or What ?! or bdunn? Kevin? me?

I think Kevin has it right. "But a word to the wise would be that playing the victim works better if you really are a victim rather than an instigator."

Honestly, Stephanie, you are so positive on Darlene Hooley on another topic but so thin skinned here. A friend and I were discussing truly nasty (Swifties, what Denny Smith did, etc.) campaigns recently.

If Steve's supporters are so thin skinned that statements questioning his background bring responses about strawmen just because there are questions about statements like "Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.", you folks will be in for a shock if he wins the primary.

If you are such fans of Steve, get off the blog and go campaign.

But don't make cracks about "strawmen" when people who aren't Novick folk question remarks like this don't win over potential supporters now or volunteers in the general, and I can't believe Steve condones this sort of thing:

Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 11, 2007 10:40:16 PM

I think he's our best chance at sending Smith back to his pea factory.

I think that's right. Looking ahead to the general election, I don't think you can beat Mr. Establishment with Mr. Establishment Lite.

<<<

Stephanie, why is Jeff "Mr. Establishment Lite"? Is it because he is an elected official who became Speaker? Is it because he got endorsements Steve wanted? Is it that all good people should say Steve is amazing and Jeff should have remained Speaker?

I may decide next year to support Steve in the primary. I may support Jeff. But as the old Saturday Night Live skit used to say, "hear me now and believe me later!"

Here is a message for the Novick folks.

If I do vote for Steve next May, it will be in spite of Stephanie and those like her, not because of anything you folks say. I lived through the nasty 1992 US Senate primary, and I will stay neutral until April if that is what it takes to convince people that we need to be discussing issues, not trying to force people to believe, for instance, that Ted K. needed Steve to be elected Gov. (And yes, I do believe that is what "Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002." means. )

And how do we know that Gordon is "Mr. Establishment"?

If the energy used to make sarcastic remarks (strawmen, Merkley interns, etc.) were devoted to asking Gordon Smith if 12 years in the Senate qualifies as being a "career politician" (as the sort of person he derided in his Jan. 1996 TV ads so many of us disliked) we would be a lot closer to electing a Democrat to the US Senate than if we have people making snarky remarks about "Merkley interns".

Unless you can prove, Stephanie, that the comments you don't like are made by young people in a college or other program where they will are earning pay or college credit and will be able to list "Intern, Merkley for US Senate" on their resumes, your sarcastic remarks are not helping Steve.

You need to choose, Stephanie. Spend your energy campaigning for Novick for Senate (doing whatever the campaign needs to be done) or make sarcastic remarks here whenever you think Steve has been slighted. But you will help his campaign a lot more by doing the first than by doing the second.

and Steve (as Kulongoski's issues director) played a vital role in getting Governor Kulongoski elected in a pretty close race in 2002.

so not only has steve taken the oregon senate with a 3 cycle plan (2 of which he was not involved), but now he also won the governorship for the democrats too?

It appears to me that Stephanie is getting a lot more flack than she deserves. The above is an example. Stephanie said Steve played a vital role and jraad carelessly twisted that into a claim that he also won the governorship. Other critics bought into that and it has been downhill ever since. She was right referring to the strawmen. Too bad others didn't recognize she had a point.

And since this thread has turned into another silly squabble I will bid you all adios.

this is a hard discussion for me to wrap my head around, because in the process of choosing which primary candidate to support, my decision was the result of seeing some things i really liked in one candidate, and some things i really don't like about another candidate, or at least the way his campaign is being run.

and it seems to me like the rules of the discussion are set so that i can only talk about the former, not the latter.

which, if that's what the rules are, i can choose to abide by them or hold my tongue. but i feel like it paints an incomplete picture of the race if i do.

because, personally, my decision to support steve novick was largely about what i see steve doing right, but -- what steve is doing right needs to be viewed against what i see merkley doing wrong in order to be fully appreciated.

does that make sense? maybe the fact that my criticisms of merkley are entirely based not on the man or the legislator, but on the way his primary campaign has been run so far.

but i don't want to go all negative, so i'll stop there. and just go on to add my kudos and thanks to charlie burr for his excellent editorial.

Triska, because, personally, my decision to support steve novick was largely about what i see steve doing right, but -- what steve is doing right needs to be viewed against what i see merkley doing wrong in order to be fully appreciated...........my criticisms of merkley are entirely based not on the man or the legislator, but on the way his primary campaign has been run so far.

I tend to agree with you to this extent. Here we have 2 wonderfully bright, experienced candidates who could be having an excellent debate over issues that matter, and really raising public awareness of these issues.

If someone likes Steve's approach to health care, or that he got his page on veterans issues first, I think that is great. If someone like's Jeff's background before he came to the legislature (as I recall, work for the Pentagon and then for Habitat for Humanity), that's great.

But when the legislator is posting pictures and travelogues ("look at the pictures of breakfast in the Dalles") and endorsements (a wonderful former Oregon Journal reporter once called that "an excellent 19th century strategy"), that isn't very inspiring--looks like a consultant dreamed that up. On the other hand, a supporter for Novick calls the Speaker "Mr. Establishment Lite" and some people here went ballistic that 2 state reps would write a post here in what they saw as defending their Speaker against what they considered an unjustified attack, the whole campaign looks brain dead. The presiding officers deserve respect (they are the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate). When someone has great ideas, those should be celebrated.

But biography doesn't show how well a candidate will do in a statewide race, and face it--neither Steve nor Jeff has ever run statewide before.

FOLKS! This is the time for Democrats to show they are more serious and more capable of discussing serious issues than Republicans. The House Republican Leader is saying he wants the Feb. session to be 8 days long but no Saturdays, sending out a brainless press release about their priorities. For instance, state police funding should come out of the general fund instead of a dedicated funding source, but don't ask their priorities if a recession shrinks the general fund; they want a legislative audit function different than PCOL proposed, and apparently don't realize PCOL said there are legal reasons why the Sec. of State is the auditor of public accounts; they claim a water bill the Republicans wanted was killed by the Senate--when actually, it reached the Senate a week before Sine Die (was that a partisan plot?). In general, the House Republican press release is very cynical and supports expenditures for popular ideas without saying how to fund them.

And then there is the objection to funding health care for kids. I heard on the radio this morning that there is a group of Catholics (don't recall the name) running ads against members of Congress who call themselves pro-life but voted to sustain Bush's S-Chip veto.

The voice is of a woman saying "He calls himself pro-life, but he votes against funding health care for kids. That's not pro-life. Pro-life people care about kids. Call Congressman..... and tell him that if he is really pro-life, he will vote to override Bush's S-Chip veto".

Why can't our US Senate candidates come up with something like that? Wouldn't have to be a radio ad--could be part of a stump speech, a website challenge to those who remember Hubert Humphrey (for those too young to remember, he was against abortion but a leader in programs for kids) to push the idea of health care for kids, why not a public challenge to Gordon Smith, Greg Walden, and Oregon Republican legislators to prove they are truly pro-life and fund children's health care? If they care more about lower taxes than health care for kids, any "fast on his feet" candidate could make that point over and over and over.

There was a wonderful Oregon Experience show on OPB last night (and if you go to the TV section of opb.org there is a whole page about it) with interviews of surviving legislators and others who fought to keep Oregon's beaches public along with quotes from citizens involved, footage and still photos of Tom McCall visiting the beach, old newspaper headlines, etc.

Viewed against that, current legislators and candidates and too many other elected officals are just pale in comparison.

So let's be clear. I am an undecided voter. I don't really care about previous legislative votes or who worked on which campaigns in the past. I want to see if we can have an inspired US Senate primary or just the same old bland stuff which has been debated here.

Candidates, show some spark and leadership on today's issues!

Thanks again for the fun night Chuck. Here is my blog post on the whole weekend with a mention of the dance. http://www.novickforsenate.org/campaign_trail

Enjoy, Liz Kimmerly Online Director Novick for U.S. Senate

Nobody said Steve won "Ted's race for him in 2002." We > said he played a vital role in the win. Are you so
desperate to discredit Steve Novick that you are arguing that, bdunn?

Encouraging to hear it taken as a given that that would be a discrediting factor. Does the fact that you actually thought Ted might be anything different than he has been bother you?