Full disclosure: My company built the website for Jeff Merkley's campaign, but I speak here only for myself. Also, I paid full-price for my ticket - and three others. The IPA was the best $200 beer I've ever had.

My take on the event is up as well at www.wiseass.org.

Ten, I appreciate Kari's ubiquitous disclosure statements, and as a practical matter, I'd be surprised if we have a single reader who's unaware of his involvement in Merkley's internet strategy and Web site design. There hardly seems to be a problem here.

FYI - Kevin Hayden blogs at Wagon Tongues, an American Street affiliate. Both are great reads, with Wagon Tongues being a long-time personal favorite of mine.

I would be Kevin Kamberg (aka the Oregon Rain Stick guy and The Independent Voter) Most folk here will just know me from my Preemptive Karma gig.

Funny how the attendance jumped last night from Amy's 100-150, to Leftylane's 200...and now by this morning, five or six hundred people showed up (assuming a couple is 2, a few is 3 or 4). You'd think once the even was over the guestlist would stop growing.

Sure hope Tester makes it back in time for the FISA filibuster (cough)...

I got a chance to talk with Senator Tester about the Serial Seizures afflicting Dem senate leadership and he said he's been trying to get some answers about why we aren't forcing the Repubs to actually filibuster on some of these bills and let the American public know who's obstructing.

So far, as a brand new "back bencher" he hasn't been getting much joy.

Sorry I forgot to ask him to tell me all about the guy he didn't endorse in the primary.

Wasn't really on my mind.

It is threads like these that make blogs like Blue Oregon and Wise Ass all the more relevant.

Question for all that attended:

Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Fred

Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 17, 2007 9:43:48 AM More curiously, of all the blog reports I've read boasting about the opportunity to personally chat with Sen. Tester, not a single person, it seems, was curious enough to ask Tester a simple but incredibly relevant question about his support for Merkley in the primary: What can you tell me about Steve Novick?

Why would that be at all a relevant question to ask Senator Tester at a fundraiser for Merkley, the man he did endorse?

Good question, Fred.

My mind was already made up before I went. For me it was more about experiencing the event which, as a long-time NAV, I'd never experienced like it before. But what really got me to go was that I really wanted to get a chance to tell Jeff that I admire how he handled the 2003 HR2 vote and pick his brain a bit on what his perspective had been at the time. Having done that it just confirmed what I suspected - that we both have a shared respect for those who risk their lives in uniform AND a deep skepticism of the Chicken Hawks who send them off to die in strange lands.

One thing that attending the event did change is that my tentative plan as of right now is to register Dem, at least long enough to vote for Merkley in the primary. Not because I think he'll need it (I predict a landslide win for Merkley) but because I came away much more convinced that I'd made the right choice and because I want to send as loud a message to my fellow Oregonians that I can that this is the man we NEED representing us in the Senate.

Mind you, I've never budged from my NAV status for 15 years. Budging now is not something that I do lightly!

Sorry, Kevin. And here I was trying to reward people for blogging with their real names. I'll fix that -- plus get Mitch's post up.

I had a great time at the event and it was awesome that there were so many members of the Oregon netroots crowd. It was great listening to all the speeches among friends.

Its amazing that the Novick supporters can't leave anything alone that praises Merkley.

Kari: [T]here was one bit of substance I found fascinating. The Governor noted that Merkley had only 31 Democrats ... But on issue after issue, Jeff Merkley was the optimist and was able to deliver a 31-seat majority each time for bill after bill that really mattered.

You found that fascinating? I thought that was utterly obvious - about the most obvious thing Jeff, his greatest strength: he knows how to keep shaky coalitions together to enact progressive policies.

All the Oregon house legislators know that. That's why they're all backing him. Not a single discontent among them.

Now I'm not saying that I expect Jeff Merkley to immediately get into a leadership fight with Harry Reid; I'm just saying if, by some miracle, he both got into the Senate and then was immediately made Majority leader, we'd probably have more effective governance out of the Senate Democrats than we do today.

Oh, and torrid, it was a rolling party. People were coming and going during the evening, so it was very hard to figure out how the total attendance. By my estimate, it was probably 150+, but only the Merkley campaign knows for sure.

Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:10 AM Question for all that attended: Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Yes Fred it did. In talking with Senator Tester, the conviction and reasoning why the Senator has chosen to not only endorse Merkley but actively help his campaign, helped me in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 Senate race.

While Steve Novick remains a good Democrat who would also make a great Senator, what Senator Tester without hesitation pointed to; Speaker Merkley's experience and leadership in not just being instrumental in wrestling back the state legislature to the Democratic control, but actually getting solid progressive legislation through a razor thin majority in the House, for me carried weight. Such a point is actually huge but so easily over-looked. When you unpack what that really means, to have been in the leadership role in flipping the House to our side of the aisle, carries with it a lot of other things unspoken things which speak what sort of commitment and fight is hidden within the amicable and statesman way which Speaker Jeff Merkley does business.

Which in the a larger context of the state of affairs in where we find ourselves in the United States Senate, and this is something he spoke to not just in the one-on-one conversation I had with him, but a point he underscored when he spoke to the crowd, is that Jeff Merkely the way he has proven he can and will get things done makes him the exact type person we need in the United States Senate.

This was echoed by Governor Kulongoski as well, which I believe Kari mentioned in this piece as well, where time and time again, the Governor didn't think there was a real possibility for some of the legislation Speaker Merkley was pushing for would ever make it through a Legislature with such a razor thin majority in the House with an embittered GOP. Yet Merkley has proven his tenacity in not folding tent and instead working tirelessly, without selling out, to get things passed.

I will gladly work my ass off for either candidate in the general without reservation, but Speaker Merkley's experience and skill set, which undergird the things Senator Tester, Governor Kulongoski and others have pointed to have finally tipped the balance in my mind about who would be the best choice for office.

I would also add that Senator Tester's endorsement of Merkley does not appear to be something he is simply phoning in or Merkley's campaign is using to shake the money tree. He has joined Merkley on the ground in rural areas as well in talking with and engaging Oregon framers on issues such as such as land use/Measure 49, country of origin labeling and ways to use farms for the creation of alternative and renewable energies. These are issues which are not just policy points for someone like Senator Tester to mouth platitudes on. He understands these working farmer issues given his background, as does Jeff Merkley.

Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:10 AM Question for all that attended: Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Yes Fred it did. In talking with Senator Tester, the conviction and reasoning why the Senator has chosen to not only endorse Merkley but actively help his campaign, helped me in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 Senate race.

While Steve Novick remains a good Democrat who would also make a great Senator, what Senator Tester without hesitation pointed to; Speaker Merkley's experience and leadership in not just being instrumental in wrestling back the state legislature to the Democratic control, but actually getting solid progressive legislation through a razor thin majority in the House, for me carried weight. Such a point is actually huge but so easily over-looked. When you unpack what that really means, to have been in the leadership role in flipping the House to our side of the aisle, carries with it a lot of other things unspoken things which speak what sort of commitment and fight is hidden within the amicable and statesman way which Speaker Jeff Merkley does business.

Which in the a larger context of the state of affairs in where we find ourselves in the United States Senate, and this is something he spoke to not just in the one-on-one conversation I had with him, but a point he underscored when he spoke to the crowd, is that Jeff Merkely the way he has proven he can and will get things done makes him the exact type person we need in the United States Senate.

This was echoed by Governor Kulongoski as well, which I believe Kari mentioned in this piece as well, where time and time again, the Governor didn't think there was a real possibility for some of the legislation Speaker Merkley was pushing for would ever make it through a Legislature with such a razor thin majority in the House with an embittered GOP. Yet Merkley has proven his tenacity in not folding tent and instead working tirelessly, without selling out, to get things passed.

I will gladly work my ass off for either candidate in the general without reservation, but Speaker Merkley's experience and skill set, which undergird the things Senator Tester, Governor Kulongoski and others have pointed to have finally tipped the balance in my mind about who would be the best choice for office.

I would also add that Senator Tester's endorsement of Merkley does not appear to be something he is simply phoning in or Merkley's campaign is using to shake the money tree. He has joined Merkley on the ground in rural areas as well in talking with and engaging Oregon framers on issues such as such as land use/Measure 49, country of origin labeling and ways to use farms for the creation of alternative and renewable energies. These are issues which are not just policy points for someone like Senator Tester to mouth platitudes on. He understands these working farmer issues given his background, as does Jeff Merkley.

Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:10 AM Question for all that attended: Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Yes Fred it did. In talking with Senator Tester, the conviction and reasoning why the Senator has chosen to not only endorse Merkley but actively help his campaign, helped me in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 Senate race.

While Steve Novick remains a good Democrat who would also make a great Senator, what Senator Tester without hesitation pointed to; Speaker Merkley's experience and leadership in not just being instrumental in wrestling back the state legislature to the Democratic control, but actually getting solid progressive legislation through a razor thin majority in the House, for me carried weight. Such a point is actually huge but so easily over-looked. When you unpack what that really means, to have been in the leadership role in flipping the House to our side of the aisle, carries with it a lot of other things unspoken things which speak what sort of commitment and fight is hidden within the amicable and statesman way which Speaker Jeff Merkley does business.

Which in the a larger context of the state of affairs in where we find ourselves in the United States Senate, and this is something he spoke to not just in the one-on-one conversation I had with him, but a point he underscored when he spoke to the crowd, is that Jeff Merkely the way he has proven he can and will get things done makes him the exact type person we need in the United States Senate.

This was echoed by Governor Kulongoski as well, which I believe Kari mentioned in this piece as well, where time and time again, the Governor didn't think there was a real possibility for some of the legislation Speaker Merkley was pushing for would ever make it through a Legislature with such a razor thin majority in the House with an embittered GOP. Yet Merkley has proven his tenacity in not folding tent and instead working tirelessly, without selling out, to get things passed.

I will gladly work my ass off for either candidate in the general without reservation, but Speaker Merkley's experience and skill set, which undergird the things Senator Tester, Governor Kulongoski and others have pointed to have finally tipped the balance in my mind about who would be the best choice for office.

I would also add that Senator Tester's endorsement of Merkley does not appear to be something he is simply phoning in or Merkley's campaign is using to shake the money tree. He has joined Merkley on the ground in rural areas as well in talking with and engaging Oregon framers on issues such as such as land use/Measure 49, country of origin labeling and ways to use farms for the creation of alternative and renewable energies. These are issues which are not just policy points for someone like Senator Tester to mouth platitudes on. He understands these working farmer issues given his background, as does Jeff Merkley.

Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:10 AM Question for all that attended: Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Yes Fred it did. In talking with Senator Tester, the conviction and reasoning why the Senator has chosen to not only endorse Merkley but actively help his campaign, helped me in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 Senate race.

While Steve Novick remains a good Democrat who would also make a great Senator, what Senator Tester without hesitation pointed to; Speaker Merkley's experience and leadership in not just being instrumental in wrestling back the state legislature to the Democratic control, but actually getting solid progressive legislation through a razor thin majority in the House, for me carried weight. Such a point is actually huge but so easily over-looked. When you unpack what that really means, to have been in the leadership role in flipping the House to our side of the aisle, carries with it a lot of other things unspoken things which speak what sort of commitment and fight is hidden within the amicable and statesman way which Speaker Jeff Merkley does business.

Which in the a larger context of the state of affairs in where we find ourselves in the United States Senate, and this is something he spoke to not just in the one-on-one conversation I had with him, but a point he underscored when he spoke to the crowd, is that Jeff Merkely the way he has proven he can and will get things done makes him the exact type person we need in the United States Senate.

This was echoed by Governor Kulongoski as well, which I believe Kari mentioned in this piece as well, where time and time again, the Governor didn't think there was a real possibility for some of the legislation Speaker Merkley was pushing for would ever make it through a Legislature with such a razor thin majority in the House with an embittered GOP. Yet Merkley has proven his tenacity in not folding tent and instead working tirelessly, without selling out, to get things passed.

I will gladly work my butt off for either candidate in the general without reservation, but Speaker Merkley's experience and skill set, which undergird the things Senator Tester, Governor Kulongoski and others have pointed to have finally tipped the balance in my mind about who would be the best choice for office.

I would also add that Senator Tester's endorsement of Merkley does not appear to be something he is simply phoning in or Merkley's campaign is using to shake the money tree. He has joined Merkley on the ground in rural areas as well in talking with and engaging Oregon framers on issues such as such as land use/Measure 49, country of origin labeling and ways to use farms for the creation of alternative and renewable energies. These are issues which are not just policy points for someone like Senator Tester to mouth platitudes on. He understands these working farmer issues given his background, as does Jeff Merkley.

Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:10 AM

Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Yes Fred it did. In talking with Senator Tester, the conviction and reasoning why the Senator has chosen to not only endorse Merkley but actively help his campaign, helped me in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 Senate race.

While Steve Novick remains a good Democrat who would also make a great Senator, what Senator Tester without hesitation pointed to; Speaker Merkley's experience and leadership in not just being instrumental in wrestling back the state legislature to the Democratic control, but actually getting solid progressive legislation through a razor thin majority in the House, for me carried weight. Such a point is actually huge but so easily over-looked. When you unpack what that really means, to have been in the leadership role in flipping the House to our side of the aisle, carries with it a lot of other things unspoken things which speak what sort of commitment and fight is hidden within the amicable and statesman way which Speaker Jeff Merkley does business.

Which in the a larger context of the state of affairs in where we find ourselves in the United States Senate, and this is something he spoke to not just in the one-on-one conversation I had with him, but a point he underscored when he spoke to the crowd, is that Jeff Merkely the way he has proven he can and will get things done makes him the exact type person we need in the United States Senate.

This was echoed by Governor Kulongoski as well, which I believe Kari mentioned in this piece as well, where time and time again, the Governor didn't think there was a real possibility for some of the legislation Speaker Merkley was pushing for would ever make it through a Legislature with such a razor thin majority in the House with an embittered GOP. Yet Merkley has proven his tenacity in not folding tent and instead working tirelessly, without selling out, to get things passed.

I will gladly work my butt off for either candidate in the general without reservation, but Speaker Merkley's experience and skill set, which undergird the things Senator Tester, Governor Kulongoski and others have pointed to have finally tipped the balance in my mind about who would be the best choice for office.

I would also add that Senator Tester's endorsement of Merkley does not appear to be something he is simply phoning in or Merkley's campaign is using to shake the money tree. He has joined Merkley on the ground in rural areas as well in talking with and engaging Oregon framers on issues such as such as land use/Measure 49, country of origin labeling and ways to use farms for the creation of alternative and renewable energies. These are issues which are not just policy points for someone like Senator Tester to mouth platitudes on. He understands these working farmer issues given his background, as does Jeff Merkley.

What the hell is up with typepad.. it keeps flagging posts as spam when trying to post them today?

Posted by: Fred Stewart | Dec 17, 2007 10:37:10 AM Question for all that attended: Did meeting Jeff and Tester at this event change your mind or help you confirm you plan on voting for in 2008?

Yes Fred it did. In talking with Senator Tester, the conviction and reasoning why the Senator has chosen to not only endorse Merkley but actively help his campaign, helped me in deciding who to vote for in the 2008 Senate race.

While Steve Novick remains a good Democrat who would also make a great Senator, what Senator Tester without hesitation pointed to; Speaker Merkley's experience and leadership in not just being instrumental in wrestling back the state legislature to the Democratic control, but actually getting solid progressive legislation through a razor thin majority in the House, for me carried weight. Such a point is actually huge but so easily over-looked. When you unpack what that really means, to have been in the leadership role in flipping the House to our side of the aisle, carries with it a lot of other things unspoken things which speak what sort of commitment and fight is hidden within the amicable and statesman way which Speaker Jeff Merkley does business.

Which in the a larger context of the state of affairs in where we find ourselves in the United States Senate, and this is something he spoke to not just in the one-on-one conversation I had with him, but a point he underscored when he spoke to the crowd, is that Jeff Merkely the way he has proven he can and will get things done makes him the exact type person we need in the United States Senate.

(part 1)

(part II)

This was echoed by Governor Kulongoski as well, which I believe Kari mentioned in this piece as well, where time and time again, the Governor didn't think there was a real possibility for some of the legislation Speaker Merkley was pushing for would ever make it through a Legislature with such a razor thin majority in the House with an embittered GOP. Yet Merkley has proven his tenacity in not folding tent and instead working tirelessly, without selling out, to get things passed.

I will gladly work my ass off for either candidate in the general without reservation, but Speaker Merkley's experience and skill set, which undergird the things Senator Tester, Governor Kulongoski and others have pointed to have finally tipped the balance in my mind about who would be the best choice for office.

I would also add that Senator Tester's endorsement of Merkley does not appear to be something he is simply phoning in or Merkley's campaign is using to shake the money tree. He has joined Merkley on the ground in rural areas as well in talking with and engaging Oregon farmers on issues such as such as land use/Measure 49, country of origin labeling and ways to use farms for the creation of alternative and renewable energies. These are issues which are not just policy points for someone like Senator Tester to mouth platitudes on. He understands these working farmer issues given his background, as does Jeff Merkley.

That was way weird, breaking it up into two sperate comments got it to post. Before it was flaggign it as spam. Bizzaro.

You found that fascinating? I thought that was utterly obvious - about the most obvious thing Jeff, his greatest strength: he knows how to keep shaky coalitions together to enact progressive policies.

Steve... what I found fascinating was the flip side of that coin: the Governor's admission that he wasn't optimistic, that he was certain something would go haywire... it makes the case that what Merkley managed to accomplish really does matter - that it's not a given that a legislative leader could inspire their caucus to hang together in a unified way.

Now, maybe the media didn't see anything special there - after all, Karen Minnis did the same. But Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott kept their caucus unified through threats and intimidation. Jeff Merkley did it through communication, inclusion, and - oh yeah - working on things that mattered to everyone. It wasn't always easy, I'm sure, but Merkley pulled it off.

Remember back to January 2007. We were all concerned that the wheels could come off at any moment. Alworth wrote his excellent "do the easy stuff first" post -- and yet we still got domestic partnerships, rainy day fund, M37 reform, the list goes on and on and on.

(And yes, TypePad's spam filters seem especially active the last few days. I'm looking into it.)

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 17, 2007 11:06:20 AM You found that fascinating? I thought that was utterly obvious - about the most obvious thing Jeff, his greatest strength

There you go again with your divissive centerist extremisim!

(wry grin)

One bad thing about the event and reveals Mekrely's sell-out insider status which Steve Maurer refuses to mention, is the lack of any bock on tap.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 17, 2007 11:22:09 AM

Excelent point.

...reveals Mekrely's? Excelent point?

ugh:

Merkley's... Excellent point...

It is indeed Monday. (sigh)

this touting of Merkley's House leadership ability as an "obvious" marker for his suitability for Senate makes me ask, are wetslking about the US Senate? Holding a majority together as leader seems rather irrelevant to the job description, which is to be a junior junior Senator with a reliably progressive vote. The Dems do not have a practical majority, and Merkley would be leading nothing. what's clearly more desperately needed is someone who will speak up, someone who will attpt to reverse the tragic failure of the party to lead. Merkley WITHOUT 31 votes was pretty well outmanuevered by Minnis/Scott.

Novick, on the other hand, seems to work best when the deck is stacked against him.

TJ, you are doing Novick zero favors and you are approaching delusional territory in down-talking a proven record of getting things done with a razor thin majority.

Miles has got it. Thanks. Also, I offer a blanket apology for typos incurred while posting from my mobile.

All nice sentiments, but without the votes to make them happen they are nothing but rhetoric

Rhetoric -- even without the votes -- is better than collusion in unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise abusive policy.

I will gladly concede that Merkley did a masterful job last session in the House with a slim majority. . . I think that point is unassailable. But how that relates to his potential job in the US Senate is murkier.

Simply put: Plays well with others.

In the context of Merkley/Novick, compare Jeff's achievements during that session, and all that it implies, with Novick's. Not only does Novick not have a track record at all, but it seems to me that he had conflicts with the Kulongoski staff when he worked for them and before that he had conflicts in the education dept when he worked with them. IOW: Does not play well with others.

Ask yourself this question: What can a firebrand accomplish for Oregon if he alienates those on his own side of the aisle?

ok LT, then based on actions in similar situations, Merkley's record isn't so hot, is it? As Minority Leader he was not able to beat the GOP, and as backbencher he fell for their traps.

And the LAST thing we need is compromise on core Constitutional values. You don't barter on habeas or torture.

and as backbencher he fell for their traps.

I know that Rove got a lot of traction repeating the Big Lie over and over, but that was with mindless sheep. That you seem to think that progressive Oregonians can't see through your (and Novick's) version betrays your contempt for us.

It appears to me that we may have a fundamental philosophical difference here with regard to the role and highest purpose of a new Senator. If so, that would certainly account for a lot of the difficulties some of us have experienced trying to convince each other, or even explaining ourselves to each other.

Some of us place a higher value on a candidate's "get along, go along, plays well with others" experience and credentials. Those individuals typically prefer Jeff Merkley.

Some of us, on the other hand, feel that there has been entirely too much getting along, going along, playing well with others by Democrats in recent years, and are looking for a Senator who won't default to that mode of engagement. Those individuals typically prefer Steve Novick.

By the way, I found an interesting resource on the New York Times website the other day. I clicked on a link called "Hire Great People: 10 Simple Rules" and found it very thought-provoking.

The more I thought about it, the more I felt that the ten rules might provide a useful structure for thinking about how we, the Democratic voters of Oregon, should go about "hiring" our nominee.

So I put up a diary about it at Loaded Orygun. Please check it out if you are interested.

Stephanie,

What can a single Senate vote pass?

Without even a simple majority there is literally nothing that a single Senator can accomplish. Kicking and screaming don't accomplish anything more in the Senate than they do in the school yard.

The self-evident fact is that in order to accomplish anything beyond rhetorically kicking and screaming, Steve Novick would HAVE TO have a majority.

Without a majority that is willing to work together, the Republicans would end up winning on everything even if they were a minority.

Posted by: Miles | Dec 17, 2007 12:20:50 PM I will gladly concede that Merkley did a masterful job last session in the House with a slim majority. . . I think that point is unassailable. But how that relates to his potential job in the US Senate is murkier.

So with a straight face you posit that pointing to a proven record working of within, and in fact leading, a legislative caucus with a razor majority and actually get progressive legislation passed is a "murky" criterion for being elected to the United States Senate, a legisaltive body where the Demcorats hold a razor thin majority and are having trouble geeting progressive legislation passed?

Kevin,

I didn't say that the Democrats shouldn't be willing to work together.

Democrats should stand together and oppose all of the excesses of the Administration and the Republicans in Congress.

But when the Democratic leadership get co-opted in one way or another, and cease to be effective advocates for Democratic ideals, then the Republicans win anyway, and the greater good for any Democrat disturbed by this outcome is to raise hell. Lots of it.

Kevin, learn more about how the Senate works--it's really the only place whee one man/woman DOES have power. Holds and filibusters can be executed by a single Senator.

And no one's talking about kicking and screaming, but about standing on principle and persuading others of the correctness of your position. Novick's proven he can be successful even when the odds are against success. He doesn't do it by magic--it's done by knowing the issue, presenting a rational case--and not giving up.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 17, 2007 12:25:09 PM And if you're going to pretend to be neutral (or even a Novick supporter) in this primary, as you like to do, Mitch. That would be an obvious question.

I am no longer neutral in this. I have for over a week now moved to supporting Jeff Merkley. As I said up-thread, I do still think Novick would make a great Senator and have no reservations supporting him should he get the nomination, but I am backing Merkley because of his proven record and experience has tipped the scales in Merkley's favor in addition to what sort of postive campaign he can and is running in this primary. This speaks to me about the judgement of someone and those around him.

Posted by: BHamm | Dec 17, 2007 2:00:20 PM Sometimes it's about what a single dissenting voice can stop. I.E., Chris Dodd, with the help of Feingold and Kennedy, looking to filibuster telecommunications amnesty in the FISA revision.

I don't disagree. And that is where someone like Merkley has a proven record of getting a fractious caucus to be effective, even on highly charged hot-button issues.

Merkley WITHOUT 31 votes was pretty well outmanuevered by Minnis/Scott.

I think that this is incorrect.

While it is true that the Republicans passed their bills (for the most part) when they were in the majority, during the 2005 session the Democrats put forward a number of minority reports that resulted in very damaging votes for Republican incumbents like Dalto, Farr and Brown. Essentially, Merkley made sure that no "moderate" Republican would go into 2006 without making it clear whether they supported things like access to emergency contraception for rape victims. In that instance, any candidate who wanted the support of ORTL had to take a vote that would send a clear signal to voters that they held an extreme view on that issue.

I know that some people (especially tj) just have a negative opinion of Merkley, and they're certainly entitled to it. But to say that Merkley was "outmanuevered" betrays a very surface-level analysis. I say there is no way the Democrats would have beaten Farr or Brown (at least) without the bad votes that Merkley (and the Democratic leadership) made them take in 2005.

If Steve Novick had been minority leader in 2005, what legislation would he have been able to kill by convincing 2 or more Republicans to vote against it? Would he have chosen not to run out minority reports for fear of being "outmaneuvered" when he only had 27 votes?

Posted by: BHamm | Dec 17, 2007 1:20:25 PM The point has often been made that Merkley is a manager, and Novick is a fighter. Well, the FISA debate is certainly something where we need a fighter. Dodd's going to filibuster.

Anyone who thinks a lone Senator can sustain a filibuster is ignorant of the way the Senate works. IT takes navigating through and working with others in the caucus to even sustain a filibuster. Fighting rhetoric is a useful tool to be sure, but without tactical skill and managing your resources and political capital will get you precisely nothing.

This is an extremely boring conversation. I think we should spice things up a bit by addressing the most important and controversial subject raised by Saturday's event:

What Beer did Merkeley Drink?

Sarah Lane raises this at dailykos, but, sadly, only illustrates her east coast bias and ignorance of those issues most vital to the future of Oregon.

For my own part, I regret to inform people that I think I saw Merkeley with a Hefeweizen! A Hefeweizen?!? Can it be true? Why not just tip back a Bud Light?? If the man can't handle a dark beer, how can he handle the US Senate?

One more thing: Kari Chisholm is the world's biggest dork. Here's why: his little sister has a BUSINESS CARD.

Yes. That's right. It says "Kari's Sister, Student, Occidental College."

Man. Can you get more dorky than that?? (Insert smiley here. Nice meeting the extended family, Kari. Next time bring the kiddie.)

Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 17, 2007 1:23:57 PM

How effective has Dennis Kuccinich been over the years?

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with many of his positions (certainly not his anti-abortion one until just prior to announcing his Presidential bid in the 2004 cycle) and belive his head and heart are basically in the right place, but without being able to do the heavy lifting and marshaling of support within your caucus, you get nothing to advance the goals and policies you may rightly feel passionate about.

Merkely is no rhetorical bomb-thrower to be sure (which is a good thing), and while it may make for a balm for frustrated progressives like many of us are, it will not get us to where we need to be without the skill set that Merkley has a proven record of.

...it will not get us to where we need to be without the skill set that Merkley has a proven record of.

Ugh... unfinished thought there.

...it will not get us to where we need to be without the skill set that Merkley has a proven record of marshalling to get it accomplished.

and persuading others of the correctness of your position

That's absolutely right. And that's what Merkley's record demonstrates that he not only can do but that he EXCELLS at it.

I think these recent comments are illustrating my point about the philosophical differences among us.

I'm happy that most of the comments have been respectful (even if argumentative).

Posted by: paul gronke | Dec 17, 2007 2:23:19 PM If the man can't handle a dark beer, how can he handle the US Senate?

Dark beer?1? bleah... clear demoinstration someone is off their nut if think beer extract (aka stouts) are worth anything but as an example of what not to drink.

Crisp, hoppy IPAs all the way!

;-)

<blockquote<i>For my own part, I regret to inform people that I think I saw Merkeley with a Hefeweizen! A Hefeweizen?!? Can it be true?

LOL - I can confirm that. I was standing right next to him as he ordered the Hefeweizen. To add insult to injury, the barkeep did explain the basic offerings to him first. So Jeff deliberately chose the Hefe!

Stephanie sez:

But when the Democratic leadership get co-opted in one way or another, and cease to be effective advocates for Democratic ideals, then the Republicans win anyway, and the greater good for any Democrat disturbed by this outcome is to raise hell. Lots of it.

So I guess that's how Dennis Kucinich managed to convince the House to impeach Cheney, when I was back in DC a few weeks ago........OK.....I was in DC but no impeachment occured.

Look, most of us are disgusted with Dem Senate "leadership". It does not follow though that throwing a tantrum is going to get 'em going our way.

How about that Cindy Sheehan, huh?

Then TJ sez:

[It's] about standing on principle and persuading others of the correctness of your position.......it's done by knowing the issue, presenting a rational case--and not giving up.

TJ I know you to be a smart guy, and like me, you've advocated for your issues to various elected officials.

Like me, then, I'm sure you know that knowing the issue, presenting a rational case--and not giving up, while admirable, has almost nothing to do with persuading people to see it your way.

I mean, if what you say is true, your guys would all see it my way and you'd be supporting Merkley by now.....

Posted by: Kevin | Dec 17, 2007 2:32:57 PM

and persuading others of the correctness of your position

That's absolutely right. And that's what Merkley's record demonstrates that he not only can do but that he EXCELLS at it.

Bingo. This is what I find so baffling. That is absolutely essential in being effective in a legislative body and a skill and quality that Merkley's record has by the ton for anyone willing to look.

Posted by: Kevin | Dec 17, 2007 2:36:58 PM LOL - I can confirm that. I was standing right next to him as he ordered the Hefeweizen. To add insult to injury, the barkeep did explain the basic offerings to him first. So Jeff deliberately chose the Hefe!

Yeah, but won't a girly beer appeal to the female vote?

;-)

LOL maybe so, Mitch. But I was drinking whatever brand of non-alcoholic beer they had so I'd be the least credible witness on that charge.

I drank half of it and switched to Coke.

Bingo. This is what I find so baffling. That is absolutely essential in being effective in a legislative body and a skill and quality that Merkley's record has by the ton for anyone willing to look.

That's the thing, though... The point of this exersize for the L.O. cadre is to just keep throwing shit on the wall to see if any of it will stick. Every one of them is savvy enough to know perfectly well how crucial it is to being able to get stuff DONE or nothing will change.

There is a decidedly Rovian quality to their tactic. Look at the issues they choose to throw up on the wall. Invariably they attack Merkley's strongest qualities in the vain hope that by cutting him down that will somehow make Novick seem like a more attractive candidate. The problem is that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The point of this exersize for the L.O. cadre is to just keep throwing shit on the wall to see if any of it will stick. Every one of them is savvy enough to know perfectly well how crucial it is to being able to get stuff DONE or nothing will change. There is a decidedly Rovian quality to their tactic. Look at the issues they choose to throw up on the wall. Invariably they attack Merkley's strongest qualities in the vain hope that by cutting him down that will somehow make Novick seem like a more attractive candidate.

Kevin,

is it possible -- even remotely possible, in your worldview -- that you're mistaken?

is it possible -- even remotely possible, in your worldview -- that we are saying these things because we believe them?

is it possible -- even remotely possible, in your worldview -- that we have an authentic philosophical disagreement in which the traits you consider most important are the ones we value at a lower rate, for many reasons, including some I have stated?

I don't feel I've said anything in this thread that constitutes "tearing down" Jeff Merkley. I do think he is not the superior of the two leading Senate candidates, and I reserve the right to advocate for my position.

Comparing me to Karl Rove is really unnecessarily insulting, I feel.

Come on, Mitch. You're really going to side with the (double-, triple-) IPA bandwagon over well-made, oak-aged imperial stout? As long as the hops are coming from Oregon, we're okay. But as soon as you start packing a brew with cheap German hops, tsk tsk tsk.

Stephanie: Comparing me to Karl Rove is really unnecessarily insulting, I feel.

I think so too, and I say that as a Jeff Merkley supporter.

I do see others who have written things that seem like an explicit attack on Jeff, but not from Stephanie. She just likes Steve Novick better.

Fair enough.

All that said, I do disagree. Most of Steve's supporters interpret Jeff's failure to grandstand as some sort of sign that he lacks core progressive principals. But I see the opposite. The ability to check one's ego at the door is the first sign of true leadership. Finding ways to reassure your own moderates in tough districts, while moving us firmly towards progressive governance, is far more useful and rare than the willingness to make strident statements reminiscent of talk radio.

Fundamentally, voters don't like "fighters". They like people who get things done. And Jeff gets things done.

"Anyone who thinks a lone Senator can sustain a filibuster is ignorant of the way the Senate works. IT takes navigating through and working with others in the caucus to even sustain a filibuster."

You might want to watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or join Kevin in the reading room. A lone Senator can sustain a filibuster as long as his voice works and he/she stays awake. If all 10 members who voted against cloture this morning assisted Dodd in his caucus-upsetting filibuster, it could go on indefinitely, even just by asking questions and giving him 20 minute catnaps.

I believe that Wayne Morse still holds the record for longest individual filibuster -- 22 hours, 6 minutes. (His bladder control was much praised at the time.)

But, yes, get a few Senators together and they can orchestrate a filibuster that goes on for a long while. Sometimes it just takes the example of one Senator who is willing to stand up and say what is right, and others who were wavering find the courage to join in.

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 17, 2007 3:42:27 PM You might want to watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...

Good god. You are really proving that you know nothing about the actual United States Senate TJ if you think the filibuster (or the Senate as a whole) works like a fracken' Frank Capra movie.

What next, if we hear enough bells a Senator get his or hers wings?

BTW, the Daily Kos has a link on a front page peice this morning that gives a great chart which gives a low-down on the filbuster/amendmnet treet run down on the FISA bill. Can't access it form work to provide the direct link for anyone who wants to understnad the actual process of the FISA bill fillibuster action.BTW, the Daily Kos has a link on a front page piece this morning that gives a great chart which gives a low-down on the filibuster/amendment process run down on the FISA bill. Can't access it from work to provide the direct link for anyone who wants to understand the actual process of the FISA bill filibuster.

Stephanie,

I mispoke. I agree with Steve Maurer with respect to you. I should have been more explicit about who I meant rather than use an overly broad brush. HR2 is the main topic which gets hoisted up on the wall over and over. It's been amply debunked over and over. To continue hoisting it up on the wall is evidence, IMHO, of something well beyond mere philosophical differences.

Ugh... damn typing on a Monday:

The Daily Kos has a link on a front page piece this morning that has a great chart and explanation which gives the low-down on the filibuster/amendment process run down on the FISA bill. Can't access it from work to provide the direct link for anyone who wants to understand the actual process of the FISA bill filibuster.

Paul is right to note that the most critical question of the day is which beer Jeff drank. Because here in Beervana, we know that what you drink says something about your character. An on-the-fly beer rohrshach:

IPA - brave, daring, green. Porter/stout - a man of the people; a straight-shooter. Pale ale - easygoing, likeable. Hefeweizen - lacking conviction; insecure. Macro-lager - victim of a tongue-related accident; a Californian.

Note to campaigns: for a small fee (beer money), I'm happy to provide any beer-related consulting your candidate might require.

Hey, Jeff, I'd like a further explanation against Hefeweizen. Those poor Hef-drinkers out there are suddenly scrambling, searching for better beers...

Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 17, 2007 5:05:15 PM

There arre New York City phone books worth of such comments in previous posts here and on other blogs. Pointing out that it wasn't getting flogged as a hit against Merkley in this thread might be viewed as a bit of sophistry.

"Good god. You are really proving that you know nothing about the actual United States Senate TJ if you think the filibuster (or the Senate as a whole) works like a fracken' Frank Capra movie."

I note with interest you offer not a whit to contradict the substance of the point made. Are you still asserting that a single Senator cannot effectively execute a filibuster? If so, bring the evidence, please. First you're going to have to prove Stephanie V and Wayne Morse liars, I suppose.

"It's been amply debunked over and over."

Not sure that "uh-UH" qualifies as a debunking. We haven't seen anything besides that to my knowledge, that contradicts the fairly clear point that the Republicans wanted Democrats to vote Yes on HR2 by including the support the troops phrase...and Merkley, along with most other Democrats at the time, did what they wanted. We've talked a fair bit about why he did so, but you can't debunk a motive. On the facts though, a Yes vote was the desired outcome, and a Yes vote was granted.

"Fundamentally, voters don't like "fighters". They like people who get things done."

What about fighters who ALSO get things done? I bet they like those folks the best--the ones who fight for ordinary Americans against polluters...and win. The ones who fight for schoolkids against video lottery retailers..and win. The ones who fight for taxpayers against Bill Sizemore and Howard Rich...and win.

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 17, 2007 5:30:29 PM Not sure that "uh-UH" qualifies as a debunking.

There's that Rovian thing I was talking about. The evidence is easily found.

What's even more revealing is that in a comment to a post specifically debunking the HR2 lie TJ offers a rebuttal which essentially consists of... "uh-UH".

As the reich-wing site TJ sought to dismiss with "uh-UH" clearly demonstrates, contrary to his dishonest and misleading assertion, the GOP arguably prefer when Democrats vote AGAINST those kinds of traps because they can then paint them as anti-military... which is precisely what they did at the linked site.

What TJ has been saying isn't a mere philosophical difference of opinion. It's a calculated, deliberate act of demagoguery.

Of course, if you actually follow the links provided, you will discover as I did that they are mute on HR2 or on what trap theory really means, or on what GOP prefers. The demagogy here is clearly Kevin, against me.

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 17, 2007 5:26:25 PM I note with interest you offer not a whit to contradict the substance of the point made. Are you still asserting that a single Senator cannot effectively execute a filibuster? If so, bring the evidence, please. First you're going to have to prove Stephanie V and Wayne Morse liars, I suppose.

Not sure why you think I need to "prove" Wayne Morse or Stephanie "a liar" since your buffudled tirade is not setting anything for me to "prove". Particularly since I can simply point out when the facts that that since the Senate adopted Standing Rule 22 in 1917, and that currently (ever since 1975) the Senate can shut down any debate with a 60 vote threshold of cloture. Furthermore, Morse's famed filibuster (a record holder until Strom Thrumond topped it filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957) failed. The legislation was passed after Morse's 22 hour stunt. As was the civil rights act Thurmond filbustered.

Without 39 other Senators willing to let you stand until you collapse, you can not stop anything since cloture can override any filibuster if you have the votes. Which goes right back to the central point you are missing.

Having the skills to marshall support within the caucus to even sustain a successful filibuster is necessary, much less the higher threshold of moving legislation you want but are opposed on.

Grandstanding for the cameras only works when the camera is run by Frank Capra. You need 40 Senators to filibuster, which means you need to marshall support and can't sustain a filibuster alone.

TJ wrote: Merkley WITHOUT 31 votes was pretty well outmanuevered by Minnis/Scott.

TJ, do you have amnesia? Or are you just spinning for your candidate now?

In Oregon, if you have 27 seats, you pretty much have no power. Especially when, under the Minnis regime, the majority has done away with the Rule of 31. But Jeff Merkley used the 2005 session to get a bunch of minority reports and procedural votes up that put the Republicans on record on tough issues. Those votes laid the groundwork for 2006 - and were critical in defeating GOP Reps. Billy Dalto, Debbie Farr, and Alan Brown. Just ask the new Democratic Reps. Brian Clem, Chris Edwards, and Jean Cowan.

TJ wrote later: Merkley's record isn't so hot, is it? As Minority Leader he was not able to beat the GOP

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? You do know that he's the Speaker now, right? You're losing it, TJ.

(Full disclosure: Brian Clem, Chris Edwards, and Jean Cowan were all clients of my firm in 2006. I speak only for myself.)

Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 17, 2007 4:05:06 PM I believe that Wayne Morse still holds the record for longest individual filibuster -- 22 hours, 6 minutes.

Actually, Strom Thrumond holds the record for sustained individual filibuster when he went 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Eclipsing Morse's earlier filibuster speech of 22 hours 26 minutes against the Submerged Lands Act 1953 in the tidelands oil controversy. Both pieces of legislation passed after each of their famed speeches.

yes of COURSE 60 votes forces cloture, Mitch. But you can't have a vote without a motion, and you can't have a motion without holding the floor to make one. And if the person holding the floor will not yield, there is no motion. That's exactly WHY you filibuster--to hold the floor and prevent yielding it for any other business.

Posted by: LT | Dec 17, 2007 6:23:48 PM Sorry, the beer debate makes more sense to me that that debate over whether Steve or Jeff has the proper skills for the job.

Good point. After all if someone has outstanding skills for a job is certainly not germane to whether they might be suited for it.

(/snark)

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 17, 2007 8:20:29 PM yes of COURSE 60 votes forces cloture, Mitch. But you can't have a vote without a motion, and you can't have a motion without holding the floor to make one. And if the person holding the floor will not yield, there is no motion. That's exactly WHY you filibuster--to hold the floor and prevent yielding it for any other business.

Which always fails if the majority wants to be pissey about it. Show me one Senator that has actually filibustered since Rule 22 was put in place where they didn't have the votes to prevent cloture and succeeded in preventing the legislation

Point to it.

Yes, Mr. Condescending. I'm aware he is Speaker now. I was speaking of 2005 when he was not, and 2003 when he was not. Since he will NOT be a leader and the Dems do not have a working majority they wish to use, what he does as leader with one has little to speak of what he'd do in the Senate. Merkley won't be building any coalitions; he'll be joining them. And I'm not at all convinced he'll join the right ones. For instance, he'll be in the coalition that preserves tax inequality between work and wealth. I want my Senator to take the progressive position on that issue.

People should really stop using examples of things that have happened in the U.S. House to the U.S. Senate since they're quite different. U.S. Senators have a considerable amount more power than U.S. Representatives do.

A fighter can be good sometimes. Sometimes it takes a fighter who is willing to start the ball rolling. Obviously you have to be able to work with others so you can get enough votes to keep that ball rolling. But being a fighter doesn't necessarily mean you don't work well with others. Neither Novick nor Merkley would have held the positions and jobs they've had over the years if they didn't work well with others.

But to be honest, people are tired of the compromising in Congress. They're tired of hearing how Dems are against the war, yet bills continue to pass with more money for Iraq. Soldiers continue to get hit with less money, less benefits, and bills for bonuses to be returned after being injured at war. Kids who need health care are going without. They know Bush has vetoed bills. But they don't understand why Congress doesn't fight more - it just continues along like a puppy dog kicked by its master. Compromising has gotten us a continued Iraq War, more spying, no expansion for children's health care, etc. We've been in charge for nearly a year, and still the country doesn't like the Dem controlled Congress anymore than it does the Republican controlled one. When the Republicans controlled Congress during Clinton's tenure, they weren't afraid to hold back bills the president needed passed in order to get things through.

And I take issue with this: "Most of Steve's supporters interpret Jeff's failure to grandstand as some sort of sign that he lacks core progressive principals." That' not true. Most of the supporters I've met and talked to disagree with that statement. We like Merkley and think he'd make a good U.S. Senator. We just think that Novick would be better. Preferring one of the other doesn't mean we dislike one candidate - we just like the other one better.

Posted by: LT | Dec 17, 2007 8:21:28 PM Now, can we dispense with the varied opinions on what happened in the Oregon legislature and discuss FISA and the vote today?

The only vote on this today was the motion to precede vote to begin debate on the bill which had a 30 hours for debate on the motion to proceed. Then as that debate took place, our own Senior Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd had a lengthy exchange on the floor about that only the Intelligence Committee members, Judiciary Committee leaders, and a few in leadership had the opportunity of seeing the legal justification for it's warrantless surveillance programs. This helped gave an opening for Senator Reid to table debate on the motion to proceed until January.

What bothers me is the the SIIC version of the bill which was turned out of the committee that Wyden sits on is the one with the telco amnesty problems. There is a better version of the bill which came out of the SJC which doesn't include retroactive amnesty for the illegal activities of the telcos. The House passed a version which does not give amnesty, so it is telling to se Wyden (who voted to not turn out the amnesty version of the bill out of the committee he is in) help derail the motion to proceed until January.

Or would that be too "real world" and distract from the above argument about what Jeff Merkley should have done in the 2005 House?

Not at all. Thanks for bringing up the subject. And I am glad to see Merkley once again on the correct side in getting this bad bill (i.e. the SIIC version) scuttled for the time being. Hopefully Reid will get his head out of his ass and realize, as Wyden and Merkley do, that folding in retractive amnesty for violating the law and the Constitution, is unacceptable.

Posted by: LT | Dec 17, 2007 8:21:28 PM Now, can we dispense with the varied opinions on what happened in the Oregon legislature and discuss FISA and the vote today?

The only vote on this today was the motion to precede vote to begin debate on the bill which had a 30 hours for debate on the motion to proceed. Then as that debate took place, our own Senior Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd had a lengthy exchange on the floor about that only the Intelligence Committee members, Judiciary Committee leaders, and a few in leadership had the opportunity of seeing the legal justification for it's warrantless surveillance programs. This helped gave an opening for Senator Reid to table debate on the motion to proceed until January.

What bothers me is the the SIIC version of the bill which was turned out of the committee that Wyden sits on is the one with the telco amnesty problems. There is a better version of the bill which came out of the SJC which doesn't include retroactive amnesty for the illegal activities of the telcos. The House passed a version which does not give amnesty, so it is telling to se Wyden (who voted to not turn out the amnesty version of the bill out of the committee he is in) help derail the motion to proceed until January.

(cont.)

(cont.)

Or would that be too "real world" and distract from the above argument about what Jeff Merkley should have done in the 2005 House?

Not at all. Thanks for bringing up the subject. And I am glad to see Merkley once again on the correct side in getting this bad bill (i.e. the SIIC version) scuttled for the time being. Hopefully Reid will get his head out of his ass and realize, as Wyden and Merkley do, that folding in retractive amnesty for violating the law and the Constitution, is unacceptable.

Kari, your spam filtering is killing us.

(psssst get registration and accounts going)

I second the Jenni's above point -- I don't have anything against Merkley (other than Greenlick and Nolan's post -- I mean, yuck). All of this so-called snarkiness on the part of Novick supporters is something that I think can be equally applied to the other side. Pointing fingers at a mirror, as it were.

Also, of all the comments of lestatdelc's that I could disagree with -- sheesh -- a girly beer? Chicks drink dark beers, too, ya know. I challenge any dude here to out-Guinness me. No need to apply sexism to the exhalted choice of beers. :).

And on to the most important question of the night -- Steve, what do YOU drink?

"Hopefully Reid will get his head out of his ass and realize, as Wyden and Merkley do,"

...and Novick, of course, who put something out BEFORE the bill came up--when it might do some good. After the fact, not so much.

Posted by: Torridjoe | Dec 17, 2007 8:50:52 PM Oh Mitch. If only you read what others write, you could save us all the trouble. For instance, no one said Merkley doesn't have good job skills--it's just not the right one.

LOL yeah, he doesn't have the "right jobs skills" at being an effecitve progressive legislator because he has only, you know.. actually done it.

Merkley can do drywall, but the job calls for wood lathe. Novick has different skills, which are much better suited for the job at hand.

Your bizarro analogy not withstanding I have said that Steve would make a great Senator, but I think Merkley would make a better one seeing as he has a proven record of being an effective legislator in a cuasu with a narrow majority, and has won elections to a legislature.

<blockuote>I will resist the urge to respond to your 2nd point where you skillfully avoid admitting you were wrong,

Becuase I wasn't.

A single Sentor canot sustain an indefinate filibuster as it is impossible without other Senators supporitng it. Which is what I said in the first place. Thanks for reminding everyone exaclty the abusrd point you pushed.

and move the goalposts to talk about whether the filibuster changed the legislation at the time.

That is't what I said or did. I said solo filibusters like Morse's famous one failed, which it did and hte legislation was passed despite his 22 hour and 26 minute speech.

Thanks for again giving me the oportunity to once again drive the point home... MORSE'S SOLO FILIBUSTER FAILED because it was not sustainable.

Of course, that's not what you said initially, and therefore not what was responded to. A single Senator can filibuster.

TJ you must be doing meth. Read what I actually said:

"Anyone who thinks a lone Senator can sustain a filibuster is ignorant of the way the Senate works."

Wayne Morse's famed lone speech filibuster was not sustained and failed after 22 hours and 26 minutes... Strom Thurmond's lone speech filibuster failed after 24 hours 18 minutes. All filibusters that are only supported by a single Senator, i.e. not combined with having enough support to prevent cloture backing it up, will fail.

Point to one that has succeeded since Rule 22 came in.

Posted by: Kristin | Dec 17, 2007 8:59:34 PM Also, of all the comments of lestatdelc's that I could disagree with -- sheesh -- a girly beer? Chicks drink dark beers, too, ya know.

Hey, I agree that chicks can drink dark beer and I am all for chicks that drink dark beer. Those are chicks not girlies. Females that drink IPA... goddesses.

;-)

TJ you must be doing meth. Read what I actually said: "Anyone who thinks a lone Senator can sustain a filibuster is ignorant of the way the Senate works."

Which you then disprove by giving two examples of filibusters sustained by individual Senators.

As for filibusters which succeed without cloture, we saw one today. Rather than fail to get any business done until the recess, Reid tabled the bill until January. Dodd didn't actually have to get up by himself and talk, but the knowledge that he was going to--and the thousands upon thousands of angry callers to his office--scared Reid off. (Again, if you'd seen the movie, you would remember the flood of letters being dumped on the floor of Congress, which turned the tide on what was until that point a failed filibuster).

It's also very interesting to see that you think simply winning an election qualifies you to govern effectively. By that standard, George Bush must be the most qualified man in America.

We're not talking about Merkley being an effective legislator; we're talking about whether Merkley being an effective leader has any bearing on whether he'll be an effective Senator, in a situation where he will not lead and will not have a working majority of 60 (that apparently Harry Reid has decided he needs in order to accomplish anything). As a regular old legislator or Minority Leader, Merkley's record has far less to crow about--and his skill set is not what's needed in Congress right now. Novick's is, and the need is desperate, critical, emergent.

TJ you must be doing meth. Read what I actually said: "Anyone who thinks a lone Senator can sustain a filibuster is ignorant of the way the Senate works."

Which you then disprove by giving two examples of filibusters sustained by individual Senators.

As for filibusters which succeed without cloture, we saw one today. Rather than fail to get any business done until the recess, Reid tabled the bill until January. Dodd didn't actually have to get up by himself and talk, but the knowledge that he was going to--and the thousands upon thousands of angry callers to his office--scared Reid off. (Again, if you'd seen the movie, you would remember the flood of letters being dumped on the floor of Congress, which turned the tide on what was until that point a failed filibuster).

It's also very interesting to see that you think simply winning an election qualifies you to govern effectively. By that standard, George Bush must be the most qualified man in America.

We're not talking about Merkley being an effective legislator; we're talking about whether Merkley being an effective leader has any bearing on whether he'll be an effective Senator, in a situation where he will not lead and will not have a working majority of 60 (that apparently Harry Reid has decided he needs in order to accomplish anything). As a regular old legislator or Minority Leader, Merkley's record has far less to crow about--and his skill set is not what's needed in Congress right now. Novick's is, and the need is desperate, critical, emergent.

"Anyone who thinks a lone Senator can sustain a filibuster is {ignant} of the way the Senate works."

Which you then disprove by giving two examples of filibusters sustained by individual Senators.

As for filibusters which succeed without cloture, we saw one today. Rather than fail to get any business done until the recess, Reid tabled the bill until January. Dodd didn't actually have to get up by himself and talk, but the knowledge that he was going to--and the thousands upon thousands of angry callers to his office--scared Reid off. (Again, if you'd seen the movie, you would remember the flood of letters being dumped on the floor of Congress, which turned the tide on what was until that point a failed filibuster).

It's also very interesting to see that you think simply winning an election qualifies you to govern effectively. By that standard, George Bush must be the most qualified man in America.

We're not talking about Merkley being an effective legislator; we're talking about whether Merkley being an effective leader has any bearing on whether he'll be an effective Senator, in a situation where he will not lead and will not have a working majority of 60 (that apparently Harry Reid has decided he needs in order to accomplish anything). As a regular old legislator or Minority Leader, Merkley's record has far less to crow about--and his skill set is not what's needed in Congress right now. Novick's is, and the need is desperate, critical, emergent.

{trying to fool the spam filter...}

Beer? Yuck. Give me a vodka anyday. ; )

LT and Jenni are dead-on.

And Mitch, I don't get how you view those filibusters as complete "failures" simply because the senators in question did not stop the legislation. The fact that we are still talking about those two events today shows the impact and resonance that they had. Those two senators, along with what Dodd planned to do today, took a stand for their convictions, and refused to stand down, even in the face of adversity, with their careers on the line.

Regardless of which candidate can handle a triple IPA, a filibuster is often doomed to "fail" from the get-go. But you get up there and take a stand, regardless of whether your colleagues help you out or your constituents call you a bum and vote you out. There are certain matters on which a person will not compromise, and while we may not always agree with the stance that person takes, it is admirable to show that kind of courage and will. Especially in this day and age.

For instance, he'll be in the coalition that preserves tax inequality between work and wealth.

Full of BS again, TJ. Point to the source where Merkley says any such thing.

That is, besides a blog post where a Novick supporter asks him a stupid gotcha and y'all inferred an answer that he didn't give.

Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 17, 2007 9:54:55 PM Beer? Yuck. Give me a vodka anyday. ; )

Well, I will say that my fondness for barley pops (i.e. beer) is really just IPAs, and that is a habit only a few years old for me. But I am right with ya on the potato juice (i.e. Stolichnaya and tonic man here).

Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Dec 17, 2007 10:04:48 PM And Mitch, I don't get how you view those filibusters as complete "failures" simply because the senators in question did not stop the legislation.

Because they failed in stopping the legislation from becoming law.

The fact that we are still talking about those two events today shows the impact and resonance that they had.

No, we are talking about them today because they are noted because of their record holder status or lengthy floor speeches. Nothing more.

Those two senators, along with what Dodd planned to do today, took a stand for their convictions, and refused to stand down, even in the face of adversity, with their careers on the line.

What Dodd did to day I agree with entirely, and applaud him for it. It was only effectual because he had support within the caucus to back up his threatened filibuster and make it real. Not because he stood alone in his position or threat. Also to strip what Dodd was marshalling support for to try if the debate continued (i.e. pulling the trigger on the SJC amendment which was already locked and loaded) out of the campaign light and heat the issue is generating is also a factor.

That the amendment tree was already loaded with the SJC version which probably had enough votes to force it is a reason Reid pulled back.

What I can't figure out is where the 'eff Reid's head is lately?

Between the crap he pulled on Wyden's hold a few weeks back and then making the SIIC version of the FISA fix the base bill, when he had to have seen the writing on the wall that Dodd would have enough Senators lined up to win the intramural fist-fight over it... I don't get where he thinks his team huddles?

That is, besides a blog post where a Novick supporter asks him a stupid gotcha and y'all inferred an answer that he didn't give.

Kari, I'm tired of your repeated mischaracterization of my conversation with Jeff Merkley.

It wasn't a "gotcha" and I didn't have to "infer" anything.

I walked up to Jeff Merkley. I was wearing a name tag. I introduced myself and told him I was a Novick supporter but was very interested in his point of view about two issues. He very graciously spoke with me about his views for several minutes.

Rather than restate the whole thing here, I will invite Blue Oregon readers to read my account as I originally wrote it, and they can judge for themselves whether the information I obtained is useful to them.

Mitch:

What can I say? I come from pretty hardy Russian stock. ; )

My drink of choice is a Vodka Seven.

Hats off indeed to Jeff Merkley for accomplishing so much with so slim a majority.

But, anent my comment about extremist centrism (of the sort exhibited by Joe Lieberman in endorsing John McCain, e.g.), which has caused Mitch so much mirth:

Did Jeff accomplish his success by regularly trashing the left end of his caucus? No? Didn't think so. It isn't moderate and doesn't promote unity, even if done from the center.

LT, thanks for bringing up the filibuster. May I politely suggest that you'll have greater success in turning these discussions more substantive by doing more of that? Yes others should, but lead by example!

Principle of e-mail list or blog discussions: if you want to change them, do it, don't ask why others aren't. At best that question then becomes the topic of discussion, which still isn't getting us to substance.

Rather than restate the whole thing here, I will invite Blue Oregon readers to read my account as I originally wrote it, and they can judge for themselves whether the information I obtained is useful to them.

Yes, and they can also judge for themselves whether you actually quoted Merkley in full - or just "paraphrased" what you thought you heard.

Stephanie, at least you have the decency to ask the guy a question. TJ just imagines what Jeff Merkley might think, and then attacks him for his imaginings.

I'm still waiting for anyone to point to a source where Merkley says anything remotely similar to what TJ claims he said.

Not even your blog post - inartful though it may have been - claims that Merkley believes what TJ wrote: For instance, he'll be in the coalition that preserves tax inequality between work and wealth.

Utter BS. Jeff Merkley's life's work has been to fight for economic justice for working-class and middle-class families. To claim otherwise is pure fantasy.

Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 18, 2007 1:05:53 AM But, anent my comment about extremist centrism (of the sort exhibited by Joe Lieberman in endorsing John McCain, e.g.), which has caused Mitch so much mirth:

My mirth about it stemmed more from who it was leveled at when you used it, than the incongruous words fighting each other... though that helped as well.

Without 39 other Senators willing to let you stand until you collapse, you can not stop anything since cloture can override any filibuster if you have the votes. Which goes right back to the central point you are missing.

Exactly!

One single Senator can't accomplish diddly squat for Oregon. We NEED someone who can and will work effectively with others.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 17, 2007 11:31:38 PM Kari, I'm tired of your repeated mischaracterization of my conversation with Jeff Merkley.

Are you going to assert some proprietary right to that phrase as well?

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 17, 2007 10:17:43 PM Full of BS again, TJ. Point to the source where Merkley says any such thing.

He also pegs the irony meter with that one. It wasn't that long ago that right here at Blue Oregon he was justifying a tax which would have gone more to poorer Oregonians than wealthier Oregonians. I don't recall seeing anyone anywhere in the blogosphere justifying it with the tact that TJ took - "cost recovery." Most folk were talking about the moral and ethical need to provide health care for poor kids, but TJ was just concerned with limiting his financial costs... hardly what I would consider a "progressive" POV.

I vigorously disagreed with a great many folk here on that ballot measure, but I did and do respect that, with the exception of TJ, the arguments in favor sprang out of actual progressive philosophy.

No, TJ crying crocodile tears of faux concern over "tax inequality between work and wealth" is not credible.

Kevin, Kari, et al,

I'm not sure where you are coming from when you assert that Steve Novick does not play well with others. Is there anything in his history of building broad coalitions to fight ballot initiatives, working to organize and mobilize Oregon Senate Democrats, and his other work that would lead you to believe that he lacks the skills to work effectively with other members of the Senate?

I would immediately point to his work to take on the Oregon Lottery, in which he raised an army of the Oregon PTA, Stand for Children, the Oregon School Employees Association, and the Oregon Education Association. And they won.

More recently, I would point to the time I've spent with Steve while volunteering with the campaign. He's sharp as a tack, has a quick wit, and puts everyone around him at ease, all talents that will serve him in fighting and building coalitions in the United States Senate.

Yes, and they can also judge for themselves whether you actually quoted Merkley in full - or just "paraphrased" what you thought you heard. Stephanie, at least you have the decency to ask the guy a question. TJ just imagines what Jeff Merkley might think, and then attacks him for his imaginings. I'm still waiting for anyone to point to a source where Merkley says anything remotely similar to what TJ claims he said. Not even your blog post - inartful though it may have been - claims that Merkley believes what TJ wrote: For instance, he'll be in the coalition that preserves tax inequality between work and wealth. Utter BS. Jeff Merkley's life's work has been to fight for economic justice for working-class and middle-class families. To claim otherwise is pure fantasy.

He told me -- it's been a week now and no one has said I misreported his words -- that he was "comfortable" with a "reasonable" difference between the marginal Federal tax rates on earned income and capital gains. He provided a rationale for his viewpoint -- making sure that investors are incentivized to keep moving money around. I argued with him a little but he stuck to his guns. I asked him what was a "reasonable" difference, or if the current difference was "reasonable," and he didn't want to say. He fidgeted visibly in front of me as he answered.

I give him all kinds of credit for talking to me at all, and for giving me so much time in a room full of people who might have been more receptive to his message. But to me, when he says he is "comfortable" with a "reasonable" difference between the two marginal tax rates, he is telling me that he is not going to be an advocate for equalizing them. I would like my new Senator to be a passionate advocate of tax fairness for wage earners, and equalizing those tax rates is the cornerstone of tax fairness for wage earners.

He's sharp as a tack, has a quick wit, and puts everyone around him at ease, all talents that will serve him in fighting and building coalitions........

Ayup. sharp as a tack. check.

Quick wit. Check.

Puts everyone around him at ease. Not so much.

Speaking from my personal experience:

I've met Steve a few times, from before he announced, to his announcement, and after his announcement. My experience was that he is indeed capable of "putting people at ease" if he's trying to get their vote or support.

The best I ever got out of him was uneasy and short exchanges during which the feeling I got from him was more contempt than comity. I was someone that he didn't know, and seemed not to care to know.

Most recently, two weeks back, he spoke at our holiday party.

Although he was not invited to speak the event by our House District Chair, and we don't know who did invite him, we were all on our best behavior, and the chair asked him to make his pitch.

I approached Steve, fairly reeking of holiday cheer, and determined to be pleasant and friendly. I made a little joke about the whole Novick/Merkley thing on the blogs, and he gave me that blank stare and asked me what I was talking about. When I talked right over this disingenuous little gambit and continued on with the story about TJ, me, and the mythical Snickers wrapper, he finally changed tack and went along with the joke.

The sense of the massive ego attuned only to talking with potential recruits or people deemed to be his "peers" while blowing everyone else off is exactly the kind of crap that I've been railing against among certain Oregon politicians since Blue Oregon's inception.

Litigation skills do not necessarily translate into Legislative skills, and nothing I've seen from him so far demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively to get the people's business done in DC.

Gee Kari, when a candidate says he is OK with a tax rate gap, justifies it, and refuses to say he wishes to see that gap eliminated--after being asked that directly, to support it--that's pretty hard to misinterpret.

But if course it should be easy to prove I'm wrong, right? After all, Novick has it there explicitly on his issues page, and so does John Edwards. And of course Wyden supports it, as dies DeFazio and many other progressive politicians. So go ahead and show where his advocacy is for tax equality. Or have him or his senior staff clarify his position--since at a bare minimum it's clear there is reason for confusion.

I would close by pointing out to Kevin the difference between a tax on income and an elective product tax. I also am pretty sure opening a 401k doesn't kill you.

Glad to see no one's launching any personal attacks.

As usual, "attack" is often in the eye of the beholder.

Pat Ryan used different words but his comment is no less a clear statement of his own personal opinion of Novick's motives than Stephanie's comment right above it is of her own personal opinion of Merkley's motives.

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 18, 2007 10:16:39 AM ...when a candidate says he is OK with a tax rate gap, justifies it, and refuses to say he wishes to see that gap eliminated...

Says the Kettle about the Pot...

I also am pretty sure opening a 401k doesn't kill you.

Trying to parse it away doesn't change the fact that you're on record openly advocating a tax rate gap, justifying it and refusing to say you'd like to see it go away.

her own personal opinion of Merkley's motives

I don't think I got into Merkley's motives at all. I did try to extrapolate, from his expressed views, how he would operate in the US Senate if and when there was a possibility of equalizing those tax rates. I think my extrapolation is wholly reasonable based upon his words.

Uh...yes, I do believe there is no linkage between income taxes and product taxes, nor should there be. Not sure how that helps Merkley explain a gap between two kinds of income.

LT, you misunderstand hearsay. Hearsay is when a witness tells about something that was said about a 2nd party by a 3rd party. Since steph was talking directly to merkley, her account is not hearsay, for her. You may find her account credible or not, but if she were a witness on trial about Merkley's position on tax equality, it would be fully admissable as evidence.

Andrew Plambeck asked this question:

I'm not sure where you are coming from when you assert that Steve Novick does not play well with others.

A question like that should really be answered directly, don't you think? I'm not puking up talking points here generated by a campaign committee.

I'm answering a direct question with an answer based on my own direct experience.

If I discuss the fact that my wife and a lot of other activists that I've spoken with have had the same experience, I'd have to defend their subjective judgements, and I'm not ready to do that.

I see it in the press all the time.

George Bush thought.........X. Bill Clinton felt that.........Y.

When, of course, they have no idea what George and Bill thought or felt.

I am perfectly comfortable with stating the impressions that I take from personal encounters.

Without getting too existential here, All experience is subjective, and we are all trapped inside our own senses.

Yet we still draw conclusions. The alternative is immobility.

I think my extrapolation is wholly reasonable based upon his words.

Please... You extrapolated from more than just his words.

I asked him what was a "reasonable" difference, or if the current difference was "reasonable," and he didn't want to say. He fidgeted visibly in front of me as he answered.

There you appealed to an observation based on some physical movement which you believed you saw, this in support of your extrapolation in the immediately previous sentence of what you assumed where his motives. The alledged fidgeting observation was clearly thrown in there as confirmation of your assumption of his motives.

He appeared to be uncomfortable but that could be for a thousand different reasons.

I didn't say a word about his motives, or imply anything, because (beyond his rationale for his position, which I quoted) I have no idea what his motives are and could not speculate even now. He did fidget. I almost said he squirmed, which might have been more accurate, but I knew you'd be all over me like a cheap suit if I said that. Since you're all over me anyway, I WILL say it. He squirmed. So what?

Go ahead and pretend that he didn't fidget or squirm at all. His words are still the same.

I will add that when I asked him the question and what kind of differential would be reasonable, he said, "I don't want to get into that." So when I tell you, "he didn't want to say," that's not an interpretation. At most it is a paraphrase, and a pretty fair one.

The British historian & exponent of oral history remarked in The Voice of the Past that written sources are often overrated in their distinction from oral ones. A newspaper account of what someone said is just reported speech, i.e. recorded oral history.

Stephanie is doing that here -- it is in print now (electronically) because she has written it down. It is first hand reportage. We may read it critically in light of her openly expressed views -- about which she is honest, score a point for her honesty. Reporting the next day on a conversation the night before does not seem an excessively long delay.

Thank you, Chris. I didn't see LT's comment until now, and since it is addressed to me, I should respond.

As Chris points out, I am not now presenting this information for the first time. I diaried it at Loaded Orygun less than 24 hours after I had the conversation. If "a week or so ago" is sufficiently imprecise for you, I can say explicitly that it was on Tuesday, December 11, sometime between 6 and 7 pm - sorry I can't be more precise about that. It was witnessed by a number of people, including Jon Isaacs, who arrived just before we concluded. I can't say whether anyone else was within earshot for most of it, because my back was to the room.

Yes, like everything else you don't personally witness or overhear, you have to decide how much of my account to believe. I would urge you to read it all yourself and consider the fact that despite all the breast-beating, no one with access to Merkley hsa disputed the accuracy of what I wrote. But it's not hearsay when I tell you, because it is my own first-hand experience, just like everyone's first-hand experience of drinking beer with Merkley.

Pat,

I don't dispute the fact that you have had less-than-desirable interactions with Steve. We differ there, but no big deal.

The real point I was making was that whole other paragraph, the one about his career record. It's indisputable that Steve did, indeed, amass a huge register of organizational and individual support to fight the Oregon Lottery. My bottom line is that you don't have to be either a fighter or a coalition-builder, and Steve's career shows that he is more than capable of playing both roles harmoniously.

Stephanie: I think my extrapolation is wholly reasonable based upon his words.

It may be if you define the word "reasonable" as "not directly contradicted by the facts" (something Republicans rarely qualms about). Yet still, your interpretation is one that assumes the absolute worst of Jeff, and again, while you're well within your rights to do that, I think you're making a mistake.

I interpret Jeff's answer as a unwillingness to be trapped into making a statement that could be used against him by Gordon Smith in the fall. And mark my words, if they can be, they will be.

Gordon Smith isn't going to go away without a fight. The answer you wanted to hear is one that could easily be twisted into a 30 second attack ad: "Jeff Merkley wants to take away your IRA", "No Retirement Savings Plans If you vote for Jeff Merkley", "10 out of 10 economists say taking away retirement accounts (as proposed by Jeff Merkley) is bad for Oregon" [paid for by People for fooling people into voting for Gordon Smith].

Obviously, he's interested in preserving his wiggle room. And much as you - someone who is announced as a supporter of another candidate - want him too, he has every right to do so.

Again, what you see as a negative, I see as a positive. A mark of a deft politician is one who knows when to shut up. And in the absence of him saying things explicitly that shouldn't be said, I trust him to do the right thing when the time comes.

Stephanie: I think my extrapolation is wholly reasonable based upon his words.

It may be if you define the word "reasonable" as "not directly contradicted by the facts" (something Republicans rarely qualms about). Yet still, your interpretation is one that assumes the absolute worst of Jeff, and again, while you're well within your rights to do that, I think you're making a mistake.

I interpret Jeff's answer as a unwillingness to be trapped into making a statement that could be used against him by Gordon Smith in the fall. And mark my words, if they can be, they will be.

Gordon Smith isn't going to go away without a fight. The answer you wanted to hear is one that could easily be twisted into a 30 second attack ad: "Jeff Merkley wants to take away your IRA", "No Retirement Savings Plans If you vote for Jeff Merkley", "10 out of 10 economists say taking away retirement accounts (as proposed by Jeff Merkley) is bad for Oregon" [paid for by People for fooling people into voting for Gordon Smith].

Obviously, he's interested in preserving his wiggle room. And much as you - someone who is announced as a supporter of another candidate - want him too, he has every right to do so.

Again, what you see as a negative, I see as a positive. A mark of a deft politician is one who knows when to shut up. And in the absence of him saying things explicitly that shouldn't be said, I trust him to do the right thing when the time comes.

Stephanie: I think my extrapolation is wholly reasonable based upon his words.

It may be if you define the word "reasonable" as "not directly contradicted by the facts" (something Republicans rarely qualms about). Yet still, your interpretation is one that assumes the absolute worst of Jeff, and again, while you're well within your rights to do that, I think you're making a mistake.

I interpret Jeff's answer as a unwillingness to be trapped into making a statement that could be used against him by Gordon Smith in the fall. And mark my words, if they can be, they will be.

Gordon Smith isn't going to go away without a fight. The answer you wanted to hear is one that could easily be twisted into a 30 second attack ad: "Jeff Merkley wants to take away your IRA", "No Retirement Savings Plans If you vote for Jeff Merkley", "10 out of 10 economists say taking away retirement accounts (as proposed by Jeff Merkley) is bad for Oregon" [paid for by People for fooling people into voting for Gordon Smith].

[comment continuation

Obviously, he's interested in preserving his wiggle room. And much as you - someone who is announced as a supporter of another candidate - want him too, he has every right to do so.

Again, what you see as a negative, I see as a positive. A mark of a deft politician is one who knows when to shut up. And in the absence of him saying things explicitly that shouldn't be said, I trust him to do the right thing when the time comes.

It's indisputable that Steve did, indeed, amass a huge register of organizational and individual support to fight the Oregon Lottery.

Agreed.

My bottom line is that you don't have to be either a fighter or a coalition-builder, and Steve's career shows that he is more than capable of playing both roles harmoniously.

Andrew, since you seem pretty familiar with Steve's resume perhaps you could address the circumstances under which Steve's work with Kulongoski was terminated as well as the circumstances under which his work with the Education Dept. was terminated?

My understanding is that Steve left both positions due to having alienated individuals in both organizations because they wouldn't do things the way he wanted. While, if true, neither negates the fact that he has indeed successfully worked with others as you described above, both seem to at least put a question mark over the issue. Particularly with respect to situations where he's not the one in charge.

I'm unaware of anything comparable in Jeff's past and thus it seems relevant to the goal which Stephanie used to cite here at B.O. of comparing and contrasting the two candidates.

Steven, thank you for elucidating what I think was my impression--Merkley was trying to preserve political wiggle room for later, rather than give a straight and honest answer.

Which is what I've had more than enough from in our politicians, thank you. If one were truly for tax equality, he or she would be BEGGING Smith to bring it up. Only if you're worried about having to throw out the principle in order to win the election, would you hedge out of fear that your opponent might accuse you of being for tax equality.

Interesting...even one of his supporters thinks he was trying to weasel. He just thinks it's a good thing. :)

Steven, thank you for elucidating what I think was my impression--Merkley was trying to preserve political wiggle room for later, rather than give a straight and honest answer.

Which is what I've had more than enough from in our politicians, thank you. If one were truly for tax equality, he or she would be BEGGING Smith to bring it up. Only if you're worried about having to throw out the principle in order to win the election, would you hedge out of fear that your opponent might accuse you of being for tax equality.

Interesting...even one of his supporters thinks he was trying to weasel. He just thinks it's a good thing. :)

Torrid, "wiggle room" and "straight and honest" aren't opposites. There are many straight and honest answers that go like this: "I really haven't made up my mind", "It would depend on the specific details", "It would depend on what I could actually achieve in the particular political situation", "Actually, I haven't studied that enough to come out with a position I feel comfortable with", "I definitely think we need to move in that direction, but not to the extreme you're proposing", and "I don't want to get into that".

Again, politics is rarely like a revival meeting, where all you need is absolute faith that you're right and the ability to shout yourself hoarse. It's usually more like high stakes poker, where smooth politeness to your opponents is the norm, and preservation of uncertainty about your next move is critical.

And if you don't get that, well, my estimate of your political astuteness has certainly dropped a notch.

Gordon Smith isn't going to go away without a fight. The answer you wanted to hear is one that could easily be twisted into a 30 second attack ad: "Jeff Merkley wants to take away your IRA", "No Retirement Savings Plans If you vote for Jeff Merkley", "10 out of 10 economists say taking away retirement accounts (as proposed by Jeff Merkley) is bad for Oregon" [paid for by People for fooling people into voting for Gordon Smith].

WADR, that is wholly absurd. The issue has nothing to do with retirement accounts of any kind. Capital gains in retirement accounts are tax-deferred and paid out as ordinary income. I suspect you know this.

Kevin,

I don't have any information relating to those jobs, and it sounds like you don't, either. If people are going to attack Stephanie's diary as "hearsay," then what does this amount to? I really can't respond to what you've heard, because I haven't heard the same things.

And I have repeatedly praised Speaker Merkley's record as, to use the term I used to describe Steve above, a coalition-builder. I have met him a couple of times now, and was impressed by his genuine nature and friendliness. However, I happen to be of the mind that Steve is a better pick for this fight, in this time, against this opponent. Come May, if Oregon disagrees, then I will go out and tell my neighbors about Jeff.

I don't understand why you (and others on both sides of the primary race) are so intent on absolutely cutting down the other candidate? I have no such intention toward the speaker, although it is important to make sure each candidate is prepared for the general election, and to decide which candidate will be a better senator.

I simply pointed to part of Steve's resume that I am familiar with that outwardly illustrates his skills in rallying the troops to pursue a cause. And as you said, I know of nothing comparable in Merkley's past. That doesn't necessarily mean he's the best candidate in this race.

Paul, I was with your hijacking. I find these back-and-forths tedious. The first 1342 times it was entertaining, but lately my eyes glaze over. Even better!--you inspired a beer post on the hefeweizen commentary. I more or less agree with your uneasiness about what this suggests. I objectively point out that perhaps he was just trying to stay sharp for his speech, though.

Objectively.

"Torrid, "wiggle room" and "straight and honest" aren't opposites. There are many straight and honest answers that go like this: "I really haven't made up my mind", "It would depend on the specific details", "It would depend on what I could actually achieve in the particular political situation", "Actually, I haven't studied that enough to come out with a position I feel comfortable with", "I definitely think we need to move in that direction, but not to the extreme you're proposing", and "I don't want to get into that".

Hey, I'm feeling charitable--let's say he meant one of those answers. Which one does NOT fail to put him on equal footing with Novick, who espouses directly and completely the concept of tax equality? None, that I see. If you mean to say maybe Merkley wanted to express that he's not sure about it...Novick is. And so is John Edwards. Those are my touchstones this elections season.

Andrew,

I went out of my way to characterize what I'd heard as nothing more than hearsay. Should I have characterized it otherwise?

I think you'd have to agree that a freshman junior Senator simply is not going to be running any aspect of the Senate. His/her ability or willingness to work effectively from a position of political weakness is very important.

Steve's resume is particularly strong where he's been in a position of leadership, as you've noted. Surely the parts of his resume reflecting times and situations where he wasn't running the show are just as important, if not moreso, to the job he's wanting to be hired for. Is that observation tantamount to cutting him down?

Paul, I was with your hijacking. I find these back-and-forths tedious. The first 1342 times it was entertaining, but lately my eyes glaze over.

On the other hand, Jeff and Paul, how many people are reading the 147th comment here?

I'm guessing that the number of readers is only slightly greater than the number of us that are still beating this horse at this point......

I doubt that this damages the "water cooler" image as much as the newly-minted pseudonymous poster "Tired" is claiming...

Stephanie: Capital gains in retirement accounts are tax-deferred and paid out as ordinary income. I suspect you know this.

Actually, it depends on the type of retirement account. Traditional IRA and 401ks, paid for with pretax dollars, do count as ordinary income. Roth IRAs are tax free. So yes, such an attack ad specifically mentioning IRAs would probably be off the table, even for Senator Smith and his lying GOP media consultants.

Never the less, IRAs aren't the only type of retirement account out there. Actually, thinking about it for more than a few seconds, the GOP would probably trot out some elderly couple trying to sell their restaurant, saying "the money they get for their business is the only retirement they'll get", or something like that.

And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to base your primary vote on this issue if it means that much to you. Just as long as we both agree to support the eventual nominee, I'm happy.

LT,

Maybe only a "policy wonk" comments on blogs about marginal tax rates, but taxes are HUGELY important in the lives of "everyday people." And "tax fairness" is an issue that most "everyday people" will tell you they care passionately about.

I believe it is important to use precise language when framing the issues around taxes, because they are so important; otherwise, it's very easy to be misunderstood. If I had said to Jeff Merkley, "Do you support tax fairness?" he would rightfully have responded, "what exactly do you mean by that?" So I saved us both the time and trouble by framing the question as precisely as I could. He's a busy man and since I don't support him, I'm lucky to get even a few seconds of his time. I didn't want to waste it.

LT, the lives of everyday people are deeply affected by marginal tax rates, your anti-intellectualism notwithstanding. This exact line of argument in the major media did much to give us "everyday guy" George Bush over wonky, nerdy Al Gore. I'm ready to go back to politicians who know what a marginal tax rate is, and who don't treat the electorate like a bunch of morons.

For the record: Jeff Merkley knows very well what a marginal tax rate is, and answered my question in a way that clearly indicated that he understood it and had given thought to the subject. He even gave a rationale for his answer. It's just that he gave a different answer than the one I was expecting.

Stephanie: And "tax fairness" is an issue that most "everyday people" will tell you they care passionately about.

I'm sorry, Stephanie, but that's simply not the case. According to recent polls, War in Iraq comes in #1, #2 is jobs, #3 Health care, #4 Immigration, #5 Environment, #6 Gas/Heating Oil prices, tied at #7 is Terrorism and Poverty/Homelessness. Tax fairness doesn't even make the list as a separate item.

This fits right in with corporate experience trying to get their employees to sign up for 401K plans. Even when they give matching bonuses that can add up to $10,000, people just won't sign up for them. They've recently asked for (and received) permission from the government to offer their 401Ks as opt-out. You explicitly have to ask NOT to be included to refuse to save for your retirement. That seems to be the only thing that works.

You are, of course, right that people's lives are at least somewhat affected by marginal tax rates, but it's damned near impossible to explain that to voters. That means it's one of those things a good pol shouldn't campaign on; he should just fix it when the time comes.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, even if Jeff isn't 100% on board with you, it's clear that he sees our current system as unfair, so he'll move the right way when that time comes. And, due to the fact that he gets things done, it's far more likely the movement you get toward tax fairness with him would be more than you'd get with Steve in the same position. For one very simple reason: promising to hold out for all or nothing often gets you nothing.

I think, like a beer party that gone on too long, we've tapped out here. I know you disagree, but hopefully when the voters make their choice, we can at least somewhat agree on who is the more effective campaigner.

Stephanie: And "tax fairness" is an issue that most "everyday people" will tell you they care passionately about.

I'm sorry, Stephanie, but that's simply not the case. According to recent polls, War in Iraq comes in #1, #2 is jobs, #3 Health care, #4 Immigration, #5 Environment, #6 Gas/Heating Oil prices, tied at #7 is Terrorism and Poverty/Homelessness. Tax fairness doesn't even make the list as a separate item.

This fits right in with corporate experience trying to get their employees to sign up for 401K plans. Even when they give matching bonuses that can add up to $10,000, people just won't sign up for them. They've recently asked for (and received) permission from the government to offer their 401Ks as opt-out. You explicitly have to ask NOT to be included to refuse to save for your retirement. That seems to be the only thing that works.

You are, of course, right that people's lives are at least somewhat affected by marginal tax rates, but it's damned near impossible to explain that to voters. That means it's one of those things a good pol shouldn't campaign on; he should just fix it when the time comes.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, even if Jeff isn't 100% on board with you, it's clear that he sees our current system as unfair, so he'll move the right way when that time comes. And, due to the fact that he gets things done, it's far more likely the movement you get toward tax fairness with him would be more than you'd get with Steve in the same position. For one very simple reason: promising to hold out for all or nothing often gets you nothing.

I think, like a beer party that gone on too long, we've tapped out here. I know you disagree, but hopefully when the voters make their choice, we can at least somewhat agree on who is the more effective campaigner.

Stephanie: And "tax fairness" is an issue that most "everyday people" will tell you they care passionately about.

I'm sorry, Stephanie, but that's simply not the case. According to recent polls, War in Iraq comes in #1, #2 is jobs, #3 Health care, #4 Immigration, #5 Environment, #6 Gas/Heating Oil prices, tied at #7 is Terrorism and Poverty/Homelessness. Tax fairness doesn't even make the list as a separate item.

This fits right in with corporate experience trying to get their employees to sign up for 401K plans. Even when they give matching bonuses that can add up to $10,000, people just won't sign up for them. They've recently asked for (and received) permission from the government to offer their 401Ks as opt-out. You explicitly have to ask NOT to be included to refuse to save for your retirement. That seems to be the only thing that works.

You are, of course, right that people's lives are at least somewhat affected by marginal tax rates, but it's damned near impossible to explain that to voters. That means it's one of those things a good pol shouldn't campaign on; he should just fix it when the time comes.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, even if Jeff isn't 100% on board with you, it's clear that he sees our current system as unfair, so he'll move the right way when that time comes. And, due to the fact that he gets things done, it's far more likely the movement you get toward tax fairness with him would be more than you'd get with Steve in the same position. For one very simple reason: promising to hold out for all or nothing often gets you nothing.

I think, like a beer party that gone on too long, we've tapped out here. I know you disagree, but hopefully when the voters make their choice, we can at least somewhat agree on who is the more effective campaigner.

Stephanie: And "tax fairness" is an issue that most "everyday people" will tell you they care passionately about.

I'm sorry, Stephanie, but that's simply not the case. According to recent polls, War in Iraq comes in #1, #2 is jobs, #3 Health care, #4 Immigration, #5 Environment, #6 Gas/Heating Oil prices, tied at #7 is Terrorism and Poverty/Homelessness. Tax fairness doesn't even make the list as a separate item.

This fits right in with corporate experience trying to get their employees to sign up for 401K plans. Even when they give matching bonuses that can add up to $10,000, people just won't sign up for them. They've recently asked for (and received) permission from the government to offer their 401Ks as opt-out. You explicitly have to ask NOT to be included to refuse to save for your retirement. That seems to be the only thing that works.

You are, of course, right that people's lives are at least somewhat affected by marginal tax rates, but it's damned near impossible to explain that to voters. That means it's one of those things a good pol shouldn't campaign on; he should just fix it when the time comes.

[comment continuation]

And, not to put too fine a point on it, even if Jeff isn't 100% on board with you, it's clear that he sees our current system as unfair, so he'll move the right way when that time comes. And, due to the fact that he gets things done, it's far more likely the movement you get toward tax fairness with him would be more than you'd get with Steve in the same position. For one very simple reason: promising to hold out for all or nothing often gets you nothing.

I think, like a beer party that gone on too long, we've tapped out here. I know you disagree, but hopefully when the voters make their choice, we can at least somewhat agree on who is the more effective campaigner.

Jeff didn't say ANYTHING to suggest to me that he'd support the kind of reform I'd like to see (or which you say he supports).

He didn't say, "... but of course I'd vote for it."

He didn't say, "it's not a top issue for me, but I support it."

He said, "I am comfortable with a reasonable" disparity in the rates, gave me a reason for that, and then declined to say anything more.

Why should I believe that he is on the right side of this issue, when I offered him a chance to tell me so, and he refused?

LT -- My GOD -- When I wrote a post about Novick's stance on health care, you demanded details, numbers, etc. Now, when Stephanie actually provides you with some details, some specificity, you can't deal. Perhaps you just want to pick on anybody pro-Novick?

And why is everybody talking about tax rates when Stephanie also wrote about gay marriage -- this is the place where we can figure out who is truly progressive. I dearly want a senator who will say that he/she will do everything they possibly can to overturn DOMA. Merkley wouldn't say it. Damn. Now I have to push even harder for Novick. And what with the holidays coming up....

In fairness, Kristin, if you go back and reread my diary, Merkley did say he advocated repeal of DOMA.

LT, I'm a lawyer. As to this question:

what matters more--agreement on issues or winning elections?

I would respond, as everyone is saying this year, "It's not just about more Democrats. It's about BETTER Democrats."

Stephanie,

Yeah, I saw that -- sorry to not be clear -- I guess what I read in your post was that he wanted to focus on Domestic Partnerships which indicates that would follow a different path than repealing DOMA. No matter what the states do, DOMA is the big kahuna when it comes to extending marriage benefits. It sounded like he would go down a road, nationally, that not one significant GLBT organization wants to go down, thus leading him away from actually doing something substantive and intentional to get rid of DOMA, besides maybe put a vote in were it on the floor.

He does think that DPs and CUs are the solution to the problem, and that we'll just have to sort out a way to deliver all the other benefits that would come automatically with marriage.

I'm grateful for his honesty. It was obvious what answers I wanted to hear but he did not pander to me. And again: he's a very nice man. Just more conservative than I want my new Senator to be.

My husband worked on Capitol Hill for 20+ years and loves Chuck Hagel! I used to give him grief about it but I have a lot of respect for Hagel, although I know we would disagree about many, many issues. I haven't formed a full opinion yet of Senator Webb, except that he's a huge improvement over George Allen for sure.

I do live in Portland and I'm well aware of my relatively privileged lifestyle. I feel I have a duty to advocate fair economic policies even when they are not to my advantage, and to campaign on behalf of others for civil rights that will never be denied to me. That's why I feel so strongly about tax fairness and marriage equality, and a number of other issues, and all of that leads me to my support for Steve Novick.

My husband worked on Capitol Hill for 20+ years and loves Chuck Hagel! I used to give him grief about it but I have a lot of respect for Hagel, although I know we would disagree about many, many issues. I haven't formed a full opinion yet of Senator Webb, except that he's a huge improvement over George Allen for sure.

I do live in Portland and I'm well aware of my relatively privileged lifestyle. I feel I have a duty to advocate fair economic policies even when they are not to my advantage, and to campaign on behalf of others for civil rights that will never be denied to me. That's why I feel so strongly about tax fairness and marriage equality, and a number of other issues, and all of that leads me to my support for Steve Novick.

My husband worked on Capitol Hill for 20+ years and loves Chuck Hagel! I used to give him grief about it but I have a lot of respect for Hagel, although I know we would disagree about many, many issues. I haven't formed a full opinion yet of Senator Webb, except that he's a huge improvement over George Allen for sure.

I do live in Portland and I'm well aware of my relatively privileged lifestyle. I feel I have a duty to advocate fair economic policies even when they are not to my advantage, and to campaign on behalf of others for civil rights that will never be denied to me. That's why I feel so strongly about tax fairness and marriage equality, and a number of other issues, and all of that leads me to my support for Steve Novick.

My husband worked on Capitol Hill for 20+ years and loves Chuck Hagel! I used to give him grief about it but I have a lot of respect for Hagel, although I know we would disagree about many, many issues. I haven't formed a full opinion yet of Senator Webb, except that he's a huge improvement over George Allen for sure.

I do live in Portland and I'm well aware of my relatively privileged lifestyle. I feel I have a duty to advocate fair economic policies even when they are not to my advantage, and to campaign on behalf of others for civil rights that will never be denied to me. That's why I feel so strongly about tax fairness and marriage equality, and a number of other issues, and all of that leads me to my support for Steve Novick.

My husband worked on Capitol Hill for 20+ years and loves Chuck Hagel! I used to give him grief about it but I have a lot of respect for Hagel, although I know we would disagree about many, many issues. I haven't formed a full opinion yet of Senator Webb, except that he's a huge improvement over George Allen for sure.

I do live in Portland and I'm well aware of my relatively privileged lifestyle. I feel I have a duty to advocate fair economic policies even when they are not to my advantage, and to campaign on behalf of others for civil rights that will never be denied to me. That's why I feel so strongly about tax fairness and marriage equality, and a number of other issues, and all of that leads me to my support for Steve Novick.

LT

It is really out of line for you to say that just because people live in Portland we don't think elections should be about all voters. Living in the mid-Willamette doesn't make you better or even more ordinary than people in Portland.

Also for reasons I do not understand, since you obviously are a very smart and highly experienced person, you seem unwilling to consider a key distinction.

We can identify issues & figure out why they matter in an intellectual sort of way. That's one problem. We can work out how to talkt about issues to reach people with varied backgrounds, amounts of time, other worreis etc. That's another problem.

To my mind they are separate issues, often two steps of a process. A thorough intellectual (wonkish, whatever) discussion may help to bring out many angles, from which the best for communicating can be chosen.

As you correctly point out, this is a blog, with a limited audience, and blogging in the way this one works is not doing the key kinds of politics. Why then should the standard for the blog always be what we would say to other parents in the PTA?

LT,

To continue in a less abstract way:

If you don't like the way other people are talking about things on this blog, give us examples of what to do, not just statements that we're wrong and endless stories about the people who won't understand us if we talk this way to them. I imagine very few of us actually contemplate doing that, btw.

You are smart. You are experienced. You claim to have superior access, insight and relationships to ordinary voters than most of the rest of us. OK. So what issues do you think the senate candidates should run on? What positions on them do you think would be winning ones?

Do you think taxing income that goes mostly to wealthy people at rates lower that regular working people's wages is just a bad issue, or anyway not that important? Or is your objection purely to the jargon being used here?

Because if it is the latter, I would politely like to suggest that it would be more productive to say -- great, here's an interesting issue, how could we talk about it to get it across, to make it work to beat Smith, and here's my suggestion, what do you think?

Personally and honestly I would learn much more from hearing ideas from you about how to do it right than I do from criticism of what's wrong with blogging prose.

Repealing of DOMA would be a great step, but ultimately it will require a SCOTUS ruling on a case that argues the DOMA and CUs are, like jim crow laws, unconstitutional because separate but equal is never equal and so a violation of the 14th and the FFL clause of Article IV, Section 1.

That is the only way it will ever settle the issue. Though timing of a case and who appoints the next seats on the bench are what will make or break it. Which is why next years election is vital.

FFL?

Ugh... FF&C

Don't post at 4 in the morning Mitch.

Stephanie,

I admire your advocation for the principle of tax fairness and I'm wondering where you came down on the patently regressive M50? Merkley supported it, which would seem to go to your point about his stance on tax fairness. But Novick supported it too, which would seem to undercut your stated preference from him on this issue.

Someone up-thread a hundred or so comments made the point about nuanced approaches to these issues. It seems to me that both Novick and Merkley have nuanced approaches to this particular issue which aren't nearly as black and white as you appear to see them.