Not being a Democratic partisan (as a long-time NAV), I'm curious how Novick's Democratic supporters square AuCoin's years of voting with Republicans on logging old-growth forests as well as his later years as a Timber Industry lobbyist with their criticism of Senators Schumer and Clinton.

It's all about defeating Gordon Smith. Les AuCoin is a very smart guy who has been immersed in Oregon politics for a long time. I've been waiting to see what he would do and I'm thrilled to see this endorsement.

Harry Lonsdale was the first statewide candidate I can think of who favored the environment over never ending logging, and his nearly successful campaign over Hatfield in 1990 probably was a contributing factor to the strength of the environmental movement in OR politics, especially in the Democratic party.

Didn't Lonsdale lose the Dem primary to AuCoin in 1992? And if memory serves correctly, after losing to Packwood in '92 didn't AuCoin go on to become a Timber Industry lobbyist for a couple years?

Onlurker Would you [Kevin] have criticized Aucoin's endorsement had it gone the other way?

I don't know about Kevin, but I would have been less surprised. Steve Novick is supposed to be the "movement" candidate in this race. Until now, no pragmatic compromises were acceptable. Remember the whole thrust of his critique of Jeff Merkeley with regards to the Praise The Troops (and Bush) resolution?

Now we have Stephanie saying that the reason why being endorsed by a pro chop-em-all-down Congressman is because it's "all about defeating Gordon Smith."

I happen to agree with that sentiment. I'll take a winning 90% Democrat any day over a 100% Democrat who goes on to lose to a 90% Bush Republican. But it's definitely news that Steve is now leading his supporters in this direction.

yet you think of yourself as "non-partisan"?

Do you know what NAV stands for?

Not being a Democratic partisan means simply that. One can be a partisan of a particular candidate without being a partisan for that candidate's political party.

For example, I was a big McCainiac in 2000 and not once did that lead to me defending his political party or wishing to join it. Far from it, I remained a harsh critic of the GOP even though I wanted McCain to win. In 2004 I was a big Deaniac (still am) and didn't therefore wish to become a Democrat or defend the Democratic Party.

Do you see how that works?

AuCoin's voting history is a matter of record. If my pointing out some of it offends you then perhaps politics isn't something that you're cut out for. Likewise, the fact that he went on to be a lobbyist for the Timber Industry is also a matter of record.

You may or may not be successful in painting me as a "partisan hack," but AuCoin's record will remain the same either way.

Just for the record, I don't consider Les AuCoin to be a "pro-chop-'em-all-down Congressman," but even if he approached that standard, I would still welcome his support and that of other non-100%-pure Democrats in electing Steve Novick to the US Senate (which necessarily involves winning the Democratic primary).

Hell, I'd even welcome Kevin's support, even if he can't vote in the primary. %^>

I'm quite confident that Steve has not made a secret deal with Les thart involves deforesting swaths of the state in order to secure his endorsement.

I would also echo what has been said earlier about the changes that have been wrought in the Oregon economy in the past 15-25 years.

Miles,

I personally am not an "AuCoin hater." Nor am I fan of his. Mark me down as agnostic.

Personally, I find the Leonard endorsement easily the biggest feather in Novick's cap. Sten to a lessor degree and the others are largely irrelevant due to the fact that almost nobody other than political junkies even know who they are. Which isn't meant to be a diss against them. I think it's just reality. But Leonard and Sten are politically useful endorsements for Novick, IMO.

Batman Endorses Robin in Boy Wonder Race

film at 11.

Actually I think it's just fine that AuCoin is endorsing an old friend and fellow traveller who is a frequent commenter on his blog.

He's been all over the map through the years and has supported Goldschmidt (during and after the breaking of "The Story"), opposed Harry Lonsdale in the '92 primary, (and as noted earlier put in some time for some big opponents of Barbara Roberts back in the day.

But hey, Rupert Murdoch is doing fundraisers for Hillary Clinton her hubby is breaking bread with Richard Mellon Scaife of Weekly Standard and NewsMax fame, and Dennis Kucinich came out last week saying that he'd be willing to team up with Ron Paul for the presidential bid, so I guess if you're in politics long enough, the whole Strange Bedfellows thing is pretty much inevitable.

It's probably news when someone of AuCoin's stature endorses a candidate, but here's a question: will this move even a single vote? Will Erik Sten's (Novick) or Sam Adams (Merkley)? What about Ted Kulongoski (Merkley)? If Kitzhaber endorsed one, would even that affect any votes? Perhaps in the aggregate these things matter, and perhaps organizations matter (unions particularly), but while I'm interested to hear about these endorsements informationally, I think the political advantage is nil.

Just for the record, I don't consider Les AuCoin to be a "pro-chop-'em-all-down Congressman," but even if he approached that standard, I would still welcome his support and that of other non-100%-pure Democrats in electing Steve Novick to the US Senate (which necessarily involves winning the Democratic primary).

I didn't know that Novick supporters accepted anything less than 100%. How can you support the DSCC bashing if that is your position?

Additionally, I have a post up on Forward Oregon about the endorsement battle.

I share Kari Chisholm's high opinion of Les AuCoin:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/05/smith_08_les_au.html Smith '08: Les AuCoin is out. Kari Chisholm A couple of times in recent days (both on this blog and in person), people have mentioned the idea of asking former Congressman Les AuCoin to run for the Senate against Gordon Smith. After all, he's a former nine-term Congressman - and he's run for the Senate once before (in 1992, losing to Bob Packwood). His record of policy accomplishments is strong and deep. He continues to be an active contributor to the public dialogue - both on his own blog and here at BlueOregon. Les, however, isn't interested in another run for the U.S. Senate. He's authorized me to post here what he told me last month when I asked him about it. He said, paraphrasing from memory, that he's perfectly happy blogging about politics, working on a novel, and splitting his time between his homes in Oregon and Montana - and that it's time for others to take up the charge. In my conversation with him, Les was actually surprised that I would suggest that he oughta run for the US Senate again. Personally, I think he'd make a great candidate and a great Senator. But, like all the great heroes of the American West, he knows when it's time to ride off into the sunset. (But keep on blogging about it, Les.)

Accepting the support of non100% dems and being angry that the DSCC is getting involved in a contested primary are two completely different things.

The DSCC is welcome to get involved in defeating Gordon Smith. They can do commercials, ads, whatever about Smith and the truth behind his record. They can do research. They can raise funds to be given to the nominee. But what they shouldn't do is get involved in a primary race where we have two really great candidates. When they get behind a candidate, it makes that candidate appear to be the party chosen candidate.

It makes it appear that the other candidates must not be viable, must not be serious candidates, must not have a shot at winning, etc. It doesn't matter what the truth is - it's all about perception. And the average Dem who isn't heavily involved in politics would be more likely to believe that support from the Democratic Senate Committee means the party is supporting that candidate and they should too.

When I run for city council next year, I'll be happy to get endorsements and support from people I don't agree with 100% of the time. That helps show I have a broad base and that those people believe I'll do the best I can for the city, even if they don't necessarily agree with me about what that is. But that doesn't mean I'd compromise my beliefs or my stances just to get that support. And it doesn't mean Steve will either.

Since I know someone will say something about there being no disclaimers from me anymore... My part on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site is done, which means I'm just a supporter of Steve's, not a paid worker. Which means of course I only speak for me and not the campaign.

I share Kari Chisholm's high opinion of Les AuCoin:

I do have a very high opinion of Les AuCoin. It's quite the coup for the Novick campaign to have landed his support.

Do I agree with every position that Les AuCoin has ever taken in his 18 years in Congress and the 15 years since? Surely not. Do I expect Steve Novick to agree with every position that Les AuCoin has ever taken in his 18 years in Congress and the 15 years since? Surely not.

By the same token, I don't expect Jeff Merkley to agree with every position ever taken by every one of his endorsers.

Remember, it's Les AuCoin endorsing Steve Novick - not the other way around.

So - when Jon Tester and Chuck Schumer and Ted Kulongoski endorse Jeff Merkley for the U.S. Senate, I hope we can all remember that. Jeff Merkley isn't responsible for everything that those three men have ever said or done -- just like Steve isn't responsible for everything Les AuCoin has ever said or done... whether positive or negative.

And oh yeah... I built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak here only for myself.

Kari:

Well put.

"will this move even a single vote?"

Was it intended to, directly? Like the Kulo/Roberts endorsement early on, I think the intent is to move dollars and insider opinion, not so much voters. As you say, and as Pew noted in survey results recently, few voters are swayed by an endorsement. But it matters inside donor circles--particularly in a situation where the establishment has mostly lined up on one side, and someone prominent comes out to suggest that it's OK to buck the system and back a different person.

Oh, and Kari: Jon Tester and Chuck Schumer aren't just anybody; they're active members of the club Merkley and Novick want to join. I don't think it will affect his cmte assignments or future fundraising help if Novick goes against AuCoin's wishes while in the Senate, I imagine.

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 3, 2007 5:36:00 PM It's not that bad with Chuck Schumer endorsing Jeff Merkley which suggests that Schumer figures that Merkley will be a team player with the DLC, but it causes me to have strong reservations about voting for Merkley.

Chuck Schumer is the head of the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) but has never been a member of, or affiliated with the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) though it's worth noting that David Wu and Darlene Hooley are. You can criticize Schumer if you like, (and on some issues or actions he has done, I would agree that criticism is warranted).

Not sure where you get the idea Schumer is part of the DLC.

bdunn, this putting words in the mouths of Novick supporters is juvenile and getting old. If you're going to take anyone to task, do it on real issues.

And Kari,

I agree wholeheartedly. I support Steve Novick for the United States Senate. Does that mean I support everything Steve supports? No. We differ on several issues. For instance, Steve wants Jackson to be replaced on the Ten by Sitting Bull. I think it should be Langston Hughes.

Just because you support someone doesn't mean you agree with that person 100% of the time. That's what leads to detrimental, partisan politics.

along with moving the money, as TJ points out, the main thing that Merkley's endorsements does is re-inforce his creds as the name candidate. next April & May, when the people who are not paying attention now (the vast majority of Dem voters) start reading the Voters Pamphlet and other campaign materials, they'll see all the "big" Dems behind Merkley and that will indeed gain him votes galore. name recognition was always going to be Novick's biggest hurdle. the more endorsement Merkley piles up, the higher that hurdle becomes.

if he did not get these endorsements, the legitimacy of his candidacy would be severely undermined. but he's getting them. and that just makes him stronger.

ta, help--who is "he" in that last paragraph?

Go Steve! And thanks Les.

Perhaps in the aggregate these things matter, and perhaps organizations matter (unions particularly), but while I'm interested to hear about these endorsements informationally, I think the political advantage is nil.

I disagree. Endorsements matter - especially in primary races. In general elections, ~90% of voters will vote for the nominee of their favored party. But for that last 10% - and for most voters in a primary - they look to cues that separate the crackpots from the serious candidates.

Endorsements are much more important to Steve than to Jeff. After all, Jeff is the Speaker of the House. People know that's a serious job. But Steve's resume? Harder to decrypt for the totally uneducated voter. That's why those endorsements are critical for him.

Today was a good day in Novick Land.

Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Dec 3, 2007 8:25:32 PM

Dude chill out. I took a quote and asked a very legitimate question. Unlike your previous assertions at LO AuCoin was opposed by rural Democrats, conservationists, and most notably Vicky Walker when he was denied appointment to the State Board of Forestry. Furthermore, I don't see how Novick supporters can claim with a straight face that bashing on the DSCC with claims that Merkley must cave to Schumers' positions is different than getting in bed with someone who was in the less than a friend to the environment during his time in office. The only differences I see are that one is going to be much more useful, and you don't hear the other side whining about not being the favorite.

I don't see how Novick supporters can claim with a straight face that bashing on the DSCC with claims that Merkley must cave to Schumers' positions

I don't either, because I don't think any of them have claimed it with any sort of face, straight or otherwise. If you believe otherwise, present it. Your record on substantiation.

But I'll humor you with a question in response: what specific ways does AuCoin have to pressure Novick to do what he wants once Novick is in office? Now ask the same question of Merkley and Schumer. Compare the piles.

The last sentence of the 2nd para should say "Your record on substantiation [like my record on sentence fragments] is poor."

Well, Bradley,

I see Steve reconciling his positions (and proven record) on environmental issues with his AuCoin endorsement much more effectively than Merkley reconciling his Schumer support, while he denounces an AG appointment that Schumer voted for.

Who's really going to have more 'splaining to do?

One more time: When some Famous Person endorses a Candidate, it's the Famous Person supporting the Candidate - not the other way around.

Just because Chuck Schumer supports Jeff Merkley doesn't mean that Merkley support everything that Schumer supports. Same for AuCoin and Novick.

For example, in his role as a protector of the New York economy, Senator Schumer has defended the absurd tax treatment of private equity fund managers. Jeff Merkley has the opposition position. From his liveblog Q&A:

In addition to closing the corporate loopholes, those who make their living managing private equity funds, who are currently allowed to pay taxes on their salaries at a low capital gains rate, should pay the same rate as the rest of us.

Now ask the same question of Merkley and Schumer. Compare the piles.

This illustrates what certain Novick internet supporter's strategy is here. As a friend of mine recently put it, "same wall, different shit."

Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin. These Novick supporters know this as well as anyone. Indeed several of them were participants in the Merkley Q & A that Kari refers to above, including the one I just quoted. But the thing about inconvenient truths is that they are inconvenient for those more interested in hoisting shit on a wall to see what might stick.

Yes. And perhaps equally relevantly, AuCoin is not a member of the Senate and has no future ability to influence Senate votes. Schumer is a member of the Democratic leadership and has some power over the career options of a new Senator.

In other breaking news:

Gordon Smith announced today at a press event with several prominent fascists, multinational corporations, and drug companies to announce Big Evil's endorsement of Smith's reelection and his policies in the Senate.

Who's ready to party?!

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 3, 2007 7:04:32 PM Lestadelc, thanks for the link to the DLC. Schumer may not officially be a member of the DLC, but for most practical purposes he may as well be.

What nonsense. There are certainly some votes and positions he has taken I disagree with, but he is not a DLC officially or otherwise. Unless you foolishly equate any Democratic elected Senator who is in leadership as being the same thing as being in the DLC.

Posted by: LT | Dec 4, 2007 10:09:39 AM I was just telling a friend that this primary leaves me cold: too little debate on issues

Well in a way that is a sort of a good thing since both the Democratic candidates are rock-solid on the issues and are both decidedly progressive. There is not a really big difference on issues between Novick and Merkely. They are both great on policy and both would make outstanding Senators. In a perfect world we could give one of them to our neighbor to the North as a replacement for Maria Cantwell (who actually is a member fo the DLC) and thereby getting more and better Demcorats in the Senate.

Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin.

While I'm pleased with the endorsement, I think there's a very measurable difference in terms of "institutional support" between Chuck Schumer & Les AuCoin.

Schumer is the Chair of the DSCC. They've already spent just shy of $100,000 in an effort to help Merkley win the Primary. While I think that DSCC involvement is quite appropriate in General Elections, I (again) take issue with their involvement in the Primary.

The number of donor organizations increases in a General Election, so any one organization's pull with a successful candidate is weaker in a General Election. In a Primary Election, however, when fewer people are paying attention, an organization like the DSCC can play a critical (and overly influential) role.

"Of course Merkley wouldn't necessarily be any more beholden to Schumer than Novick would be to AuCoin. "

Of course? In what way would Novick's career as a Senator be directly affected by what Les AuCoin thinks? Now compare that to going against one of the senior members and leaders of the Democratic Senate caucus--particularly speaking, the one who paid for you to get there. If you think quid pro quo isn't the most important Latin phrase in politics, you may need to take a refresher in how Congress works.

Yes Debate the issues...wait, don't we need to get both candidates in the same room for that?

"Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 4, 2007 3:30:17 AM

I was just telling a friend that this primary leaves me cold: too little debate on issues and too much of what seems one group of insiders battling another group of insiders. "

I'm pretty sure that Novick is ready and waiting for a debate, any time Merkley comes to realize he's running against Novick and not Smith.

Kari Chisholm | Dec 4, 2007 3:30:17 AM

Dude, What're you doing posting at 3:30 AM.

Even with a new baby, that's just Sick and Wrong.

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 4, 2007 12:37:23 PM

LT posted what quote, not Kari.

ugh:

"...that quote..." not "...what quote..."

"LT posted what quote, not Kari."

But Kari was the one who said it, no?

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 4, 2007 1:20:13 PM But Kari was the one who said it, no?

No. LT made the comment about the debate leaving him cold.

Of course?

Yes. Of course.

Does that necessarily mean that there is zero chance that he'd be beholden? Of course not. Nor does the fact that AuCoin isn't a member of the Senate leadership necessarily mean that there is zero chance that Novick might be beholden to him (and whatever his agenda may be) for having endorsed him.

Both candidates obviously have a great deal of motivation for being grateful to whomever helps their respective campaigns. If AuCoin's endorsement arguably proved to be the difference in Novick's favor then he would quite literally owe some sort of debt to AuCoin, even if that were only a debt of gratitude. The same goes for Merkley and whomever helps him. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that either candidate will therefore be beholden in such a way as to make them pliable, which is clearly the point of your inuendo.

Now... to follow your inuendo to it's logical conclussion we would have to conclude that, lacking any evidence whatsoever, Merkley would be so besotted with gratitude that he would do whatever Schumer wanted.

In fact, Kari has submitted one piece of evidence which directly contradicts your inuendo. Worse (for you), you were a participant in the Merkley Q & A and have no excuse for not having been aware that Merkley took a very different stand on that issue from that of Schumer.

I respectfully submit that you are doing Novick more harm than good with such ill-conceived inuendo campaigns.

Think about it...

any time Merkley comes to realize he's running against Novick and not Smith.

Actually, TJ every candidate is ultimately running to win their target office.

Every candidate will spend the effort and money necessary to surmount whatever and whoever presents serious obstacles to that goal.

If the primary goes well for Merkley, he'll "realize" who his opponent is around mid-May of '08.

That's how it always works, isn't it?

Pat Ryan: [Kari] What're you doing posting at 3:30 AM. Even with a new baby, that's just Sick and Wrong.

More like colicy, I'd day.

I've been there, man.

By the way, belated congratulations Kari.

Chuck Schumer is the head of the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) but has never been a member of, or affiliated with the DLC

Schumer may not be a member of the DLC, but he's certainly aligned with people like Hillary Clinton who are in the DLC leadership. There hasn't been a Democratic general election ticket since 1988 where both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates weren't members of the DLC/New Democrat clique: Clinton/Gore, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards. The DSCC is going to recruit people they think are going to click with that type of leadership.

That certainly doesn't mean that everyone Schumer is recruiting is of the same mold, but there's no reason to think that he's not trying to find people who will go along with the program.

Just for the record, I looked Les up in wikipedia and learned that he won the Distinguished Service Award from the Sierra Club in 1985 for his work in doubling Oregon wilderness lands. A search on the Sierra Club website confirms this.

So I guess he didn't really advocate chopping them ALL down. But you knew that. %^>

"No. LT made the comment about the debate leaving him cold."

But "him" is Kari, right? (LT is female). Otherwise, what is she quoting him on?

"Actually, TJ every candidate is ultimately running to win their target office."

Key word "ultimately."

It's not ultimate time now; it's penultimate time, if you will.

If he doesn't realize who his opponent is, by mid-May all Merkley will be doing is wondering if Jeff Smith will let him have his seat back.

Stephanie,

1. Of course not.
2. Yes I did.

Likewise, not everything that Schumer (who hasn't even "endorsed" Merkley) has done is objectionable. N'est pas?

"Now... to follow your inuendo to it's logical conclussion we would have to conclude that, lacking any evidence whatsoever, Merkley would be so besotted with gratitude that he would do whatever Schumer wanted."

If it's innuendo I apologize. I meant to directly point out that the chances Merkley will find himself bending and compromising to what Schumer wants, are a lot higher than Novick bending and compromising to what AuCoin wants. I think for most people it goes without saying, since AuCoin has no power in the Senate and Schumer is loaded with it.

You can try to follow that to its logical conclusion all you want; that doesn't mean anyone would bother. If you'd like to posit that Merkley will do whatever Schumer wants, fine. I personally said nothing of the sort. What I said was on the potential-for-influence scale, comparing Schumer to AuCoin is no contest.

"I respectfully submit that you are doing Novick more harm than good with such ill-conceived inuendo campaigns."

Buddy, you blew away any attempt to be respectful to me weeks ago. But I do continue to be amused at your tenacious defense of made-up conspiracy theories, such as that I'm conducting a Novick "innuendo campaign" rather than stating fairly obvious concepts about the influence of money on politics.

"Schumer (who hasn't even "endorsed" Merkley)"

He hasn't endorsed him, but you'd be a fool to deny he'd "endorsed" him. 93K will tend to lend that impression.

He hasn't endorsed him, but you'd be a fool to deny he'd "endorsed" him.

ROFL

Torrid, I do believe that you could have taught Bill Clinton a thing or two about parsing what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Kevin,

I understand that we are doomed to disagree forever about the wisdom of Jeff Merkley's HR2 vote, but can't we both acknowledge that Chuck Schumer has expressed his and the DSCC's support of Jeff Merkley in a very tangible way, and with three times the enthusiasm they have shown in any other race? I mean, they have even called out Merkley's name in the DSCC's fundraising emails.

I'm serious here.

LT, I am not a part of Steve Novick's campaign, except as a supporter and volunteer.

While I sincerely regret that you dislike me, I don't really understand why you would hold that against Steve.

"How can any big D Democrat have much of a problem with Chuck Shumer?"

Mukasey?

Posted by: darrelplant | Dec 4, 2007 6:03:06 PM Schumer may not be a member of the DLC, but he's certainly aligned with people like Hillary Clinton who are in the DLC leadership.

How so?

There is nothing in his history that makes him aligned with the DLC unless you buy into the false notion that any Democratic Senator in leadership is automatically aligned with the DLC, which is simply not accurate.

So by your logic, is everyone who supports Edwards aligned with the DLC?

What about everyone who supports Wu, or Hooley.. they are automatically aligned with the DLC even if they are not part of the DLC?

"There is nothing in his history that makes him aligned with the DLC"

for what it's worth, he does have a column published in their newsletter...

Stephanie, if you are living in Oregon, might I suggest you turn your energies towards active campaigning for Steve rather than blogging?

LT, thank you for the advice, but since you're not even sure where I live (Portland, thanks for asking), I think you don't know what else I'm doing, do you? Commenting on BlueO hardly saps my "energies."

Or are you just trying to tell me in a not-very-subtle way to shut up?

But "him" is Kari, right? (LT is female). Otherwise, what is she quoting him on?

For the record, I didn't say a damn thing about the debate leaving me cold.... And people think LT is a guy all the time.

Is it really that hard to go upthread and read what I actually wrote? LT made a confusing comment - get over it.

Could we say that Schumer has not endorsed Merkley, but has endorsed the checks to him?

That said, if Steve wins the primary a) he's going to have to work with the DSCC and will end up being somewhat "beholden" to Schumer if he's to beat Smith and b) either one of them is going to be a very junior senator who will need to go along to get along with leadership on a lot of things in order to get into positions to have more freedom of action later. Either will pick a few issues on which to try to make their mark. Both I think also have the political smarts not to go out of their way to alienate other senators just for the heck of it.

The DLC is fairly complicated at this point. The politics that brought it into being -- fighting against the democratization of the party that occurred in the early 1970s and to restore what they saw as leadership prerogatives, which corresponded more or less in their rhetoric with labels of "liberal" and "moderate," emerging substantially out of Democrats for Nixon -- don't really exist anymore. Even their 1990s politics that morphed into self-congratulatory New Democrat self-labelling and very nasty trashing of others, & me-tooing Republicans that led to R takeover of the House & then the whole congress pretty much is gone. I think you will find Al Fromm and other non-elected DLC people still using the New Democrat label internally but it's much in elected's public self-portrayals than it used to be, and even rarer in relationships with one another as an attack mode. Even in 2000, though Gore came out of DLC background, he was not running on the kind of platform he did in 1988 and brought into the DLC. Lieberman was ideological ticket-balancing. In one way that was a measure of the DLC's success; in another it reflected their having passed their peak of ideological discipline. Once many people felt constrained to associate themselves, formally, or informally like Schumer and Obama, it meant that the DLC to a degree became a terrain of debate. If Schumer writes a column, does it just parrot old-style DLC rhetoric? Or does it bring in ideas that would have been anathema to DLC orthodoxy in 1990?

I look to two things: whether someone trashes other Democrats for being "too liberal," and specific issue positions. With Schumer, I suspect his associations with the DLC run along two lines. Presumably anybody in leadership feels a degree of need to be in contact with various organized bodies of elected officials and party officials, and perhaps an attraction to DLC views on leadership perquisites just by virtue of being in leadership. Also, the DLC is one site, not the only one, but perhaps the most hawkish one, of organized pro-Israel relationships within the DP, and I'd guess that's a piece of Schumer's interest in them.

Schumer -- like most of the DLC members of the Senate -- supported the Iraq AUMF.

Schumer supports the Bush administration's use of torture.

There's this:

Sources said Schumer has agreed to Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Harry Reid's request that he stay on as head of the Democratic campaign committee for another two years, partly to counter the growing influence of liberals like Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Reid and other party bosses believe Schumer's middle-of-the-road strategy in recruiting a fistful of moderate candidates to knock off GOP incumbents in red states is the only way for Democrats to hold onto or increase their power

Because you just know how ultra-liberal Pelosi is.

Schumer's on the Board of Advisors of a neo-con think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

In late 2007, FDD listed its three-member Board of Directors as Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who passed away in 2006. FDD's four "distinguished advisers" were Newt Gingrich, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Louis J. Freeh (former FBI director), and James Woolsey. Members of FDD's Board of Advisers Gary Bauer, Donna Brazile (an Al Gore presidential campaign adviser), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Frank Gaffney (head of the Center for Security Policy), Marc Ginsberg (a former ambassador to Morocco), Charles Jacobs (head of American Anti-Slavery Group), Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, former Colorado Gov. Richard D. Lamm, Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA), former Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA), Richard Perle, Steven Pomerantz and Oliver Revell (both former FBI officials), and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Schumer didn't use the DSCC to support Ned Lamont in Connecticut -- even after he won the nomination against former DLC chair Joe Lieberman -- until he was shamed into it. And that only happened after Schumer would not rule out supporting Lieberman's bid to run as an independent against Lamont, the elected Democratic candidate.

I don't know, is that enough?

Now that we have a contest going to test the mettle of the candidates and their supporters it is being labeled "bickering," "infighting" or something synonymous.

I still believe a hard-fought primary campaign is a good thing for everyone involved.

But when the campaign devolves to silliness over a misspelled word in a press release, that is ridiculous bickering - not meaningful substantive debate.

Daniel Spiro: So AuCoin endorses Novick and how does Blue Oregon react? Mostly, by squabbling. Pretty sad.

Wow Daniel, that's a pretty high pedestal you've put yourself on. If the air isn't too rare up there, could you please explain exactly what is "sad" about Democrats debating a nomination? Exactly when should they debate it?

If you are a progressive, and not a Republicrat, it shouldn't matter what state you live in: Novick is your man.

Like Yurtle the Turtle, you've obviously fallen off your pedestal way down into the mud. Anybody who splits the Democratic party into True Believers ("progressives") and Consorts Of Satan ("republocrats") has no business complaining about anyone's squabbling, especially when they declare their candidate to be the only true candidate of the chosen people.

Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 4, 2007 10:20:10 PM for what it's worth, he does have a column published in their newsletter...

What newsletter is that? He doesn't have any colmun in the New Dem Dispatch, the DLC's newletter online, from November 2007 going back to 1996.

"What newsletter is that?"

Blueprint Magazine.

Sorry, "newsletter" probably wasn't the right word.

And Kari--have a Ricola or something, buddy. It WAS a confusing comment. I was trying to clarify who said it, because the way it was written, it looked like you did. And then when Mitch said "he," I didn't know what to think ebcause I know LT is female. It didn't say what thread it came from, so I didn't "look upthread" because I had no context to suggest that's where it was from (although it was in this thread, it seemed like an aside to LT's singular position on how primaries should go.) Jiminy Christmas--I was attempting to clear up the confusion. !!

As usual, when you were "attempting to clear up the confusion", you just made it worse. Especially funny that LT noted exactly the date and time of the comment she was making note of... which was exactly four comments above hers. Not exactly nuclear physics.

Personally, I prefer linking and blockquoting - but we've got a bunch of commenters here who would rather just copy/paste the "posted by" line.

Whatever.

LT the College Democrats of Western Oregon University have scheduled a debate for April 30th at Western Oregon University. So far Candy Neville has confirmed. Nothing yet from Team Merkley or Team Novick. We're hoping they'll get back to us soon.

Also we have scheduled for a SOS Debate for the Democratic candidates and also awaiting their replies.

The College Democrats and Students for Ron Paul are also attempting to organize a debate between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (Since we have heard that Dennis would like to come back to WOU)

There will be Debates during this primary! As Jesse Jackson said, "healthy competition should make us better, not bitter." The WOU College Democrats are committed to making sure that students of the mid-Willamette valley have the opportunity to see the candidates on the same stage.

We hope you'll stop on by for them.

Yeah, Pat... We had a LOT of fun with that. First, there's a difference between a press release and a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar mailer. And second, FUN is all we had with it.

Joking around and having a good laugh are a far cry from suggesting, as some people did, that when Jeff Merkley's press aide misspells a word that that somehow suggests a lack of international relations gravitas on the part of the candidate. People were trying to turn it into a major campaign issue, which is stupid.

Darrel, thanks for the pointers.

Bill Bodden, your scenario might well be possible, but note that you are still agreeing that it will be hard for Novick to win without the backing. I'm skeptical that the party leadership is more concerned about not having another liberal than about about the possibility of flipping a seat in the Senate though.

What makes you think the DPO wouldn't support Novick if he wins the primary?

Oh, and what endorsements are good for? Well, if they get you some news coverage and building name recognition is something you need to do, that seems valuable.

It's fascinating to watch the discussion about Les AuCoin. I don't have much to say about it except that I too liked what he said in endorsing Steve.

So in summary, Jeff Merkley is evil because he's being supported by the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, the chairman of which is a Senate Democrat, which isn't bad, but he once wrote an article criticizing President Bush, which also isn't bad, but he had it published in Blueprint Magazine, which is read by Democrats that aren't as progressive as we'd like them to be. Which is bad.

Meanwhile, Steve Novick is a 100% pure as snow Democrat, and it's especially good news that he's being endorsed by a former Congressmen and timber industry lobbyist. Remember, it's all about winning!

Yup, yup. I see the difference clearly. ;-)

you will appreciate my lack of trust in the major parties

Bill,

I think that it's worth considering that a huge number of the aforementioned "activists" share your distrust, and we've been working for the past several years to get the grassroots a stronger voice at both state and national vs the Money Guys.

Admittedly mixed results so far, but I'd argue that the very top of the DPO and the DNC are occupied by people that are a hell of a lot closer to the grassroots than their immediate predecessors.

That said, I agree that vigilance is always in order.

I am pretty sure that no one has ever said that Jeff was evil, or even bad.

I think he'd be a vey good Senator and a huge improvement over Gordon Smith. I just think Steve would be better.

I think that Pat is correct. And yes, that IS very good news.

Daniel, in all seriousness, I don't ridicule things unless they're ridiculous. In one message you simultaneously declared it "sad" that Democrats were disagreeing and then went on to use one of the cheapest shots in this whole thread.

The truth is that I'm not surprised at all by the tone I'm seeing here. There's an old political maxim that goes "The smaller the difference, the more vicious the contest", and this is a perfect example. Because Steve and Jeff are strikingly similar politically, they don't have any easy way to distinguish themselves. So both their supporters are resorting to cheap distortions and strained intimations about peripheral political associations that might have some. It's especially bad from Steve's fan club because at least Jeff has his stellar record of Speaker of the Oregon House to fall back on as a real positive differentiator.

But I'm really unconcerned at this point about the primary battle spilling over into so much bad blood that this will affect the general. As you said and I agree, both these candidates would be excellent progressive voices in the U.S. Senate, people who would make Oregon proud. I am planning to vote for the winner of the primary, period. And nearly every other progressive Oregonian and likely most centrist Democrats will too.

So let these two guys duke it out. Let's debate the issues (at least who is more electable is something we can disagree on), and when all is said and done, we'll rally around who Democratic voters in the State choose.

"The truth is that I'm not surprised at all by the tone I'm seeing here. There's an old political maxim that goes "The smaller the difference, the more vicious the contest", and this is a perfect example."

What utter bullshit. Do you even KNOW what a nasty campaign really looks like? While I think it's extremely unfortunate, unprofessional and pretty hypocritical given the circumstances, the worst thing that's happened in this race is Greenlick and Nolan personally insulting Novick, with the blessings of the campaign. That's pretty darn mild compared to, say, last years CA primary, or even our own Gov primary IMO. (Jim Hill did not spare too many words in his estimation of Ted).

Yeah TJ,

This is Oregon after all.

We define nasty campaigns down as we do a lot of other things here. Two examples:

Corruption: In Oregon it usually consists of improper cellphone use or driving the assigned gummint vehicle on the wrong trip. We've got a ways to go to match routine corruption on other states.

Wealth: The general tendency among wealthy Oregonians is to buy their fleece vests at REI instead of GI Joes, and to drive Priuses instead of Civics.

There is a rumor out there, that Steve Novick recently threw a Snickers wrapper directly into the trash rather than recycling.......

"There is a rumor out there, that Steve Novick recently threw a Snickers wrapper directly into the trash rather than recycling......."

Smear! Smear! Attaaaaaaack!

:)

While Mitch Greenlick is welcome to defend Jeff Merkley and attack Steve Novick, he's not at liberty to make up his own facts. Greenlick claimed that "Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech," and yet Jeff didn't even mention Bush in that supposedly "anti-war" floor speech. "I am not today convinced" is hardly a ringing denunciation of an illegal war.

Greenlick was quoted in the Oregonian as saying: "Democrats don't like negative campaigning," and then proceeded to put on a virtuoso display of that much-maligned art.

First he went after Steve claiming: "Steve Novick went on the attack against Jeff Merkley [...] He launched the same attack in an appearance on "Outlook Portland [...] Novick used these occasions to smear [...] an effort that serves only his selfish personal agenda. [...] he based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party [...] Attacking Jeff for his vote is the equivalent of attacking us ... [Jeff] doesn't engage in petty backbiting of the kind Novick is all too willing to embrace."

And that's just what Mitch had to say in his Merkley-campaign-approved "open letter." God only knows what he's been saying behind Steve's back.

It's easy, cheap, and convenient to claim that Steve's point is a Republican talking point, but it's false. If Jeff wins the primary the Republicans will use that vote to blur the distinctions between him and Smith, to claim that they were BOTH in favor of the war originally, and then BOTH changed their minds later, exactly the same. This is not only false, and a slander on Jeff, it is very different from my point, and from Steve's point. My point is that this vote is a symptom of a tendency to walk into Republican traps, instead of calling them out -- to get rolled on votes that are set up by the Republicans to trap Democrats into voting for really bad things lest their patriotism be questioned. Kevin and others have said that they do not view the vote in this way - that they view it as a principled assertion of support for the troops at a tough time. So we can disagree about that, but I am certainly not promulgating the Republicans' talking point.

The thng that Steve said at the Oregon Summit, and on Outlook Portland, and that seems to have made so many people so angry, was the matter-of-fact assertion that Merkley will have handed the Republicans that slanderous false issue I referred to above. Like it or not, this is true. If nothing else, this is a major strategic disadvantage for Merkley in a general election campaign, and wishing otherwise does not make it so.

Steve has never claimed -- nor have any of his supporters to my knowledge -- that Jeff really supported the war. On the contrary, we know that he opposed it. We are disappointed and angry that he would vote for that war resolution for what we view as bad and insufficient reasons. In our view he should have voted no and used his floor speech to praise the troops' courage and talk about why the invasion was unncessary and premature.

Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom or courage of Jeff's vote on HR2.

However, reasonable people cannot dispute the reality that the Republicans, if given a chance, will use it against him.

I asked Steve and he told me that he did not even know about the HR2 vote until the day Merkley announced and (having been fed this issue by Smith's staff) reporters asked Steve about it. Steve replied honestly that we would not have caught him voting for HR2, and I think that (no matter how we feel about Jeff's vote) we generally believe him. I know I do.

The Republicans found this issue themselves. They don't need our help. It is now up to us as Democrats to decide how we will address it. If we want to beat Gordon Smith - which is the main event, after all - we need to decide which candidate would present a stronger opponent to him. Even without the HR2 vote, I think it's Steve. Others clearly think it's still Jeff. That's what primary elections are for. But we can't bury our heads in the sand and just keep repeating to ourselves that HR2 doesn't matter. Smith and his henchmen are going to MAKE IT MATTER. We can't wish it away.

While Mitch Greenlick is welcome to defend Jeff Merkley and attack Steve Novick, he's not at liberty to make up his own facts. Greenlick claimed that "Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech," and yet Jeff didn't even mention Bush in that supposedly "anti-war" floor speech. "I am not today convinced" is hardly a ringing denunciation of an illegal war.

Greenlick was quoted in the Oregonian as saying: "Democrats don't like negative campaigning," and then proceeded to put on a virtuoso display of that much-maligned art.

First he went after Steve claiming: "Steve Novick went on the attack against Jeff Merkley [...] He launched the same attack in an appearance on "Outlook Portland [...] Novick used these occasions to smear [...] an effort that serves only his selfish personal agenda. [...] he based his entire attack on talking points sent out by the Oregon Republican Party [...] Attacking Jeff for his vote is the equivalent of attacking us ... [Jeff] doesn't engage in petty backbiting of the kind Novick is all too willing to embrace."

And that's just what Mitch had to say in his Merkley-campaign-approved "open letter." God only knows what he's been saying behind Steve's back.

It's easy, cheap, and convenient to claim that Steve's point is a Republican talking point, but it's false. If Jeff wins the primary the Republicans will use that vote to blur the distinctions between him and Smith, to claim that they were BOTH in favor of the war originally, and then BOTH changed their minds later, exactly the same. This is not only false, and a slander on Jeff, it is very different from my point, and from Steve's point. My point is that this vote is a symptom of a tendency to walk into Republican traps, instead of calling them out -- to get rolled on votes that are set up by the Republicans to trap Democrats into voting for really bad things lest their patriotism be questioned. Kevin and others have said that they do not view the vote in this way - that they view it as a principled assertion of support for the troops at a tough time. So we can disagree about that, but I am certainly not promulgating the Republicans' talking point.

The thng that Steve said at the Oregon Summit, and on Outlook Portland, and that seems to have made so many people so angry, was the matter-of-fact assertion that Merkley will have handed the Republicans that slanderous false issue I referred to above. Like it or not, this is true. If nothing else, this is a major strategic disadvantage for Merkley in a general election campaign, and wishing otherwise does not make it so.

Steve has never claimed -- nor have any of his supporters to my knowledge -- that Jeff really supported the war. On the contrary, we know that he opposed it. We are disappointed and angry that he would vote for that war resolution for what we view as bad and insufficient reasons. In our view he should have voted no and used his floor speech to praise the troops' courage and talk about why the invasion was unncessary and premature.

Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom or courage of Jeff's vote on HR2.

However, reasonable people cannot dispute the reality that the Republicans, if given a chance, will use it against him.

I asked Steve and he told me that he did not even know about the HR2 vote until the day Merkley announced and (having been fed this issue by Smith's staff) reporters asked Steve about it. Steve replied honestly that we would not have caught him voting for HR2, and I think that (no matter how we feel about Jeff's vote) we generally believe him. I know I do.

The Republicans found this issue themselves. They don't need our help. It is now up to us as Democrats to decide how we will address it. If we want to beat Gordon Smith - which is the main event, after all - we need to decide which candidate would present a stronger opponent to him. Even without the HR2 vote, I think it's Steve. Others clearly think it's still Jeff. That's what primary elections are for. But we can't bury our heads in the sand and just keep repeating to ourselves that HR2 doesn't matter. Smith and his henchmen are going to MAKE IT MATTER. We can't wish it away.

(sorry for the double posting - I'm not sure what happened there)

If someone attacked a speech or an action by Steve (esp. one which took place years ago) and Les and the other endorsers in the "stand strong for Steve" ad wrote an essay here defending him, wouldn't that be the same thing?

It would unless the defense a) contained verifiably false information, and b) used the very same tactics they were assailing, only with personal invective and ad hominem that NEVER appeared in the original "attack."

So yeah, there just MIGHT be a difference. And I think it's pretty disingenuous for you to claim that only a partisan could think that.

LT, I completely agree with you, the AMT issue is a big deal. I hope to learn more about what both candidates think about it.

There are lots of other issues I'd like to hear them talking about/ What I really want to see and hear are some debates. Soon. The more the better.

It's never enough for LT. For WEEKS, weeks on end, it was all about how crazy it was that neither candidate would have anything to say on veterans' affairs. They were just wasting their time, and the veterans were going un-dealt with. Of course, in time both candidates put out positions that answered the call.

Now it's back to square one, only the vast injustice this time is the failure to offer one-hour policy paper service on the AMT debate. Obviously it would be interesting to know, and if you presented your concerns as questions you have for the candidates, it would seem more sensible. But it's being used as a cudgel here, a companion club to the OTHER constant--that the primary is a sewage pit of wasted moments. We've all got pet concerns and things we wish politicians would do differently in their campaigns. They're not pets, they're people. How about judgement, demeanor, character, style, philosophy?

God help you if you ever run. I will badger you at home about South Pacific fishing rights and which President should be the 5th to go on Mt. Rushmore, every day until the election.