Jeff's been very clear why he didn't run again: He's ready to take his formidable skills at coalition building and passing incredible progressive legislation to the U.S. Senate.

Leaders like Jeff Merkley--who refuse to back down to the bullying tactics of Republicans like Minnis, but can still find a way to get Republicans on board to pass amazing progressive legislation, are what I think we need more of in the Senate. It's one of the reasons I chose to go to work for him.

In 2006, I was blogging consistently on Rob's race (and the races of lots of other Dem House challengers). I saw firsthand how Jeff worked with these people (literally walking their districts with them, for example). I wrote at length about the dirty campaigns run against them by Minnis and Scott and Chuck Adams. Jeff took them all on..and kicked ass.

When the Dems took over the House, I wrote about and paid close attention to the 2007 session. Jeff's leadership was pivotal to its success. One of the main reasons I chose to work for Jeff's U.S. Senate campaign is that I know, after watching Jeff work, that his unique ability to fight Republicans and their policies while still being able to bring them on board for progressive legislation are exactly what we need in the Senate.

Our country is in very serious trouble. We need leaders who can cut through the BS and make change happen. That's what Jeff Merkley is all about.

Every member of the Oregon Dem House delegation that I've spoken with personally (and there's a lot of them) consistently says the same thing: Jeff is the guy who did the work time and again to get the progressive slate of legislation passed. And every one of them believes that Jeff will do that and more as U.S. Senator for Oregon.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

I promise you, LT. Rob Brading is every bit the hero he's been called. And I say this not as someone from Multnomah County, but from Washington.

Lupita and I went to canvass once for the Brading campaign. The money that Minnis was spending on herself had to be seen to be believed - massive billboards, TV ads... one door I knocked on a lady showed me GOP lit she literally couldn't hold in two hands.

Now even though Rob lost, think about even some of that money being dropped into your touchy campaigns. I can tell you that Jean Cowan on the coast pretty directly owes he seat to the fact that all the money was being spent to save Minnis's own ass. And really, you need to go ask Brian Clem himself if he would have wanted an additional $50,000 dumped into ads against him or not, before you discount Rob's efforts.

I admit that Rob's campaign was not mistake free. That last minute hit piece on Minnis (that Jon Isaacs championed) flat out backfired. It probably sank his campaign. But the overall effect Rob had by tying down so much GOP money nearly certainly made the difference between a GOP and Democratic majority this last session.

LT, you read more into my comments than I actually wrote. I did NOT say that without the Brading/Minnis campaign we would have lost Clem/Dalto.

Try reading it again:

Imagine for a moment that Minnis's million dollars instead was $250,000 more against Chris Edwards, and $250,000 more against Brian Clem, and $250,000 more against Jean Cowan, and $250,000 more against David Edwards. Could we have won all four of those majority-making seats? Not very likely. Maybe one, maybe two. But not all four. ...

A quarter-million dollars against each of those four Democrats would have likely pushed at least one of them.

And, frankly, given how much of a blowout Clem/Dalto was, it's possible that the GOP might still have abandoned Dalto, and pumped $333,000 into the other three.

I like and admire Rob Brading tremendously.

I have worked with him on library issues in Multnomah County for years, and I contributed to his campaigns.

I'm selfishly very sorry that he isn't back for a third bite of the apple because I think he could clearly win this time, and I loved the idea of him in the legislature, but he owns his own life and gets to decide what his priorities are.

LT: Brian Clem would not have won?

Carla played a small roll in Taking Dalto down too. She wrote extensively about it at Loaded Orygun and I think most astute observers would agree that she got Dalto's attention - a pretty good indication that he'd felt the political effects.

There are very good reasons why L.O. is but a shadow of it's former self. Those would be many of the same reasons why P.K. is a shadow of it's former self when she still wrote there - mostly just the fact that she no longer writes there. Traffic at my blog is but a small fraction of what it was when Carla wrote there. I'd bet good money that LO has had the same dramatic downturn in traffic.

Jon Isaacs once bluntly told me that Carla was the single best hire the Merkley campaign has made. Those of us familiar with her and her writing know that Jon was simply stating the truth. Undoubtedly Steve Novick would agree too since he had also tried to hire her for his campaign.

You are of course free to discount what she said upthread.

Every member of the Oregon Dem House delegation that I've spoken with personally (and there's a lot of them) consistently says the same thing: Jeff is the guy who did the work time and again to get the progressive slate of legislation passed. And every one of them believes that Jeff will do that and more as U.S. Senator for Oregon.

But I doubt that Dalto and Minnis would agree with your skepticism.

You know, I should probably do another disclosure: In 2006, I built the websites for Brian Clem, Chris Edwards, and Jean Cowan -- but I speak only for myself.

Wow. You’re using comments left on Blue Oregon – a site for all progressives? – as fodder for a primary campaign you’re involved with. Well, I suppose there is nothing unethical about that. It’s just typical politics. You know, the kind that turns people off from the process altogether. Now the next time I think about leaving a comment here I’ll have to ask: Is this going into Kari’s database so that if I’m ever on his wrong side he can use it against me? Will my comments be turn up in a Merkley push poll down the line?

Um, it's not a database. It's a blog. All the old comments are available to anyone that wants to look around.

I was just thinking how I was able to endorse Steve Novick without saying anything bad about his opponent. Politics ought to be about building about the community (how naïve of me…). But Jeff has chosen a different path and armed with push polls and surrogates he’s waging one of those nasty efforts that make people wonder about him and what kind of a senator he’d make (and not in a good way). Blue Oregon is clearly one of surrogates. That’s ok. This is a political site after all. It’s just that political always leaves me disappointed. It brings out the worst in good people. Thankfully we’ve got role models like Steve – or even Barack Obama – who don’t go down that road.

If there were ever any evidence that Kari was editing or otherwise tampering with past posts or comments, that would be far beyond the pale and would probably be the end of Blue Oregon. To the best of my knowledge no one has accused Kari of that.

Maybe I'm just more cynical than Rev. Currie, but I fully expect that every intemperate online comment I have ever made on blogs or even on closed systems (like well.com, river.org, echonyc.com, etc.) could come back and bite me in the ass someday. The rest of you (including Steve and all present and future candidates for office) are in the same boat.

Anyone with a lot of patience or a few interns could do it. It's likely that Kari as the site owner has access to search tools that the rest of us don't have, which reduces the amount of time and effort needed to get the job done, of course.

But that too is presumably part of the package of services that Mandate Media is offering.

When I first started reading and commenting here, the commercial role of Mandate Media was far less front and center than it is now -- nothing like a few hotly contested primaries to bring all the conflicts of interest into sharper focus -- and it's good to remind ourselves about it from time to time. But it's a fact of life.

Kari, Interesting you should mention Chris Edwards… You will recall that he took on Debi Farr and beat her. Chris was and is an excellent candidate. He deserved to win, but a number of things had to come together for that to happen.

Yes, 2006 was a great year all over for reasons we all know. But it is also true that we were ready. The Democratic House Caucus was organized and ready. We recruited some great candidates, including Chris. We worked hard to raise money. We set up the campaign support system to maximize our chances. We had a winning strategy that gained us two seats in 2004 when the smart money thought we would lose two.

The engineer of these victories? Jeff Merkley. It was Jeff’s vision of how to do it that got us to the majority in two cycles. He hired Jon Isaacs and kept the campaign team together during session so that we were ready. He devised the strategy and guided all the important turns in our tactics. We all worked very hard, none harder than our great candidates, but there is no question at all that the leader and guide was Jeff Merkley

Chris Edwards deserved to beat the incumbent. But he probably would not have won had the Republican caucus spent a couple hundred thousand more, money that Brading tied down in District 49. I think the same thing is clear in District 10. Jean Cowan deserved her win, but she beat a popular veteran legislator who could have benefited from some of those dollars Minnis spent in her own race because Brading very nearly beat her.

I have always believed that politics is a deadly serious team sport. It takes very bright hard working candidates, consultants, campaign managers, lots and lots of volunteers and donors, but most of all it takes a great leader who has a great plan and the ability to motivate everyone else and focus their energy productively on the goal. We have been very fortunate to have Jeff Merkley because he has been that leader.

There were two heroes in 2006. Rod Brading is the public hero who worked very hard and ultimately sacrificially to tie down Karen Minnis and eat up her treasury. Jeff Merkley was the hero behind the scenes whose leadership was crucial to allow us to take advantage of the chances that Republican errors, Democrats’ energy, and circumstances allowed us.

Jeff has been endorsed by ALL of his Democratic colleagues in the House. It is easy to think of us as a monolithic block. Not true. We all have our own priorities and concerns. Yet, Jeff held us together through the 2007 and the short 2008 session to pass some important progressive legislation. And he has the deep respect of all of his colleagues after all of it.

Jeff Merkley will become a very productive United States Senator. He has demonstrated in spades the skills that a legislator needs to get things done. As we get his story out, I expect the excitement to grow. He will beat Gordon Smith and then use the skills he has demonstrated to move progressive legislation through the Senate.

Reverend Currie, you have a number of misapprehensions about the nature of BlueOregon, blogs, and the current primary nomination.

First, BlueOregon is not just a blog, it's a forum. Forums, made of different people with different people, simply cannot have a single opinion. So the only way to interpret your comment that "Blue Oregon is clearly one of [Speaker Merkley's] surrogates" is to read it like this: "I see comments on BlueOregon that I do not like; therefore, despite the large number of Novick supporting fans posting here, it must be a surrogate for the man I don't want to vote for".

This kind of thinking is exactly the way conservatives convince themselves that the media is "liberal". A single "liberal" voice in an otherwise overwhelming conservative publication makes it, in their mind, "liberal". The important thing for people who think like this isn't to hear many opinions, many voices. Rather it's the opposite: to censor everything they don't like.

I am always disappointed by progressives who adopt this kind of black and white thinking. Regardless, I'd venture to say that if you're looking for BlueOregon to be your censor, you are bound to be "disappointed".

Second, your belief that Steve Novick hasn't attacked Speaker Merkley is so absurd, it's flat out delusional. For 6 months Mr. Novick has issued a constant stream of attacks - adopting Republican talking points - not only from his direct campaign surrogates, but from Novick himself. In person.

Only recently has the Merkley campaign decided to give Mr. Novick a slight dose of his own poo-flinging tactics. One can always debate whether "staying above" (ignoring) or "being a fighter" is the better response to gutter tactics, but Speaker Merkley wouldn't have to make that choice if Mr. Novick hadn't, early on, decided to adopt them.

No, LT, I wasn't reading Blue Oregon regularly during the 2006 primary season. During 2006 I was deeply involved in the campaign to pass the Multnomah County library levy, and did not have much involvement in any candidate campaigns.

An aside: it happens that my now-husband and I went out and bought our marriage license the morning after Election Day that November, didn't tell anyone, and were married at the Multnomah County Courthouse about ten days later. When people asked us why we bothered (since we had been together for 26 years already), I always enjoyed telling them that the explanation was residual giddiness from the midterm elections. %^>

"with different people" -> "with different opinions"

Wow. Must be more tired than I thought.

To Steve Maurer I would just say: there's a difference between disagreement/criticism and personal attacks.

It's obvious that neither you nor your candidate has any idea what that difference is.

All of Steve Novick's criticisms of Jeff Merkley had been based on their respective positions on issues of concern. But when Merkley started telling lies about Novick, Steve had to respond. The "pants on fire" rejoinder was far nicer than most alternative scenarios would have been.

I wrote a whole diary over on LoadedO about what a nice guy Jeff Merkley was, even though I disagreed with him about a couple of issues. I am beginning to wonder if I gave him too much credit.

Posted by: Rev. Chuck Currie | Mar 29, 2008 6:20:52 PM I was just thinking how I was able to endorse Steve Novick without saying anything bad about his opponent. Politics ought to be about building about the community (how naïve of me…).

Community building... You mean like the other day when Steve Nader said that Jeff Merkley is "intellectually bankrupt" and equated him with Gordon Smith?

Wow... you must have been so... um... proud of Steve for not saying anything bad about his opponent, just like all those months before when he kept taking shot after shot at Jeff while Jeff was focusing on taking shots solely at Gordo.

To Steve Maurer I would just say: there's a difference between disagreement/criticism and personal attacks.

It's obvious that neither you nor your candidate has any idea what that difference is.

All of Steve Novick's criticisms of Jeff Merkley had been based on their respective positions on issues of concern. But when Merkley started telling lies about Novick, Steve had to respond. The "pants on fire" rejoinder was far nicer than most alternative scenarios would have been.

I wrote a whole diary over on LoadedO about what a nice guy Jeff Merkley was, even though I disagreed with him about a couple of issues. I am beginning to wonder if I gave him too much credit.

Thank you, Representative Barnhart.

Perhaps Masterpiece is only imagining the race is as ugly as he or she believes...given the misstatements about what Steve and his campaign manager have said. For instance, it now seems like the predilection of Merkley backers to moan about Steve calling Merkley "intellectually bankrupt" and calling it a personal attack--personal like the series of non-substantive attacks Merkley and his surrogates have pretty much built their competitive strategy on. Yet, that's not what Steve said. What he ACTUALLY referred to was "intellectual bankruptcy of both Gordon Smith's and Jeff Merkley's approach to federal finances." In other words, Jeff's position lacks smarts and understanding of the problem. A strong attack, but an entirely fair one if Merkley really believes we'll suddenly stop raiding Social Security to pay for tax cuts and the war. And it says nothing about Merkley personally, only his misguided view of finance.

This is similarly distorted: "And push polls? Since Jake Weigler admitted that Steve was doing very similar polling as Merkley,"

First, no one is doing any push polls, either Merkley OR Novick. These are real polls with negative tests in them. But Wiegler admitted no such thing; he said they were using the same technique--but were concentrating on substantive differences between the candidates, whereas clearly Merkley is looking to the GOP for such creative attacks as "tax and spend Democrat" and "Communist."

At least be accurate in your attacks, please.

"Community building... You mean like the other day when Steve Nader said that Jeff Merkley is "intellectually bankrupt" and equated him with Gordon Smith?"

You've certainly got a lot of gall to whine about personal attacks when you devolve back to your GOP roots and do things like say "Steve Nader," Kevin. Not to mention lying about what Steve said. He never called Merkley intellectually bankrupt, as the record makes clear.

Steve Maurer, give one example of a personal attack from Steve on Jeff, please. I'll match it with two from Jeff or his surrogates. And I won't have to limit myself to March, when Jeff realized he was losing and began playing dirty like he did in 2006. And he certainly hasn't made any arguments the GOP would make! Unless you think the GOP will criticize Merkley for being their patsy on the war, or that Jeff doesn't appear to understand Social Security very well.

I'm getting really tired of people saying Novick uses Republican talking points. It's just not true. You can talk about the same issue without using "Republican talking points."

I happen to be concerned about Social Security. I don't agree with the changes Republicans want to make to it. As many can tell you, I helped put together a rally at Gordon Smith's Portland office on the issue of Republican changes to Social Security and was one of a handful of people who actually were able to get up into his office. But that doesn't mean that changes don't need to be made. It's solvent through 2041 only if we make payments back into the system. What about after 2041? I turn 63 in 2041 and my husband will be 74. Obviously, I'd like to see Social Security around when I'm older, just as it is now.

I disagree with Merkley's vote on HR2. I think he should have voted against it, as others did, and then state for the record that he was voting against the portion praising Bush and that he supports the troops 100%.

But just because some of us disagree with Merkley on these items doesn't mean we're using Republican talking points. Saying such is just absurd and does nothing but push people away from the Party.

The engineer of these victories? Jeff Merkley. It was Jeff’s vision of how to do it that got us to the majority in two cycles. He hired Jon Isaacs and kept the campaign team together during session so that we were ready. He devised the strategy and guided all the important turns in our tactics. We all worked very hard, none harder than our great candidates, but there is no question at all that the leader and guide was Jeff Merkley.

That is what Oregon needs and deserves in the U.S. Senate. No Naderite equivocating Democrats and Republicans as the same. No coopting GOP talking points to tear down other Democrats. Someone who a) knows how to beat the GOP and b) knows how to get progressive change actually enacted and c) can do so without poisoning the well. There is only one person in this race with those demonstrated abilities and skills - Jeff Merkley.

I'm sorry, but voting for Nader as a protest vote in an election where it was obvious that Clinton would win without problem does not make you a Naderite.

And Novick definitely doesn't see Democrats and Republicans as being the same. If he did, he wouldn't have spent as much time as he has electing and supporting Democrats.

This crap is just utterly ridiculous.

knows how to beat the GOP

I'd prefer somebody who knows how to beat Gordon Smith.

The Republicans in the state legislature are the minor leagues compared to Smith, who will eat Jeff Merkley for breakfast if he gets the chance. And could you name a single smart, tough Republican who has ever been defeated by Jeff Merkley, please? Offhand I can't think of any.

And while we're talking about that spine of steel, was it in the shop on March 21, 2003? Because it was not in evidence, and didn't seem to do anyone any good that day.

It's great to see Rob Brading and Ben Cannon joining the long and growing list of progressive organizations and individuals who know that Jeff Merkley is the individual Oregon needs in the Senate.

In so doing they are joining a constantly growing chorus to reject the nattering Naderesque nabobs of negativity who accuse progressives of "intellectual bankruptcy" for taking mainstream progressive policy positions. They know that one candidate in this race stands head and shoulders above the rest. That candidate is clearly Jeff Merkley.

In what we all fervently hope are the waning days of the Iraqi Occupation it is reassuring to know that only one Senate candidate in the entire state has a strong and growing coalition of military veterans solidly backing his candidacy. That Gordon Smith has no apparent veteran support base isn't surprising. Neither is the lack of any apparent veteran support base for any other candidate.

Those veterans understand perhaps better than those of us who aren't veterans why the Council for a Livable World gave Jeff Merkley one of their exceptionally rare endorsements (Jeff is one of only seven Senate and a total of just fifteen candidates nationwide to recieve the Council's endorsement). The Council summed up Jeff thusly:

Merkley will be an important progressive leader in the Senate. His background on nuclear weapons, his knowledge of national security issues and his political experience clearly indicate that we need him in the U.S. Senate.

When Jeff Merkley endorsed Darcy Burner's A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq he was joining with a fellow candidate to have recieved a coveted endorsement from the Council for a Livable World.

These are all but a small handful of the reasons why Oregon progressives are flocking to the Merkley campaign. We are joined by the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, AFT, ONA, ANA, IBEW, OSAEW, ILWU, the Sierra Club, the Council for a Livable World, Citizens for Global Solutions and many others.

... Naderesque nabobs of negativity ...

Are you sure you want to appropriate lines associated with a disgraced former vice president who had to resign from office a year before the president he served also resigned underthreat of impeachment? Or from William Safire, who actually wrote the line?

Seriously, could you make your support for Merkley look any more Republican?

Here's something that you won't find on Gordon Smith's campaign site or that of any other candidate for Senate:

Veterans for Merkley

Co-Chairs: Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak (Ret.), former Air Force Chief of Staff Jim Rassmann, former U.S. Army Special Forces Officer Paul Evans, Oregon National Guard,Afghan and Iraq War Veteran

Larry Armstrong, Corporal, U.S. Army Kat Bell, SPC, U.S. Army Daniel Davis, Cpt., U.S. Army Marv Doty, U.S. Navy; Present Commander Beaverton American Legion Post 124 Bruce Freeman, PO2, U.S. Navy Darvel Lloyd, LTJG, U.S. Navy Joel Haugen, Sgt., U.S. Army Wilson Johns, HT3/DV2, U.S. Navy Mac McFadden, Sgt, U.S. Air Force Mat Millenbach, 1Lt., U.S. Army Donald N. Morris, 1Lt, U.S. Army Angel Pilato, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Air Force (ret.) Richard Riggs, Lt. Commander, U.S. Navy (ret.) Dave Roussel, SP4, U.S. Army William Russell, Major, U.S. Air Force (ret.) Ronald Sandlin, former U.S. Navy Combat Aircrewman Dick Springer, LTJG, U.S. Navy Gary Thompson, SSG, U.S. Army Robert Thornhill, EN2 (SS),U.S. Navy Marshall Wilde, Lt. Colonel, Oregon Air National Guard Jon Zall, Colonel, U.S. Air Force (ret.)

Incidently, both General McPeak (who is Obama's national co-chair) and Colonel Zall advised Howard Dean's 2004 campaign.

My fellow Dean Meet-Up veterans may recall having heard Colonel Zall give a stirring speech at a Portland regional Meet-Up in early 2004. Those who did know that there is no more passionate advocate for veterans or stronger critic of the Bush/Cheney NeoCon cabel than Colonel Zall.

Colonel Zall, like me, comes from a Republican background and was convinced by the objective facts to become a staunch progressive, which even a casual reading of his blog (Voice of a Veteran) clearly reveals. Deaniacs wanting to revel in nostalgia might enjoy perusing the archives in his old Veterans for Dean blog too.

I fully expect that either of them would have a good response to such a question, but that Steve's would have a little more detail.

Wow... I just noticed over at Senate Guru that another prominent veteran and progressive is in Merkley's corner: former Senator Max Cleland. Here's what he has to say on his ActBlue page for Merkley:

I’ve spent my entire lifetime fighting for this country. As an officer in the Vietnam War, I sacrificed just as our men and women in the Armed Forces do every day. When I returned from Vietnam in the late 1960s our nation was torn apart and I was compelled to act. I dedicated my life to public service – working in the U.S. Senate to advocate for my fellow veterans, to fight for affordable health care, and to create good jobs for families. Six years ago George Bush, Dick Cheney and the national Republican Party teamed up with special interests to lie about my record and distort my lifetime of service. This is the Karl Rove playbook. When Democrats stand up to deliver change, Republicans and special interests spread falsehoods and lies to defeat them. I am disappointed to see the same thing happening in Oregon. Jeff Merkley is the right man for the U.S. Senate. He has dedicated his life to serving his country and fighting for hardworking families just like his own family. He opposed the Iraq War from the very start and will bring our sons and daughters home immediately. Now Gordon Smith and the national Republican Party are attacking Jeff’s character and misleading voters about his plans to change Washington D.C. for the better. Republicans like Gordon Smith will stop at nothing to win. We must help Jeff defeat the Republican attack machine once and for all. Sincerely, Senator Max Cleland

He opposed the Iraq War from the very start...

How does Max Cleland know that? Has Cleland been provided information that Jeff Merkley hasn't provided the voters of Oregon?

Was the opposition public? If so, has anyone else seen where Merkley was first on record expressing opposition to the war (as opposed to ambivalence)?

I'd also like to point out that despite his service in Vietnam and his apparent interest in military affairs, as a Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland was one of the 29 Democrats who voted to give authority to George W. Bush to use force in Iraq.

So excuse me if I take his endorsement as to Jeff Merkley's bona fides on the Iraq war with a spoonful of salt. I'm sure Cleland's a nice guy, but he made a monumental error of judgment on one of the biggest foreign policy and military issues of the day, and for him to be used as a touchstone for some sort of "right from the start" credibility is simply bizarre.

From Thomas Ricks's Fiasco:

Despite his misgivings, Cleland felt under intense political pressure to go with the administration. "It was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them a victory," he said in 2005. Even so, he now considers his prowar choice "the worst vote I cast." Waiting to vote, Cleland looked over and saw Byrd, who had been in the Senate for forty-four years. "I knew he had been through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I knew he wanted me to show some political courage." Clelands's name was called. "Aye," he said. He glanced again at Byrd, who, he recalled, "got up and walked away."

He also lost his seat, even though he voted for the war.

This is an ironic endorsement to be touting on this particular topic, given concerns from some quarters that Merkley would be more susceptible to voting for something incredibly stupid because of political pressure.

You figured it out, Darrel. It's all just a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep Mr. Novick down. Max Cleland, the Sierra Club, Governor Roberts, the SEIU/AFSCME/AFL-CIO/AFT/ANA/ONA/IBEW/OSAEW, Citizens for Global Solutions, General McPeak, Oregon veterans, every Democrat in the state House, scores of other elected Democrats, the Council for a Livable World, Kari Chisolm, Rob Brading, Ben Cannon, etc., etc., etc.

They all know that Merkley is a scumbag who might vote for something incredibly stupid because of political pressure. Undoubtedly they all know that he is intellectually bankrupt too. Governor Kulongoski must surely have diabolically twisted their arms to get them to back Jeff Merkley. What a bunch of sell-outs!!

Yep. It has to be a conspiracy! And you've uncovered the whole dastardly plot. And to think that many of us actually believed that any one of them were free agents willing and capable of making their own choices for their own reasons!!

How ever did you manage to uncover it?

Regardless of how you managed it, we sure are in your debt for withstanding the concerted onslaught while we lazily abdicated all critical thinking responsibilities to... well, I guess it's all Kulongoski's fault? That seems to be your pal's scapegoat d'jour. Personally, I'm a little hazy on exactly whom to blame for it all. But you've convinced me that Merkley couldn't possibly be smart enough to have pulled this off on his own - let us never ever forget that he's "susceptible to voting for something incredibly stupid" at any moment.

"One more time, if you want to bring people to your way of thinking, talking down to them and treating them badly won't do it. I don't like bullies. Most people don't respond well to that kind of treatment."

I have no idea of your education or your socioeconomic status, so where you're going with that I don't know. What I do have before me is your view of the facts in the race, and they're simply inaccurate. You attempt to rebut them essentially by saying "nuh uh," which doesn't really convince. If you want to equate having an intellectually bankrupt position on a very specific issue to being a generally intellectually bankrupt person, then no wonder you think I'm talking down to you, since your position here is without intellectual merit and I pointed that out.

To SS, gay marriage and the workingman's penalty (to which you similarly give no actual rebuttal except to deny reality that even Merkley has acknowledged), add NCLB, guns in national parks. And why is a guy who worked for Habitat stuck with his pants down when it comes to an anti-poverty plan? Months after he was asked, we're still waiting for one.

PS--I think Kevin would like us to acknowledge in some way that veterans seem to like Jeff Merkley. He's getting antsy.

You figured it out, Darrel. It's all just a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep Mr. Novick down.

I didn't mention Novick. Or a conspiracy. Just that Max Cleland -- for all of his good points -- still believed three years after his AUMF vote that he had to make that vote for political reasons. Rather than oppose the war, he helped to authorize an action that led to the deaths of tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of people. He admits he did it to get re-elected. And he still lost.

So rather than take a principled stand against the war, Cleland buckled. In fact, the paragraphs after the portion I quoted talk about how he went into a deep depression after realizing what he'd done.

How well does Max Cleland of Georgia know Jeff Merkley of Oregon? Is he a personal friend? Did they work together when Merkley was in DC? Or was he asked to write the endorsement on ActBlue without knowing anything about him? Was he given a set of talking points to include (like "opposed the Iraq War from the very start")? Or did Merkley call him up in 2002 and ask him not to vote for the AUMF before he ignored his advice?

Nobody has to think that Merkley is a "scumbag" who would cave to political pressure. I don't think Cleland is a "scumbag" and he admits to having been pressured. George McGovern (among others) was pressured by the Johnson administration to vote for the Gulf of Tonkin (you know, the one Cleland refers to in his quote) resolution in 1964, in order to help beat Goldwater. I don't view him as a "scumbag" either.

I assumed that the local people who supported Merkley did so because they thought he was a good candidate. No conspiracy needed. You seem to be hyperventilating a bit.

Maybe you could just post a link to that article that Jeff Merkley wrote opposing the war back near the beginning. I keep hearing about it, but like the unicorn it seems to show itself only to the pure.

Elsewhere in Thomas Ricks' book you'll find Cleland stating that his AUMF vote was the worst he'd ever made.

John Edwards also voted in favor of the AUMF. Do you have such harsh words for him too? Or are you saving them for if he endorses Jeff Merkley.

If he endorsed Steve Novick would he then get a pass from you?

I should think Max Cleland met Jeff Merkley in DC. Perhaps Senator Cleland met Steve Novick there too and made the same choice that so many others have.

Max Cleland and John Edwards both acknowledge that their pro-Iraq war votes were mistakes. I salute their recognition of error, however belated.

If Hillary Clinton and Jeff Merkley could acknowledge their own errors of judgment, I'd be more impressed.

Max Cleland is an American hero, even if he does make a mistake now and then.

Stephanie, I notice that you keep running out of ink in the middle of your repeated attempts to link Jeff with Hillary.

I'm really really concerned that you not portray yourself as a devious and dishonest character assassin willing to mislead people about the Speaker's actual position at the time. I know that a person of your fierce moral rectitude would never intentionally repeat ad nauseum, half of a story about a non-binding resolution just to mislead readers about your candidate's primary opponent, so in the spirit of comity and fellowship I'll put Jeff's quote up here for you:

This will further your goal of informing the folks who follow the links that you constantly repost to your anti-Merkley screed over at LO. No thanks needed, of course.

Colleagues, I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day. Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops

I should think Max Cleland met Jeff Merkley in DC. Perhaps Senator Cleland met Steve Novick there too and made the same choice that so many others have.

You're leaping to some rather untenable assertions.

Cleland's statement doesn't even say that he has ever met Jeff Merkley. Or Steve Novick. His statement mentions attacks from the GOP, not any primary challenge. There's absolutely no assertion of personal contact between Cleland and Merkley, what it sounds like is a letter written by a prominent national figure to raise funds for a candidate they've been told is worthy of their support by people they trust, which isn't all that uncommon a practice.

And that's why I asked the question about how he knew that Merkley was against the war from the beginning. Was he asked to include that point in his letter? Or did he have personal knowledge? Obviously, you don't have the faintest clue.

Tell ya what, Darrel... I'll see your August of 2003 (Novick's first documentable disagreement with the Iraq War) and raise you March of 2003 (Merkley's first documentable disagreement with the Iraq War).

One of the things that's interesting about those dates is that, as the Pew Research Center trend data shows, public opinion in support of the Iraq War had dropped considerably by August of 2003 when Novick first spoke out against it. Public opinion in favor of the War was significantly higher when Merkley spoke out against it.

Kevin, you're wasting your logic on Darrel. Talking to him is like arguing with a creationist. He knows what he wants to believe and he's going to believe it come hell or high water. Then, after you realize you've been wasting your time arguing with an emotional child, he'll take your exhaustion with his antics, and resulting silence, as "proof" that he "won".

Which is, I suppose, the reason you have to reply to him.

Unfortunately you are right, Steve. The choice has too often boiled down to either responding or just letting them keep throwing shit up on the wall to see what might stick. That was the choice when I first decided to jump into the fray and it remains the choice today.

It's not the way I would have preferred that this primary go...

Pat Ryan,

thanks for posting the text of that cautious, equivocating, and ambivalent speech. It reminds me again of everything that was wrong with Jeff Merkley's vote on HR2 (and many of the things that are wrong with Jeff Merkley, period).

Kevin,

As you regularly remind us, Steve Novick is not and has never been an elected official. Therefore he was not surrounded by journalists eager to record his every utterance in March 2003. Was your next door neighbor against the war in March 2003? Can he or she prove it?

Therefore he was not surrounded by journalists eager to record his every utterance in March 2003.

That might be the funniest comment ever uttered on this blog about this race.

Stephanie, I seem to recall that you moved to town recently. So, I'll forgive you for not knowing that yes, journalists have always surrounded Steve Novick eagerly recording his every utterance.

Without question, he's the been the most quotable flack in the state for years -- a good mix of research data and ready quips.

Wow Kevin, so you admit Merkley is lying about this magical document that shows he was opposed to the war (of course his statement in March 2003 is careful not to say one way or the other)? You're saying his first documented opposition is that speech. Whereas Merkley says it's even before that. I guess you're as skeptical it exists (or says what he claims) as the rest of us.

"So, I'll forgive you for not knowing that yes, journalists have always surrounded Steve Novick eagerly recording his every utterance."

On the war? I doubt it.

"That is, if the goal is intelligent debate on pressing issues and eventually challenging Gordon Smith to confront those issues. "

That IS the goal. Which is why caution regarding a Democrat's ability to challenge Senate Republicans is well warranted, IMO. Jeff Merkley has not shown a particularly strong affinity for pushing bold progressive legislation, particularly when there is Republican opposition. The mortgage bill is a good example.

Tell ya what, Darrel... I'll see your August of 2003 (Novick's first documentable disagreement with the Iraq War) and raise you March of 2003 (Merkley's first documentable disagreement with the Iraq War).

The problem is, Kevin, you've never provided that "documentable disagreement."

In his statement on HR2, Merkley doesn't say that he opposed the war. He didn't unequivocally say that it was the wrong thing to do. He said he hadn't been convinced. That's not opposition.

Max Cleland hadn't been convinced that there was a need to go to war in Iraq, either, but he voted for it because he was trying to get reelected. That's why he later regretted his decision and sought counseling for his part in helping to start the war. It wasn't because made the vote and found out later it was based on faulty information. He knew from the beginning that there was no justification for the war. He said he was depressed because he'd caved to political pressure when he knew that it was the wrong thing to do.

<h2>You haven't provided one shred of evidence for actual opposition to the war on Merkley's part before or within the first year of the war, so far as I've seen. What you've got is hemming and hawing, which isn't exactly the kind of take you'd expect from someone who's staking his claim to national security bona fides on his time as a military analyst.</h2>