I read the article late last night and noted the part about Novick's need to increase fundraising. I headed straight over to Novick's site and made a donation.

Unfortunately there all lib eral idiot s, so like the presidential candidates now - the country is screwed.

Libe ral's motto:

"Hey - surely we can find a way to grow government even bigger!"

I'm not sure Merkley has a choice but to hit back. Some of the attacks by Steve are getting ridiculous. I was at the debate today down in Eugene, and watched Novick walk a thin line between being his usual witty and funny self and being an obnoxious jerk in his attacks. I think he crossed that line more than once.

I have always liked Steve and Jeff both. Today Steve lost some of his luster in my opinion. He even tried to accuse Merkley of "malicious attacks" on Obama (who Merkley is endorsing) because Merkley disagreed with Steve on some position, a position held by Obama. It was bizarre and he did it more than once. Also, attacking Merkley instead of answering a question from the moderator seemed obnoxious.

Don't get me wrong, Steve got plenty of laughs and was witty, and I still like him as an activist. But he was also underhanded in his tactics today and showed a mean side that I did not like.

Unfortunately there all lib eral idiot s, so like the presidential candidates now - the country is screwed.

Libe ral's motto:

"Hey - surely we can find a way to grow government even bigger!"

Thank you, civil: I'm not sure Merkley has a choice but to hit back. Some of the attacks by Steve are getting ridiculous. I was at the debate today down in Eugene, and watched Novick walk a thin line between being his usual witty and funny self and being an obnoxious jerk in his attacks. I think he crossed that line more than once.

I have always liked Steve and Jeff both. Today Steve lost some of his luster in my opinion.

And yes, I would like to know the answer to this question: Steve, yes or no, do you believe the cap should be raised for Social Security taxes? If the cap should not be raised, why not?

If Steve can't answer a yes or no question, calling Merkley an establishment pol doesn't answer the question. People have the right to say they will vote for the person who answers questions to their satisfaction, and no amount of witty remarks or attacks on the opposition will answer that question.

I like both these guys, there's quite a bit of time between now and the Primary for them to show who has got what policy chops and whether they can build an organization that can take on Smith's entrenched position. I'm watching and listening. I'll give the edge to Merkley on organization at this point, but for rhetorical skills Novick gets the edge.

Gordo is a slippery customer, he wouldn't still be an OR Senator if he weren't. It is going to take attack dog skills (defused with something attractive) and a lean tough machine to take him out.

Thank you, Chuck, "who has got what policy chops and whether they can build an organization that can take on Smith's entrenched position. I'm watching and listening. I'll give the edge to Merkley on organization at this point, but for rhetorical skills Novick gets the edge."

Now if you folks who are so gung ho for one or the other would just give those of us who aren't some space (rather than saying "if you question my guy that makes you an integral part of the other guy's campaign because no one can be seriously undecided at this point"), you might give us room to decide for your candidate.

Let's hear "My candidate is better because of this issue..." and stop the verbal potshots we have seen too often.

hey Civil, You were there, eh. Did Merkley apologize to Novick for this bald-faced lie?

Have you voted for Nader, Kevin? Did you vote for Mader in 2000? Have you voted for Gordon Smith multiple times?

Why do you keep trying to change the subject from Merkley's bald-faced lie about Novick?

I guess on a positive note, it looks like someone finally loaned Merkley a pair so he could do his own dirty work.

Steve Novick had the guts to admit during a hotly contested Democratic primary that he voted for Ralph Nader in 1996. Bill Clinton routed Bob Dole as expected that year. Merkley voted for Nader safe in the knowledge that the Democrat would win.

He voted to protest Bill Clinton's overly enthusiastic support of NAFTA, the free trade agreement that has sent millions of U.S. blue collar manufacturing jobs south of the border.

Merkley used Novick's honesty against him by going on KPOJ and conflating Novick's vote for Nader 12 years and three elections ago with supporting Nader over Democrats in 2000, 2004 and even this year. He tried to leave listeners with the impression that Novick currently favors Nader over Clinton and Obama, who Novick has publicly endorsed.

Steve Novick publicly urged Naderites to vote for Gore in 2000. He supported Kerry in 2004. He said he was disappointed in Nader for running in 2000 and 2004. He publicly endorsed Obama this year.

Merkley's attempted slime job was a bald-faced distortion of reality by Jeff Merkley's increasingly desperate "off the shelf, consultant driven campaign" that John Kitzahber rejected.

or as Eugene debate watcher Helen Denzler of Springfield said, "I didn't know either of them. Merkley's comments seemed trite, no originality. Novick is an inspiration and an exciting candidate."

TJ, I said I wanted an answer to the question. How is that "having it backwards"? Apparently Steve supports raising the cap--that's an answer.

This campaign would make more sense if the Novick supporters would say "Steve supports raising the Soc. Secuirty cap and Merkley doesn't" than some of the stuff which passes for debate here.

Pat, what is your evidence for, "...Ralph Nader in 1996. Bill Clinton routed Bob Dole as expected that year. Merkley voted for Nader safe in the knowledge that the Democrat would win. "?

Where has Merkley said he voted for Nader in 1996?

I never voted for Nader (although I campaigned for 2 third party candidates not named Nader at some point in my life) and would have more respect for someone who never voted for Nader than someone who did because it was 1996 and it was safe.

The "bald faced lie" doesn't really hold up. Asked a direct question on KPOJ, Merkley says he and Novick had a disagreement on Nader. SCANDAL SCANDAL ! Merkley didn't mention the year Novick voted for Nader!

I know, I just listened to the interview again. I had taped it off the radio in case I wanted to listen more than once to what exactly was said.

Suppose Steve gets the nomination and Gordon Smith or the Republicans run an ad (or say in a speech or debate) "Novick once voted for Nader--why would we want a US Senator who ever voted for Nader?". Sure that would tick off Nader supporters, but would they have voted for either major party candidate anyway? How would nominee respond--blame the media or a misquote, say Gordon was lying about his record, or say he voted Nader in 1996 but not in 2000?

The issue was Steve saying "Merkley says I shouldn't criticize Democrats". Leaving aside whether those words in that order ever came out of Jeff's mouth, it seems there are people here who don't think any Democrat should ever criticize Steve.

I'll criticize any Democrat I choose for any reason (incl. Merkley, Isaacs, Hunt, FP staff for the target/forgotten split in the way House Dems. treated state rep. candidates in 2006--something I'v never heard Steve speak out about) at any time, and no one who wants my vote will say I don't have that right.

But here's the deal. Part of the attack has been about Steve's endorsement of Obama, and exactly what Steve said. I was an Edwards supporter, and I sure like Obama better than Clinton because he brings hope---and his book The Audacity of Hope is certainly more inspiring than any Oregon US Senate campaign since Ron Wyden ran in Jan. 1996.

But that doesn't sound like what Steve is saying. This is from here on Blue Oregon. If this is an accurate quote, that should be the end of this part of the argument. If it is not an accurate quote (there is a link on the post to Novick for Senate), then Novick supporters should copy the correct text directly from the Novick site.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/novick.html

But in the end, now that his original candidate John Edwards has suspended his candidacy, Novick has decided Obama best represents what he is seeking from the next President:

I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear. And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

LT, brevity is the soul of wit. So I guess that makes your post witless.

"Steve was saying how much he liked Nader and how disappointed he was in Barack Obama and in Clinton." --Jeff Merkley

gee, since Obama and Hillary Clinton weren't running for president 12 years ago, I think the ol' Jeffster was playing a little game with the truth.

kind of the way you do when you say you don't have a dog in this race.

if it looks like a lie, smells like a lie, and acts like a lie, it's probably a lie.

know, I just listened to the interview again. I had taped it off the radio in case I wanted to listen more than once to what exactly was said.

You have a tape recorder? Where do you keep it, next to your 8-track and rotary phone?

Try KPOJ's "POJ" cast right there on your electronic brain some time.

Well there you have it. Merkley supporter No. 1 cares more about who Novick voted for 12 years ago than he does about what Novick would do with social security today and in the future.

I think the fact that Kevin, who likes to post as NAV Voter on Oregonlive, has contorted himself into the awkward position trying to slag Novick for voting for Nader 12 years ago in an election Democrats easily won, while having to defend his own vote for Nader in 2000, a year Nader votes helped elect George W. Bush.

I think that reveals all you need to know about the Kevmeister's intellectual honesty.

Moreover, BlueOregon editor and Merkley supporter Jeff Alworth previously derided this line of attack as "minutiae" on Oreonglive.

But apparently nothing's to small or petty for Kevin. Maybe that's why he's been given access to BlueOregon's front page.

Oregonian 37, I agree with you.

And having read the Julia Silverman AP story on the debate, I have something similar to say about this:

There were differences, too, over Iraq, when Novick picked up on a Republican talking point and slammed Merkley for voting for an Oregon House resolution in 2003 that said, “We the House of Representatives acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush and his Cabinet and support the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

At that same time, Novick said, he had been marching in anti-war rallies.

Merkley fired back that Novick was misconstruing his vote, saying he had voted yes only to demonstrate support for the military and not for its mission.

Which veterans groups has either candidate spoken to? Which veterans hospitals have they visited? Or doesn't that matter if they can one-up each other in a discussion of events 5 years ago?

Suppose the minutes involved in the above exchange had instead been given to "it is shameful how veterans are treated once they return home--let's see all of those Republicans who support the original decision to go to war use at least as much energy to making sure veterans don't end up in a red tape jungle!".

That would have deprived Jack Roberts of the ability to make a crack about the US Senate primary going too far to the left. And it would have been about a proposed solution rather than refighting a battle which has gone on for months.

But maybe there are those who prefer the famous Democratic circular firing squad to actually discussing solutions to problems in 2008 rather than refighting the past.

"But maybe there are those who prefer the famous Democratic circular firing squad to actually discussing solutions to problems in 2008 rather than refighting the past."

I agree, LT. So how come you're not angry with Merkley for disingenuously trying to smear Novick with a personal decision he made 12 years ago?

Pretty inconsistent. It betrays your lie about not having a dog int his fight.

Are there seriously only six people in this state who give a poop about this race?

By 'heats up,' Blue Oregon means the main stream media is on to 'The Merkley's' supposed inevitable candidacy. Novick has proven himself time and again as standing up for the people while 'The Merkley' is prepared to fight for the vast array of special interest he has aligned.

Oh woe is me, I also confess to apostasy. In my first-ever vote at the tender age of 20, I voted for the GOP candidate for governor of California in 1974 instead of for Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. And even worse, I voted for Nader in 2000 before I finally realized what a jerk he is. HIT ME!!!!

The debate on Social Security taxes has an important symbolic dimension: Novick is clearly willing to tax the wealthy, Merkley is not. My suspicions about Merkley continue to build--being Chuck Schumer's DSCC candidate almost guarantees that you have to adhere to the interests of Big Money.

I agree with Paulie and Kevin.

John H, you talk about symbolism and about big money. Here is a better way for Novick to prove he really is the candidate of the little guy.

To prove to those who say the beer ad does not address serious issues, Steve Novick should do an ad based on the video on Rev. Currie's site where he talks about poverty. Or an ad where he talks with veterans. Or something else with more substance than opening a beer bottle as he talks in general terms about issues.

Do an ad which appeals to people who are looking for more than just a vision for the future but also a plan to carry it out. NOT "I want to raise the Soc. Security cap and Merkley doesn't", but looking straight into the camera saying, "Some of you may not realize that people of great wealth don't pay the same Soc. Security taxes you do--they are only taxed on their income up to a cap of $--- (I'm not sure of the exact number, but Steve should know) and if elected I will fight to raise or eliminate that cap".

THAT would be a Novick campaign fitting the avid supporters here and elsewhere.

But of course, the ad wouldn't attack Merkley the way some of the "hard left hook" crowd seem to desire.

Stephanie, I have read what Steve says, several times. As a matter of fact, I emailed him very early on and said that "and of course care for our veterans" in the defense topic sounded like an afterthought----and he fixed that.

But here's the deal. Any sentence Steve ever says about 2003 now is a sentence he isn't saying about 2008 and the current condition of veterans. The Statesman Journal here in Salem is asking for letters on the Iraq War. Perhaps you or Steve or someone else could write one of those letters and send it to them--just go to their website.

Which veterans have announced their public support for Steve?

Yes, Kevin, you are far from the only person who voted Kitzhaber and Gordon Smith, or Bush and Hooley. It WILL take the votes of people either too young to have voted on US Senate elections in the past or who have voted for Gordon Smith (or someone else--look at the vote for the various 3rd party candidates in 1996) to defeat Gordon Smith.

As a matter of fact, I talked with one such person some months ago and asked if he could think of a reason not to vote for Gordon in 2008. He said that if he were convinced the Gordon of 2008 was not the Gordon Smith he voted for in 1996, he could consider voting for someone else.

This, by the way, is someone who does not drink alcohol (more voters like that than some would like to admit).

Which might be why some are saying more concentration on issues and Gordon's voting record on those issues might be more useful in the long run than all the publicity generated by a beer ad and Left Hook Lager.

Stephanie, there is also this: The voting by the 337 delegates at the Salem Conference Center was weighted based on contributions made by each local to the OEA's political fund.

Novick won 58,322 votes compared to 19,013 for Merkley and 12,541 for Oregon Independent Party candidate John Frohnmayer. Another candidate, David Loera, received 342 votes and 1,513 votes were cast for no recommendation.

As you can see by the numbers, there was an average of less than 2 delegates per Oregon school district. Something like an average of 173 votes per delegate for Steve, something like an average just shy of 300 votes per Oregon school district for Steve, using their weighted system. Hardly a "one person one vote" system of determining the candidate to endorse.

Yes, a union endorsement is a union endorsement.

But some of us who have been around for awhile know that in some cases some years, the most high profile OEA endorsement does not necessarily go to the candidate who ends up with the most OEA volunteers, access to the most phone banks, etc. It is a myth that an OEA endorsement means that sometime between now and May every teacher will leave their home, family, hobby activities and volunteer some time for at least one OEA endorsed candidate.

In fact, some of us have been wishing for as long as there have been spreadsheets and databases that someone would do an analysis of OEA endorsements: win/loss record, living up to OEA agenda after the election, those endorsed voting the way local members may want even if it might not be what the OEA lobbyists think are the most important issues, etc.

Just as when the Dem. state central committee passes a resolution not every registered Democrat may be on board with that resolution (it is about representative sample, esp. when less than 50 delegates vote on a resolution saying supposedly "what all Democrats believe" and the next month a local Democratic party passes a resolution opposing the state resolution--happened when I was on state central comm.), so not every teacher (esp. those with extra duty like coaching, or large families, or whatever) is going to drop everything and spend their Spring out campaigning for OEA endorsed candidates.

I was a substitute teacher for 15 years and heard some fairly heated debates about OEA endorsements in staff rooms. Some teachers register as Republicans, and increasingly like every other group in Oregon register outside major parties. In the early 1990s, OEA endorsed 2 Republican state senators (to show bipartisanship, or just internal political games?) who later went on to sponsor the bill to end teacher tenure in Oregon. After news of that bill became public, one day I was substituting in a school and saw a bulletin board with OEA news on it. There was a flier asking in big letters, "How can they do this to us?". Since one of those 2 bill authors was the Republican candidate against my friend the Democratic nominee (and it was one of the last legislative elections decided in 1992) I wanted to yell back at the flier "because OEA was stupid enough to endorse the authors!"

Anyone gaining a union endorsement or the endorsement of a famous person deserves congratulations. But the key to the OEA endorsement process is this:

"The voting by the 337 delegates at the Salem Conference Center was weighted based on contributions made by each local to the OEA's political fund."

So if a group of teachers from one local union contributed 10% more to the political fund by the deadline (some teachers esp. in small districts have complained in past years that the rules for becoming a delegate by contributing to the political fund have not always been crystal clear) than those of another local union, they would have had 10% more voting power.

So yes, this is a great headline for Steve. But don't expect it to mean that every teacher in your local neighborhood school will sign up to be a Novick volunteer. And in some cases, the teachers who voted as delegates to endorse Novick may not know who to contact outside the website to campaign in their local area. Is the local grass roots infrastructure available to those who don't live in Portland or another big city in that area?

Stephanie, the above is to provide data points of neutral historical fact to those of you who may not have vast experience in Oregon politics.

Whatever.

The behavior of Novick partisans is strongly pushing this OEA member toward Merkley.

Just keep it in mind, folks.

This thread is a cess-pool. It's essentially unreadable.

I'm for Novick because I know he's a great guy -- a great thinker, a person who doesn't take himself too seriously, and a devoted public servant. As for Merkley, I see no reason to malign him. Just because I support Novick doesn't mean I have to tear Merkley down in the process.

There seems to be a general pattern here. "I'm voting for ____ because [his opponent] smears him." Please stop with this nonsense. And I'm talking to both sides equally. Vote for the one who most inspires you. And save the whining for some other time. These are both good men. I know one to be a great man, and that's why I support him.

Merkley is so yesterday.

He is like the grandparent who finally figured out how to text people via a cell phone, and then after texting you, calls you up to see if you got his text. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Merkley just doesn't get it. Stick a fork in him.

By the way, how long before Kari starts a new thread with this endorsement news? It is starting to get very cold in Hell, almost freezing, eh?

Hell just froze over.

Wow, that was really quick.

I should have asked for that post hours ago.

Thanks Kari, or editor.

Kevin, I wasn't at the convention, so I've not got a freaking clue.

Despite common belief, OEA members are not automatically programmed to provide this information. I will probably hear some of it next week, but I've got some more important stuff to do...like kids to teach, man.

Thank you for your comments jrw.

Less than 400 delegates at the OEA convention, so the likelihood of any particular teacher knowing the fine points of how the convention operated are fairly small.

I have known many teachers over the years. Some were gung ho OEA partisans. Some wanted no part of the OEA endorsement process and wanted nothing to do with politics. Some were too busy teaching to care about the major endorsements months in advance of the convention, but if they decided to try to become delegates at the last minute found they'd missed some sort of deadline and no one would explain the system to them.

Some, as I have written elsewhere, never understood some of the legislative endorsements over the years. And in 1984 the NEA endorsement for President was not the OEA endorsement.

So yes, everyone endorsed today has the right to celebrate. But please remember that primaries are won by winning over the ordinary folks who cast ballots. T

Teachers, like any other segment of society, will decide for themselves how much of their spare time they even spend thinking about politics and the OEA. And if they questioned OEA endorsements long before BO even existed, they have the right to evaluate these endorsements along with other information. No 2008 campaign should think the endorsement means they don't have to win over voters one at a time, whether they are teachers or not.

I think jrw may be what my friend Cathy was talking about when she got burned out on politics after decades of involvement. The people excited about the Foster win and the OEA endorsements are maybe 5% of the population (some think it is smaller than that). 95% of the population won't start thinking about primaries until April or May. And those folks are the ones who will decide the primary and general elections.

JRW posted:

"Whatever. The behavior of Novick partisans is strongly pushing this OEA member toward Merkley.Just keep it in mind, folks."

JRW, why would you possibly hold against Novick the comments made on this blog? I constantly read the same kind of statement you made on political blogs, where people are threatening not to vote for Obama because his fans are so enthusiastic. Both Obama and Novick have in common that they are charismatic politicians whose fans can, at times, get pretty fanatical. Sure, that can get annoying. But it also bodes well for the candidates' chances not only to get elected, but to be effective once elected.

Neither Merkley nor Novick has stooped to the level of a Hillary Clinton in attacking one's opponent. Let's please keep that in mind. Clinton all but said that McCain is MORE qualified than Obama on the more crucial issue facing a President. I've never heard any comment like that be made in the Senate race by either side. Until I do, I refuse to pay much attention to all this bickering.

JRW posted:

"Whatever. The behavior of Novick partisans is strongly pushing this OEA member toward Merkley.Just keep it in mind, folks."

JRW, why would you possibly hold against Novick the comments made on this blog? I constantly read the same kind of statement you made on political blogs, where people are threatening not to vote for Obama because his fans are so enthusiastic. Both Obama and Novick have in common that they are charismatic politicians whose fans can, at times, get pretty fanatical. Sure, that can get annoying. But it also bodes well for the candidates' chances not only to get elected, but to be effective once elected.

Neither Merkley nor Novick has stooped to the level of a Hillary Clinton in attacking one's opponent. Let's please keep that in mind. Clinton all but said that McCain is MORE qualified than Obama on the more crucial issue facing a President. I've never heard any comment like that be made in the Senate race by either side. Until I do, I refuse to pay much attention to all this bickering.

JRW posted:

"Whatever. The behavior of Novick partisans is strongly pushing this OEA member toward Merkley.Just keep it in mind, folks."

JRW, why would you possibly hold against Novick the comments made on this blog? I constantly read the same kind of statement you made on political blogs, where people are threatening not to vote for Obama because his fans are so enthusiastic. Both Obama and Novick have in common that they are charismatic politicians whose fans can, at times, get pretty fanatical. Sure, that can get annoying. But it also bodes well for the candidates' chances not only to get elected, but to be effective once elected.

Neither Merkley nor Novick has stooped to the level of a Hillary Clinton in attacking one's opponent. Let's please keep that in mind. Clinton all but said that McCain is MORE qualified than Obama on the more crucial issue facing a President. I've never heard any comment like that be made in the Senate race by either side. Until I do, I refuse to pay much attention to all this bickering.

JRW posted:

"Whatever. The behavior of Novick partisans is strongly pushing this OEA member toward Merkley.Just keep it in mind, folks."

JRW, why would you possibly hold against Novick the comments made on this blog? I constantly read the same kind of statement you made on political blogs, where people are threatening not to vote for Obama because his fans are so enthusiastic. Both Obama and Novick have in common that they are charismatic politicians whose fans can, at times, get pretty fanatical. Sure, that can get annoying. But it also bodes well for the candidates' chances not only to get elected, but to be effective once elected.

Neither Merkley nor Novick has stooped to the level of a Hillary Clinton in attacking one's opponent. Let's please keep that in mind. Clinton all but said that McCain is MORE qualified than Obama on the more crucial issue facing a President. I've never heard any comment like that be made in the Senate race by either side. Until I do, I refuse to pay much attention to all this bickering.

Kevin said:

"Novick has parroted successive GOP attacks on Merkley, which Merkley has declined to return in kind. But the most egregious, Hillary-esque was his parroting of the HR2 smear against Merkley."

I agree with Novick that Merkley's vote on the resolution was a mistake and was a worthy topic to bring up. But I disagree with those who think it's a huge deal.

That's why I'm not troubled by the incident from either standpoint. And that's consistently been my position. (Of course, I hate that war more than most.)

Can we be serious about current events for a moment?

Does it matter if the Bush Administration was debating possible war with Iraq, or only how someone voted 5 years ago?

Today, competing with the Filing Day news in Oregon and the Spitzer Downfall news nationally, was the news that Adm. Fallon, head of Central Command (the Middle East), 41 years in the Navy, was going to resign and take early retirement, apparently because of some remarks he made in a magazine article about possible war with Iran. Sec. of Defense Gates had a news conference (anyone know why his arm is in a sling?) to claim it wasn't just his views on Iraq, he wasn't pushed out, etc.

Meanwhile, in my email tonight, there was a "Sign up for updates on important issues--you can always unsubscribe" email from this address: [email protected]

Of course, none of that matters -she said sarcastically :}to those here who would really rather verbally beat each other up over slights (real or the perception of slights) of one campaign by another--something said about a vote, something said about a staffer, etc.

How will that defeat Gordon Smith? Will Gordon comment on the Adm. Fallon resignation before our US Senate candidates do?

Or is this blog a little world of its own with minimal connection to the outside world the rest of us live in?

<hr/>