Good for Steve for asking that question.

We've all watched the sugar guys intimidate/bribe succeeding administrations into supporting what is mostly a single family of Cuban-exile Florida cane growers, to the exclusion of entire Caribbean nations ever since the early sixties.

I went back and read the '06 Novick post and comments (which was about Blumenaeur) and given that there are literally thousands of elected Democrats that have made this same mistake in the past forty five years, I'm wondering why he singled out Obama for criticism at that point.

I am not someone who demands purity of thinking. I certainly believe that progressives can disagree. So unlike many, this quote from Steve does not bother me from the standpoint of the policy issue he brings up. In fact, all in all, I probably agree with him.

What does bother me however, is the 'blame the Democrat first' tone of what Mr. Novick wrote. Since Barak Obama voted to keep protections for the U.S. sugar industry, there can be no other possible reason in Steve's mind than Obama being "just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming".

Indeed, I find it quite ironic for Mr. Novick to have taken this line, given how inflexible he is on lowering all other barriers to trade. Clearly, while an opponent to NAFTA and CAFTA, he does want a "SUFTA" (SUgar Free Trade Agreement). The fate of US sugar workers? Not his problem. And because Barak Obama hadn't been persuaded to abandon those jobs without a little thought, Steve thinks he "doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope".

OK, that's enough of me playing the devil's advocate. In my humble opinion, ensuring the long term health of the planetary environment trumps just about everything else, including concerns over short-term US job loss.

But unlike Mr. Novick, I don't condemn people who are concerned about it. I don't accuse them of being effectively corrupt. It is a habit I see that leads me to believe that a legislative position like U.S. Senator simply does not match his talents.

Inflexibility makes great political theater. It lets you grandstand on principal without ever considering the full implications of a policy. But it is most useful - least dangerous - in an Executive position: the "proposes" side of government, not the "disposes" side that has to work with all the messy details.

jeff merkley was against obama before he was for him too, right? Given his support for Edwards?

It really is hard to stomach another hit piece on Merkley by Wweek. They're clearly biased against him, totally dedicated to bringing Jeff down and lifting Steve up.

Oh, wait.

Meanwhile, you ca always count on criticism of Steve to be "in the news;" still waiting for that first one on Jeff.

Novick's dead-on right on this issue, though his phrasing is over the top.

Obama IS weak on sugar, he IS weak on coal, and he needs to clean up his act if we're going to take global warming seriously.

WWeek deserves a Rogue award for equating changing endorsements once the field changes for changing positions on issues. Most Edwards people argued against Obama and/or Clinton before Edwards dropped out, and are now supporting one of them. Sheesh.

Go Obama. Go Novick.

"He was FOR Edwards. There's a difference."

How so? I only get to circle one oval on my ballot. Politics is zero-sum: if you're for person A, you are by nature against persons B-Z.

"How can it be criticism of Steve when WW just transcribed his quote?"

Did you miss the editorial commentary following the quote?

I have no idea what your last question means; Novick's already indicated his endorsement of Obama is thoughtfully measured. So what's the expedient part?

That's a really interesting point on coal and the debates, by the way.

"Many Democrats have been saying how the entire field of candidates were excellent, how any of them would be an excellent nominee. But Novick went out of his way to attack Obama."

You realize Obama wasn't a candidate in 2006, right?

Jack said: The better question: Does Novick stand by his quote? Or does he reject and denounce it now?

Will Steve speak truth to power? Or will he do the politically expedient thing?

I think that the grounds on which Steve endorsed Obama allow him to very comfortably stand by his 2006 statement.

He seemed to primarily endorse Obama because of his (relatively, in my view) consistent position on the Occupation of Iraq, his willingness to take the risk of saying we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for the programs we want, and the notion that a campaign can be run on hope rather than fear. (I'm not decided on the Presidential race, so these are not my views, but a summary of Steve's views on Obama taken from his endorsement.)

Can he hold those views and disagree with Obama's backing of the sugar industry? Sure. I would suspect that he'd also have something to say about the corn industry as well.

In another vein, a pick for president involves a pretty narrow choice (in terms of numbers of options). In this case, it's either Clinton or Obama. Neither Steve or Jeff Merkley picked Obama as their first choice, as others here have mentioned, but with the options down to two, Steve picked Obama.

In this thread , Kari and Nick claimed that the "In the News" items were selected without reflecting preferences for any particular candidate.

The wording of this item belies that claim. Everything is fine until the final sentence. There really is no reason for this editorializing at all: So, Novick was against Obama before he was for him? Fair enough..

And given that it reflects quite neatly the kind of rhetoric used by George Bush against John Kerry, it really is a low blow.

Just post the item and avoid the editorializing. Otherwise, sign your name and make it an editorial post.

I think the editorializing isn't coming from BlueOregon, but from the Willamette Week?

Have to agree with Paul on this one...and in general on this topic. It seems like there's a tactic in the Merkley campaign to keep this issue (Blue Oregon/Mandate Media's bias or lack thereof) alive.

My guess is that you guys think you're making the Novick campaign look desperate or something. Seems like an odd strategy against a candidate with such widespread appeal. But I'm hardly one to argue with the tactical decisions of such an experienced campaign team.

Maybe the electorate really is as dumb as you think. But speaking for myself, I do generally look to Blue Oregon for substantive news, and am continually disappointed when the "in the news" items betray a consistent and non-substantive slant.

I can see what you're saying, especially in relation to the "Obama/Muslim" stuff that has been going on. Although the citation at-large is fair.

And not to sound like certain movie print editors, slander's spoken; in print it's libel.

Posted by: Jack Murray | Mar 19, 2008 11:01:36 AM

He was clearly gearing up for a presidential campaign in December 2006. In fact, he announced his campaign just two months later than this article.

True, and Novick was gearing up for the senatorial campaign which WW gave him a platform for just a month later in January 2007. The timing does seem quite relevant.

Novick's tepid pseudo-endorsement of Obama a few weeks ago certainly makes a great deal more sense within the context of that December '06 "fraud" denouncement. It must have really galled him to have to find some way to suck up to Obama for fear being trampled by Barack's coattails in May.

The wording of this item belies that claim. Everything is fine until the final sentence. There really is no reason for this editorializing at all: So, Novick was against Obama before he was for him? Fair enough..

Uh, guys... That was WW's comment, not BlueOregon's.

The sum total of BlueOregon's commentary on this is here: "Willamette Week has been digging into U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick's blogs here at BlueOregon." and "Discuss." Plus the headline, which summarizes.

If a major media outlet in this town is going to do a story about a US Senate candidate, and their hook is a post written on BlueOregon, then it is OBVIOUSLY worthy of discussion here on BlueOregon. That's a no-brainer.

Posting it on BlueOregon does not imply that any of BlueOregon's editors think that the editorial comment by WW is correct, nor does it imply that any of BlueOregon's editor's think Steve Novick's comment is correct.

Merely that it's worthy of discussion by our audience.

Disagree with WW? Say that. Disagree with Novick? Say that.

That's what "Discuss" means.

Oh, and full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak here only for myself.

Novick's tepid pseudo-endorsement of Obama a few weeks ago...

Sounded sort of like Obama's qualified endorsement of his pastor yesterday, it seems to me.

Mature people can manage to juggle overall admiration for someone with specific criticism.

Sorry, Kari. Let me discuss as you intended:

The Willamette Week's observation is interesting and of interest to BlueOregon readers, but their hook is idiotic, and unworthy of prominent mention.

I'd discuss the first point in more depth, but find the tone invoked on the second point disappointing, and will move on to more important things instead.

On what basis do you claim Novick was gearing up for a Senate race, Kevin? Did you even read the article? He only stuck his neck out for the party (that same party you think he's disloyal to, and which 8th choice Jeff Merkley had to be coaxed into running to represent) in case neither DeFazio or Blumenauer ran. They didn't, he stayed in. And the DPO and Oregon voters owe him a huge debt of thanks for preventing the coronation of another safe Democrat.

What flavor is your Obama Kool-Aid, I wonder? If Obama were perfect, I suspect Steve, and Jeff, and you and I and Sarah and Kari (and many others) would have begun supporting him from the beginning. But we didn't, did we? It just reeks of political opportunism to admit a candidate wasn't your first choice--and then try to attack someone else who AGREES with you, because they're willing to let others into their deliberation process rather than pretend the new guy could do no wrong all along.

Has Jeff Merkley made a SINGLE accurate criticism of Novick on actual policy, as opposed to bullshit like who he voted for in 1996, whether he followed OCLC laws, and how deep his love is for Barack Obama? I'd love to hear about it, because he must have done it in secret (kind of like the secret file he keeps talking about where he declares his opposition to the war before it started).

Jack S, what does Novick (who's not pimping some inaccessible document to represent his position) have to do with whether Merkley is willing to document his claim that he "published" his opposition to the war? If there is a document of Novick's that he's been referring to that he hasn't released, what's that document about and where did he refer to it?

But that's not the question. Merkley's the one talking about a document that supposedly establishes his bonafides. Where is it?

But that's not the question. Merkley's the one talking about a document that supposedly establishes his bonafides. Where is it?

No TJ, the questions are:

1) Do you agree that it's pretty damned weird that Novick, in a post allegedly about hypothetical questions for Blumenaeur at an upcoming City Club event, manages to bash a total of one (1) elected official out of 435 from either party, and that was Senator Obama?

2) Should Blue Oregon staff have posted this In the News article from WW without using the requisite smiley face emoticons?

No thanks needed for the clarification.....;-)

Kari,

The formatting did not make it clear that the quote was from WWeek. Upon re-read, I see the different font.

My apologies to Nick.

Jack Sullivan: Must be the same secret file that Steve has on the war question. When did he first publicly say he was against the war?

Recently, there was a diary over at LoadedO on this very topic. The thread's author, petrichor, found the earliest comment from Steve about the Iraq Invasion that I've seen. It was from an article in the Willamette Week, August 2003.

In the article, Steve referred to the invasion as, "[a]n oil grab and public-relations gimmick, sold on false pretenses, which is now producing $4 billion a month's worth of chaos."

If Steve says that he was marching before then, I tend to believe that he was. I'd like to see that article that Jeff Merkley referred to where he wrote about "the mistake of using force." (Quoting the recently released video from Merkley on Iraq.)

Ok, I've had enough. Is anyone besides me sick of Dems attacking Dems?

I totally agree, Robert. Which is sort of the whole point here. Steve Novick's made great sport of beating up on other Democrats, like Jeff Merkley and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Ted Kulongoski, while the rest of us spend our time trying to figure out how to beat Republicans.

petrichor, found the earliest comment from Steve about the Iraq Invasion that I've seen. It was from an article in the Willamette Week, August 2003.

August of 2003 is how many months after the invasion?

Isn't the Novick campaign fundraising via email on the assertion that he was against the war "from the very beginning"?

By my count all of the "shock and awe" was over by August of 2003 and it was comparitively less controversial to publically criticize the Iraqi Occupation by then.

No TJ, the questions are: 1) Do you agree that it's pretty damned weird that Novick, in a post allegedly about hypothetical questions for Blumenaeur at an upcoming City Club event, manages to bash a total of one (1) elected official out of 435 from either party, and that was Senator Obama? 2) Should Blue Oregon staff have posted this In the News article from WW without using the requisite smiley face emoticons? No thanks needed for the clarification.....;-)

Those may be your questions, but they don't have much relevance to the race, do they? On the other hand, a document that Merkley is using to establish his anti-war bonafides would be a touch more effective if he would actually PRODUCE such a document. Why hasn't he?

So where is the Jeff Merkley "column" or "article" or whatever the hell he says it was, that he "published" in March 2003 about what a mistake the whole thing was?

Did he publish such a thing, or not?

I totally agree, Robert. Which is sort of the whole point here. Steve Novick's made great sport of beating up on other Democrats, like Jeff Merkley and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Ted Kulongoski, while the rest of us spend our time trying to figure out how to beat Republicans.

Whole point where, Kari? I thought this was just a neutral "in the news" posting. Apparently you find a different motivation.

Where does Novick "make sport" of beating up on any Democrat? Can you document his enjoyment of any such episode?

And who is "the rest of us," exactly? We can rule out YOU, for starters, who spent a whole weekend making shit up about Novick, and getting put in your place as a liar by the person you claimed the "news" came from. We can rule out Mitch Greenlick and Mary Nolan, and we can cross Charlie Ringo off the list. The entire Merkley blogging corps is right out, naturally. His veteran's chair said Chuck Schumer and several other Democrats should be "drummed out of the Senate." And then there's the candidate, who has lied about his opponent's support of Ralph Nader, about being the only candidate opposed to the war from the beginning (thus misrepresenting both his own position and that of others at the same time), and about "being disappointed" in Obama and Hillary. Oh yes, he also criticized several Democrats for voting the same way as Gordon Smith a while back, didn't he?

As for focusing on Republicans, Stu Rothenburg has already pointed out what a dumb mistake that was for Merkley, and now he's trying to make up for it by taking random shots that have nothing to do with Novick policy ideas.

Novick takes on Merkley because Jeff is less progressive than he is, is being propped up by consultants from DC and is perfectly willing to work within the current broken system (as his large out-of-state and PAC money kitty demonstrates). Merkley takes on Novick for silly season things like who Novick voted for 12 years ago.

And if you think being obsequious to Democrats, even when they fuck up and lay down on the job as many have these last seven years, is a winning strategy--bring THAT the hell on, buddy.

Isn't the Novick campaign fundraising via email on the assertion that he was against the war "from the very beginning"?

Isn't Merkley doing the same thing? Where's his evidence? And how can he claim that Novick wasn't against the war from the beginning as well? How does he know? What evidence is he using?

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. - Council for a Livable World

The Council only endorsed 15 candidates nationwide.

You know, there are plenty of Democrats who I've criticized for their positions on a variety of issues. Does that mean I can't support them for an office? I've criticized Obama on issues, yet I'm a big supporter of his now (one of my biggest criticisms about him was his comment about him being against same-sex marriage because of his religion).

Heck, I've heard similar type comments made by a lot of people about Democratic elected officials. We're not always going to agree with our Dem elected officials 100%. And sometimes that disagreement will be huge. Look at the things Dems have said about Blumenauer, Wyden, Wu, etc. over the years. We have the right to make critical remarks about our Democratic elected officials - doing so doesn't mean we can't then support that candidate for office. After all, chances are the candidate is going to be about more than just that one issue and we may agree whole heartedly with everything else they say.

So I guess that means all of you who are bashing Novick now couldn't possibly support him in November, right? Because after all, you've written critical things of him on a blog.

Jenni,

He called Obama a "fraud." That's several degrees beyond mere criticism.

Kevin:

I've heard the same exact word used to describe Blumenauer, Wyden, Wu, etc. It's often used when you talk about you're for/against something (say special interests) and then something comes out to show that you did something in contrast to that.

And I've definitely heard worse said around here about both Novick and Merkley. But I'm fairly certain we'll all be the supporter of the nominee as soon as the primary election is over. You can definitely still support a candidate even though you've been critical of them.

I have been looking for this story on the Willamette Week website. Can someone please provide a link?

And I'm wondering why no one is talking about this:

Sunday's New York Times magazine had a fascinating article suggesting that immigrants commit FEWER crimes than non-immigrants. The article cited one researcher who attributed America's violent culture to the Scotch-Irish heritage of many of us (myself included - I'm more Scotch-Irish than anything else except the Jewish half). I'm conflicted on the whole immigration issue: On the one hand, I think illegal immigration depresses wages; on the other, aren't we supposed to let in anyone who's tired, poor, or is now or ever has been part of a huddled mass? But that aside, this evidence on crime is very interesting, and raises this question for Earl: To reduce crime, should we deport the Scotch-Irish? If that's what has to be done, I guess I'm willing to take one for the team.

Seems to me that Steve was proposing a series of provocative and highly theatrical questions that spared no one, up to and including himself.

Unless one wishes to suggest that he does not truly support his own bid for elective office, it seems unreasonable to interpret the other excerpt to suggest that he does not truly support Barack Obama, his endorsed candidate for President.

Stephanie, thanks for noting that oversight. The post is now fixed. The WW link is here.

Ive been driving to San Francisco for spring break all day and boy was I glad to see that I missed nothing:

Steve Novick attacked another Democrat (again)

Torridjoe and company try to distract people by going after Merkley (again)

People claimed Blue Oregon is controlled by the cabal (again)

gag me with a spoon.

Don't forget these:

People think BlueOregon runs all the other media in this state.

People think BlueOregon is actually read by so many voters in this state that our coverage will affect the outcome of the election.

Kari, you're the one who brags that Blueo is the biggest blog in the state and the media follow your lead, when it suits your purpose.

Mr brave anon, merkley is calling Novick MIA on the war at the time. Aside from being false, what proves Merkley was against it? Where's his big statement of opposition? He claims he has one, why won't he produce it?