I disagree with Steve about a few things, but as I said over there regarding the death penalty, that is one issue where I believe that Steve's position and mine are actually very well aligned.

My main issue with the death penalty -- and I believe Steve's as well -- is the historically discriminatory way it has been applied, and the way many impoverished defendants find themselves overmatched and unable to obtain a vigorous defense in court. This can often result in unchecked prosecutorial misconduct and generally make it less likely that the accused's constitutional rights will be protected. The execution of innocent persons has to be prevented.

But in the rare case of a vile criminal who is clearly guilty of a heinous crime, in my view it's OK for the death penalty to be on the table at sentencing time, and I think Steve would say something similar.

I wish Willamette Week had provided a little more context.

"Unquestionably, that is Merkley, as the Speaker of the Oregon House and a Democrat with a long list of accomplishments as a progressive for the state."

Why is that not up for question? Most people don't know who he is, and think the legislature sucks. 70% of Oregon thinks that.

He's the same old politics, a moderately good traditional politician going against a superb traditional politician. THAT's an easy decision, and a boring one, because there's no fervor for traditional politics of any kind. Speaker of the House and long list of accomplishments doesn't say shit to the majority of the people, I'm afraid. Do you engage? That's what people want to know. They're tired of laundry lists and compartmentalized politics where you have your good special interests and your bad special interests, your sacred cows and your punching bags. Someone who took three tries before settling on one response for reforming NCLB, and who still hasn't heard back from Jon Tester and other Senate Democrats to let him know what to say on guns in federal parks--that is electoral parsing and party politics at its narrowest. My God man, I want someone who shouldn't need to ask, and optimally wouldn't care if his opinion were different anyway. I'm tired of that.

It's this belittlingly arrogant leitmotif of the Merkley class, that he's the ONLY rational and qualified candidate for the job, that's so absurd. Get over it. Many people seem to think Novick can do the job. Quit sputtering about the nerve of the other guy thinking HE'S entitled, and get busy engaging--because frankly Jeff is wasting time still being aloof and laying claim to "best Democrat" status. No one is willing to care about that shit anymore. What do you want to do, and why. Specifically. When I ask you where you stand, please tell me, don't constituency-filter me. K?

I guess I can take this opportunity to demonstrate that I'm not a member of the "purity brigade" or a "purity troll" as some might brand me.

I'm completely, 100%, in all cases, for all persons, against the death penalty. I do not believe that our "criminal justice system" can be trusted with the awesome responsibility to mete out the death penalty. There have been too many abuses, too much systematic inequality, and too many innocent people put to death to justify the continuation of capital punishment.

That said, I'm backing the Senate candidate, despite my disagreement, who does support the death penalty in some cases over the one who does not.

Why? I believe, in general, that Steve Novick is a stronger candidate than Jeff Merkley. I think he'll make a stronger case against Gordon Smith in the General Election and provide a more stark contrast. I also think that his positions on tax fairness, civil rights, and fighting poverty are closer to my own than his main competitor.

Do I agree with Steve Novick on everything? No. Will I press him on his position on the death penalty? Yes. Do I enthusiastically support him in his bid for a position in the U.S. Senate? You betcha.

I don't expect or require a candidate to be perfect (according to my, or anyone else's, subjective definition). That's an unreasonable expectation for any human being. I do expect them to have integrity, and Steve Novick possesses that quality in abundance. I will happily vote for Steve when my ballot arrives in the mail.

I don't agree with Steve at all on this either--I just think it's logically and morally bereft as a concept--but he's honest about it, and ironically it's a better position for the general. I don't think Steve cares about that, but if you're in the vote chasing game, that's a plus for Steve.

But let it be said that there IS at least one thing where Merkley has the more progressive position. Good for him.

I think you'll find most Novick supporters are willing to say "I'm not with him on that" or "I wouldn't quite go that far with that" on certain things. We don't expect a candidate just like us, we expect one to be honest about how he plans to help us, and make us trust in his leadership and his word. I feel like Merkley supporters seem to be really jumpy and defensive if their personal votecard score for Jeff isn't seen as 100%.

Meta: I think Slovic did a pretty sloppy job and probably a disservice to both guys, in her analysis.

It's interesting and noteworthy that on the question about SSI, which cited a $100k ceiling, Novick went straight for a $1,000k Strawman. That's an easy Strawman to pummel because nobody questions whether $1,000k is "wealthy." On the other hand, with inflation being what it is, $100k won't even buy you a shack in many parts of Oregon, much less a modest home. IOW, the difference between $100k and $1,000k is HUGE.

It's worth noting that John Edwards advocated raising the ceiling to $250k. Jeff Merkley advocates a very modest, realistic raise up to $150k, which would still only buy a very modest, older, in-need-of-remodeling home in my hometown.

I'd like to take a moment to mention another part of this item where WWeek, in my view, failed to present a critical distinction between the candidates: marriage equality.

Steve Novick supports equal access to civil marriage for all couples, including same sex couples.

Jeff Merkley advocates interstate/federal recognition of "domestic partnerships" and has never been willing to express support for opening up civil marriage. This is the case despite the 1000+ rights, privileges, and benefits that accrue only to legally married spouses under Federal law, and the many private contracts (insurance, etc.) that recognize only "marriage" as a predicate for rights and benefits.

He and his supporters drop concepts like "getting the government out of the marriage business" but if he really advocates abolition of civil marriage (which would be a bold position for sure), he hasn't had the nerve to actually say so. And in 2004 he told the Oregonian that "marriage is a sacred covenant between a couple and God," which suggests a religious underpinning for his reluctance to simply open up civil marriage to same sex couples. It's his prerogative to hold that view, of course, for whatever reasons float his boat. It is way ahead of Smith or most Republicans, but is not equivalent to supporting same sex marriage.

Let me add my name to the list of folks who will vote for Steve, but REALLY, REALLY wish he'd change his stance on the death penalty. Steve, are you listening?

I'm with Colin in that I am always, 100% opposed to the death penalty. For me, it's a matter of philosophical consistency -- why kill to show that it's wrong to kill? I also don't know how in the world we will ever remove human error from the system...it just isn't going to happen.

yes, for the love of GOD won't I shut up about how Merkley's better on an issue than Steve? Must I go on and on about Merkley's superior stance? I'm like a broken record, with that!

I will vote for Merkley because he has, by far, the best opportunity to beat Gordon Smith. I want Smith out of the Senate period. TJ your rants are not helping your candidate.

of COURSE they're not helping my candidate pam; I'm saying he's got the wrong position! Then again, it's a damned fool who would judge a candidate by their supporters...but if that's your process...!

Shouldn't you hold off flinging your poo for when I disagree with Merkley, though? Just to be, you know, rational about it?

For clarification's sake, the WWeek section that Stephanie V refers to is correct: Jeff Merkley supports the recognition gay marriage.

I've made this point other places, but I want to make sure its clearly understood here as well.

I realize that there are those who've argued otherwise. They are, to be candid, incorrect.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

"I realize that there are those who've argued otherwise. They are, to be candid, incorrect."

Then show where Merkley says "I support the right of people of the same sex to marry." Not parsing of giving civil rights, or removing the barrier for states to offer civil marriage if they want to--but advocating for giving same sex couples the right to receive a civil marriage license.

The only statement on the record from him so far is that he believes marriage is about God, not government--just like the people who supported Measure 36.

You are trying to pull a fast one on people, and it will not work. Until you are willing to provide any evidence specifically stating his support for the right to marry (not to have a civil union, and not just supporting the right of other people to support that right), you are--like pretending to supporters that mortgage reform got passed in the 2008 session--fibbing to Oregonians. And you are demeaning those courageous public officials who have actually stated their support instead of pretending at it.

First off, it causes me no end of comfort that Novick partisans can actually disagree with their candidate and still support him. Given the way some of them act, I was waiting for Steve to say something reasonable, like "OK, I don't like them, but let's NOT just impeach all of Bush's supreme court picks" and have the purity brigade go: "ZOMG! STEVE=TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR!!!!!!!" And immediately start bashing him for not being sufficiently idiotic. Street protests. Theater. Cream pies. The whole loony bin.

Insofar as the positioning of the candidates, I find myself largely splitting the difference between the positions:

<h1>1 Drivers Licenses that are used as government id should require proof of citizenship. However - a second kind of drivers license that cannot be used as id should be offered to people unable or unwilling to provide such proof, so as to reduce traffic fatalities on Oregon roads.</h1> <h1>2 Death penalty - no. But only because it saves government money because the perpetual appeals process is so expensive. And only when life without possibility of parole is the other option.</h1> <h1>3 Really I don't see much daylight between Steve's "negative incentives after a time" (on benefits so meager you really can only barely get by) and Jeff's more honest "yes". I think the best answer would be "Yes - with exceptions for real disability". Mental disability counts. Drug addition doesn't. Working men and women of this country shouldn't have to subsidize junkies when so many services for people who actually want to get better are underfunded. Coddling junkies does them no favors, either. Oh, and subsidies should always come with strings - you have to get any proscribed mental health treatment, no panhandling (for cash to buy your drugs of choice, etc.)</h1> <h1>4 Speaker Merkley is correct: the idea that Social Security will run out of cash in 2044 is one of the Great Bush Myths. Buying into the idea that it needs to be "fixed" is the first step of ending it as we know it. So while I agree it would be nice to eliminate that regressive section of FICA, it is simply too dangerous to open the conversation with the Senate GOP over this. I don't trust Schumer to not effectively bargain Social Security out of existence.</h1>

All that said, the ideal solution would be to eliminate the cap, and use the new money to reduce the FICA rate on lower income taxpayers.

Mark:

There is a statement on the record to Willamette Week on this issue. Hence the printing of Jeff's position in the piece cited.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

ok carla--so what's the statement, verbatim? You're not going to make me call Hank to get it, are you?

Carla, perhaps you could provide a link for us to a public statement in which Jeff Merkley advocated opening up civil marriage to same sex couples.

I have never seen anything like that anywhere.

I am inclined to think that you and Jeff are playing a little bit of a shell game here but I would welcome his joining Steve on the progressive side of this civil rights issue.

Ha! I guess a lot of us would like to see that, Carla. Let's have some of that "outreach."

I am inclined to think that you and Jeff are playing a little bit of a shell game here but I would welcome his joining Steve on the progressive side of this civil rights issue.

The former belies the latter, Stephanie.

Kevin, of course you are welcome to your opinion, but this is a core civil rights issue to me.

I welcome ANYONE to the correct side of this issue.

Did I say I would switch sides in the primary if Jeff decided to back marriage equality? No, of course not. But if he is now saying publicly that he does support equal access to civil marriage, I would be pleased by that. It's important.

Did I say I would switch sides in the primary if Jeff decided to back marriage equality? No, of course not.

Nice... you've gone from a patently disengenuous statement of faux approval to a big fat Red Herring fallacy.

My opinion of your statements here is utterly irrelevant. They fail on their own merits without appealing to my opinion or anyone elses opinion.

Merkly recognizes this by refusing to foist the repayment onto wage earners, I think Merkley's position is that repayment starting in 2017 will have to come from income taxes.

And income taxes come largely from whom--money fairies? I think the answer might actually be WAGE EARNERS. So you're saying he refuses to foist the repayment on wage earners...until 2017, when the cost of repayment will be that much larger (given another 10 years of using the SS overage to hedge against annual deficits), and when repayment will need to come from...wage earners.

As for "investors" getting off the hook, have you missed the capital gains debate (in which Merkley does precisely that--let them off the hook)?

They're not difficult principles: it is unfair to suddenly stop incurring payroll taxes once you garner enough income for you not to notice the deduction as much. And it is unfair to tax passive income at a lower rate than directly earned income. Merkley's not holding on to any principles here; he's just chasing votes with a (safety) net.

I'd like to kick off a write-in campaign for Judge Maurer based on his excellent answers to all four questions.

Pete, you don't find this to be the same cowardly claptrap we've endured from our flaccid representation in Congress recently?

"So while I agree it would be nice to eliminate that regressive section of FICA, it is simply too dangerous to open the conversation with the Senate GOP over this."

TJ, in a word, no.

I know where you're coming from, but the only way to deal with Social Security (or for that matter, the Medicare/Medicaid debacle, which is the bigger concern) is comprehensive reform.

Cherry-picking issues like the cap might make good rhetoric, but as Mr. Maurer points out, in reality it's more likely to open the door to making things worse.

Maybe Steve Novick has a more comprehensive approach, I'll admit I'm not up on everything he's released. But even if that's the case, it's important for the sound-bite summary to make reference to the comprehensive approach.

verasoie, I thought you were a devoted acolyte of John Kitzhaber.

I'm interested to see that his endorsement means nothing to you.

What is with you and glaring logical fallacies today, Stephanie?

Surely you couldn't have graduated from law school and passed the bar exam without realizing that a lot of people, yourself included, are capable of making sovereign choices independent of who a favored politician may have endorsed. I mean, you've expressed fondness for Barbara Roberts and yet her endorsement of Jeff Merkley didn't result in a mindless, kneejerk swooning over Jeff in you. Yet here you are trying to denigrate verasoie with the most transparent of logical fallacies for daring to likewise think independently?

If you find the death penalty morally repugnant and don't think the state should kill people, how can you support a candidate that is for the death penalty? Doesn't that say that you in fact don't think the death penalty is a Kantian moral imperative. Rather, your opposition to the death penalty is not a moral issue at all, but merely a preference subservient to other more important issues?

(Personally I haven't made up my mind on the death penalty issue but I just don't understand how you can reconcile opposing the death penalty from a moral perspective and voting for a candidate that supports killing people unless there are two pro death penalty candiates)

Pete Forsyth: I'd like to kick off a write-in campaign for Judge Maurer based on his excellent answers to all four questions.

Funny thing. Judge Steven L. Maurer, and I, Steven D. "windbag" Maurer, only share a name.

I just wanted to say that in Judge Maurer's defense.

Kevin, take a deep breath. It's interesting, I'm just sayin'.

I have great affection for Gov. Roberts but can't follow her in supporting Merkley.

Steve Maurer likes John Kroger and yet I am able to support Kroger too.

Funny how it all works.

Steve-- wow, thanks for clarifying! I'd always thought it was pretty unusual for a sitting judge to post such frequent and forthright statements on a blog. I'll bet he appreciates the clarification too!

I'll be sure to include the "D" on my ballot...

Stephanie: "I'm interested to see that his endorsement means nothing to you."

Now you claim that you're "just sayin'"?

How do you know that Kitz' endorsement "means nothing" to verasoie? I certainly don't have the ability to read another person's mind. How did you acquire it?

Kevin, a friendly suggestion:

chill.

LOL at bdunn lecturing anyone on moral political response!

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 3, 2008 2:23:48 PM

So you oppose the death penalty because of a moral imperative but because Merkley got money from Schumer he isn't going to get your vote? Does that make sense knowing that if Novick doesn't get money from Schumer he will lose to Smith badly? Novick is going to be begging for that money if he wins. Could you help me understand how you reconcile those things?

Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 3, 2008 2:51:33 PM

Im not lecturing anyone. I am simply asking if you can ignore something and vote for a candidate in direct opposition (when there is a candidate that shares your beliefs), can it truly be considered a moral imperative? I think the answer is no but thats why I asked. Like I said I don't have a firm death penalty position, it just seems inconsistent.

Hey Robert... does that apply to mosquitoes too?

;-)

Bdunn,

Maybe I can help you. I'm completely opposed to the death penalty, as I mentioned above. That said, I'm supporting Steve Novick. Here's how I reconcile it.

First off, much to my chagrin, I don't see any possibility to eliminate the Federal death penalty in the near future. The "political opportunity window," as some say, is not anywhere near open on that issue. So, picking a candidate solely on that issue would be kind of foolish. Also, given my understanding of Novick's position, he wouldn't be pushing for more aggressive application of the death penalty (that would probably be a deal breaker). I'm hoping, and have asked privately through the campaign, that Steve would be open to reforms to the process. Also, Merkley hasn't exactly made opposition to the death penalty a cornerstone of his campaign and I doubt he would (or could) lead a successful effort to get rid of the death penalty should he be elected.

Second, a candidate's position on the death penalty is not a "litmus test" issue for me. It's close, but a candidate's positions on abortion related issues is really the only "make or break" issue for me.

Third, considering the combination of both all the political issues, combined with personality traits, I find Steve more appealing.

Forth, I really do believe that Steve Novick has a better chance at beating Gordon Smith in November. The death penalty isn't going anywhere right now, but there are a lot of other areas where having another good Democrat in the Senate will save lives.

Does that help?

I'm not looking to bust anyone's chops over the issue but I do agree with bdunn to the extent that opposition to capital punishment being characterized as a moral imperative certainly seems incompatible with political considerations such as Colin cited.

My two cents...

And for what it's worth, I am very sympathtic to the "moral imperative" arguement against CP. The only thing really tempering it is my belief that the State has a right to resort to CP. However, despite that belief... I would personally have an exceptionally high bar before agreeing to it were I on a Jury faced with that decision. I'm just not sure to what extent my personal moral values are rightly imposed on the larger society... thus the conflicted view on the subject.

Carla?

Six hours and counting. We are still waiting for that statement on equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples.

Colin,

Thank you for the honest and thoughtful answer.

I guess the characterization of an issue as a moral issue to me makes it an a priori voting issue to be decided above all others. Like I won't vote for a candidate that is a racist or a homophobe because civil rights are an a moral issue for me. That is why it surprised me that so many Novick supporters here used the moral terminology to describe opposition to death penalty while still supporting a candidate that is for killing people.

I should point out that according to what I read on The Pew Forum's web site, Novick's stance on the death penalty is very similar to what Obama says. The Washington Post has an article that discusses it.

It says:

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

Clinton is also in favor of the death penalty, according to the site.

The death penalty is one of those stances that really varies among Democrats - some completely for, some completely against, and some for it only in extremely limited circumstances.

I think I'd like to see us do away with the death penalty in exchange of a true life with no parole option. If we had that, I think I'd be against the death penalty as then we would be guaranteed (well, there's always that tiny, tiny chance of escape) that the person would remain behind bars unless something came up to prove them innocent. Many of the Democrats I've talked with who are for the death penalty are for it only for an extremely limited number of people - those like Ward Weaver who kill with no mercy and have absolutely no remorse over it. Or a situation like John Kroger speaks about where a young child witnessed a gang shooting. The gang then came back and executed the child in front of his mother.

That's very much where I am on it.

Thanks for laying it out, Jenni.

Stephanie:

Not a problem. It just irks me when someone starts attacking a candidate they aren't supporting on an issue... and a second candidate they do support has the same stance. This has come up at least twice now with regard to Novick and Obama's stance on an issue.

Because Jim Web, who Schumer endorsed in the primary, has turned out to be such a panzy?

Merkley has stood up time and time again against special interests and will to Schumer.

Thanks, Jenni.

That statement from Obama's site pretty much sums up my take on it, but much more concisely than I could have done. I'm still exceedingly uncomfortable even with that and it is IMO a compromise. But I don't see any way to improve on it. In every direction I see either worse compromises or philosphically pure positions which just don't do the reality of why Capital Punishment is even a phrase we all understand the justice that such an exceptionally solomn issue deserves.

It just irks me when someone starts attacking a candidate they aren't supporting on an issue... and a second candidate they do support has the same stance. This has come up at least twice now with regard to Novick and Obama's stance on an issue.

Jenni,

Of course you know that the same has been done with at least one issue which Merkley and Edwards share a common position which Novick does not share.

Kevin:

I'm sure they have. But it's not something I've seen hammered over and over again like I have with these two issues.

Jenni,

Who is attacking Novick? I reread the thread and the only people that professed a moral opposition to the death penalty as far as I can see are Novick supporters. I only asked how those Novick supporters squared their support of a pro death penalty advocate while being morally opposed to the death penalty, since I assume you all don't consider yourselves hypocrites.

Again I haven't made up my mind on the issue so it doesn't matter to me whether Obama is is for or against it. I merely asked what the decision calculus was and whether calling it a moral issue made sense given the way Novick and the Obama supporters who oppose the death penalty on a moral level choose to ignore their candidates position. I know that everything here gets really wrapped up in the Senate race (im certainly guilty of that) but my question applies to any politician and was more of a question about how progressives who are opposed to the death penalty choose to express that opposition. The question probably best applies to Torridjoe and other Kroger advocates who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds despite Kroger's support and Macpherson's opposition as Robert asks.

While they may have it, they typically have a life with parole option that is used instead. What I'd like to see is there no longer be a "life" option that includes parole... otherwise it isn't a "life" sentence.

Of the 36 states with a death penalty, 35 have a true "life" sentence. However, I think prosecutors sometimes don't want to put life without parole up with the option of the death penalty - they put up the death penalty as an option because they want it used. More people are probably going to choose a true life sentence over the death penalty.

Ten hours and counting, still waiting for Carla to come back with that Jeff Merkley statement favoring equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples...

21 hours and counting ... and still waiting to hear from Carla about that statement ...

I think Jenni's just saying that a sentence shouldn't be called "life" unless it's "true life." It's a good thought, but what would you rather call "life with possibility of parole?" What's a better option?

31 hours ...