Competing narratives in the Senate race
On his blog, Oregonian reporter Jeff Mapes discusses how campaigns work hard to craft compelling narratives about themselves - and their opponents.
Political campaigns work hard to create a narrative, a storyline that attracts voters (or repels them from the other alternative). It is as crucial to a successful political candidate as the plot is to a hit movie.
He digs into the Senate race for examples. First, Steve Novick:
It's useful to think about this as the TV ad wars heat up in the U.S. Senate race. Democrat Steve Novick is apparently about to unleash the first attack ad of the Democratic primary campaign against his rival, House Speaker Jeff Merkley. ...I haven't seen the ad itself, but a transcript shows that it takes Merkley to task for supporting a 2003 resolution in the state House right after the invasion of Iraq praising the troops and the "courage" of President Bush.
This, of course, fits into Novick's story line that he is the principled fighter while Merkley had trimmed his sails to praise Bush in the initial public wave of support for the war.
Second, Jeff Merkley:
The Merkley campaign offers its own narrative, which is that this ad is another example of how Novick is willing to use "Republican talking points" to smear a fellow Democrat. Merkley spokesman Matt Canter pointed out that Oregon Democratic members of the congressional delegation supported similar resolutions in Congress - and Novick is thus really willy-nilly attacking fellow Democrats. That, of course, is another Merkley narrative, that Novick is all too willing to cast stones at other Democrats and won't be a team player.
Third, Gordon Smith:
As befits the only Republican statewide office holder in a blue state, Smith quickly makes clear in his tagline what his narrative will be: common ground for the common good.In fact, while Smith supports Republican John McCain, he sounds downright unconcerned in the ad about whether the next president will be a D or an R.
I am Gordon Smith and I've shown a better way, thinking independently, working with Democrats and Republicans. I approve this ad because no matter who our next president is - him or her - I will find common ground for the change we need.... The Democrats respond that the Smith ad is not a re-introduction of the Smith narrative, it's the making of a myth. The Novick and Merkley camps argue that Smith is trying to rewrite his story line to turn himself from a supporter of the Bush agenda into an open-hearted independent.
As Trent Lutz, the executive director of the Democratic Party put it in a statement, "Gordon Smith, it doesn't matter what you say to the camera or what music plays in the background, you can't disguise your record."
Discuss.
|
April 30, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 30, '08
Oh Jesus. You're trying to push this again? That Novick is using Republican talking points? Of course, those words are only quoted, absolving this blog of any role.
Did Jeff Merkley vote for the resolution or not...Yes? Then Jeff Merkley OPENED HIMSELF UP TO REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS. Bad judgment will always be bad judgment. Triangulation would be even worse. Pick your poison, Merk campaign.
May 1, '08
Josh Kardon, Clinton Campaign Director- Confirms that Wyden won't, I repeat (incredulously), won't be campainging against Gordon Smith. I guess that confirms that Clinton and McCain, best buds, are on the same team, and Josh Kardon, is more loyal to McSame and Gordon Smith than to the Dem. party nominee.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/1/0152/54935/662/506823
"Just as Sen. Smith has supported the Republican nominee in both of his last two races, Sen. Wyden will support the Democratic nominee for 2008, but he won't campaign against Gordon, and he will continue to work with Sen. Smith on the state's behalf for the next two years," Kardon said
12:31 a.m.
May 1, '08
Is there a difference between "campaigning against Gordon" and "campaigning for Steve?" (or Jeff)
I hope so. Because this is damned disappointing.
12:46 a.m.
May 1, '08
This article (<a href= http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/19/20187/8431
Still, it's concerning to hear that Wyden will go less than "all out" for the Democratic nominee. I don't see why "good relations" are particularly important when your votes cancel each other's out 90% of the time.
Great, they get along. But what does Oregon get out of having two Senators on opposite sides of the aisle? Certainly not continued county payments. Smith hasn't delivered for Oregon, even when his party was in power, and he needs to go. Wyden needs to be part of that.
12:49 a.m.
May 1, '08
(Broken link, that'll teach me not to use the preview option...)
This one works...
2:26 a.m.
May 1, '08
Hey folks... I'm not sure why this has reared it's ugly head again, but this is a year old. Almost exactly.
Matt Stoller started the discussion at MyDD on April 17, 2007.
I wrote a response at MyDD on the same day.
Jeff Alworth weighed in here at BlueOregon later that same day.
And then, Josh Kardon posted his response two days later at MyDD.
There was additional discussion as well here at BlueOregon. The bottom line: Wyden will definitely campaign for Dem nominee in 2008
Let me reiterate the key point, which is more salient now that we actually have Senate candidates (and are on the verge of having a nominee): Who should be the primary voice taking on Gordon Smith? Should it be Ron Wyden? Or should it be Steve Novick/Jeff Merkley?
Ron Wyden has played a HUGE role already in getting the DPO ready to take on Gordon Smith. But he's most effective behind the scenes - raising money, organizing infrastructure, raising awareness nationally of what's happening in Oregon.
Senator Ron Wyden will be a major asset to whomever is the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate.
Full disclosure: My firm manages the websites for Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, and StopGordonSmith.com, but I speak only for myself.
May 1, '08
You want a narrative? It starts like this.
Once upon a time, there was a story told about a girl named Cinderella. It gave rise to many other variations on the same theme. Some of these even arise in the domain of politics.
One is happening right now, in a progressive state known as Oregon, in a nation called the United States of America, in the dawn of a new millennium. The lead character of our story came from a poor background. He is a wee man, well under 5' tall ...
7:32 a.m.
May 1, '08
We've never really been able to count on Wyden to avoid his clubby predilections. He seemed afraid of toxic Joe Lieberman as the rest of the Senate, and has always been unwilling to be straight about the damage Gordon does, no matter how often Gordon fucks him.
I like ron a lot, and he certainly does plenty on important issues, but he's enabled our national nightmare in part, because he won't point out that Smith is the problem. They work together for Oregon, fine--but it's wrong not to be honest about the need to replace him.
8:12 a.m.
May 1, '08
The Oregonian: Merkley's past far from "establishment"
8:17 a.m.
May 1, '08
About Lieberman...
Let's say Wyden and every other Democrat ostracized Lieberman. What happens?
Lieberman caucuses with the GOP? That would give the GOP control of the Senate.
What sense does it make to berate Senate Democrats for NOT cutting off their noses to spite Lieberman?
May 1, '08
I think what this shows most is the amazing banality of Oregon and NW politics more generally. We essentially have at least two of the three candidates (Smith and Merkley) arguing at a high school level about personal style, and who can be most popular in their class, rather than speaking for more important values (an emphasis on personal style being a value that tends to suggest personal shallowness).
Novick has distinguished himself somewhat by actually pointing this out, but he still has some very provincial attitudes that betray a lack of intellectual depth and wisdom. Hopefully this lack of substance amongst a significant group of people is not indicative of what lies ahead for our state, because they will be hard times indeed.
8:28 a.m.
May 1, '08
Not only will Wyden help our eventual nominee, he's consistently been the most helpful statewide official for downticket and state lege races. He's a talented campaigner. Dems need only look to the past few cycles and his help winning back the House and Senate to ease their anxieties here.
8:42 a.m.
May 1, '08
First of all, if they'd ostracized him he wouldn't BE in the Senate; he would have either not run as an independent, or lost.
Second of all, anytime after Jan 07, what Lieberman does is irrelevant to Dem control; the leadership is fixed for the entire 110th Congress.
And Lieberman to the GOP? What a joke. They don't have any ACTUAL use for him; he only stabs Democrats in the back rhetorically and on the war. He would have no home among the Republicans; it's an empty threat.
I see you're scared of him, too!
8:43 a.m.
May 1, '08
"Not only will Wyden help our eventual nominee,"
Charlie, it doesn't help the nominee to make the incumbent seem not worth replacing. That's step one.
May 1, '08
Merkley's past is "far from establishment." The Oregonian's narrative left off the part about how Jeff rode in a sidecar in South America with Che Guevara. To this day, it still pains him that he got left out of the Motorcycle Diaries. They also failed to mention when he got a flat tire after helping rebuild earthquake leveled homes in Managua and couldn't get to El Salvador in time to save Archbishop Romero. This guy is a Leftist Superhero.
May 1, '08
Torridjoe said:
As usual, Mark Bunster doesn't let the facts get in the way of his argument. He also continues to demonstrate a phenomenal lack of comprehension regarding the legislative process. Leadership in any legislative body is NEVER fixed and can ALWAYS be changed by the membership of the chamber, or in the case of the US Senate, the party caucuses. Case in point: Jim Jeffords. When he switched from Republican to Independent in 2001 and began caucusing with the Democrats instead of the Republicans, he took a GOP controlled 50-50 Senate and threw the majority to the Democrats, 51-49, making Tom Daschle the only Senator to be Majority Leader, Minority Leader, and then Majority Leaders again in the course of one Congressional Session. Why the change? Well, when the 107th Congress started, Dem VP Al Gore still had about two weeks left in office, so Dems were in control of the chamber for that time, because of his constitutionally assigned tie-breaking vote. When GOP VP Dick Cheney was sworn in, it gave control of the chamber to Republicans for the very same reason. Then, when Jeffords bailed on the GOP, Dems were back in charge. Same principle applies to Lieberman. If he bails on the Dem caucus at any point to give himself over fully to the dark side, you can say hello to your new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Please Mark, educate yourself before you make stupid comments like that one.May 1, '08
Interesting that "senate scholar" chooses to use TJ's real name, but hides behind a silly one-off pseudonym for him/herself.
10:24 a.m.
May 1, '08
Poor, poor Senate scholar. I direct you to S Res 27, which sets the majority membership of the committees in stone for the duration of the 110th, and S Res 28, which does the same for minority membership. Note that they fix the membership allocation to provide Democratic majorities in all the committees.
Maybe you should watch more C-Span, less time studying.
May 1, '08
Torridjoe said:
Hey look! Mark figured out how to google "Senate organizing resolution"! Too bad you didn't also read it. The idea that any statute or resolution is ever "set in stone" as you say, would make anyone familiar with legislative procedure laugh. But, if as you say, the majority is "set in stone," I'm wondering how you interpret the very first line, which reads (emphasis mine): If the resolution leaves open the possibility of chosen successors, how then could you say the membership is "set in stone?" Do you also believe, as S.Res.3 says, the Robert Byrd is "set in stone" as the President Pro Tempore of the Senate? What if he dies (at his age, not unlikely on any given day)? The truth is, you repeatedly demonstrate your lack of knowledge on this stuff, and frequently it is in order to bolster your position on some political issue. You live in "the world according to Mark" rather than the real world. It is time someone called you out on it.May 1, '08
The question should be not who is better Jeff or Steve, but who can beat Gordon? Do you think Steve can carry any counties beside Metro area, Yamhill and Lane (of course smaller ones like Clatsop Tillamook and Lincoln)? True these might be enough to tip against Gordon who will probably win everything east of the Willamete and south of Lane County.
Here is my heresy a Smith victory is still a win for Oregon and that is why Wyden won't specifically attack Smith. The NW delegation has to work together on a lot of issues where they agree: county compensation funding for timber harvest reduction; keeping BPA surpluses reinvested in NW infrastructure; working on a viable solution for the Columbia basin Salmon recovery and hydroelectric preservation (a federal intervention may overturn anything Judge Redden gives out). So Democrat or Republican a sitting senator is an incredibly important and valuable tool for a state. Then there is this: Are we better off if both of our senators hail from the urban and blue center of the state? Or might the state do better with a split in our representation. Say what you will about Smith he has been tireless in support of rural issues.
11:28 a.m.
May 1, '08
I really don't get the whole reference to my name as used by Merkley supporters. It's as if you think you're debunking some kind of secret.
As for googling, of course I used it to get the RES. numbers; I think if you didn't know they existed, I can be forgiven for not having committed their ref numbers to memory. But the discussion was taking place when Lieberman was running, so it's not like your mistake is a new one. It's just telling that you'd choose to anonymously attack me on it so late in the game.
On point: the bills are separated by majority/minority. Successors would only pertain to those from the corresponding caucus. And the references are to the majority at enactment, not a future majority or a case without one.
All of which is a red herring. Lieberman's threat is empty because Joe is about Joe. He becomes a nobody in the GOP.
May 1, '08
TJ, how do you explain the whole Jim Jeffords thing?
And can you please explain why a majority of Senators couldn't just issue a new Senate organizing resolution anytime they wanted to?
11:37 a.m.
May 1, '08
smith working tirelessly on rural issues? That explains him being utterly MIA and ueless with his caucus on timber payments. And the economy and trade are rural issues, and gordo has actively worked to fuck them over. Nice try.
Novick has shown good receptions outside PDX, certainly better than Merkley. Honesty, integrity and the desire not to be a sycophant of the party, seems to have crossover appeal.
11:46 a.m.
May 1, '08
He becomes a nobody in the GOP.
Of course. The Senate Republicans would never even consider giving him a choice assignment in exchange for control of the entire chamber.
11:49 a.m.
May 1, '08
Senate Scholar: The truth is, you repeatedly demonstrate your lack of knowledge on this stuff, and frequently it is in order to bolster your position on some political issue.
While I generally feel that Mark spews needless insults, and in many cases, is more than willing to distort political assertions past the factual breaking point, I feel compelled to defend him here.
The ability to change a Senate organizing resolution is normally subject to procedural roadblocks that makes it impossible to change the leadership despite any temporary majority on the floor. This is why a minority party can't ambush a minority of the majority on the floor - barely keeping a quorum - with a resolution to change leadership.
The only reason why Jeffords flipped the Senate was because there was a preagreement written into the last organizing resolution specifically allowing for a revote if there were changes to the party caucuses. No such clause exists in the current organizing resolution, so Lieberman going full GOP would not trigger a flip of the Senate.
All that said, it's also clear that despite whining from the purity troll brigade, we're still going to need Lieberman on the things he's useful for past 2008. And he will be - to defeat a parade of GOP filibuster votes in 2009.
The Senator from Connecticut is, other than his deranged views on eternal war in the Mideast, a rather traditional liberal. He's pro-environment. Pro-labor. A nearly full throated populist when talking about working families, in fact. Pro civil rights. Pro abortion rights. Look, I wouldn't vote for him, but anybody who's got a 0% Rating from the Christian Coalition ain't all bad.
And he is the Senator from Connecticut until the people of Connecticut decide otherwise, so Senator Wyden and (hopefully) Senator Merkley, would be a fool not to work with him where they can.
12:11 p.m.
May 1, '08
"TJ, how do you explain the whole Jim Jeffords thing? "
There was no clause in the 2001 organizing resolutions similar to what was done before the 110th. They specifically took pains to prevent Lieberman from being an issue. Quoting Congressional Quarterly's Taegan Goddard, via another page because the original link is no longer active:
To answer the other question, a organizing resolution still starts in committee, all of which are run under the current resolution by...Democrats.
so STFU already, "Scholar."
12:13 p.m.
May 1, '08
Ah, thanks Steven...sort of. At least it's nice there's independent corroboration of the facts now, since no one would suggest we have the same goal in this race.
Really, this was talked to death right around the time of the resolutions, and anyone who claims themselves to be a Senate Scholar (I'm surely not), would have been paying enough attention to know that.
May 1, '08
Steven, I respect your intelligence immensely and you always add positively to the conversation.
But on this point, I must disagree:
The first part of your statement simply isn't accurate. There was no explicit language in the 2001 organizing resolution that called for a revote. The process now is the same as it was then: pick up a member, pick up the majority, control the chamber (at least nominally).12:24 p.m.
May 1, '08
I've gone back and reread the Josh Kardon statement that Kari linked to, above. I see nothing in it that warrants the kind of alarm that is being expressed by some of the commenters above (and my own expressed disappointment, above, has now been tempered by what I've read.)
Josh says
More explicitly, he says earlier
(Before the Merkley minions have a cow about their guy being excluded, please note that this was posted on April 19, 2007 -- the day after Steve's campaign announcement, and months before Jeff's.)
Josh continues
Now, I might disagree with Josh about the desirability of Harry Reid continuing to lead the Democratic majority in the Senate, buty I view Reid's name in that sentence as a polite placeholder and I can live with it.
12:47 p.m.
May 1, '08
"The first part of your statement simply isn't accurate. There was no explicit language in the 2001 organizing resolution that called for a revote.
The process now is the same as it was then: pick up a member, pick up the majority, control the chamber (at least nominally). "
Statement one is true. Statement two is not, for there IS a specific clause of the current resolution that prevents a revote and maintains the current setup.
You fucked up and pretended you knew so much about the Senate, now the best thing to do is just take your medicine and go away (or at least go back to using your regular handle)
May 1, '08
Torridjoe said:
Show me the clause. What's that? You can't? Why? Because it isn't there. Your amateur reading of law and procedure are legendary. Now to Goddard's take on the 2001 organizing resolution: he is right in the sense that the organizing resolution automatically self destructed upon one party claiming a new majority. But it did not establish anything else in that regard: All that says is, with a clear majority, we're starting over at square one, and as you might expect, the majority will be in control at that point. It throws the Senate back into disorganization. The point of that clause is to ease a possible transition Now, you're right that committees and chairmanships aren't automatically voided in the 110th (like they were in the 107th) in the event Lieberman switches parties. But do you really believe that Majority Leader McConnell is going to keep the place running as if he's in the minority? Again, you do not live in the real world. Your half-baked notions of how things ought to be get you so spun around so often that you end up sounding like a blathering fool most of the time. As Jack Sullivan asked earlier, how would you prevent a new organizing resolution from the new majority? The truth in a legislative body is this: only the constitution is set in stone. Everything else is malleable. Hell, that's the point of a legislature: to write new laws and change old ones.1:24 p.m.
May 1, '08
Boy, you're a glutton for punishment, aren't you?
"As Jack Sullivan asked earlier, how would you prevent a new organizing resolution from the new majority?"
As I already pointed out, how would it clear a Democratically controlled committee? And there wouldn't BE a Majority Leader McConnell at that point.
You certainly have no basis for argument here, so you must just be attempting to waste more of my time. Nuf that shit.
1:49 p.m.
May 1, '08
Stephanie: "(Before the Merkley minions have a cow about their guy being excluded, please note that this was posted on April 19, 2007 -- the day after Steve's campaign announcement, and months before Jeff's.)"
LOL - is that a rhetorical trick they taught you at lawyer school... projecting your own tendencies onto others?
Did you and Steve go to the same lawyer school?
May 1, '08
The question should be not who is better Jeff or Steve, but who can beat Gordon? Do you think Steve can carry any counties beside Metro area, Yamhill and Lane (of course smaller ones like Clatsop Tillamook and Lincoln)?
Aside from the fascinating debate on Senate parliamentary procedures, the above question is key. And it's the key reason I'm supporting Novick.
Novick is going to lose outside the metro areas. BUT, he also has the potential to sway some of those voters with his honest and forthright style. People are looking for politicians who don't look like politicians, who speak the truth, who do what they think is right without doing a political calculus. And Novick is going to ROCK Gordon Smith in the urban areas, carrying him to victory in November.
I like Jeff Merkley, and I don't think I've said anything too negative about him here on BO. But I think his chances of beating Smith in November are almost nil, because he just can't differentiate himself. In November, I think Smith beats Merkley 49% - 42% (with 9% for Frohnmayer), and Novick beat Smith 48% - 47% (with 5% for Frohnmayer).
May 1, '08
Torridjoe said:
You're showing your ignorance again. In legislative bodies, there is nearly always a provision for discharging a bill from a committee, and the US Senate is no exception. In the House, it's done by petition. In the Senate, by a discharge motion. When the discharge motion carries, the bill or resolution goes to the floor for consideration: But, and here's the kicker, resolutions do not have to go to committee at all. And let's get real. What kind of backbone have Harry Reid and his merry men demonstrated that make you think they'd pull out all the stops to prevent a legitimate transfer of power? Christ almighty, it's like I'm sitting here playing cards with my brother's kids or something.May 1, '08
"The question should be not who is better Jeff or Steve, but who can beat Gordon? Do you think Steve can carry any counties beside Metro area, Yamhill and Lane (of course smaller ones like Clatsop Tillamook and Lincoln)?"
No. That's just one question. A more important question is whether Oregon can vote in a Senator who might actually shake Washington up, and wake the Congress out of its disgusting slumber.
And the answer is "yes," if it votes in Steve Novick. Novick is leading in the polls and getting so many endorsements, notwithstanding Merkley's institutional advantages, not because Novick is more electable (who ever knows which of two candidates is more electable before the primaries are even over?), but because Novick is a more exciting prospect as a Senator.
6:13 p.m.
May 1, '08
Just two hours ago I ran into a guy I work with, fairly moderate, a D who has voted for Smith. He sidled up to me at a social gathering and said, "I heard you have lawn signs." Well, the only lawn signs I have are Novick lawn signs (and he got my last one - I need to get more). I expressed surprise that he would be supporting Steve because I still tend to think on the left-to-right axis. But he is supporting Steve very enthusiastically and the answer is that Steve appeals to him because of Steve's straight talk, because of Steve's intelligence, because of Steve's spark. Then HE ASKED ME TO PLEASE SEND HIM THE LINK SO HE COULD DONATE MONEY. I'm here to tell you that I've been raising money for Steve for more than a year and conversations like that don't happen every day.
It is encounters like that that give me hope, and cause for optimism.
May 1, '08
Did you and Steve go to the same lawyer school?
Did you even go to school? It's apparent with your playground style of arguing. Keep it up; you'll break the minimum wage barrier soon enough.
2:23 a.m.
May 2, '08
Hey Steve Maurer, thanks for educating me about Joe Lieberman on abortion rights -- he has a rep for being against them based on his Orthodox Judaism but his voting record is much different than I thought.
Of course, there is still the small matter of his endorsing John McCain.
8:13 a.m.
May 2, '08
Doesn't the cartoon character (and gradeschooler) Bart Simpson run around saying "don't have a cow, man"?
I rest my case.
8:30 a.m.
May 2, '08
C'mon Stephanie isn't it true that your Alama Mater is so strapped for cash that they had to go into the padlock business as a sideline to make ends meet?
9:08 a.m.
May 2, '08