Mixed signals from Steve Novick
Kari Chisholm
Over the weekend, we missed a big story here at BlueOregon.
The Oregonian reported on a question asked of the Senate candidates during the WW endorsement interview:
Novick, Merkley and two other candidates in the Democratic primary, Candy Neville of Eugene and David Loera of Salem, were asked in the weekly newspaper's joint endorsement interview who in the room they would support if they couldn't vote for themselves.Merkley immediately said he would back Novick.
But Novick said, "I'd vote for John Frohnmayer." When he was asked what other Democrat he would support, Novick paused for a long time and said, "I have a hard time answering that."
Then, after another long pause, Novick said he would have to wait to see if Merkley "continues to run the kind of campaign he's running against me."
Finally, Novick said, "Given what I know now, I would vote for Candy Neville," a real estate broker who has made opposition to the Iraq war the centerpiece of her candidacy.
Later in the interview, Novick said he'd vote for the Democratic nominee, but...
"I will vote for the Democratic nominee, but if I could vote for the person I think is best qualified other than myself, I would vote for John Frohnmayer."
The text doesn't do it justice. Watch the video.
There's a building avalanche of protest across the blogosphere - including on some of the biggest blogs in the netroots.
On its front page, MyDD's Todd Beeton called Novick "smug" and "particularly petty when he refuses to say he'd vote for Merkley in the primary if he couldn't vote for himself."
At DailyKos, a longtime blogger (and apparently, an Oregon voter) calling himself "Progressive American Patriot" had this to say:
Even after these comments [about Obama] surfaced though, I was still on the fence. But then Novick said that in an ideal world he would rather vote for a former Republican who is running as an Independent than vote for fellow Democrat Jeff Merkley. That is when Steve Novick became dead to me. ...This is the equivalent of Hillary Clinton dropping out of the race and saying that although she'll vote for Barack Obama, she likes Michael Bloomberg better. Steve Novick, you're dead to me. This May, I will be proud to cast my ballot for Democrats Barack Obama and Jeff Merkley.
Similar coverage at Swing State Project, Senate Guru, local Virginia blog Fairfax Memo, Forward Oregon, Descartes86, etc.
And, of course, the Independent Party is crowing about Novick's comments - with a big screamer headline: "Leading Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate says He Would Vote for Frohnmayer!"
Obviously, I'm disappointed in Steve's comments. I don't suppose that's particularly surprising or interesting coming from a Merkley supporter and campaign consultant.
(If you think my comments are totally worthless and not credible because of my involvement with Merkley, stop reading here. Seriously. Stop. Don't waste your time. The rest of you, please feel free to continue...)
While Steve rapidly apologized for his silly comments about blogging, he hasn't backpedaled on these comments at all (yet).
Several things strike me about this incident:
- Above all else, I just don't understand Steve's answer. He says that he believes that John Frohnmayer is better qualified for the U.S. Senate, but he says he'll vote for Jeff Merkley.
Does that make any sense at all?
Why would you vote for the person who is less qualified? As Jeff Mapes blogged, "he's clearly sending some mixed signals." - There's an old rule in politics - whenever you're making the election about yourself, you're losing. Whenever you're making it about the voters, you're winning. At the core of Steve's complaints is his belief that a Merkley campaign poll "attacked" him. But that fits right in line with his campaign strategy - largely focusing on his personality and his style. Meanwhile, Jeff Merkley is making it about the voters, focusing on the issues that matter to them.
- I've seen plenty of candidates completely lose it the first time that a poll goes into the field that measures potential negative messages. But for most of them, it happens in a local or legislative race, where no one is really paying any attention, and the opportunities to lose your cool in the public eye are much more rare.
As many times as Steve has worked on campaigns, there's nothing like being the candidate -- and he's going through all those learning curves in front of the cameras. It's fascinating to watch. - Folks outside the netroots often assume that the blogs are hardcore ideological liberals. Certainly, that's the frame that the GOP would have us believe. But as Markos has said (and written) repeatedly, the netroots are diverse ideologically but committed partisans.
Jon Tester and Jim Webb won big support from the 'roots despite a number of moderate positions - because they were and are hardcore partisans. Joe Lieberman became a pariah despite his largely liberal environmental and labor record - partly because of the war, but mostly because he was a bad Democrat, going on Fox News and badmouthing the party.
When Steve Novick simultaneously minimizes the effect of blogs and chooses ideology over party, he's effectively walking away from the netroots. An odd position for a guy who has been assiduously courting them for months. - Novick's supporters repeatedly argue that it'll be OK if he wins the primary - because the institutional support will be there for whoever wins the primary. I think they're wrong (national funders will move money to where they think their millions will make a difference; there's no dedicated Oregon account) but even if you think the Novick folks are right, these comments are a disaster.
If Novick wins the primary, he's going to be broke (probably same for Merkley). He's going to need some serious help from Democratic Senators fundraising in communities around the country. But Steve's comments have surely penetrated the Senate Office Buildings. Even if he's able to pull this off, these comments have probably gravely wounded his ability to raise national money. (After all, how can any other U.S. Senator count on a Senator Novick to help him out in the future - when Novick's loyalty is to ideology, not party?) - My last thought. If you haven't watched the video yet, do it now. Watching Steve sit there... silently... pondering his options... considering his move... it was like watching someone play chess. He was clearly considering the political ramifications of each potential answer.
That behavior was strikingly at odds with the reputation he's tried to cultivate - a shoot-from-the-hip, tell-it-like-it-is, straight-talker. Unlike Jeff Merkley, whose instinct for the right answer (and the correct answer) was instant, Steve Novick dropped back into the political consultant role - playing the angles, considering the moves and the countermoves.
[One more time: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]
 |
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 15, '08
yes, yes, stop reading, and for God sakes don't point out that Kari receives money from Merkley.
Pretty transparent act from a paid Merkley political operative.
To be fair to Novick (which kari has proven himself incapable of) here's what Novick actually said.
As Mapes pointed out, Novick also said he'd support Merkley in November if Merkley is the nominee.
Steve Duin weighed in on Merkley's campaign tactics Sunday, calling Merkley a close second to tax-evading Bono for world's biggest hypocrite.
And you "overlooked" this story earlier, Kari? Or did you just time it so that this story would be at the top of the page for your Tuesday morning appearance on KPOJ? You have referenced other stories from Mapes since that post. Hmmm. Pretty transparent.
This is exactly the kind of behavior that turns people off to traditional party politicians like Merkley, who can't seem to win on his own merits.
Shameless.
Apr 15, '08
Up until reading about Novik refusing to support the winner against goose-stepping Gordon, I supported his bid for the Senate. Now I must reconsider. His statemnent is too reminiscent of the fools who say they will vote for McConJob if their choice loses the Presidential nonination.
Apr 15, '08
Steve Novick needs to apologize or at the very least retract his answer and explain that he only said it out of frustration for the sharp elbows that he and Merkley have been throwing each other...if he doesn't do this, then he has certainly lost my vote (I was leaning slightly towards Merkley before). This is not because I expect people to blindly back the Democratic nominee for any office. Certainly there are extreme circumstances where the Democratic nominee is unfit for office. However, in this case, the two major candidates are both solid progressives. Merkley and Novick are the only two candidates with a shot at beating Smith, and Steve knows this since he is a political consultant. For him to hurt our chances in November like this really annoys me.
Apr 15, '08
Pat, Kari isn't saying anything substantially different from what the people who don't have any relationship with the campaign are saying. And it's a blog. There are new posts all the time. It's not hard to find them. The story you're pushing was already posted.
Apr 15, '08
Looks like a tempest in a partisan teapot.
However, as an indy-leaning libertarian-focused R, Novick now has my vote, and the more it gets around in the blogosphere, the more indys will hear about it.
The meme of 'makes up his own mind' is peculiar to American politics because we don't have a parliamentary system, and mavericks win because of their appeal to Jacksonians . The overrated John McCain and the underrated Jerry Brown are shining examples.
If you want to throw away candidates who collect votes from the 1/3 of the electorate who don't slavishly vote the party line, the swing vote who decide elections, it's your choice.
Apr 15, '08
And, no, I ain't voting for McCain.
6:00 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
This is what happens when you go into the cave to write your thesis, your blog coauthor gets you linked to by BlueO and I have to do double takes to try to remember when I wrote that. Anyway....
What people aren't pointing out that is absolutely crucial is that in his initial answer Steve Novick makes no mention of supporting the Democratic nominee.
It was only after being asked significantly latter if his support of Frohnmyer should be seen as another example of his attack Democrats first attitude and previous support of candidates like Ralph Nader did Novick realize the hot water he was in and measly mouth a unconvincing statement about voting for what he deems is a less qualified Democratic nominee.
Absolutely Unacceptable.
Apr 15, '08
Actually, I find Novick's candor refreshing ( kinda OT, but am I the only one who finds the WW interview process something less than compelling - check some of the others out, they all seem a bit too much like Simon and his stooges on American Idol ). I'm also no longer amused with condescending elected politicians (specifically, I'm referring to those who practice their 'magic' within the Washington, D.C. beltway - talk about elitists!) and would welcome a change in the relationship between voters and elected representatives. And, especially this election cycle, I've grown weary of conventional political candidates with their predictable non-controversial responses to nearly every question. I've said it before and I'll restate it: I will certainly support the Democratic nominee and in that process, I support Steve Novick. If Jeff Merkley is the eventual nominee, he will receive my support.
(Full disclosure: I bought beer from the Novick campaign, I read Blue Oregon regularly, and I also fiercely defend the right of anyone to differ with my opinions.)
Apr 15, '08
Kari,
Do you happen to know anyone in the Merkley campaign that is interested in anti-poverty legislation?
I e-mailed them about the state legislation passed circa 2003 in Oregon that bans members of T.A.N.F families from going to college while recieving cash aid.
I never heard back from them.
When I was working for Brian Shaw on a series of town halls in Eugene last year I met with Jake and Mr. Novick and when I raised the issue about the ban they seemed very concerned.
I guess my e-mail to Merkley got lost in the shuffle, so maybe you can give me a hot tip about who to talk with over there.
I know alot of people would be interested in hearing the different candidates views on the topic.
Thanks- Michael Smith
6:52 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
It's easy to gin up outrage on the blogs when you lie about Steve Novick to them, isn't it Kari? The sleaze you're peddling lately is disgusting, pretending to people that Novick wouldn't support the nominee when he says he would clear as day, calling Novick's party loyalty into question when he didn't need 100K and a Senate svengali to be convinced to take on Smith.
7:15 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Michael:
Please email me directly
carla (at) jeffmerkley (dot) com
Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon
Apr 15, '08
Torridjoe: your continued claims on this and other blogs in the last few days that people are lying about Novick's comments to Wiillamette Week doesn't pass the straight face test. Re-watch the video. If anybody hasn't yet, just watch it.
Novick only came back to say he'd support the nominee quite later, not in his initial answer. He'd already done the damage by insisting somebody else would be the better Senator.
And the opinion itself is laughable. Sure Frohnmeyer in this campaign has taken some progressive opinions on Iraq and impeachment, but there's a reason he was a Republican until recently.
Count me as another person who was on the fence before, but after watching this video donated $$ to Merkley. Novick can't and shouldn't win at this point if we want a strong, progressive Senator with a good chance to beat Smith.
7:17 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
TJ,
Bitter, bitter, bitter.
7:52 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
If you look at all the candidates' replies to the question, an interesting pattern emerges.
NOT ONE of the primary candidates has Jeff Merkley as his or her second choice if they were not allowed to vote for themselves.
These candidates have spent a lot of time together at debates and other joint appearances. Why is it that the supposedly "negative Novick" is the consensus best option? Could it be that his fellow candidates like and respect him, think he has the best chance of beating Gordon Smith?!
8:03 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
It's almost as if TJ and Pat didn't bother reading my post. They just jumped all over me for what they THINK I wrote.
Guys, I noted right up at the top that Steve said he would vote for the nominee.
My point about that, and I'll copy and paste here for you, is this:
Can you explain that? Why would Steve vote for the candidate he thinks is less qualified?
And Pat, yes, I'm not sure why we didn't in-the-news this, but I was offline for almost the entire weekend - y'know, having a life.
But rather than a straight-up in-the-news item four days late (which would have led to all kinds of screaming), I wrote up my thoughts and referenced other commentary.
How about actually addressing the substance of what I wrote?
8:25 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
The pause is simply maddening. Playing chess is an apt analogy, Kari.
But then he comes out with Frohnmeyer. Seriously? And then all that stuff about message testing? Dude, every campaign does it! It's not a push poll unless you flood the market with it, and it allows campaigns to... get this... test messages, both positive and negative. Gotta know your options if you want to run a serious campaign -- especially against Gordon Smith in November.
And, for what it's worth, didn't the Novick campaign similarly test messages?
Just to clarify, where/when has John Frohnmeyer "presented a thorough discussion of the major issues facing the country" enough to warrant a vote over Jeff? I haven't been paying enough attention to him, I guess.
8:38 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
kari, when you quote and cite sources you know are misrepresenting Novick's position, as Beeton and "Guru" are, you have joined in the lie. Those are YOUR mixed signals. (more mixed than your simple distortion on blogging, pretending Novick only had negative things to say, omitting his agreement with Merkley on part of it. )
Your question's got a pretty obvious answer, I think--now that we get a chance to see what a crappy Democrat Merkley is, stabbing Democrats in the back and using any irrelevant smear necessary to win an election, Novick is coming around to agree with Oregonians and the DSCC (not to mention the other Dems in the race), that Merkley is no one's first choice for the job. But Steve'd a better Democrat than Jeff, and because Frohmmayer really can't win, there's even less reason not to go ahead and vote Dem.
Interesting you think Merkley is talking about the voters. When did Ralph Nader, Obama, Clinton and Bono all move to Oregon?
Apr 15, '08
And the vorpal blades go snicker-snack.
I'm done.
Kari, you can't have it both ways, and I don't need to visit a pro-Merkley blog disguised as a forum for democratic thought.
So, I'm going to take your advice and read elsewhere.
9:01 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
I will just point out that doing an in the news post is generally my responsibility, so I'm apparently the evil genius in this plot to destroy Novick.
9:01 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
emily, your point kind of fell apart when you were forced to admit Novick said he would support the nominee.
Michael Smith, I wouldn't bother contacting Carla, poverty issues are not a priority to them. Prominent poverty issue advocate Rev. Chuck currie asked both candidates to offer their poverty plan. Novick immediately met with Currie; Merkley sent Carla. A short time later, Novick released a comprehensive plan, including a video response.
Currie asked in October. He's still waiting for a response from Merkley. Currie gave up and endorsed Novick. If you're concerned about getting something beyond lip service, don't bother with Merkley.
Apr 15, '08
But Novick said, "I'd vote for John Frohnmayer." When he was asked what other Democrat he would support, Novick paused for a long time and said, "I have a hard time answering that."
On its front page, MyDD's Todd Beeton called Novick "smug" and "particularly petty when he refuses to say he'd vote for Merkley in the primary if he couldn't vote for himself."
For those of us sufficiently naive to think elections are opportunities for the people to decide on who will best represent them and make the wisest decisions for the nation, Steve's position makes a lot of sense. However, the prevailing attitude seems to be to vote for the party first and the nation second (or third, or whatever).
If former Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) or Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) were running against Hillary for president I would have no hesitation voting for them. They lived up to their oaths to uphold the Constitution and voted against giving Bush authority to go to war. But then, I'm an independent and I don't let a particular party or bunch of ideologues decide who I should vote for.
And before some people jump all over me, there are some things about Ron Paul I disagree with but none as bad as Hillary's vote for this $3-trillion, millions-of-damaged -lives disaster in Iraq that Hillary was party to.
9:06 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
This part of the WW interview reveals a SHARP contrast between Novick and Merkley.
Novick complaining about Merkley campaigning against him is a rich irony considering the many months in which Novick was simultaneously campaining against Merkley and complaining that Merkley wasn't paying attention to him.
That irony just underscores the profound difference in priorities for both men as revealed by this one question.
Jeff demonstrated that he is 100% dedicated to defeating Gordon Smith with his immediate answer to the question.
Steve demonstrated that he is 100% dedicated to furthering his own political ambitions with his answer to the question.
9:06 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
TJ, I don't understand your argument. Maybe you didn't understand my question.
I'll try again. In a race between Gordon Smith, Jeff Merkley, and John Frohnmayer - Steve says that he thinks John Frohnmayer is the most qualified. And he says he'd vote for Jeff Merkley.
My question: Why would anyone vote for the less-qualified candidate? Why would Steve.
Apr 15, '08
Novick was pretty clear with his comments. I think he feels like a lot of us: wishing that a vote for an independent could actually be a winning vote. Thanks to party hardliners like you Kari, a true democratic choice (multi-party system, run-off, etc.) for Americans is a long way off. P.S your a close minded idealog, just the opposite end of the spectrum (but just as bad) of Bush & Co. sad, very sad
9:08 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Well, to me the answer to Kari's question is pretty clear: sometimes we vote for whom we think has a chance to win, even if they aren't the most qualified.
Novick could very well think Frohnmeyer has no chance to win; hence, while he thinks he'd be a better Senator, Novick would vote for someone who can knock off Smith: Merkley.
Apr 15, '08
It's easy to gin up outrage on the blogs when you lie about Steve Novick to them, isn't it Kari? The sleaze you're peddling lately is disgusting, pretending to people that Novick wouldn't support the nominee when he says he would clear as day, calling Novick's party loyalty into question when he didn't need 100K and a Senate svengali to be convinced to take on Smith.
What about this is sleaze? I think Novick brought up some really good points and he made Merkley squirm for his campaign tactics. I still think he's an idiot to go after Merkley this way and it wasn't anything that benefits either candidate in the end. So I guess I should say I liked watching Merkley squirm for some of the underhanded things he's done and I liked Novick for obviously being pissed off about it. I don't think for a second he should have done this publically as much as I liked watching it and nothing about this post was sleaze Torridjoe. It's a very valid point and it's Kari's blog so he gets to post whatever he wants.
9:46 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Well, Gordon Smith is the only candidate in the field who has actually BEEN a United States Senator, so clearly he is the most purely "qualified."
But none of us seem to be voting for him.
So, it's a matter of choosing the candidate who has some baseline level of readiness and whose substance and style are most aligned with our values.
Steve Novick has consistently said he would support the Democratic nominee. But right now, it's easy for me to understand why Steve would have to take a deep breath before saying it again. I was at the City Club event and during the one-on-one questioning segment of the debate Jeff Merkley was downright nasty. Perhaps it is just the stress of a lengthy campaign, but these days he is testing my own resolve to "support the nominee," and I don't have to spend nearly as much time with him as Novick does (thank GOD).
I think John Frohnmayer is clearly more "qualified" to be a Senator than Jeff Merkley OR Steve Novick. I'm voting for Novick in the primary and the general because I think he will develop into a great Senator and he is best aligned with my values. If Merkley somehow manages to win the primary, I will vote for him in the general because he's still way better than Smith, and Frohnmayer can't win. Merkley probably can't win either, but as the representative of a major party, he at least stands a chance. I will work assiduously to support him if that happens, because he's a weak candidate who will need all the help he can get.
Apr 15, '08
Why would you vote for the person who is less qualified?
I rarely get the opportunity to vote for the person who is most qualified because they don't often make it to the November ballot. Even when they do, voters sometimes need to make strategic decisions depending on who has the best chance of winning. Novick's point seems clear: he think Frohnmayer is the most qualified after himself, but he would vote for the Democratic nominee given his desire to defeat Gordon Smith.
Jon Tester and Jim Webb won big support from the 'roots despite a number of moderate positions - because they were and are hardcore partisans. . . . When Steve Novick simultaneously minimizes the effect of blogs and chooses ideology over party, he's effectively walking away from the netroots.
Two things here. First, you are extolling hardcore partisanship as a virtue, which is bizarre. Do you really believe that party loyalty should trump everything else? Do you believe in "Our party, right or wrong?" I find that view intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Second, you're treating the "netroots" as though they are a special interest that should be catered to. I suppose its accurate to characterize yourself as a special interest, but your demand for fealty is a turn-off. I want a candidate who speaks honestly, regardless of whether it pisses off the special interests. Novick believes that partisan blogging can be a huge waste of time and progressive energy, and he believes that ideology should sometimes trump party.
So I guess thanks for pointing out Novick's belief in those truisms, and reaffirming my decision to support him.
Apr 15, '08
TJ sez: emily, your point kind of fell apart when you were forced to admit Novick said he would support the nominee.
TJ--Hillary Clinton has also said that she would support the nominee, but you've been unimpressed with her pledge, haven't you? Indeed, you've written "fuck you, Hillary" in comments on this website a number of times, and the quotes are there for accuracy, not for figurative emphasis. I think you're trying to have it both ways.
My vote for Cindy Neville looks more and more likely all the time....there are more than two choices in the Democratic Senate primary, folks.
Apr 15, '08
It was a stupid thing to say. Now it's being spun away. And I don't particularly care about it.
10:23 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
No one's saying Kari can't write what he wants--but he gets to be held to accountability in the process.
"What about this is sleaze?"
The fact that rather than correcting those misguided bloggers like James at SSP and the oft-retracting Senate Guru for blatantly misrepresenting Novick's position, Kari uses their inaccurate statements to bolster his story here. And I was also speaking more generally to Kari's pattern of simply making stuff, misrepresenting himself, and rigging the BlueOregon game for his clients, which has earned him rebukes from national progressive organizations, traditional media outlets, and a majority of the Democrats running for Secretary of State.
Novick has always said he would support the Democratic nominee. Given that, what's the point of the story? NO ONE thought Merkley was the most qualified for the job after themselves; why single out Novick? Neville wouldn't choose Merkley; where's the post on her? Loera wouldn't choose Merkley; where's the manufactured blogosphere outrage attacking him?
Apr 15, '08
John who??? I didn't know Frohmnayer was even campaigning. STeve is sounding like Harry Lonsdale in '92 when he wouldn't back AuCoin, and AuCoin lost by a few points in Nov. Steve gave the WRONG answer as far as I, and probably most other Democrats, are concerned.
10:41 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
First of all, I don't recall Hillary saying she would support the nominee after declaring Obama to be unfit for office. Second of all, I don't recall Novick declaring Merkley unfit for office unprompted as a campaign attack, merely less qualified than others when being asked in an interview to choose the best one other than himself. Thirdly, Hillary has no basis to attack Obama for running false character smears against her; Novick has plenty of reason to feel attacked for being a principled Democrat. Fourth, that's only one in a loooong string of reasons Clinton deserves extreme contempt for her behavior.
And finally, I think ultimately it was a SMART move for Novick. I came across a self-described "conservative mortgage broker" this morning near my house. I don't know his name, but he passes by many mornings while I wait for the bus. Today when I saw him I asked if he'd be watching the big debate, and he wasn't quite aware of it. I said it was the Senate debate, with Steve Novick, Jeff Mer...he cut me off and shouted "I LOVE THAT GUY NOVICK! I've never been so excited about a candidate in years. I know he won't give me the political answer." I brought up his statement in favor of Frohnmayer, and he said he loved that--it showed Novick was nobody's bitch (my phrase; don't remember his exact description). And then he said, almost as if he was still surprised himself, "And I'm a conservative guy--I'm a mortgage broker! But I'm telling all my friends about him." In a general election, Novick's reluctance to suck wholesale from a party teat that expresses sour milk, may hold him in good stead. And given the comment made here some weeks earlier that if anyone would cause Frohnmayer to drop out, it would be Novick--if Novick is the more likely candidate to leave the Dems with a clear field against Smith, who's the better choice in the primary?
10:43 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
"STeve is sounding like Harry Lonsdale in '92 when he wouldn't back AuCoin,"
How is it possible to sound like Lonsdale, when Novick says he WILL back the nominee? You're falling for the false reportage Kari highlights.
10:46 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Novick was the ONLY state-wide candidate who didn't have a table at the recent DPO platform convention. Merkley, Neville and Loera were all represented and eager to participate with their fellow Democrats. But apparently not Novick.
Perhaps we should expect Novick's table to show up at the Independent Party's platform convention?
10:49 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kind of a dumb question to ask during a campaign anyway--why would anyone want to give support to an active opponent? But since he chose to answer the question, presumably Novick's response was calculated--he chose a candidate not running against him in the current primary. Smart answer really, although he might not have realized how strong Candy is starting to come on and the really smart answer would have snubbed her as well as Merkley.
But at the same time, Steve and his supporters really need to stop complaining about the Democratic establishment's lack of support for him--you can't have it both ways, Steve; you've picked your strategy, so live with the consequences.
10:50 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Neville wouldn't choose Merkley; where's the post on her? Loera wouldn't choose Merkley;
When asked which Democratic candidate they would prefer, Neville and Loera named Novick. So did Merkley. Only Novick named someone who wasn't a Democrat.
And I was also speaking more generally to Kari's pattern of simply making stuff [up]
TJ, do you really want to get into an argument about who is making stuff up?
11:00 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kevin, were you at the platform convention? I can't tell you how sorry I am that I didn't get to meet you in person.
11:26 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kevin, you're being deceptive. Myself, along with other Novick volunteers, were circulating at the event on Friday and Saturday. We didn't have a table, but we were there talking to Democrats, many of whom are supporting Steve Novick.
Simultaneously, we were talking to community members of Lane County at the farmers' market, and I am sorry to hear you belittle and misrepresent the hard work of a lifelong Democrat.
11:35 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
not true, Kari--Novick named Neville. I believe Loera picked Neville too, although I remember that from Mapes' piece, not the video.
Which brings me to "making things up." My accounting of Steve's early buy was way short and did not include the non-individual slot purchases. That's a fuckup on my part, I estimated badly and should correct that.
But that's not making things up when the facts are readily available. I had not yet seen Mapes piece where he got estimates from the campaigns. The counts on the current buys were actually also from am earlier TheO piece, I believe. I estimated badly, without counterfactuals available.
You're pushing stuff you KNOW is not true, as you do here. I'm more than happy to get into that discussion with you.
Apr 15, '08
The Merkley campaign, through its proxy and financial beneficiary, Mr. Chisholm, continues to roll out negative attacks against fellow Democrat Steve Novick.
If you think my comments are totally worthless and not credible because of my involvement with Merkley, stop reading here. Seriously
You should have put that at the top of the post, not in the middle.
11:51 a.m.
Apr 15, '08
kevin, Novick WAS represented. I know this, because DPO offered the campaign speaking time, after Merkley inveighed upon the Chairs to be allowed to speak at a plenary. He was apparently told to speak only in non-campaign terms, but just couldn't help himself. As a result, DPO offered time to the Novick campaign, which they smartly demurred on. Eyewitnesses also said that an older Democrat apparently from Benton, stood up and said if Merkley was going to be given an unplanned opportunity to speak, why weren't all candidates allowed? She was applauded.
From outside reports I got, Merkley did himself no favors with party leadership this wknd.
Apr 15, '08
Novick has always said he would support the Democratic nominee. Given that, what's the point of the story? NO ONE thought Merkley was the most qualified for the job after themselves; why single out Novick?
Because watch the video. Here is what I see. Novick is pissed off at Merkley for the way he has targeted him, says he'd vote for 2 other people above Merkley, then he pauses for a while and realizes what he just said and backs off a bit and says he'd vote for Merkley if he was the nominee. Personally, experience wise Merkley is far more qualified in my mind than any of the other candidates. I'm not voting based on a candidates experience.
In a general election, Novick's reluctance to suck wholesale from a party teat that expresses sour milk, may hold him in good stead.
Essentially what Novick does here is make it look like it would be better to support Frohmeyer or Neville over Merkley. Frohmeyer isn't even running as a Democrat. Read his positions and tell me if you think he's going to suction off voters for Smith or the Dem. nominee? Essentially Novick said vote for the spoiler if I'm not the nominee. You probably agree with Merkley 90% of the time you're just in love with Novick like a lot of us so I wouldn't call Merkley sour milk from the party teat.
First of all, I don't recall Hillary saying she would support the nominee after declaring Obama to be unfit for office
I do remember her saying she would put her support behind whomever the nominee was. Personally I'm not so sure she will do it but I have heard her say that she would.
Apr 15, '08
That behavior was strikingly at odds with the reputation he's tried to cultivate - a shoot-from-the-hip, tell-it-like-it-is, straight-talker. Unlike Jeff Merkley, whose instinct for the right answer (and the correct answer) was instant, Steve Novick dropped back into the political consultant role - playing the angles, considering the moves and the countermoves.
Yes, how devious of him... to actually think before answering.
Apr 15, '08
does anyone know why the novick campaign didn't have a table? does that have to do with their lack of cash on hand?
sorry, off topic. it doesn't make any sense to me that novick would claim that he would vote for the democratic nominee when he clearly thinks the indy is a better candidate. that comment seems like a calculated political move to me, which is contradictory to what Novick claims to be about.
Apr 15, '08
And to those who think Frohnmeyer is only progressive on the war, visit ivotejohn.com. You'll find that he has pretty progressive environmental ideas and wants to bring single payer universal health care to the US. Interesting.
12:07 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
not true, Kari--Novick named Neville. I believe Loera picked Neville too, although I remember that from Mapes' piece, not the video.
You're right about Loera. My bad. But Novick named Frohnmayer. Only when pushed, he named Neville - but man, he really had to think about it.
I'll copy and paste from my post again. Maybe you want to scroll up and read it.
12:17 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
garrett, I accept it's what you may see. But it seems fairly clear Novick was answering two separate questions: who do you prefer besides yourself...and will you vote for the Dem nominee? They don't necessarily get the same answer. It also seems obvious why you'd vote for a lesser candidate--because they have a better shot of forestalling the WORST candidate. If Joe Lieberman were running against me to defeat George Bush, I'd feel nauseated about doing it, but i'd absolutely vote for Holy Joe in that race--even if Ned Lamont were running Indy.
12:26 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
He named Frohnmayer before being asked to name a Democrat At that point, of course he hesitated, kari! He was likely thinking, "do I just lie now and say I think my main opponent is most worthy, or be honest and name Candy? He took a path I'm sure he knew might open him up to dishonest and distorted commentary like yours, but which was honest and true. We need better Democrats, not just more of them, and trotting out what you're supposed to say like you've been prepped is easy...and part of the problem. Novick consistently takes the honest route, even if looks harder. Merkley just reads off the mental cue card, barks, claps his flippers and waits for the sardine.
12:34 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 15, 2008 11:00:44 AM
Oh no! Say it isn't so!
Steve Novick was there courting... (gasp!!!!!!!!!) the "establishment"?
I guess it is as everyone thought all along - Steve "the outsider" Novick was courting "the establishment" all along.
The DSCC, Govs K and Roberts, all those state Reps and Senators, not to mention (as Sal pointed out in another thread) Planned Parenthood, Basic Rights Oregon and all of those other "establishment" Democrats...
Novick courted all of them.
So much for that "outsider" meme. Seems like he just didn't measure up and complaining about "the establishment" is how his supporters have chosen to cope.
12:45 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kevin:
Huh?!
I said I was there. I was a Multnomah County delegate, dude. I don't represent Steve Novick.
12:56 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
The Novick campaign was definitely present this past weekend at the Platform Convention.
The only reason you really need a table is to put your items on top of. But what happens is the volunteers end up behind the table, which limits interactions between them and the public. While working for the New Voters Project and several other such activist or political organizations, the number one rule regarding events was you were not allowed behind the table. We only had the table to hold the materials and give people a place to fill out voter reg or volunteer cards.
I think it was much better having people who were obviously from the campaign (hard to miss those shirts!) walking the crowd. With the exception of when I was looking for someone (and therefore walked quickly through the table area without stopping) and when Moses took me over to introduce me to Father John-Mark Gilhousen with PDA, I didn't go over to the tables. And I'm not the only one - a good number of people never go near the tables. And those who do go to the tables are often self-selecting -- they already support the candidate and are looking to chat with someone, pick up a button, etc.
Novick has always said he would support the nominee. As has already said over and over again, he's said it multiple times.
The question about the most qualified has been answered already too.
It's not out of the ordinary for someone to think that an independent is the more qualified person, but vote for someone else. It's because the reality of the situation is the independent doesn't have very good chances of winning the race. And people would rather go with the person who is a little less qualified or who they agree with a little less, but has much higher chances of actually winning. Because it's not like it is a race in a safe area of Portland where you can truly pick the person you agree with the most - there's no guarantee we'll have a Democrat after Election Day in November.
Apr 15, '08
(If you think my comments are totally worthless and not credible because of my involvement with Merkley, stop reading here. Seriously. Stop. Don't waste your time. The rest of you, please feel free to continue...)
Witty.
If you really wanted to even attempt to sound sincere, you should have posted this at the very top of the article.
1:04 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Jeff Merkley's campaign has done a lot of hard work to set up that moment -- Novick utterly paralyzed by a pretty simple question. It's not the kind of work I'd like to see his campaign focusing on, but it's the path they chose, and it looks to have paid off in that moment.
Now, who has a plan for overcoming the 40% undecided vote? I don't think any of these (apparently) unknown candidates is going to get an edge by tearing down their fellow unknown candidates. Here's hoping someone brings the discussion back to the failures of Senator Smith and the Republican caucus in Washington, and the possibilities that would accompany a strong Democratic majority.
That transition will take some serious leadership skills -- which I know at least two of the candidates in the race to possess, but have not seen exercised for a while.
1:23 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Stephanie,
I stand corrected. You are the establishment.
LOL
Apr 15, '08
kari, honest question.
if/when steve novick wins the democratic primary nomination, what are you going to do when, during the general election, you've got all these slime pieces in your archives?
how is that going to help defeat gordon smith?
2:14 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
OK, that's funny. How do you become a platform convention delegate in Multnomah County? you send an email to the county chairperson and ask. WHOA, only an insider could do that.
Apr 15, '08
I am a supporter of Novick and have contributed to his campaign, but I have to say that I am disappointed in Steve's reaction to the question even though he did finally get around to saying the right thing. He comes across as thin-skinned and petulant in his response. While I think that Steve will make an eminently better Senator, I will admit that Merkeley is a good man and a good democrat. Steve should have just said that he would support the democratic nominee and moved on to the next question.
Apr 15, '08
He named Frohnmayer before being asked to name a Democrat
Lame.
How does voting for or supporting Frohnmayer get rid of Gordon Smith? And then naming Neville? That just makes it worse.
What's next? Gordon Smith is better than Jeff Merkley for the job? Will we soon be reduced to another "Bono" moment?
2:33 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
OK, that's funny.
Woo-hoo! We agree on something.
:::shhhh... don't let anyone know:::
;-)
2:40 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
how is that going to help defeat gordon smith?
Trishka,
Honest question.
Steve's got a post here at Blue Oregon where he says that he'd rather vote for Gordon Smith than Bono.
How's that going to help defeat Gordon Smith?
You may have noticed a short paragraph up in the top left-hand corner:
Seems to me that both Steve and Kari have posted entirely consistently with the stated mission of Blue Oregon.
Some of the stuff written here is serious, some of it's not serious. Some of it was written to be serious but nobody takes it that way. Some of it wasn't written to be serious but everyone takes it seriously anyway. That's kinda the point of an interactive blog.
2:40 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
is that a good slogan? "Nobody's First Choice, but Hey, Whatever!"
Merkley seems to come in third a lot.
2:42 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Trishka...
I haven't "slimed" Steve Novick one bit. This post raises some questions about what he said he'd do if he's NOT the nominee. If he is the nominee, I assume he'll be supporting himself.
I think he made an error in dismissing blogging out of hand - but he's apologized that already. So, it would seem that he and I agreed on that score.
Other than that, I called out one of his staff people in the whole PDA thing - but I didn't criticize Steve. In fact, I did just the opposite.
But to your broader point: If Steve Novick is the nominee, I will work very, very hard to help him defeat Gordon Smith.
I happen to think Jeff Merkley is a stronger general election candidate against Gordon Smith - but that's something people of good faith can disagree about.
But if Oregon Democrats choose Steve Novick as their standard bearer, then that's who we'll fight for. And not just because he'll be the nominee, but because he'll be the best possible candidate on the ballot.
In a choice between Smith, Novick, and Frohnmayer; Steve Novick is unquestionably the best choice. In a choice between Smith, Merkley, and Frohnmayer; Jeff Merkley is unquestionably the best choice.
I just wish Steve Novick hadn't wiggled and waffled about that. We're going to need all hands on deck, and he shouldn't be sending mixed signals to his supporters about where his full-throated support will go.
2:54 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
It seems clear what was written before anyone was a candidate is not even close to the situation Kari faces, kevin.
Apr 15, '08
I find the whole Merkley v Novick thing mind-numbingly stupid. I would vote for Donald Duck over Gordon Smith, so there's not much to do but sit back and wait. This is much ado about nothing. Actually, I appreciate Novick's candor and am increasingly irritated by the inane things that the Merkley campaign tries to turn into an issue. He's starting to remind me of Hillary going after Obama instead of dedicating valuable media attention to the real issues.
3:06 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
It seems clear what was written before anyone was a candidate is not even close to the situation Kari faces, kevin.
I'm quite confident that the clock on what words you're responsible for doesn't start when you announce for office.
That's probably while I'll never be able to run for office; I've said plenty of dumb things here on BlueOregon along the way - or at least, things that sound dumb out of context.
I find it hilarious that some of Steve's supporters think that the slate gets wiped clean as soon as someone runs for office.
3:06 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kari said:
This post raises some questions about what he said he'd do if he's NOT the nominee.
It's important to note the question Mark Zusman asked: "If you could not vote for yourself, who would you vote for?"
Novick answered a question that was very vague in its hypothesis. He gave a perfectly good answer, stating that he would vote for a solidly progressive, anti-war, free speech advocate who is a former White House cabinet member: John Frohnmayer. The question was then changed on him: "John Frohnmayer is not in this room."
There is no information in this exchange about who Novick will or won't vote for in November. (There is, however, some disappointing information about how he'll respond to slippery questioning.)
3:16 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
you're sliming him in a post claiming you're not, kari! It is irresponsible to say Novick dismissed blogging out of hand, when he did no such thing--unless you think Merkley did too, since half of Novick's answer was what Merkley said. And he certainly hasn't apologized for his position, just the answer he gave. And he hasn't waffled on who would be best after himself--Frohmmayer. You say there's no question Merkley is a better choice than Feohmmayer; it appears Novick disagrees, along with perhaps many thousands of Ds and NAVs. Which is why it might well be smarter to nominate Novick instead. Also I think the chance Frohmmayer drops out is greater if Novick wins, thus making it an easier path for the Democrat. But as Miles points out, you don't necessarily always vote for the best candidate, lest you end up with the worst.
3:18 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kari says:
That headline is the same size as on every blog post, no matter how trivial.
3:25 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Pete wrote:
No, Pete, you're flat wrong about that. The YouTube clip above starts with Merkley's answer - but that followed the original question which was first posted to David Loera.
Here's the opening of that topic.
The context was very clear to everyone in the room
3:27 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Oh, and if you want to find it on the full video, it's at about 1 hr and 7 minutes in.
3:30 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
"I'm quite confident that the clock on what words you're responsible for doesn't start when you announce for office."
It has nothing to do with whether you're responsible for them or not--but what you're responsible FOR.
Novick was not making any negative comments about declared candidates, Presidential or Senatorial, in 2006. His aim was not to tear down a Democrat in order to elevate another one.
YOUR columns, however, took place during a contested primary. YOUR columns were aimed to tear down a Democrat in order to elevate another one--your client.
Novick is responsible for what he wrote before the race--but it only threatens to impact the race because your client brought it up. YOUR columns INTENDED to impact the race, to the benefit of your client.
Apr 15, '08
Please, TJ, just get over with it already: Write "Fuck you, Jeff Merkley" to go along with your previously published "Fuck you, Hillary Clinton". Purge your system. You'll feel better :-)
3:55 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
nahhh, merkley still has a chance to win. Hillary has lost.
4:09 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kari, I'll cop to being half wrong. It's true, I didn't realize that the question summarized an earlier one; seeing the full context, I agree that the Frohnmayer answer was out of bounds.
The other part, though, I stand by: the question was about this election -- the Primary, not the General. Seems clear to me that Novick's "Frohnmayer" answer was a protest, not a statement about November.
And as I said before, Novick handled the question very poorly. But I don't see anything to indicate who he will or won't vote for in November.
I'm curious, though, of all the outraged Dems here: let's say we see several credible polls that look something like this in October:
20% Democratic nominee 40% John Frohnmayer 40% Gordon Smith
Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No (especially given the Dems' current lack of traction.) In that scenario, are you saying you will vote for the Democratic nominee out of principle?
If so, what the heck IS that principle?
Apr 15, '08
kari, thanks for answering my question. either you're being disengenous, or you really don't believe your sliming steve novick.
but you know what? if it looks like slime and it smells like slime, it really is, regardless of whether you're trying to be subtle or fair or whatever you intend.
and the thing is - we have to do better than this starting in one month and one week. you have to do better than this.
this kind of campaigning is weak & embarrassing. whether novick or merkley is the nominee, if this sort of post is the best blueoregon can do in the campaign against gordon smith, i'm afraid we're not going to get there.
4:24 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Seems clear to me that Novick's "Frohnmayer" answer was a protest, not a statement about November.
I agree with your take on that, Pete. But even that context is damning for Novick. He's repeated attacked Merkley in very high profile ways for months now while Merkley steadfastly ignored him. Now that he's finally got Merkley's attention he wants to whine about Merkley simply returning the favor? How could such an incredibly thin-skinned individual possibly handle Gordon Smith's attack machine?
Apr 15, '08
Kari,
You are quickly turning into a joke to anyone paying attention (to those of us who watched your Kulongoski threads in the 06 primary you are already somewhat "tainted"). And something of a jerk as well.
It's perfectly fine to support one candidate over another but when you pretend that you aren't doing hit pieces for your client, on your "non-affiliated" website, when it is blatantly obvious that you are, it becomes a problem.
Maybe instead of attacking Novick on this website you should do what you get paid for (you don't get paid by Merkley to put this out on BO, right?) and make Jeff Merkley's better.
It's entrenched, establishment folks, like Jeff Merkley (who is the Democratic version of Gordo - totally unauthentic), supported by folks entrenched in the current status quo that are clearly going down in defeat this year.
Come May, 20th, I hope that Oregon, like most of the rest of the nation, rejects the "Experience" meme and chooses instead to again make the Senate the world's foremost deliberative body.
4:47 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
kevin, novick's well prepared and armed for sleazy character attacks and principles Democrats stand for. I think what he didn't expect was for Democrat to make the same attempts at character attacks without substance, and on principles Dems stand on. Like I've said, when Merkley falls behind Merkley starts playing dirty, so maybe he should have been prepared for Merkley to go dirty. Steve fucked up--he trusted him!
But I'm sure he's putting the flails of the third place candidate behind him and riding the momentum in the race. no worries.
Apr 15, '08
WOW...that's all I have to say. The video really does say it all. I was a skeptical Novick supporter as I've indicated here before...but after watching his reaction, I don't know who I'm voting for...but I do know it ain't him.
6:28 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Kevin, I'm glad you agree with my interpretation, but a little insulted by your insinuation that the attacks initiated with Novick. I read this blog sometimes, you know.
I saw some thin skin with my own eyes in the video, but honestly you come across as a low rent schoolyard bully calling him thin-skinned; you're the guy who kicked him off his bike, after all.
If your strategy is to expose his reaction, you'd do a lot better to sit back and stop drawing attention to yourself.
6:39 p.m.
Apr 15, '08
Dan.. "it becomes a problem."
A problem for who? If you don't like it, don't read it. It ain't the New York Times. It's just a little blog.
More people get the Oregonian in the 97214 zip code than read BlueOregon statewide.
Apr 28, '08