I've only paid enough attention to this race over the last few weeks to form the opinion that Novick is a whack job. I've now tuned out the rest of the race since Novick is just too weird to vote for.

I think the debate was devastating for Novick in the sense that he really lost his purpose. As a candidate, when you have to apologize or pledge to tone down your campaign it really steals your momentum.

The Bono comment was troubling for me on three points

1.) Bono and his band still pay taxes to the Irish government, they moved U2 ltd. their songwriting portion to the Netherlands in part because the government raised taxes on royalties that exceed 500,000 dollars. Geez, how many bands or artists make more than 500,000. A tax is a tax and everyone should pay their taxes but when a tax is specifically aimed at one group, business or company, than what is left to do?

2.) American tax payer money being used to help Africa regardless of a countries ability to pay back those funds is a good investment. It is a good investment because 25 out of 38 million people who have HIV live in Africa. It makes as much sense to me as the out and out waste of money used for the military. Drop Vaccines not bombs!

3.) Novick got trapped in a statement that was hyperbole filled and over the top way too easily. I suspect that Novick isn't that naive and is really using the attack on Bono as an attack on Gordon Smith. It is important to remember that Smith has done a decent amount of work for Africa in congress and that leads him to a close proximity to Bono.

I am disappointed by Novick's performance, but one debate does not a campaign make.

Hypocrite=someone who claims to be one thing, but is something completely different. Bush does not qualify, as he is supposed to be a shithead. Bono, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate, and I was thrilled to hear Novick bash the guy a little. I have been a Bono-hater for years--ever since he crossed a stage-handlers picket line in Eugene. More recently, his name came up in relation to an anti-Hugo Chavez video game. And what was up with that flag-waving at the Super Bowl?

I, for one, appreciate all of Novick's shit-talking. I'd rather have someone who calls it like he sees it, as opposed to someone who thinks that both Clinton and Obama are undeserving of scrutiny and some occasional criticism.

Torridjoe,

I understand what you are saying. Novick was given an opportunity to clarify his statements but he chose to just say yes and that he believes bono is a tax evader. Well I no more believe that Bono is a tax evader anymore than I believe that Steve Novick is an attack only candidate or Merkley is Vanilla no passion candidate (three criticisms).

These are three people who are doing what they can to better things in their perspective stations in life. Yet, in the many shades of blue we want to find differences among ourselves to slam each other. I am more democrat than you, I am more liberal, I am more socialist, I am more communist, you are too dlc. It is silly, splitting hairs philosophy that can destroy us from achieving the things that we do agree on!

I would support both of these candidates although I now must pause on Novick.

I can't help feeling a bit bemused by portrayals of Merkley supporters, such as myself, as "desperate." I know a lot of other Merkley volunteers, and on the rare occasion that we have time to get together, I would describe the mood as both enthusiastic and confident... not, too confident I hope. But, as a matter of fact, it was not all that long ago that over-confidence was precisely the charge coming from the other side.

When I first started knocking on doors and talking to neighbors about Jeff Merkley for Senate, and conversing about him at progressive group and party gatherings, the immediate response was usually tempered by lack of information on either candidate. Frequently included was a comment along the lines of "Oh, he's running against that guy that has those clever and funny ads?"

Now, the response usually includes comments which are more substantive... favorable references to front page coverage of the payday loan shark office closures, and yes, some apprehension about his opponent's admitted lack of diplomacy. Such developments do not inspire anything like desperation for me.

Nor am I too concerned about Sarasohn's point regarding the size of the Gordon Smith campaign's bank account. All indications are that Democrats are out-fundraising the G.O.P. by overwhelming margins this year, and once we have a nominee, I am fairly sure general election financial support will follow sufficiently to get the message out.

I'll tell you what does make me desperate -- the continued and seemingly endless U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and millions of Americans suffering without access to adequate healthcare. Desperate enough to once again unremorselessly plug the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

Pax vobis.

Hypocrite=someone who claims to be one thing, but is something completely different. Bush does not qualify, as he is supposed to be a shithead. Bono, on the other hand, is an excellent candidate, and I was thrilled to hear Novick bash the guy a little. I have been a Bono-hater for years--ever since he crossed a stage-handlers picket line in Eugene. More recently, his name came up in relation to an anti-Hugo Chavez video game. And what was up with that flag-waving at the Super Bowl?

I, for one, appreciate all of Novick's shit-talking. I'd rather have someone who calls it like he sees it, as opposed to someone who thinks that both Clinton and Obama are undeserving of scrutiny and some occasional criticism.

Sorry about the double post, got a typepad error. Hopefully someone can delete it and this one...

Stephanie wrote

(I have a feeling that anyone who is now saying that he or she can't vote for Novick based on Friday's debate is someone who wasn't going to vote for Novick anyway.)

Stephanie, what type of sour grapes reasoning is that? First, I was going to do the following, I am a registered independent, I was going to register democrat (against my better judgment in many ways)vote for Novick happily.

I have no interest in furthering Merkley over Novick. But I want to make it clear that I was really annoyed by his comments both printed and at the debate as it shows that

A) Novick might not be the ready to lead firebrand that many would want him to be. B) His protectionist attitude towards international aid is something that I didn't know about him previously. That is why I pause.

At this time, I am likely going to just remain independent and vote in the general for whoever comes out. I would like to be steered to a place where Novick speaks about international aid in more detail.

I'm sure that whatever Novick said about Bono is especially important to the 95% of the voting public that has never heard of Bono.

Maybe someone should find out if Novick has ever insulted his neighbors, a bank teller, a supermarket clerk, or a school crossing guard, too. We wouldn't want him to be hobbled in November by advertising campaigns from, say, School Crossing Veterans for Truth or Fred Meyer Clerks for Gordon Smith.

Joeldan,

Great post i guess. 95% is that a hard scientific number or just what you came up with? Something tells me you just came up with that....

Trying to cut through your sarcasm is difficult and I apologize other than possibly the Bono comment which is straightforward enough, what is your point of your second paragraph?

Joeldan,

Great post i guess. 95% is that a hard scientific number or just what you came up with? Something tells me you just came up with that....

Trying to cut through your sarcasm is difficult and I apologize other than possibly the Bono comment which is straightforward enough, what is your point of your second paragraph?

Torrid

Re-read my post. What I said was that a tax law was passed that basically singled out one band and their associated company for tax increase. Yes, the legality of it is important. Remember we are not talking about a massive company who cut thousands of jobs in the name of saving taxes. We are talking about a band, who are saving taxes on work they did as much as 30 years ago. IE; royalties. Willie Nelson participated in Tax evasion and was convicted of it.

Where I got the protectionist attitude towards international aide is really the heart of Novick's gripe. Would it matter if it was say, Mother Theresa asking for the funds?

For Novick, he is on record on this very site for voicing his objection to U.S tax money being lended to third world countries that can't pay it back. While he calls aid in Africa a noble cause, he is stuck on Bono. What then is Novick's plan for third world lending?

While I say this, it is important for me to remind you that while I am not for Novick, I am not against him either.

As someone who was involved in the Jan. 1996 campaign as an old friend of Ron, I agree with this:

I would like to remind people that the only candidate who has ever beaten Gordon Smith in a election is Ron Wyden. Even then Wyden saw that his negative attacks against Smith were backfiring and pulled all of them, promising to only run a positive campaign. History seems to suggest that attacking Smith like a rabid dog is the worst way to go after him.

And my sense is that there are people like that independent who is rethinking registering D out there, and they are looking for positive reasons to vote in the Dem US Senate primary.

The Ed Schultz show today is all about McCain being a warmonger who doesn't vote for veterans benefits. My vote in the Congressional primary could well come down to who spends more time talking about veterans benefits, as it is an issue which has suffered from lack of news coverage and candidate debate for decades.

Which is why I am such a big Jim Webb fan.

LT is right on point I believe. To me it isn't the negativity itself that bothers me, it is when there is a miss on a topic. That is the danger in negativity. I think that i have come to a point that when it comes to negative campaigning it should be on point, forceful and brief.

Let's face it; Gordon Smith is ideologically wrong on many things but is he really a bad person at the end of the day? If you were in a bar with him, would you be so moved by anger over his policies that a fight would break out?

It is important that whoever wins whether it be Merkley or Novick that they run their campaign by using different tactics that increase the need for change while diminishing whatever he has accomplished.

I think that Novick ran into a wall where his go to tactics of humor, over the top admonishments which came off previously as endearing now come off as amateurish and unstatesmanlike.

But it was just one debate. The trick for Steve is going to be how he adjusts.

Sorry for the repost but...

I unfortunately did miss the debate live (though I have since caught the replay on Channel 30). I did however, show-up as it was ending and I must say that everyone seemed positive about the debate and about the eventual general elections. Many Merks there seemed to have accepted Novick as a legitimate candidate and Hooks seemed to be pleased with Merkley's overall progressive tendencies. That said...

Why must Merkley run on a message that basically says "Don't be critical of fellow Democrats" while his campaign is almost being hyper-critical of Steve. Jeff continues to attack Steve's opinions and work history and while decrying Steve for attacking people (like Bono, Barack, etc...). Jeff seems to even suggest that Steve shouldn't attack Republicans! I say: First, everyone deserves to be called out for not standing by their principles. Second, Steve is criticizing people's policies and decisions, not there opinions. Finally (especially in regards to the Social Security question that Merkley so thoroughly avoided) the problem of some of Jeff's criticisms of Steve's criticisms are that they muddy the waters of the core of issues. Regardless of all the details involved in the SS debate for example, what is at the center? Well: Is it fair or just that the rich don't have to pay over 100 G's towards SS? Every progressive should say "NO". What up Merks? Jeff wants to dance around a lot of this stuff and even maybe go golfing with many of the fat cats who would answer "yes" to the question. Tax breaks for the rich should be called out by every progressive for what they are: means to keep the poor down, to keep the rich rich, to keep inequality alive, to maintain the un-Democratic status quo of haves and have-nots. Only one candidate has the cajones to tell it like it is. The other can only criticize him for doing so. http://gospelaccordingtoluke.blogspot.com/

Torrid,

You've just expanded the Irish tax pool to maybe 1o possibly 15 people and no offense those other artists aren't even close to U2's league in terms of record sales and touring receipts.

You are right in my opinion to say that Merkley bringing Bono up was silly....yet Steve sticking by his most hypocritical person position was just as silly and he illustrated what Merkley was trying to play out.

That if Novick is the Democratic nominee you are essentially nominating the Howard Dean (yah scream not the rest of the man's life which is of course admirable) or Jesse Ventura. Both highly principled candidates who were outspoken, both of them became jokes because of their inability to recognize the danger of the soundbite only the positives.

Another thing Torrid, do you not think that it's in the opponents desire to sidetrack you as a candidate? It just scared me how easily Merkley was able to do that to Novick.

Instead of saying something along the lines of "I think that comment about Bono being the most hypocritical person was over the top I stand by that he is a hypocrit because of he invaded taxes, he just simply said yes. What happens when he has a real disagreement with Smith and Smith brings up similar comments.

The ability to paint Novick as a loon will be cemented. Which the man, nor Howard Dean are. But this is politics and all is fair.

I agree with Novick on 99 percent of the issues. I am not willing to completely throw him overboard. Yet I tend to cringe at super Novick and super Merkley supporters who don't have enough perspective to articulate the rights and wrongs of their candidates campaign.

At the end of the day it starts to look and feel like cheerleading and that I could do without.

Luke, *Steve brought up the 2003 legislative resolution at Sunriver (and from the video posted here so we could all watch it, he didn't get a round of applause for doing that)

*Steve has a reputation for an acerbic tongue, and has admitted maybe some of his remarks were over the top.

*Steve is a very bright guy who could have chosen a more intelligent, postive campaign style.

*Steve and Jeff both have fans, but Jeff is the elected official and people who want to avoid a repeat of Nov. 1996 (when there were lots of 3rd party voters because the Dem. nominee who had never held public office had an allergy to discussing details of policy. Such decided that even if 3rd party votes elected Gordon, at least he had a voting record as opposed to the danger of giving a blank slate a 6 year term when one of the few things the Dem nominee had discussed was opposing one of the bills Wyden had co-sponsored).

*Steve worked for that 1996 candidate and has never said what he learned from that experience.

*the only reason I have a Merkley bumper sticker on my car is that I knew both Jeff and Steve long before they decided to run for US Senate. I WAS truly undecided at the beginning. But there are people here who couldn't accept that. And when I had the "gall" to say something here like, "I am truly undecided about this race, but I think Merkley has a point when he says...", I was jumped all over as someone who was lying---to say something like that, I must be an official part of the Merkley campaign.

No, actually, I don't live in Portland, I was sorry there was no US Senate candidate from outside Portland, my views on the shortcomings of the House caucus supporting downstate Democrats are well known to people on the Merkley campaign. But I'll be darned if I will let anyone on a blog pressure me into something I am not. The last straw was someone named Miles saying that if I was honest I couldn't possibly say I was undecided because anyone who doesn't think Steve is the greatest is by default a Merkley supporter.

Someone on the Merkley campaign saw my comment and emailed asking for my mailing address.

THAT is the sort of customer service approach I don't believe the Novick campaign understands!

I think Steve should have a TV ad using footage from the poverty video on the website. THAT would show the Steve many of us have known for years, it would be serious, it would make a big impression. But is the campaign not open to such suggestions because the Novick campaign knows all and doesn't need outside input?

I have known people who say the beer ad (opening the beer bottle with the hard left hook) was not impressive.

But of course all good Novick supporters think that is brilliant?

Anyone with any sales experience will tell you that you may think what you are selling ( a product, a service, a candidate, an idea) is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the way it is being sold is perfect. But if people don't react that way, they don't have to buy. Someone I know who is a great Obama supporter said she also supports Novick. I said "Sorry, I wasn't impressed with the beer ad".

She said WHAT?? She had not seen the beer ad, only the To Tell the Truth ad. I told her it was on the website. I described the ad and she asked "Novick's people made that ad?" as if she thought it was a parody.

And about this: First, everyone deserves to be called out for not standing by their principles. Second, Steve is criticizing people's policies and decisions, not there opinions.

Steve is the elected (or anointed) enforcer of other people's principles?

"Criticizing people's policies and decisions, not there opinions" may be Steve's intent. But there is an old saying about the difference between a message sent and a message received. People who have run for office before, people who have done any public speaking, anyone who has ever tried to convince friends to support a candidate only to hear perceptions which vary from what was actually said, know that just saying something does not require that everyone in the audience believes it.

Steve's first question at the debate could have been "Jeff, you support tax breaks for the rich and I don't. Please defend your position".

But that was not his first question--whose fault is that?

And with regard to the Gospel of Luke, search engines are a wonderful thing.

Luke G ended his comment with mention of the Gospel of Luke. Having grown up with the King James Version of the Bible, I found this online:

006:027 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

006:028 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

006:029 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

006:030 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

006:031 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

`` If someone wants to have a debate about whether any candidate is campaigning along those lines (personal remarks, setting a tone for supporters, etc.) that is fine with me.

Jenni, The reason that people remember the Sunriver speech is because of what Steve said.

To read some of the blog traffic here, you'd think a comment like "Steve had me with the Sunriver speech until he brought up the 2003 resolution" was some kind of subversive remark.

I may agree with Steve on any number of issues, but that doesn't mean I will vote for him. (I admired Ed Fadeley for carrying a bill my friends and I had long fought for, but that didn't mean I thought his abrasive personality would make him a good Gov., and I voted for his opponent in the Gov. primary. )

Steve chose to make his first question at this debate, "Speaker Merkley, in your poll testing attacks on me..." rather than something more issue based like "Can we agree right here right now that we both agree on..." and name something he supports but Jeff doesn't. Steve's choice of question merely reinforces those who believe Steve's campaign is all about Steve.

I have never said no good person supports Steve--by all means knock yourself out if you believe in him. But the campaign sending out an email saying he leads in a current poll is not going to win over people who think Steve has set the wrong tone in his campaign and they are unimpressed by the kind of campaign he has run.

Yes, I understand that some believe Merkley is vanilla and they are looking for a stronger flavor. But trying to pressure others to that point of view is about as counterproductive as saying no good person ever buys vanilla ice cream.

Recently I read a guest opinion which led me to this website. http://web.jhu.edu/civility

The guest opinion was about some people measuring the civility footprint as being an important measure of society, just as others measure carbon footprint.

I have been listening to the hearings with Petraeus and Crocker today. Senators as diverse as Biden, Lugar, Bill Nelson, Susan Collins and many others get their point across in a civil manner. If Republican Senators disagree with McCain, Petraeus, Crocker et al, then this is not a partisan debate.

<h2>I believe there is a reason that the poll so recently discussed has 40% undecided. Snide remarks about Merkley, or telling people certain issues are important to everyone so they should concentrate on those issues will not win votes.</h2>