will we see novick finish the PDX trifecta with the Merc's endorsement tomorrow? Who might have predicted THAT one, a year ago?

:)

Biggest surprise EVER.

We recognize, too, he could be a spectacular failure, a quotable firebrand for the left who is both alienating and alienated.

No comment.

On the war, we think Merkley’s yes vote on House Resolution 2, the state measure to declare support for Oregon’s troops and “the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power,” would hamstring him from making the case that Smith’s flip-flops on the war were unconscionable.

This is, at best, an excuse for endorsing Novick.

Gordon Smith is supremely vulnerable on Iraq and won't want anything to do with the subject. In a tit-for-tat with Merkley he would lose ground on the subject and he knows it. Oregonians know it too.

The objective reality is that veterans are rallying around Merkley. Not Novick, not Smith, not Frohnmayer, not Neville. Around Merkley. And they include some heavy hitters like General McPeak, Jim Rassman and Max Cleland. Both of former Gov. Barbara Roberts' husbands were veterans. And each of them know that Merkley's vote on HR2 was entirely consistent with his long-standing support for the men and women in uniform and the veterans who had served.

If anyone thinks that Smith could challenge Merkley on HR2 and get away with it - I've got some prime beach-front property in Death Valley that I'd love to sell them at a discount rate.

"Gordon Smith is supremely vulnerable on Iraq and won't want anything to do with the subject. In a tit-for-tat with Merkley he would lose ground on the subject and he knows it. Oregonians know it too."

Horse pucks.

Merkley: I was against the war! Smith: Me too! Merkley: No, see--I was just voting for the troops. Smith: Yeah, me too!

So much for Merkley being able to effectively attack Smith on the #1 issue for Democrats this year.

By the way Kevin, what's WW's record on prior endorsements? It doesn't tend to counteract your excuse on the LAST Novick endorsement, does it? Cause here you have some new ones. Are you stocked up, so you don't run out on the next one?

Who called Obama a fraud and uninspiring? Who called Hillary a traitress? Who called Richardson a shameless panderer? Who called Darlene Hooley a peddler of lies?

Novick is doing a fine job of reminding voters of the upside of investing in Jeff Merkley. Gordon Smith can flick Novick off his tailored suit with a boatload of Novick's own statements.

Want a Junior Democratic Senator Democrats can respect? Vote for Jeff Merkley the guy who lacks arrogance, who's disciplined, is mature and doesn't suffer from a prolonged case of foot in his mouth. As a political consultant himself, you'd think Novick would have a better sense of his own self sabotage.

"Gordon Smith can flick Novick off his tailored suit with a boatload of Novick's own statements."

You mean, like Merkley's been able to do, having focused so much of his campaign on it the last month or two? It's working FAMOUSLY for them!

Somehow, tough talk with Democrats AND Republicans doesn't seem like a point in Novick's disfavor--but then, I haven't seen a very strong grasp of what voters are looking for this cycle from the Merkley campaign (although he has his own feeble attempt in his first commercial).

Sure, while Smith is trying to run on the premise that he's an independent voice, disagrees with his own party at times, etc. he is going to point to specific examples of Novick doing exactly that.

Yes, an excuse.

Exhibit A The statement of Dems who voted the way that Novick claims he would have.

Exhibit B WWeek's own piece showing that Wyden, DeFazio, Blumenhauer and others voted virtually identically to how Merkley did.

"Exhibit A The statement of Dems who voted the way that Novick claims he would have."

...in which they agree with Novick as to the fact that HR2 was a bogus trap bill, not a bill to support the troops as Merkley claims, and as Cleland was duped into repeating.

"Exhibit B WWeek's own piece showing that Wyden, DeFazio, Blumenhauer and others voted virtually identically to how Merkley did."

...except that there's nothing about George Bush's courage and validation of the invasion and the presence of WMDs.

Willamette Week is a great endorsement for any D and I'm very pleased to see Steve get it. Kudos to WW.

"Rogue is about all WW has as far as editorials."

Well, except for their news stories and political gossip pieces ;->

did wweak mean to type Dmeek instead? ;)

What a gross distortion of Novick's position, as well as that of the rest of the prog community that voted no. 46 would have been overturned as unconstituional, leaving only non-profits and the like hamstrung by the law. Great idea, terrible bill.

BREAKING: Portland Mercury goes for Novick, "not that into" Merkley.

And they've got a great headline too...

wweak, I agree he was pretty clear--and backs up what I said about his position:

Stand for Children, Ecumenical Ministries, Oregon Action, Basic Rights Oregon, NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been involved in the legislative process, and some have been involved in candidate campaigns. They have concluded that these measures will chill the participation of small and mid-sized donors, and muzzle politically active non-profits, while the final result will be wealthy individuals continuing on unfettered ... because, as every lawyer other than Dan has concluded, the measure’s own provisions on wealthy donors will inevitably be struck down by the Scalito Court. These groups are in a position to know what they are talking about. More so than Dan, who has not fought in the same trenches.

So with the Mercury's decision in hand, Steve Novick has now run the table of Portland endorsements, if you don't count the Tribune which is expected to be part of the Pamplin Group's collective endorsement.

Not too shabby. Congratulations Steve!!

folks who think they are getting a real reformer with Novick, including the Willamette Week, should think again. Steve gets bonus points for style, but not for delivery on progressive causes.

Even assuming for the sake of argument (a) that your account of Steve's overall relationship to campaign finance reform is accurate, and (b) that the campaign finance proposals of which you are speaking qualified as "progressive reforms," your generalization is unsupported. Steve's overall career history does not support that conclusion. If you want to argue otherwise, you had better come up with some better examples.

By the way, since imputing bias into BlueOregon is all the rage, what's with these full size pictures of Steve Novick on every article on the man? The "In the News" looks more like a paid advertisement than the actual paid advertisements.

For all Stephanie's whining, and Mark's rabid paranoid frothing, I never saw Kari repeatedly put a full size promo-shot of Jeff Merkley on the front page.

full size pictures of Steve Novick

You must have a really big monitor.

I'm reading on a laptop. Steve's short, but he's not THAT short.

wweak, I didn't say I didn't know. I simply observed that even taking your argument at face value, in my view you were still wrong.

Steph, there is no question that by any objective measure, Novick was the mouthpiece for the corporations and unions that pumped $1.5 million to try and defeat Dan's CFR measures.

I thought that Steve and Jesse Cornett took a pretty weak line in personally attacking Dan and Harry Lonsdale -- two of the most progressive, public-interested people I've met in Oregon politics.

What disappointed me about that campaign was not Novick's involvement, it was that these progressive organizations had an opportunity to spend $300,000 or less to help pass a measure that "everyone could live with", but instead chose to join with some of the state's biggest and most powerful corporations in spending $1.5 million to oppose Dan's measures.

Dan even went so far as to withdraw his statute for a month as a sign of good faith during the negotiation process.

At the end of the day, the opposition was not all that effective. The constitutional amendment never polled above 45 percent with or without opposition, and the statute passed in every county in Oregon, despite the opposition of these groups.

gee, wweak--awful long response just to say, "oops, my bad, you're correct--you had Novick's stated position on 46/47 exactly right, and I was wrong. "

And then to accuse Steph of not knowing Steve's positions! An 8 on the Irony Meter...

but sal, you agree we dodged a bullet by having it not pass?

but sal, you agree we dodged a bullet by having it not pass?

The people at the top of the vets for Merkley signed on to his campaign before he'd even uttered a single policy statement on vets. Their support was a function of the DSCC and other establishment support for Merkley -- same thing for Tester and some of the other Senators.

If the establishment candidate had been someone else, then that person would have gotten their support.

Bad cut-and-paste job there. The previous response was to the "vets are gaga over Merkley".

The answer to TJ's question is that I think we need a constitutional amendment for CFR, and if my choice is beween the status quo, where lobbyists for some of these groups have created a culture of fear among legislators and candidates, where they think that it is okay to threaten, bully, or otherwise intimidate policy-makers to keep them in line, then I choose Dan's statute.

If someone comes up with a "more reasonable" approach, then I might support that as well, provided that it is real reform that includes an attempt to limit independent expenditures regardless of whether or not some attorney or another thinks it will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"Merkley's vote to support the troops was principled. At least two of those who voted the other way have already come forward to say so."

Actually, they supported Novick's view of the bill--it was a bullshit trap bill, not an honest attempt to support the troops. They simply tried to rationalize Merkley's having fallen into the trap, and smeared Novick personally in their frustration.

"Novick had no good answer"

Funny, I thought the answer was perfectly fine--if they praised the courage of George Bush, he wishes they hadn't. Of course, they didn't.

"A vote in the other direction, to use Novick and WW's logic, is a vote against our soldiers."

No, because as was pointed out above, it was not a bill to support soldiers, it was a bill to back Bush's war. Merkley still claims it was a legit support the troops bill, which is concerning.

The answer to TJ's question is that I think we need a constitutional amendment for CFR, and if my choice is beween the status quo, where lobbyists for some of these groups have created a culture of fear among legislators and candidates, where they think that it is okay to threaten, bully, or otherwise intimidate policy-makers to keep them in line, then I choose Dan's statute.

But under Dan's statute all of that would still have gone on--but progressive groups would be helpless to fight it, because Dan's statute would have only hindered them, not the lobbyists and corporations.

same thing for Tester and some of the other Senators.

Actually, Sal, I think if you asked Tester he'd tell you that Novick's trying to drape himself with Tester's mantle played the largest role. Which is probably a lot of why Novick & Co have taken to comparing him to dead guys who can't set the record straight like Tester did.

Kevin, are you saying Tester told you he supports Merkley because he didn't like having the obvious comparisons between he and Novick pointed out?

But under Dan's statute all of that would still have gone on--but progressive groups would be helpless to fight it, because Dan's statute would have only hindered them, not the lobbyists and corporations.

That was the line that was being fed to progressives, and it was largely a fabrication, although it is true that if the Independent Expenditure limits were struck down in court, it would open up the same loophole that we currently have in McCain-Feingold.

Had Dan's statute been in effect during the last campaign, upwards of 80 percent of the money spent by Ron Saxton, and about 60 percent of the money spent on GOP candidates in the legislature would not have been available to them, since they were heavily dependent on people giving $50,000 or more to candidates. The impact on their Democratic opponents would have been considerably less because of the small donor provision.

But again, Dan's statute versus the status quo was not the only choice that was available to us. He was wiling to negotiate a deal with these groups, and pulled his statute to give that negotiation time to happen. Instead of joining with the big corporations to spend $1.5 million to try and kill CFR, they could have spent $300,000 or less to support something that everyone could have lived with.

Remember that the next time someone from one of these groups tell you that they suppot CFR, just not that particular version of it. Then ask yourself what they have done since 2006 to move the issue forward.

The people at the top of the vets for Merkley signed on to his campaign before he'd even uttered a single policy statement on vets.

That's what Rassmann, McPeak and Evans told you, Sal? When was this?

Look at the dates. They got on board with the establishment choice. Kitzhaber, DeFazio, Blumenauer or any A-List Democratic candidates would have gotten the exact same endorsements.

Snarky rejoinders don't change how the coordinated campaign in this state treats its presumptive top-of-the-ticket candidate -- particularly when that candidate is also backed by the DSCC.

"So in your mind, praising the leadership of Bush is "dissapointing" with Wyden and DeFazio for Novick, but "courage" is just way over the line?

This is the kind of parsing that continues to get Novick in trouble. "

Novick's in trouble? Since when?

The federal bills tended to acknowledge the President's role as commander in chief, rather than validating the presence of WMDs, hailing the invasion and deposition of Saddam, and calling George Bush courageous.

The one who is parsing is you. Novick was asked a question, and responded honestly--he wouldn't ever vote to praise Bush's courage. And he doesn't have much stomach for those who did.

I think its very reasonable to assume you haven't asked any of these people why they decided to support Merkley. You're running as fast as you can to the most negative rather than actually searching for the real answer.

Nothing negative about it, actually. The Democratic side has a coordinated campaign. The folks at the big kids table made a decision about who to back, and the team stepped into line.

Why is that so difficult to believe?

Putting "establishment" into quotes doesn't change the fact that Schumer, in coordination with a handful of folks at the top of the food chain in Oregon tapped Merkley as their guy to support after they failed to recruit Kitzhaber, DeFazio, and Blumenauer.

Also, this business about me "going negative" is bunk. I have pointed out on multiple occasions just in the last few days that Jeff Merkley was an excellent house speaker. It's one of the reasons why I thought it was a bad idea for him to get into this race.

None of that changes the fact that the coordinated campaign has resources and endorsements that can be tapped for the top-of-the-ticket candidate, and that those resources will generally step forward regardless of who the head of the ticket happens to be. That's doubly true when we're talking about a candidate who is backed by the DSCC.

Look at the dates.

Your extreme cynicism aside, looking at the dates is actually a good suggestion. Merkley pushed through veteran-friendly legislation in the Oregon legislature. But before that he worked in the Pentagon and then briefly with Congress (on the same basic issues) where he liasoned with NATO. All long before anyone threw their hat into this particular race.

Putting "establishment" into quotes doesn't change the fact that Schumer, in coordination with a handful of folks at the top of the food chain in Oregon tapped Merkley as their guy to support after they failed to recruit Kitzhaber, DeFazio, and Blumenauer.

Putting "establishment" into quotes doesn't change the fact that Novick tried (and failed) to get the DSCC's backing too. Just as he tried (and failed) to get the endorsements of all those unions and activist organizations which you casually dismiss as also being part of the "establishment."

As I said the other day, I'm disappointed in you, Sal. Most "Independents" exhibit much better critical thinking skills.

Putting "establishment" into quotes doesn't change the fact that Novick tried (and failed) to get the DSCC's backing too. Just as he tried (and failed) to get the endorsements of all those unions and activist organizations which you casually dismiss as also being part of the "establishment."

Where have I ever suggested otherwise? As I have said on several occasions dating back to September, the decision of the power players in this state not to back Novick once it became clear that they could not recruit an "a-list" candidate was one of the reasons why I agreed to help Frohnmayer launch his campaign. Had I known how resilient Novick was going to be, I might have made a different calculation.

Kev, It may be a struggle, but I think I'll manage to live with your disappointment. You haven't thought critically about this race for about 8 months, so far as I can tell.

Whether its "difficult to believe" or not isn't the question. The question is, what did the players you're talking about here say when you asked them about it?

So, your main point is that the fact that I did not ask General McPeak if he is a Democratic shill means that these folks did not step into line when asked by Schumer or some other folks to back Merkley early on as part of a strategy to take Novick out of the game early?

If you say so.

One thing I can say is that many of the vets for kerry who signed up for this did it because Rassman asked them to do it, not because of any overwhelming support for Merkley. My 2 main contacts in the group are both voting for Novick, despite signing on to the original statement back in September.

One thing I can say is that many of the vets for kerry who signed up for this did it because Rassman asked them to do it, not because of any overwhelming support for Merkley. My 2 main contacts in the group are both voting for Novick, despite signing on to the original statement back in September.

To Tom: Yes, 47, sorry. To this day I can't keep straight which was which, but of course the point is that one was the statutory bill that couldn't take effect until the constitutional bill was passed--and that the statutory bill was likely to be struck down.

To say Novick works against campaign finance reform is utter hooey, though, given his support for the ultimate in reform, public financing. He worked against THAT reform, because it was clear it would make things worse, not better. And I certainly recall the extended discussions here in 2006, where it was essentially you and Dan against the world (and more importantly, the fairly clear legal analysis most folks arrived at). The fact that Meek somehow thinks that 47 is in effect despite 46's failure, gives you a clue as to the sharpness of his legal mind (or willingness to take good legal advice).

Sal: "Had I known how resilient Novick was going to be, I might have made a different calculation."

IOW, you don't actually have a problem with "establishment" support. You just wish Novick was the recipient instead of Merkley.

Got it.

The fact that Meek somehow thinks that 47 is in effect despite 46's failure, gives you a clue as to the sharpness of his legal mind (or willingness to take good legal advice).

Dan Meek was editor of the Stanford Law Review, lead counsel on 2 Federal Legislative Committees, and one of the top attorneys for the state of California under Governor Jerry Brown -- arguably the most progressive governor of the last half century in this country.

His work on regulatory issues was the driving force behind Senate Bill 408, which helped to recover a quarter of a billion dollars in overcharges from PGE.

Time and again, Dan has taken on massive legal teams from some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the United States and beaten them.

To question either his legal mind, or his progressive credentials, is little more than an expression of ignorance of the law, and an utter contempt for the public-interest.

Dan is one of the top legal minds in the country when it comes to elections law.

The legal advice you suggest that he should take comes primarily from the corporations and unions that will do anything to protect someone like Dan from upsetting their death grip/stranglehold on the legislative process in this state.

There are significant portions of measure 47 that have no relationship to contribution limits, and whether you are aware of it or not, this state has had strong limits on contributions for most of its history.

The composition of the court has changed. Some of the new justices have supported some of the arguments that Dan is making, and the case law itself has changed since the mid-1990's.

There is every reason to suspect, given the strong severability clause that Dan included in M47, that the court will uphold significant portions of the statute.

There is equally strong reason to suspect that a new attorney general may take a very different view of his responsibility to uphold the will of the people as it relates to contribution limits.

Fact is, TJ, we don't know what is going to happen on CFR in the court or with a new head at the department of justice.

IOW, you don't actually have a problem with "establishment" support. You just wish Novick was the recipient instead of Merkley.

I'm guessing that what Sal meant was simply that if he had known that Jeff Merkley was such a weak candidate that even with all his institutional advantages he could not win a primary, and Steve Novick, even without all those institutional advantages, was such a strong, talented candidate that he could win the primary ... well, Sal might have decided to throw in with Steve instead of John.

But like I said, I'm just guessing.

now Sal, i did say OR his ability to take good legal advice, didn't I? Because those are the two options, aren't they? Cause it's not worked out for him very well, and that's either not being right--or failing to understand the state of the law as it's currently viewed for his purposes. That's just as important. I've said many times that the "correct" position is the one that has the force of law, until it doesn't. We can say Gore was unfairly jobbed by SCOTUS, but he ain't President no matter how many great lawyers think so.

What company or union does Buckley work for?

TJ - Dan ran Measure 46 because of the very real probability that the state court would not uphold a system of contribution limits established in Measure 47.

He is now making a difficult legal case that all or part of the measure should remain in force despite the fact that the Constitutional Amendment did not pass.

None of this is settled, but your implication that Dan somehow did not understand that we probably needed to pass the constitutional amendment in order to implement the limits in 47 is simply off the mark. So is the suggestion that he should somehow quit advocating for a full implementation just because he has difficult legal argument to make given that 46 did not pass.

<h2>Having just now come across this post, allow me to correct any implication from Sal's statement that I was the editor of the Stanford Law Review. I was an editor of the Stanford Law Review in 1976-78 (there were several) but not the editor in chief. At that time (and later) the editors in chief of the big law reviews were called their "presidents." Obama, for example, was the president of Harvard Law Review. Also, while I worked as an attorney for the State of California in 1980-83, I was still in my 20s and was pretty junior then. I was chief counsel for two subcommittees in the U.S. House of Representatives and staff director for one subcommittee (1983-86).</h2>