This one I agree with you on, Charlie. It misrepresents the context of the soundbite, IMHO.

I did the same thing, Bill. Except I did it to vote for Merkley and for Obama.

:-)

So Gore's the only Democrat who can win. That alone makes it immoral - yes, Al, immoral - for him to refuse to run.......AND....... But does Al Gore think that any other possible President has the vision and the will to seize this moment, to do the right thing before it is too late? He can't possibly

One thing that it clearly demonstrates is that Novick is a lousy prognosticator. It also demonstrates a certain flexibility that seems to go directly against his Take on all Comers personna.

So which is it? This guy is Barack Obama's BFF now that it suits him and his campaign image. Back in the day Obama was a panderer or too stupid to "get it" but now that he's the Maverick Movement frontrunner, Steve wants to bask in the glow.

He's hoping that the hard core Greens and the new voters will see him as being sewn right into the Obama coattails, when in fact Obama has based his entire campaign on careful and deliberate rhetoric deigned to bring peole together while Novick's central schtick is bashing everyone including his allies.

The contrast between the two could not be more stark.

[CB: Italics fixed.]

peter ci can see the new Merkley add already

In other words, because you can't really refute the thrust of Jeff's critique of Steve - because it's essentially fair - you create a strawman ad that's clearly stupid.

I call this kind of behavior "Praising your opponent with faint damns".

"Steve, for someone whose online quest is to strike down "purity trolls", you don't have much of a sense of humor."

The new shipment of Dour must have come in at Merkley HQ. When I saw Jeff at Candidates Gone Wild, acting happy and amusingly, I knew they were running low.

Steve, for someone whose online quest is to strike down "purity trolls", you don't have much of a sense of humor.

The definition of someone "whose online quest is to strike down 'purity trolls'" is someone with no sense of humor.

Steve: I think Merkley's characterization of the Gore post as an "insult" is a stretch. The previous reference to Novick's post about Obama and the bellicose nature of the Scotch-Irish is at least consistent with the trajectory of what he wrote, even it ignores the intentionally provocative tone and context of the piece. That's why I posted Novick's piece in its entirety, btw. You are right on one level that that's what Novick wrote. I realize that this will ring hollow, but that part irritates me a lot more as an Obama supporter than as someone who wants to see Steve win. The Merkley folks tried to make it a story immediately preceding Obama's last visit at a time when the narrative should have been focused on Obama's attention to Oregon. It's just one example of how unhelpful Jeff Merkley is to the Obama campaign, imo.

There's a lot about Merkley I like. This tactic isn't one of them.

Novick and Merkley folks aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this. To fellow Novick supporters, I'd encourage you to dig deep and help keep Novick on the air by giving here instead of arguing yourself blue on this site.

Charlie,

Everything else aside, what do you think about the tone of Steve's post on Gore?

I understand hyperbole and all that but he used words like "immoral" and phrases like "has no right not to run."

I like Steve a lot but rereading this post on Gore made me question his pragmatic judgment. The US Senate doesn't seem like the place for absolutist thinking from right OR the left. Maybe that was Citizen Steve and now we have Candidate Steve and later we might have Senator Steve but still... What do you think?

I agree with Pat Ryan's comments regarding Steve and his self-proclaimed similarity to Obama. Barack Obama is a rhetorical genius who does not indulge in sarcasm. In my opinion, that is a huge difference in style.

The new shipment of Dour must have come in at Merkley HQ. When I saw Jeff at Candidates Gone Wild, acting happy and amusingly, I knew they were running low.

Count me as one who was a bit perplexed by Jeff Merkley's attempt at a Randy Jackson impersonation. But at least we can all be grateful that he didn't call anyone "dawg."

Allison - I don't want a "Snarky Senator". I appreciate that you do, but I think you can stand up for your position on the issues without harsh words, name-calling and hyperbole.

Jeff keeps talking about “hope and change” but his campaign has been politics as usual.

I'm proud to support Steve's campaign because of his grasp of public policy and his ability to talk to voters not in political speak (that special language that so many politicians seem to learn that communicates that they’re smarter than the voters) but with heartfelt and honest words. Steve Novick is a straight talker who doesn’t hesitate to tell the truth.

Dr. Rex Hagans of the Coaltion for Economic Fairness and Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Public Policy Advocacy Committee had this to say about Jeff:

"Speaker Merkley is the most stand-up political leader I have ever seen. A lot of folks want to tell you how they are for the "little guy," but Jeff is the real deal!"

Rich Rodgers had this to say about his experience with Jeff back in the 1990s:

"He was always unfailingly polite, unrelenting, and completely fair in his advocacy for the people..." & "He's brilliant, hardworking, and as principled as a day in June is long."

With all due respect to Rev. Curry, those seem like "heartfelt and honest words" to me. They also paint a picture very, very unlike the picture the good Reverend tried to paint.

"those seem like "heartfelt and honest words""

That's because they're not weasel politicians like Merkley's turned out to be.

Rex and I are both on the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Public Policy Committee and let's be clear that EMO does not endorse. In any event, Rex and Rich are both friends. I've not talked with them about this campaign but I know only Steve has developed a plan for fighting poverty and I know that Jeff has decided to run a negative campaign. I have a hundred nice things I could say about Jeff but his campaign is erasing much of the good will I once had towards him. Steve Novick will make a better senator.

I don't have much in the way of problems with Merkley. He seems like a decent fellow

Well, he used to seem like a decent fellow. I have commented here and diaried and commented elsewhere about what a nice guy I thought Jeff Merkley was. But he is showing us a side of him that I never imagined existed. It's dark and ugly and twisted and dishonest and scary. Just as LT always admonishes the Novick side about looking out for what happens after the primary, I will say this to Jeff: you are testing my resolve to support the nominee no matter what. I am a good Democrat, a strong Democrat. I volunteer and give money and raise money and do all the things good Democrats do -- including voting for suboptimal Democrats. But right now you are testing me severely, and others also, and you might want to listen to the tiny little voice of decency that is probably still somewhere inside your head whispering, "this is sleazy and unworthy of you, and you need to stop."

PS. I'm not sure how Rex and Rich are voting - you seem to suggest they are supporting Jeff - but their names are not listed among those who have endorsed the speaker. The quotes you provided are not about the senate race but about payday lending legislation. Since you have put their names out there I'm sure you must have more updated information.

...let's be clear that EMO does not endorse.

Did anyone suggest otherwise?

Perhaps the reason they don't endorse is because they place a higher premium on action rather than words.

I've not talked with them about this campaign but I know only Steve has developed a plan for fighting poverty...

That's one way to spin it.

It was pointed out to you on your own blog that Jeff has many policy positions which directly affect poverty but you weren't interested in any of that. Which begs the question of: Why insist on a poverty platform if you're not interested in actual anti-poverty policy positions?

With all due respect, Reverend Curry, you've compromised your moral authority on this issue by playing partisan politics. Rather than honestly advocating for anti-poverty policies because they're the right thing to do, you turned it into a political "endorsement" game. Which gets us full circle back to why EMO doesn't endorse... N'est pas?

Posted by: Rev. Chuck Currie | May 8, 2008 1:46:45 PM

See my previous comment about playing political games rather than honestly advocating anti-poverty policies because they're the right thing to do.

And I'll add supporting veterans to the issues which Novick and particularly his supporters only seem interested in talking about if they see a partisan advantage for Novick in doing so.

I guess making personal attacks is the nature of the politics as usual practiced by the Merkley campaign. So I'm not surprised that you've just questioned my "moral authority." In my book, demanding that politicans take specific positions on issues is a good thing. But this isn't about me (or you...whoever you are). It's about who will best represent Oregon in the senate. I've come to the conclusion that Steve Novick's campaign and his positions, not to mention his experience, shows that he would be the best senator.

Is this all that they've got? Seriously? If a couple of comments about other Democrats is all that Merkely has against Novick, then it seems as though they're hurting....Any substantial policy differences that us adults want to contemplate?

"With all due respect, Reverend Curry, you've compromised your moral authority on this issue by playing partisan politics."

Calling Rev. CurrIE (for God's sake, it's in his comments!) an immoral partisan hack is SURELY the way to get people to vote for Merkley. I'm sure of it! Nobody in the progressive Portland community likes that guy, I hear.

Is there anyone at Sisters of the Road or Mercy Corps you'd like to take a shot at while you're at it?

EMO, by the way, does not endorse because all non-profits are prohibited by law from doing so.

Kevin, you've got a lot of passion for your candidate and we'll need plenty of that for the fall campaign. But I think you should take back what you said about Chuck Currie and call it good. I say this respectfully as someone who said plenty of things myself in the heat of battle I wish I could take back. Let's not forget this is a fight amongst friends.

Charlie,

It is a fight among friends. And I've privately talked up Chuck Curry amongst other lefty bloggers for years now. But I also am a product of how I was raised and I was raised in a Christian tradition which emphatically discourages mixing politics and religion.

I love and support the moral issues Rev. Curry advocates and does sermons on, let that not be in doubt. But none of that is at issue here.

Demanding that political candidates meet his format demands while ignoring the actual policy issues already articulated, all in order to gain his official endorsement is something that I find very distasteful. We have examples in our portion of the blogosphere of other progressive ordained ministers taking a different, IMO more productive tack with the Church/State line. Although, in all honesty I'm not in a good position to judge to what degree my upbringing is coloring my perceptions here. Surely it colors it to some degree.

All I know is that I'm a fierce supporter of Church/State separation and that there are nondestructive ways for the Church to minister to the State while respecting the limits of it's own sphere.

For Pete's sake, Kaevan!

Chuck CURRIE

Oops... Sorry for mispelling your name, Chuck!! I'm a humongous fan of currY and my fingers are used to typing that. I meant no disrespect of any kind by my mispelling mistake.

Clergy and not legally or ethically prohibited from endorsing candidates (and I’ll not that Merkley proudly lists a clergy person on his list of endorsers… will you be now going after him?).

Let me repeat two statements that I’ve made before:

Churches cannot endorse political candidates or endorse the efforts of political parties. That means, for example, that we could not release a statement to the public saying we believe Thomas Jefferson should be elected president. If we did the IRS would knock on our door shortly thereafter and revoke our tax exempt status. And as far as I’m concerned that is exactly what should happen. As our United Methodist friends said: the integrity of both the state and the church is “best served when both institutions do not try to control the other.”

……

Finally, I’ve spoken about how I believe churches should never become involved in partisan political causes. That’s the law and it is a theologically sound principle. But that law and that principle does not apply to individuals or even clergy. The only way for the democratic process to work is for all of us to be engaged. Therefore, I hope as individuals we all get involved. I hope we work for candidates we believe will advance the common good. I hope we’ll all vote. I sometimes endorse candidates for public office and believe that doing so is appropriate. But as your pastor I’ll never talk about my support for a candidate from the pulpit or in any church setting because to do so would blur the lines in ways that would hurt the church.

…..

You can read the sermon in which I made these remarks here:

http://unitedchurchofchrist.blogspot.com/2007/11/politics-of-jesus-podcast-sermon-on.html

But let’s not pretend that Kevin’s comments here are about church and state and his deep principled concerns in this area.

Clearly, I was attacked because I don’t support his choice for senate. He obviously doesn’t have a problem with religious leaders who support Jeff (after all, he quoted one in a comment above and doesn’t take issue with Jeff highlighting clergy who endorse his campaign).

Kevin’s comments simply reflect the negative tone of Jeff’s campaign. We can do better. Steve Novick proves that every day.

Chuck,

If I were going to attack based solely on who was being supported then you shouldn't have any problem finding my comment to Leslie Carlson's post attacking her. And yes, I saw her first version which got yanked and replaced with the current one.

Of course, you won't find any such attack in that thread because, contrary to your suggestion, I don't attack anyone based on whom they support for Senate.

Now that we've disposed of that cannard... I take very strong exception to what you said upthread: "only Steve has developed a plan for fighting poverty."

You know as well as anyone that Jeff has policies which would directly and explicitly address and fight poverty. I know that you know it because several of them were explicitly pointed out to you on your own blog. You aknowledged them being pointed out to you and then you dismissed them as not good enough because they didn't meet your criteria.

Fine, they didn't meet your criteria. But you know as well as I do that suggesting that only Steve has policy plans which would fight poverty is dishonest.

What Steve did was to assemble them in the size box you insisted and put a nice bow on it per your insistance. Neither the box nor the bow are capable of relieving the suffering of a single person living in poverty. You know it. I know it. Steve knows it. And I'm betting that far more people than you give credit know it too.

Just to be clear, is it appropriate to blog as Rev.? I have a title, too, but I don't use it here. I think when you write as a pastor, you are giving the impression that your church is supporting your view. That may not be your intent, but it's what comes through to me.

I assume you don't use the church computer or the church building to post your comments. I am asking these questions with respect for your position, Rev. Currie. I do not in any way wish to discredit you or your position.

Posted by: Rev. Chuck Currie | May 8, 2008 2:17:20 PM ...(or you...whoever you are).

Since you've linked to my blog (and vice versa) for a long time I can only assume that you mean to suggest that I'm a nobody. And you're absolutely right. I am a nobody.

I'm a recovering addict, a single parent and a college drop-out who never managed to cobble together even a full year's worth of credits. I've made tons of really bad choices in life and many of them continue to impact my life and will for the foreseeable future.

I know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck because I still do. I know what it's like to freak out when an unexpected financial burden hits and have absolutely no idea how I'm going to provide for my kids, keep the lights on, buy food and still manage to put gas in my 15 year old car so that I can at least continue to work.

In short, I have a hell of a lot in common with those who live in poverty. I've spent large chunks of my life living uncomfortably close to the edge of poverty. The only thing that has kept me above it are the blue collar skills I've acquired over the years.

But I take no offense at the suggestion that I'm a nobody. You and I are obviously both passionate about politics and have perhaps let our passions talk for us more than we'd have preferred in hindsight. C'est la vie. No harm/no foul as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day we both have a great deal more in common politically than we have differences on. And should Novick win the primary then he WILL have my vote in November. As much as I dislike, and in some cases disrespect, the way he's campaigned... all of that is so insignificant compared to the moral imperative of sending the Frozen Food King back to Pendleton that my vote in the General Election is a no-brainer of the first order as far as I'm concerned.

Judah: I agree that Novick seems to fly off the handle at times, exaggerate at times, put things in absolutist terms and certainly has an acerbic wit. But you know what? I like that.

My goodness! An intellectually consistent Steve Novick supporter! I wonder if I'll see bigfoot next.

But for the rest, you can't simultaneously praise Steve for the way he opens his mouth to speak his mind, while criticizing Jeff for pointing out that Steve manages to stick his foot in there as well.

Or rather, you can and are doing exactly that. But you're being complete utter hypocrites as you do.

You know, Kevin, having an assortment of policies really isn't the same thing as having a plan. A plan involves thinking about the interrelations of the policies you support, thinking about order in which to pursue them, looking for gaps that might need to be filled, contradictions that don't emerge at first glance, etc.

There is also a difference in putting the word poverty out there, and making it a focus.

There are some Democrats, especially since Bill Clinton, who dodge the word, which is seen negatively by some, along with poor people, out of political expediency.

I start with a presumption that that's not the case with Jeff Merkley, because of what I know about say his fight against exploitative lending practices, what I've recently learned about his background with Habitat for Humanity, and because of the numbers of testimonials to his progressivism from people whose thoughts expressed on other things outside of this context lead me to think they wouldn't say that or support someone if they didn't believe it was true.

But there still is a difference about pulling all together in a coherent plan, giving it focus, and calling poverty by its proper name.

Chuck is making a perfectly legitimate point and your criticism of him is not legitimate. If you can't bring yourself to apologize for going too far, at least stop digging yourself in deeper.

Yes, local mom, it is both ethical and legal to use the title - even when making a politial endorsement. Unlike some professional positions, I don't stop being a minister at any point.

But you are correct - there are lines not to cross. For example, I don't use my church office, computer or phone to do political work.

Kevin, I have no idea who you are or what blog your write.

Chris,

Does the name on the bow improve the lot of the poor or do the individual policies inside the box improve the lot of the poor?

You know... Steve Novick doesn't have a plan for how to respond to a Putin dictatorship. Nor does he have a plan for how to deal with China should it attack Taiwan. I know because I just checked his website. I imagine that that there more than likely are political calculations behind the AWOL plans. Prudent political calculations which I agree with, BTW.

I haven't checked but I'd bet my next paycheck that Merkley doesn't have a plan for either event either, and for the same prudent reasons. Nevertheless, neither candidate has a plan for how to deal with either event.

Either of those eventualities could potentially become reality in the very near future. And the implications for Oregonians could potentially be catastrophic. So, should we only vote for someone who has a pretty plan with a nice rhetorical bow on top?

OR...

Do we stop playing these infantile word games and stop insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this thread with thinly veiled insinuations that the lack of a pretty bow on a pretty box means that the candidate can't or won't respond effectively and Progressively?

Jeff Merkley has more than proven that the plight of poverty has been on his personal radar screen since before he ever ran for office. The same can be said for Steve Novick.

Kevin, Get off it. Take a deep breath. Read what I wrote. It is pretty close to what you wrote, in terms of what I said about Jeff. If you want to read insinuations into it, it's only because you've apparently decided that Merkley needs his own TorridJoe.

I'm not trying to score points here, but it begins to look like won't be possible to have an actual conversation with you until the primary is over.

A plan is more than a bow or a box. Read my description of the difference and tell me why it's wrong.

The analogy to international affairs is hard for me to understand. You seem to be saying that the things missing from Steve's site and probably from Jeff's are missing out of prudence -- am I misreading? Having a focus on poverty or not is not a prudential choice of the same sort. Am I missing your point on this analogy?

I haven't gone over the websites recently, but I don't doubt that there are issues on which Jeff's may be more focused & in that sense stronger than Steve's, but that Steve cares about just as I am sure Jeff cares about poverty, as I said before.

My only point was the Chuck Currie's observation involves a legitimate distinction about choices of emphasis and focus. To me it gives me an extra degree of confidence that this will be an area of priority for Steve if he's elected. The lack of that same kind of focus in Jeff's campaign is not to me evidence of a lack of concern, for the reasons I said before. I'm quite certain that Jeff would vote the right way on things brought up by others if elected. It also could well turn out to be a more active priority for him. I just don't have the extra degree of confidence I would if he said, I will make this a priority and here is my plan.

As in most things, these are areas of small differences between the two. As far as I am concerned there are substantial arguments for supporting either of them, and where people come down is primarily a matter of the cumulative weight of the relative importance different people attach to them, and to the differences such as they are.

Having an overt focus on poverty named as such seems to me to be a legitimate thing to give weight to. It's not the only one. It will matter more and less to different persons, relative to other things. It doesn't surprise me that it might matter particularly to a minister and stand out for him, given the concerns of leaders of various kinds of religious congregations whom I have known, learned from, worked with and had as family members.

Really, give it a rest.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the weeds on much of this stuff, but I do want to say this:

I have tremendous respect for the work that Chuck Currie has done, is doing, and will do in the future. He is entirely within his rights to advocate for any candidate or cause he supports -- on this blog or anywhere else. Like all of us, his "moral authority" doesn't come from his title or his credentials, but rather from the work he's done and the people he's motivated.

We're in the midst of a heated primary campaign - and lots of folks on both sides are getting overheated from time to time (including me), but let's try and keep it on a low simmer, shall we?

I know he's your friend, Daniel. I'm glad you're able to go to bat for him, as any good friend would. But, Daniel, Steve Novick is NO Barack Obama.

<h2>I guess because you don't live here, you haven't been aware that Steve Novick has been making negative comments about Jeff Merkley (and so many others) and now, he's calling Jeff out for being negative? Let's just keep that in perspective.</h2>