A "robust use of the English language" is an "asset" only if you believe people are persuaded by being insulted.

Barak Obama manages to get his point across without being so "robust". I'd say he's in the position that he's in, specifically because he's found ways to disagree with his opponents, without being disagreeable.

But to each their own, I guess.

The "mud-slinging" began a long time ago - with Steve Novick attacking Jeff Merkley from the beginning of Jeff's announcement to run in this race. How "convenient" that Novick supporters continue to ignore that. I think they are doing so to cover up the fact their candidate is too over-the-top to be a US Senator. And I don't care how many times they deny it, that is the way I see it.

Dick Cheney also demonstrated a pretty "robust use of the English language" in a Senate floor confrontation with Senator Leahy. Seems to me that George W. Bush demonstrated a fairly "robust use of the English language" during the 2000 campaign when he didn't realize that his mic was on.

Haven't we had enough "robust use of the English language" from politicians?

And there you have it. Ms. Grove recycles her own LTE in today's Oregonian touting her buddy Steve for the nomination. Film at 11:00.

It should now perfectly obvious to the two undecided voters who are takinbg their cues from Blue Oregon that Kari Chisolm is in the tank for Novick.

How else can we explain the awful unfairness of two pro-Novick posts up here by Big Time Oregon Movers and Shakers versus one post favoring Merkley from one of the obsure in-house guys.

Shame on you Kari!

<hr/>

As for how Merkley ran his primary campaign: If he loses on Tuesday, he ran a poor campaign. If he wins on Tuesday, he ran a great campaign.

Ditto Novick.

<hr/>

So give me the guy that has spent years as an activist for the poor and underserve, married a woman similarly dedicated to serving the same demographic, has gone from an obscure back bencher to lead one of the most successful Oregon house sessions in years, and is endorsed by his caucus.

I know, based on his resume that Jeff's the guy.

I'm not technologically savvy enough, but could someone post Steve Mayhew's LTE in the same Oregonian? He is a Merkley supporter, and makes some excelent points. Lisa Grove isn't the only voice.

And, Pat - I totally agree with your assessment of Jeff's resume. He has been there and we know how he operates. We only have "words" (and not such great ones, it seems) from Steve Novick.

Wow, those are some big guns.

I trust Lisa Grove's judgment on candidates and issues and wondered where she stood on this race. As a talented pollster who is professionally and personally committed to progressive issues, she would only back Novick if she truly believed he could defeat Gordon Smith in November.

This is the strongest endorsement yet for Novick, IMO. (Sorry, Pearl Jam.)

What Pat said. Crikey, folks, can we limit fawning Novick pieces to 29 a day?

IF he won, I would maybe vote for Steve. But I would not - could not - support him with contributions of time and money. Not after the attacks he made on a good man, an experienced legislator and the current Speaker of the Oregon House. I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way, and that, my friends, is a problem!

LT

"Too bad he decided he didn't want the support of people like me unless we agree with him on everything."

Where on earth do you get this?

Increasingly I am coming to think that is you who want people to agree with you on everything, and then accuse people who happen to disagree on something of trying to "force" you to agree with them.

<hr/>

On the assertions of that Steve's support is restricted to Portland and Eugene (or variants) and that Jeff's is geographically wider, is there any actual evidence to support them?

<hr/>

None of this on BlueOregon makes a damn bit of difference at this point, though repeated claims that the attack ad against Steve isn't full of lies and misrepresentations won't make the lies and misrepresentations any truer.

At least a few of us on the Novick side have said critical things about him from time to time & about over-the-top rhetoric on our side.

Has there been anything comparable on the Merkley side? Any hint of an admission that he's less than perfect on anything? Any suggestion that some of the Merkley pit-bulls might benefit him and the rest of us by simmering down a little?

Any of you considered that for yourselves?

<hr/>

Gordon Smith is going to be tough to beat. While Jeff A. takes the opitimistic view of focusing on Smith's low approval, I am more struck by the fact that neither Jeff nor Steve has managed to get more than low 40s against him. I take that as a measure of those who are committed anti-Smith regardless.

I'm also struck by the fact that "undecided" is on a comparable scale or bigger than votes for either Steve or Jeff in the primary. Neither Steve nor Jeff has managed to really grab a huge section of Democratic voters, never mind anything beyond. The evidence doesn't seem to be too great that either of them have really found the key to success.

I fully understand the arguments about Steve, and that the doubts are truly and honestly felt. But to my mind it's not clear that Jeff's cautious approach to things poses less risks -- just different kinds.

There is a tall mountain to climb, whoever is the winner.

Any suggestion that some of the Merkley pit-bulls might benefit him and the rest of us by simmering down a little?

You've noticed half of what's been going on, Chris. What you've missed is that for months now we on the Merkley side have been using Novick supporter's own arguments except in reverse. I've very deliberately bounced their own spin back at them. But you filter it through your partisan glasses and only see that which you wish to see. C'est la vie.

This political season I did what I've always done - remained staunchly agnostic and largely uninterested... until Novick and his supporters went on the attack. Then I joined in because we've all learned from the GOP that a lie told often enough begins to be accepted as the truth.

Please don't take my word for it. Dig through archives here and at my blog. The proof is there. I didn't give a flying rodent's backside about any of this until the HR2 smear, at which point I shoved back HARD because it was and is an insult to our collective intelligence. Which, BTW, Reps Greenlick and Nolan said in their guest post here at Blue Oregon on the subject.

Has there been anything comparable on the Merkley side? Any hint of an admission that he's less than perfect on anything? Any suggestion that some of the Merkley pit-bulls might benefit him and the rest of us by simmering down a little?

I wouldn't expect partisans to critique their own candidate in the middle of a campaign, but I think the Merkley folk have been pretty effusive in voicing their appreciation/affection for Steve. I certainly have. I don't see any of that from the Novickians, who regularly deride Merkley in personal terms. That makes it all the less likely I'll criticize him. Hell, I haven't even criticized Steve very much, except to say that I think he's weaker in the general against Smith.

Gordon Smith is going to be tough to beat. While Jeff A. takes the opitimistic view of focusing on Smith's low approval, I am more struck by the fact that neither Jeff nor Steve has managed to get more than low 40s against him. I take that as a measure of those who are committed anti-Smith regardless.

I'm an optimistic guy, but I agree that Smith is going to be hard to beat. Any two-term incumbent with $8 mil is, even in a year like this. But I am less worried about the poll numbers. We haven't gotten to the general yet, and I would expect these numbers. How often do you have challengers in a contested primary out-polling an un-challenged incumbent during the primary. Where I find some refuge for my confidence is that Smith's numbers are declining while Novick/Merkley's rise. Follow those trends out, particularly when the Dems are attacking Smith, not each other, and there's reason for hope.

The relentless attacks on Jeff Merkley, (example in Pat Malach's comments above) are causing my reluctance. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for Steve Novick, only that his supporters here make it a hard choice. I have read many comments from Merkley supporters that are kinder toward Steve than anything I have read from a Novick supporter about Jeff. And don't forget - Jeff said he'd vote for Steve if he (Jeff) weren't the nominee. Steve said he'd vote for Frohnmayer. That was a very low blow.

Local mom,

As a Novick supporter, I hope that I'm generally being civil towards Merkley. Here, for example, is something I said when Merkley's attack ad came out:

This makes me very sad. Two great candidates, two of our heroes, and then... this. Complex, challenging statements cut and dried into unrecognizable bits.

I'd agree that the styles of Merkley and Novick are different, and that they'd bring different strengths critically needed in the US Senate. (emphasis added).

I don't really understand why Novick indicating that another progressive candidate is more qualified than Merkley is a "low blow" -- especially because he said he'll vote for the Democratic nominee. He didn't say Merkley was unqualified, he was just impressed by Frohnmayer.

Anyway, I hope that you look closely at what the candidates offer, and aren't put off by some of the heated conversation by random people posting on blogs. Good luck in your decision.

I am becoming too emotional, I suppose - hence my seemingly contradictory thinking. This race was under the radar for way too long, and now it has caught the attention of some voters, but only when it became negative. I think that's a sad commentary.

But in less than a week we'll all have to pull ourselves together and move on. I hope, between now and then, we can support our candidate without saying disparaging things about the other.

I will if you will.

Majority, you clearly don't know that Lisa Grove is one of Steve Novick's closest friends.

Easy, Jack. I DO know that Lisa and Novick have worked on a lot of campaigns together, and it makes perfect sense that they are friends. I also believe that Lisa cares enough about Oregon and about progressive issues that she would only endorse a candidate in this race if she knew he could win in November.

Supporting a friend with kind works and encouragment is one thing, but telling voters in a public forum that you support him is another. It's way too important a race to spoil. Lisa's public support of Novick makes me believe wholeheartedly that she has data on the electorate that shows that Novick can win -- or at least that he has as good a chance or better than Merkley.

"I wouldn't expect partisans to critique their own candidate in the middle of a campaign,"

That's pretty much the point I think Chris is making--why the heck not? I've seen Novick partisans critique their candidate here quite a bit, most notably on the death penalty. Others didn't like the PDA thing, etc.

What Chris is saying is that no matter how big or small the fuckup, Merkley comes up roses in the telling, or it's someone else's fault. The scenes of Matt Canter getting squashed by Melica Johnson for trying to tell her the poll was bad were priceless, because he just couldn't admit they had some work to do (which they ended up doing, did they not?)

That kind of "don't admit anything's wrong" politics is really pretty insulting to thinking people who can SEE what went wrong. It's really a philosophical dishonesty.

Actually, plenty of us Novick supporters have had nice things to say about Merkley. As a house district leader back in 03-04, I worked together with Merkley and others to find a candidate for our house seat and to find more PCPs for east county. That was my first real interaction with him, and since then I've had the opportunity to work with him and his campaign on several other occasions (such as putting together a canvass for him in '06). I think he's a great guy and has done a good job as Speaker. We've disagreed on several of his votes, but that'll happen with any two people - we're not all alike after all. But as I told him last month, I just like Novick more. It's not about disliking Merkley, but liking someone else more.

And if Merkley were to win the primary, he knows he'll have 100% of my support - he even gave me a button already.

Jeff, I think you have something like half a point, but I also think we would have the same half a point.

There have been too many Novick supporters for my taste saying nasty things about Jeff Merkley. Ditto too many Merkley supporters re Steve Novick.

But it just isn't true that no one on our side has said good things about Merkley. Up to a certain point a few weeks ago I'm pretty sure that if we did a count there "were more Novick supporters on record saying they'd support Merkley if he won than the other way around. Not that the Merkley folks were then saying they wouldn't -- but maybe thought it was strategically wrong to even admit the possibility that Jeff might not win?

The last month all those bets have been off and there have been various expressions of entertaining possibilities of having other priorities let's say on both sides, along with a general rise of nastiness.

Likewise I remember writing quite specifically and at some length of being impressed by Jeff's Habitat for Humanity work, about which I hadn't known prior to the Oregonian profile. If he gets the nomination it can be a real asset for him I think, a kind of hands on thing that people across a fairly wide spectrum of values would see as a good thing. I hope he makes it a more prominent piece of on-going self-definition efforts, should he be the nominee.

There have been a huge number of comments along the lines of "I like Jeff just fine, think he'd be a good senator, just like what I think Steve has to offer a bit better."

Perhaps you don't find that kind of comment enthusiastic enough? Maybe. But can you really say that a comment like "Steve is brilliant, to be sure, but too [insert your favorite "much of a loose cannon" variant here]" is genuinely more enthusiatistic or even equally supportive?

Anyway, I did submit my "challenge" to us all to try to think about making the best case for "the other guy" as a guest column, guess it didn't make the cut, but I'd really encourage us all to do that, at least all of us who have a commitment to trying to beat Smith with whichever candidate the voters decide to give us.

'Cause it is going to be a steep hill to climb for either of our guys, I believe, and as far as I am concerned, they both ARE our guys.

(No one is required to have such a commitment, of course, we all believe in freedom of conscience I believe.)

Jeff Merkley almost singlehandedly put Democrats back in power after a 16 year drought...

I really wish people would quit saying that. It's not true.

Merkley did it with the help of thousands of volunteers all over the state, dozens of volunteers, organizations like FuturePAC and the Bus Project, unions, etc. We put in tens of thousands of hours (if not hundreds of thousands). We had a packed volunteer room at the DPO as we phone banked for the governor and legislative candidates and large teams headed out to canvass for the governor and legislative candidates. The same was true in county party offices and other such places across the state.

It was a team effort, as Merkley has said plenty of times.

Saying anything differently is an insult to the people who put in every single minute they could to ensure that we held the Senate and took the House.

I'm not being too literal - claims that Merkley did it himself have been on this blog (and others) this entire election season. It is a big insult to those of us who put in a ton of hours to make sure we gained the House.

It worked to Merkley and the House Democrats' advantage that voters in 2006 were looking for change and were willing to replace Republicans with Democrats. It happened all over the country. We were all lucky that all our hard work came together at the same time as people willing to make a change. Previous attempts didn't work because people weren't willing yet to make that change.

And what exactly was Novick's role in returning Democrats to power?

When Novick went to work as chief of staff to the State Senate Ds they were outnumbered 2-1, but he (not on state time of course) helped them craft a strategy to block the worst Republican legislation and retake the State Senate majority in a few election cycles. This they did.

Thanks for asking.

His work helped lead to the flipping of 3 seats in the next election, in a far worse environment than 2006 in more expensive races as a rule.

Stephanie and Torrid Joe:

Did Steve Novick ever get paid by the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, because I believe that he only worked for the Senate Caucus which would make it illegal for him to have involvement in campaigning for Senate D's while being on the state's payroll?

Bdunn: State employees can't work on campaigns on the taxpayers' dime, but just like with any citizen, you're free to do whatever you want on evenings and weekends. For example, in 2006, I worked for the governor's official office, but especially in the last few weeks of the campaign, would make phone calls, ect. to undecided voters after work. Nothing wrong with that.

"Gimme a break": Your memory is incorrect. During Steve's tenure, the Senate Dems went from being outnumbered 2 to 1 to within striking distance of a majority by picking up three seats: Courtney, Metsger and Corcoran. That's why Wweek named Novick one of the winners of the 1998 election cycle.

He shoots!...

Did Steve Novick ever get paid by the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, because I believe that he only worked for the Senate Caucus which would make it illegal for him to have involvement in campaigning for Senate D's while being on the state's payroll?

...bounces along the rim, and:

Bdunn: State employees can't work on campaigns on the taxpayers' dime, but just like with any citizen, you're free to do whatever you want on evenings and weekends. For example, in 2006, I worked for the governor's official office, but especially in the last few weeks of the campaign, would make phone calls, ect. to undecided voters after work. Nothing wrong with that.

AIIIRRRR BAAAALLLLLL!

Jeff deserves credit for his role gaining a House majority, for sure.

"When you look at who recruited the candidates,"

I have no reason to doubt that he played a key leading role in this, though I'd guess that was in some kind of small committee setting and involved reaching out to people familiar with prospects specific districts. But coordinating & maybe being the voice of the ask seem likely roles.

"raised the money,"

I have no doubt that he raised some money or that it was important. However, Jenni's description of the grassroots dimensions make it clear that money & probably equally or more important phone and shoe-leather time were decentralized. Coordinating information to local activists & independent orgs on making initial campaign contacts & applying those resources? Seems likely.

"hired the team"

I don't really know what this means (wouldn't mind learning, it would help me understand better what the DP is and does), but it sounds like some sort of central party professional team, which would have been only part of the larger "team" Jenni describes.

"understood the power and benefit of taking advantage of party assets"

This is quite interesting. I don't doubt it's true but I wonder how uniquely so. That's a real wonder, I have no idea. My experience in other settings would lead me to suspect the emergence of a perception of an opportunity among a number of bright people, but that kind of thing can get catalyzed into action in a number of ways. This version suggests Jeff as a (the?) provider of strategic vision. It's also possible to imagine a slightly different kind of leadership in pressing the idea that "now is the moment, we've got a positive challenge, how shall we meet it?" -- pulling together a group focus in which strategy was hashed out more collectively. Both are important. It would be interesting to know which Jeff played (or was it both?), and how uniquely?

This really, really isn't meant to take anything away from Jeff. As an historian, I don't believe in the "great man" theory of history. But by the sam token, I don't judge individuals by "great man" theory standards.

It may be quixotic to ask (wink to Kevin), especially at this point in a primary, but understanding all this a bit more deeply would give me more insight into Jeff & be interesting from the point of view of "lessons learned" for future success.

Does the argument about Steve's role in flipping the Senate really have anything to do with campaigning directly? Seemed to me the claim was about his role as legislative strategist in blocking bad R legislation. Not sure how the steps go from there to elections. Improved morale? Arguments to take to the public? Catalyzing an orientation to strategic thinking?

Who hired Steve? Seems as if Jeff's efforts a number of years later in/for the House probably were supported by smart staff hires -- a good leadership trait.

Also seems as if many such smart hires end up as candidates, & often successful ones, though this is most visible to me locally (Kafoury-Sten...Middaugh?; Katz-Adams/council...Adams/mayor? Rosenbaum...Gray?)