Yeah, if what Steve said was such a big deal, why didn't anyone call him out on it back in 2006??

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that #5 was sarcastic.

But #4?

And, according to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?

Here's the critical thing: If Steve Novick was just being silly and sarcastic, why hasn't he said that? Did I miss the retraction? Or at least, the clarification of what he actually meant?

The only thing I've heard him say about this is that he stands by it -- something like "YES, Barack Obama is a captive of the special-interest sugar lobby."

Oh whoops - new post, new disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.

Let's see if I get this straight, Charlie. You're asserting that because a small portion of Steve Novick's post was sarcastic, he didn't mean any of it? I'm sorry, but I find that argument so specious, someone as smart as you could not offer it earnestly. You are being disingenuous.

A much better line would be that of "distortion". Often politicians will take a single ill phrased statement of their opponent and try to pretend that is what defines what they really think, when they don't.

The trouble is, this kind of attack against fellow Democrats and progressives is pretty clearly exactly what Steve thinks. He's done it again and again and again. So you really can't pretend that he's somehow being misportrayed. Not honestly.

I mean seriously - Steve is the guy who said at the cityclub debate that Bono was the most hypocritical man in the world! Not a prominent Republican - Larry Craig - not all of those CEOs now begging for a government bailout. No. Instead, Bono, who instead of all the good he's done, could have just as easily dedicated his life to boinking as many supermodels as he could get his hands on. And over a stupid policy disagreement about whether the singer should submit to special taxes the Irish government designed, essentially, only for him.

Sorry, Charlie. If the shoe fits - wear it. This is who Steve is.

So we have Steve Novick, a man with a sharp tongue and a sharper mind and wit, who can take the fight to Gordon Smith like no one else.

And we have Jeff Merkley, a polite man.

Hmmmmmmm. I know who I'm voting for.

EXACTLY! Stephanie makes the point perfectly.

For many of Steve's supporters, this sharp-tongued stuff is a POSITIVE for him, not a negative. In fact, it's the primary reason many of his supporters like him so much.

Jeff Merkley (and I, and many others) disagree. This is just a straight-up choice between two different styles of leadership and advocacy.

I don't know why some other Novick folks are so bent outta shape about this. This is why they like Steve so much, right?

"I don't know why some other Novick folks are so bent outta shape about this. This is why they like Steve so much, right?"

Yes, what he SAID was fine. What Merkley made into an ad was so barely "what he said" as to obliterate any context or meaning...I mean really, "lie?" I don't like Steve because somewhere, some time he used the word "lie" in isolation at some proximity to a discussion of Darlene Hooley. It does go slightly deeper than one word in the middle of one sentence.

Mapes didn't buy the bullshit when Canter was dealing it; what makes you think we'll find the smell any sweeter here? To distort a number of irrelevant past writings and make it into a Senate attack ad is transparent and sad enough--does one need to pile on with false piety about Merkley's shirt still being clean after this?

I'd much rather have Steve be critical of fellow Democrats than praise the courage of George W Bush for invading Iraq.

Man Obama is a fraud: So Sarcastic!!! So funny!!! I cant stop laughing!!!

Novick wasn't trying to be funny because it wasn't... It was a blatantly personal attack, the kind that should be out of bounds in our society because it prevents real discussion of policies that we need to move our society forward. Furthermore Novick has stood by what he has said. Repeating what Novick has said is in no way an attack, as some have been citing it as his biggest strength, the only problem is that most Oregonians don't see it that way.

.I mean really, "lie?" I don't like Steve because somewhere, some time he used the word "lie" in isolation at some proximity to a discussion of Darlene Hooley.

Hey, TJ, I figured out the problem you're having understanding this.

You gotta turn the volume off. Turn off the mute.

Don't just look at the pretty pictures. Listen to the words.

AD: "Novick accused Democratic Congresswoman Darlene Hooley of peddling a lie."

NOVICK: "Darlene Hooley, last I checked, still supports estate tax repeal and peddles the ‘family farms’ lie."

So, did he or did he not accuse Hooley of peddling a lie?

(And lest we wander down the rabbit hole of arguing about the estate tax, let's stipulate that the estate tax is a good thing, Darlene Hooley is wrong on the policy, and Steve Novick is right on the policy.)

(And lest we wander down the rabbit hole of arguing about the estate tax, let's stipulate that the estate tax is a good thing, Darlene Hooley is wrong on the policy, and Steve Novick is right on the policy.)

Soooo, Merkley's ad calls out Novick for telling the truth? Novick shouldn't have publicly said that the family farms argument against the estate tax was a lie? Merkley believes that the best way to win that argument is to just keep his mouth shut and let the people who tell the lie be the only public voice?

Is that your point, Kari? Because at some point in a disagreement on public policy, if one person is using falsehoods to support their case, someone arguing the other side is going to have to refute that point. In public. And sometimes that means you have to say that they are wrong.

Apparently you like Jeff Merkley because he would never do such a thing. He'd rather let the lies lie than counter them.

"Don't just look at the pretty pictures. Listen to the words."

The pictures ARE the ad. They're every ad, except the ones that suck.

Jeff doesn't want you to think that Novick opposes her on policy, a policy based on a lie. He wants you to think he flatly called HER a liar.

Soooo, Merkley's ad calls out Novick for telling the truth?

Essentially, yes. The ad points out Novick's claimed version of telling the truth.

The reality is that what led Novick to attack fellow Democrats with nasty names and derogatory terms is irrelevant.

The distinction being drawn here is that Novick's style is to attack and belittle as a means of making an arguement on policy. Merkley's style is to argue the merits of whatever the policy difference is on it's own merits and leave the schoolyard taunting to... well... schoolyard children.

Charlie,

Having recently gone through workplace diversity training I can tell you that Novick's quip about his own ethnicity does NOT give him a pass on it or any of the others.

I specifically asked both the HR expert and the lawyer who co-ran the training if making fun of myself would be legally acceptable and the response was an emphatic "NO!" In fact the African-American lawyer cited an example of an African-American he'd represented in a case where this employee had been using the "n" word about himself. The employee lost the appeal... badly. And the lawyer wasn't the least bit surprised nor did he disagree with the ruling.

We can argue the rightness or wrongness of denigrating one's own ethnicity (God knows I've done it myslf). But the larger reality is that it's just plain STUPID to ass-u-me that making fun of one's ownself gives one a pass and that nobody else has a legit reason to take offense at it. If Novick is half the "brilliant" lawyer he claims to be then he shouldn't have much difficulty grasping that simple truth.

Darrelplant:

This is what so many hard core novick supporters like you don't get, it is possible to disagree with someone without personally insulting them. Check this out:

My version: Barack Obama is wrong on sugar tariffs. We shouldn't support such inefficient industries with tax payer money especially when they are preventing us from taking on global warming.

Steve Novick's version: Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope?

Same policy argument. However, The first version is a policy difference, holding a candidate's feet to the fire. Steve Novick's version insults a man's background and honor for no reason, and really in doing so Novick obfuscates the policy that he was trying to discuss. Not effective, quite insulting.

But if Novick stands by calling Obama a fraud or Hillary a traitress, which he has several times, then he really shouldn't have a problem with the ad. If Novick always tells the truth and says what he believes, he clearly believes these comments.

The point of the ad is accurate. Novick shoots from the hip and makes cutting remarks about potential future collegues (including the future president) and that's what his supporters like about him.

Merkley supporters that were formerly Novick supporters, like myself, think that this schoolyard shit is going to render him completely ineffective if he ever gets to the senate.

Why would we want to send a guy back to DC who's main claim to fame is that he seems to have no limit on what he'll say and most importantly, how he says it.

In each example in the ads, the quote is linked back to full text and I encourage anyone who is put off by lack of context to follow those links and educate yourselves about Steve's condescending and belittling style.

It's who he is, and it's not pretty.

"But if Novick stands by calling Obama a fraud or Hillary a traitress, which he has several times, then he really shouldn't have a problem with the ad."

When did Novick say he tears people down and isn't uniting Democrats for change? Because that's what the ad says...

At least Darrelplant has the fortitude to be upfront about it. He posts in this comment section that what Novick said is the truth. He's not trying to cover-up for Novick by claiming "satire". Good on ya, Darrel.

I'm afraid you may have broken your arm patting yourself on the back. The quote about Darlene Hooley that I addressed wasn't a part of the post Charlie referred to as satire.

Frankly, I'm not worried about this ad. By running it, Merkley's shown that he's really no different than Novick when he's desperate and fighting for himself. Too bad he doesn't show that kind of tenacity when he's supposed to be fighting for others. Although even in this ad, he can't come out and say what he thinks about Novick himself. That's pretty lame.

"These comments by Novick whether they were last month or back in 2006 are a problem for us. It's the truth. You're not being honest with yourself if you think that Smith won't be drudging up every insult and controversial thing Novick has ever said."

Problem for whom? And can you explain what kind of ad you think Smith will create, that criticizes Novick for criticizing Democrats Smith wants to denigrate as much if not more than Novick? What's his interest there?

"He wasn't a safe progressive legislator and that's what matters. Oh, and I think it's a good thing that Merkley has a lot of tact, it's a must have for pols who want to win a GE."

He wasn't? No land use reform bill? No child health bill? No corporate kicker repeal? No corporate tax hike? No mortgage reform? A capitulatory prisons bill for the ballot in Nov.?

When you say he has a lot of tact, are you referring to things besides comparing Karen Minnis to a pedophile, or threatening Senate Democrats with a universal hold on their bills? You've created quite a myth for Jeff, one that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. When the going gets tough, Merkley panics and lashes out.

Maybe the problem with Steve Novick is the WAY in which he disagrees with the positions of others. He doesn't have to use strong language - he just chooses to. And that, in my opinion, is the issue here.

local mom gets to the heart of it.

It's not about the policy Novick disagrees with, it's the disagreeable way he uses strong language, ethnic slurs and hyperbole to express himself that is offensive.

Do you honestly think that Obama will want to appear with Novick?

Great question. Yes, absolutely Obama will support and vigorously campaign for our nominee. Merkley folks -- including Kari -- have implied otherwise but that's just silly. Of course Obama will work tirelessly to elect Democrats up and down the ticket and especially top-tier pick-ups for US Senate.

To imply Obama doesn't understand the importance of improving our majority in the US Senate just doesn't fit with political reality. I say this as someone who's worked very hard to raise money and increase support for Obama since early last year.

Obama will support Merkley or Novick. Period. There's no uncertainty here.

Undoubtedly Obama understand the importance of increasing our majority in the Senate, as does the DSCC, 21st Century Democrats, et al. That's not in question. Indeed, when Obama was in Oregon last he met with one of the Senate candidates - Jeff Merkley.

It seems to me that if Obama wanted to appear with Novick then he would have done so. Likewise, if they'd thought he would help President Obama I'm sure the DSCC would not have downgraded Oregon the day after that early April poll, nor would 21st Century Democrats have endorsed Merkley over Novick.

I didn't imply that Obama doesn't want to help down ticket races. I didn't imply that he doesn't understand the importance of increasing our majorities in the Senate and House. That's hogwash.

I'm not saying that Obama won't support the Dem nominee whoever that may be. I am saying that if I were an Obama adviser I'm not sure I'd want Novick and Obama to hold a press conference together. Do you actually think the question wouldn't get asked?

"Do you actually think the question wouldn't get asked? "

Why, will Merkley be there? Otherwise, who is it you suppose will care at that point?

What is this, the race for elementary school class president?

Well, no, but the nomination race is like high school.

I'm torn - I can't think of five US Senators who don't need to get lit up pretty regularly by a person the likes of Steve Novick. But it IS the Senate, and much as I love them, the House is much more a place for smartasses.