HuffPo mystified that some in netroots are cool to Merkley
Jeff Alworth
As we reported earlier, Jeff Merkley made his way down to Netroots Nation, where Oregon's next senator got to chat with some of the non-Oregon netroots. The reviews fairly glow with praise. I posted an interview Merkley did with Talking Points Memo, impressive enough to David Kurtz that he posted the clip on TPM's front page. Now it's the Huffington Post's Sam Stein who is impressed.
Oregon's Democratic House Speaker isn't venturing toward the political center in an effort to pick up votes or protect himself against potential criticism. Rather, he's sticking to definitively progressive positions, whether on FISA, Iraq, trade, or environmental policy. And on occasion he's digging his party's presumptive presidential nominee for venturing away from those battles.
Oregon has never seen a candidate as popular among the netroots as Steve Novick (though the history of the netroots is admittedly short). Merkley has suffered at home for being the man who challenged, and then beat, Novick. I don't expect any of the loyal Novickians to change their tune, but it's instructive to see how people outside Oregon respond to Merkley:
A Oregon Democrat who spent time in D.C., Merkley won a hotly contested primary campaign against underdog Steve Novick that pitted - ostensibly - the party establishment (backing Merkley) against much of the netroots (in Novick's corner). And yet, Merkley's philosophical underpinnings seen tailor-made for the progressive community. In addition to being a fierce proponent of environmental protection and health care expansion, he is insistent that the United States withdraw troops from Iraq in an expeditious but responsible manner without any residual bases.
Stein makes a convincing case that, Novick comparisons aside, Merkley would enter the Senate as one of the most progressive Democrats:
"A major mistake has been not to force the Republicans to filibuster day and night on these issues," he said. "The public does not see that obstruction because they don't see on their televisions a senator on the floor of the senate going through the night reading out of a thick tomb of law, if you will, in order to block bills from being considered. We have to put that on show to the American public and show that it's unacceptable... And I am [prepared to start standing up]. FISA is a good example right there. I was proud of Senator Dodd and others for what they did. They lost the vote, but I'm proud of them...."
"We have turned a nation that while run by a terrible dictator was not an enemy of the United States at the time we invaded them and, in fact, was very hostile to al Qaeda [into] a California sized terrorist training camp," he said.
He argued that John McCain's Iraq policy was "absolutely" dangerous to the country and insisted that Congress had an imperative to investigate the Bush administration's politicization of the justice department even after the president left office. "I agree," that criminal proceedings should be on the table, he said.
It's nice to see the rest of the country react to this potential Senator from Oregon--because to them, he looks like a serious winner. Sometimes you can see things more clearly when you have a little distance. For non-Oregonians, this race isn't just about beating Gordon Smith, it's about adding a true-blue Senator to the ranks.
Indeed.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
3:01 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
I don't see how casting "loyal Novickians" as the ice on Jeff's wings is a helpful or winning strategy to expand support. I'm a "loyal Novickian" and along with Novick himself, am backing Merkley 100-percent.
In about a month or so, I'm co-hosting a BBQ for Jeff and it's my hope that we raise $15,000 or more. Reading a post like this dissing "loyal Novickians" while simultaneously doing turnout for an upcoming event on behalf of Merkley is irritating.
Let me also suggest that the premise of your piece -- local netroots cool to Merkley -- also seems off-base. Merkley just had his strongest fundraising quarter ever, with a helluva lot of that money coming from grass roots donors. So, yay Merkley. It's summer. There are plenty of Novick supporters who are working hard for Merkley. As you know, gauging the level of support from the comment section on this or other blogs doesn't accurately do justice to what's actually happening in the real world.
That said, I still love ya and expect to see you at the BBQ.
3:19 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Fascinating what different folks see when they read a piece.
I didn't even see the Novick angle in the HuffPo piece. It's there, but I think that the stronger elements of the piece are about how Jeff Merkley criticized Democrats in the U.S. Senate for not standing up to the Republicans and showing "the requisite backbone".
Frankly, there's been a lot of chatter about whether Merkley has the cojones to stand up to the leadership when they're wrong. And this piece indicates that the answer is: yes.
Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.
3:25 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
This is certainly an inpolitic thing to say but... it seems to me that many in the netroots, both inside Oregon and outside, still use "Novickians" and other similar descriptions as a reference to a certain cadre of Novick supporters who were and are associated with Loaded Orygun in one way or another. Of that group I'd definitely say that Jeff's characterization is both accurate and overly generous.
Other Novick supporters like Charlie and Jenni were never considered part of that cadre - to their credit (and frankly, to Steve Novick's too!).
3:33 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
And your point is?
3:33 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Charlie, I think there's a little bit of projection going on. Nowhere did I write that Merkley had "ice on his wings" or that that ice was the Novickian netroots. This isn't a hit piece on the Novickians (I didn't do that during the primaries, I'm certainly not going to do it now). It's an observation that Merkley hasn't gotten the kind of love among the Oregon netroots that he might have--based purely on his progressive politics--had he run against someone other than Novick.
The debate that we've so often had here is about whether Merkley's blue enough. I've just been struck by how the national netroots are responding to Merkley like he's the new Russ Feingold. It's nice, because I've been thinking he's the new Russ Feingold since last year. I just thought it was worth pointing out.
Incidentally, I NEVER intended to use the adjective "Novickian" disparagingly. It's like "Obamaniac" to me--fans of a candidate.
3:39 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
I can think of any number of reasons why some in the netroots would be cool to Jeff Merkley. Inter alia, and whether he's "blue enough" or not, he ran a primary campaign that attacked his principal opponent from the right using traditional Republican memes, calling him a "pro tax advocate" and referring to his supporters as "the inner circle of the Kremlin." Some progressives don't take to that kind of thing.
3:47 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
The phrase that stuck out to me was: "I don't expect any of the loyal Novickians to change their tune". Again, I consider myself a pretty loyal and enthusiastic Novick person and in no way is that at odds with my support of Merkley for the general. So, the idea that loyal Novickians will -- or in most cases haven't -- come around I think is off-base. Also, fellow Merkley supporters should be pretty happy with how things are going with homegrown netroots. Granted, I haven't been online a lot the past couple of weeks, but Merkley's online and small dollar take speaks for itself, no?
3:57 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
And your point is?
Purity trolls don't win elections, they lose elections.
One would think that any Oregonian political junkie would instantly understand that simple fact from having watched Oregon GOPers self-destruct over and over by purity trolling each other.
4:02 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
What was that about not moving to the center? Was Merkley always predisposed towards expanding the federal drug war in Oregon, bringing more prosecutors from DC and pushing interdiction and arrest with no expansion of treatment services? Was DPO's response to Smith's expected attack on taxes--"we'll cut your taxes, middle class!"--Merkley's idea? If so, that's another example (along with previously stated center-right positions like the workingman's penalty and Social Security wage cap reform).
Of course, there are other non-Oregon, non-netroots folks out there saying the same thing as both "Novickians" and interested others with no skin in the game. Far be it from me to assume necessarily accurate viewpoints from among the DC punditry, but given that we're talking in general about people who view Merkley's candidacy from afar, the comments from three of the heaviest hitters in the Congressional-watcher crowd are instructive:
And it continues to amaze that Kevin's knee jerk response is to call OTHER people bitter, when he's part of the group that continues to level personal attacks against people not running for Senate. Why can't you move on, Kevin?
4:08 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Having the former exec director of DSCC hired to advise you doesn't exactly look like a big shift to the left, either...
4:12 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
"Purity trolls don't win elections, they lose elections.
One would think that any Oregonian political junkie would instantly understand that simple fact from having watched Oregon GOPers self-destruct over and over by purity trolling each other. "
This makes no fucking sense at all. Steve Novick is a purity troll?? And do you realize you are undercutting Jeff's argument, which is that Merkley is not the centrist candidate some might make him out to be? But in your view he's to the right of those who are so nutty as to want to make taxation fair and let gays get married. Good going!
4:15 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Charlie, Stephanie, Torrid, and all and sundry: my apologies. I have put my foot wrong, clearly. My intention wasn't to give offence or start a flame war. Just to point out that Merkley is, at the end of the day, pretty damned progressive. I should have left Novick out of it.
Some day I'll buy you all beers and we can toast each other.
4:18 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
More explicite version so that even TJ can understand it:
Purity trolls don't HELP win elections, they HELP lose elections.
4:31 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Maybe we're hanging around different places on the ol' Intarwebs, but I haven't been seeing much (or any?) anti-Merkley stuff from former Novickians (I'm one, myself). LO itself has had several generally positive pieces on the race in the past week. As has already been mentioned, Jeff's impressive take this past quarter is also a fair reflection of his strong local netroots support (and yes, I threw down a few bucks for Mr. Merkley as well).
4:31 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Some day I'll buy you all beers and we can toast each other.
I'll settle for a BIG check at the BBQ. Think of it as a Novickian-ruffling offset. :)
4:38 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
I have hated this primary. Absolutely loathed it. The arguments are stupid and frankly, its time everyone on both sides moved past it.
We can sit here for the rest of the general election and seethe over this bullshit--or we can stop it, come together and elect Jeff Merkley to the U.S. Senate. Which I believe every progressive in Oregon knows is exponentially better than the current occupant.
Can we finally holster the barbs and snark..and do the right thing for Oregon here?
There's nothing to be gained from this continual back and forth. The primary is way past over. Enough is enough already.
4:56 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
I detect a whiff of "get over it" in some of the content here, never my favorite fragrance.
But Chuck Schumer's OK with where we are, and where Jeff and Steve are. He says Steve's a mensch. Nice compliment, coming from Uncle Chuck.
4:56 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
maybe jeff should have thought of that during the primary, Carla. You can't run a dishonest campaign and then expect people just to gloss over it for your benefit. As ye sow, and all that.
5:17 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
maybe jeff should have thought of that during the primary, Carla. You can't run a dishonest campaign and then expect people just to gloss over it for your benefit. As ye sow, and all that.
We could fight from now until the end of the year about that, Mark--and it would get us nowhere. I wasn't thrilled with a lot of the stuff I saw coming out of Steve's campaign. But I've moved on because its best for all concerned..(except for Smith, that is)
Fighting about this now is meaningless for all of us. And yeah, that means I'm saying "get over it". There is no good that can come from a continual back-biting, back and forth.
It was an ugly primary that caused some bad feelings on both sides. I can't see how it fixes anything to continue to make a point of those bad feelings. It doesn't help us get a progressive to the Senate and it doesn't help us here in Oregon.
So there's no real point to it..other than to keep stoking bad feelings.
Jul 23, '08
And your point is?
on top of his head
6:22 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
if things Novick did bothered you, Jeff's behavior must have had you vomiting daily. As for rehashing, I assume you're directing blame towards Alworth for bringing it up again? And as for what it might accomplish, if you're saying that you and/or the candidate aren't willing to accept responsibility for the way the primary was handled, perhaps there's nothing to be gained, no. But I hold out hope you might one day understand why people are loath to forget the dishonesty of the winning campaign and pretend all was well.
6:45 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Would you all just knock it off. Keep it up and Gordon Smith will still be our Senator. We were fortunate to have two quality candidates in the primary and Merkley won everywhere in Oregon outside of the little inside baseball group in the Metro area.
Jeff Alworth rarely if ever commits a foul. He probably feels ill over the fun you are having opening up the same ol' flame wars. Move on!
Jul 23, '08
Hey, guys, as someone who was a Lonsdale recount observer in 1992, I really do understand hurt feelings after a primary.
But as someone who was told here that everyone who wasn't a true blue Novickian by a certain date must be a "Merkleyite", I humbly suggest that there were mistakes made by both campaigns. Certainly in the early days of "there are only 2 choices--either stand strong with Steve or have a tap with Tester", I despaired of ever having an intelligent US Senate primary.
No matter what Merkley did, I doubt he made the decisions about the Novick website. The Steve Novick I knew years ago would have had a link to that excellent poverty video on the front page. I was upset that more time wasn't spent talking about veterans--"and of course treat veterans well" and other vague one liners didn't discuss the Walter Reed situation, the Wounded Warrior Comm. or the GI Bill. And I doubt the woman who cuts my hair was told by Jeff Merkley to say to me after the primary "Gee, never did understand how opening a beer bottle had anything to do with running for the US Senate". There is an area of the state outside of Portland which doesn't know about all the ins and outs of the campaign!
So, you folks have a choice to make. You can bitterly castigate everyone, from Merkley staff to those who merely had a Merkley bumper sticker, for all you think that Merkley did to ruin your candidate's chances.
OR, you can talk among yourselves and with Steve about what lessons he learned on the campaign, what he runs for next, whether acerbic language wins elections, that sort of thing. Because, I've got news for you. Old friends who were on opposite sides of the Senate primary are having private conversations along those lines, beginning with remarks like "Steve is a very bright guy, but in the end I ended up voting for legislators in all the contested primaries and if Steve thinks raising more money would have changed my mind he needs to get out more! These conversations go along the lines of one person saying "If Steve had only....he would have been more successful in counties other than the ones where he got over 40%" and another one saying "actually, on that one item I think you have a point, and I know someone who is a friend of Steve--maybe it IS time to have such a conversation".
You can call me any name you want, but the time I saw Steve give a luncheon speech it wasn't the greatest speech I had ever heard (but would he have been willing to listen to a critique?) and although I have disagreed with Merkley from time to time over the years, I was very impressed with the town hall meeting I went to on a college campus.
7:04 p.m.
Jul 23, '08
Ok, did we REALLY need an excuse to reopen wounds that haven't had time to heal yet, to begin with?
I have no intention of trying to discern motives, but the entire tenor of this post would have been changed dramatically with the elimination of this comment:
I don't expect any of the loyal Novickians to change their tune, but it's instructive to see how people outside Oregon respond to Merkley
It's only my opinion, but it is unneccessarily provocative and adds nothing to the content or point of the post.
Jul 23, '08
http://www.politickeror.com/alexisenstadt/2199/novick-gets-kind-words-unlikely-source
At the risk of making some people very angry at me for commenting and not just posting the link, I admire Chuck Schumer for what he said in the article. This article shows him to be a lot more honest than the 1996 DSCC was about their choice of a much less qualified Bruggere.
I was at least as angry about the 1996 primary as TJ and the other Novickians for years--even registered NAV for awhile. So I do understand how you feel.
But you need to understand that the 2 most bitter federal primaries of the 1990s were AuCoin vs Lonsdale in 1992, and Bruggere vs. Lonsdale, Rust, Dwyer in 1996. In the first case, the Congressman acted as if it was his "turn" and how dare we upstarts campaign for anyone else! In 1996 it was the DSCC supporting Bruggere because he was on their list of millionaires to run for US Senate.
What some people fail to realize is that when someone who worked on the Bruggere campaign trumpeted his AuCoin endorsement in a major primary, Merkley and Schumer could have gone into a cave and never said a word, and the folks who got angry over those 1990s campaigns would still have distrusted someone with links to Bruggere and AuCoin.
Jul 23, '08
I supported Steve Novick but will give my vote in November to Merkley because he is not Gordon Smith. Similarly, I'll give my vote to Obama if there is a risk of McCain taking Oregon. Otherwise, I'll vote for Ralph Nader because I care more about progressive issues than I do Democratic Party politics.
Jul 24, '08
Stein is a prime example of why the netroots are just so dismissable: He asserts what Merkley is based on what he was told in one stroke-it interview with a guy who has made a career out of talking smack, rather than actually checking the record. Just two examples that were directly relevant to the specific subject matter of Stein's superficial commentary and that he did not challenge Merkley about:
Merkley is totally owned by the Democratic establishment who paid for his media, and who let him talk in vaguely progressive sounding ways (just don't listen too carefully) to a base they condescendingly regard as easily led sheeple. Kari, you even made a minimalist funny: "Merkley has cajones" --- and when he asks nicely enough the DSCC/DLC types who keep them in a box even let him take them out and wear them for extra-special events and on some holidays.
In this very campaign, one of his only tactics was slamming Novick for criticizing sellout Democrats. All of a sudden talking to Stein, who is obviously too lazy and/or mendacious to check the record, he is some kind of maverick whose going to stand up and call BS on those who he owes everything to in this race. You betcha.
Stein wasn't even smart or responsible enough to find out why those genuine progressive Democrats who live in Oregon and best know the facts about Merkley and his deficiencies are disgusted by him. Stein is all too typical of the shovelers at the Hu Poo.
And LT, in all honesty, you just might want to take another crack at making a point. I'm quite willing to believe you have one, and as someone who probably was involved as much in those two races as you, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what it actually is. But your last paragraph is an incomprehensible non sequitor: 1992, 1996, DSCC, Merkley, Schumer- wtf? - Schumer wasn't elected to the Senate until 1998 and in 1996 Merkley was just a self-serving careerist doing his best to suck up hard to whoever he thought could help him get into elective politics, so your point, whatever it is, is strained at best.
Schumer has become an egotistical whackjob who is an embarrassment to our Party, a good vote here and there notwithstanding. His painfully sophomoric "Positively American" book pretty much dispelled any lingering denial about his nuttiness, and his indiscrete comments about IndyMac, although not the cause of the collapse, didn't exactly turn that situation around. This is the guy who supposedly understands the contemporary fears of the working class, right? Ordinarily, I find the quality of the commentary in the NY Post to be at the same sub-normal level as Stein's, but it can't be denied that this is a fair poke at Schumer's over-the-top loony hypocrisy:
"CHUCK'S BOOK A WOE FOR O" http://www.nypost.com/seven/07142008/news/nationalnews/chucks_book_a_woe_for_o_119891.htm
Jul 24, '08
Good post, Jeff. Makes some great points and you're right, we lose perspective sometimes.
Kevin: I know you're trying but your hardon for Loaded Orygun is becoming tiring. I'd rather you apply your blogging skills to thoughtful posts similar to Jeff's or Charlie's .
And LT, like Y.B., I'm fairly certain you have much to add to the conversation, I just wish I could understand it better. And whoever called you names should be ashamed and having said that, please stop scolding Steve Novick; that's almost become as tiring as Kevin's mean-spiritedness.
Let's just concentrate on beating Smith, ok?
9:16 a.m.
Jul 24, '08
In the primary, we had the fortune or misfortune of having two candidates that were and remain to the left of the national Dem Party "center".
During the Tester event, for one example, I asked Tester flat out why the huge majority of senate Dems were not making the Repubs actually filibuster to draw attention to their awful policy positions, and he said that he'd been wondering that for months himself.
Most recently, Merkley has been very vocal about the Bill of Rights (BOR) and how far we've gone adrift from the law.
Now we all know, except for maybe Bob Barr, that the BOR don't sell votes. In polling, The People, (and most of their reps), are willing to trade security for liberty at the drop of a hat.
The empirical fact is that Jeff is way more mindful of my core issues than anyone in the recent history of the Oregon delegation. Wyden's the best we have right now, and the netroots guys are justified in assessing Jeff as being a hell of a lot closer to Feingold than he is to Schumer ideologically.
As far as the Salon interview, it highlights that there is a whole different rhetoric and sensiblity that you'll get from election watching pros and the one you get from dedicated political activists.
I've known who Jeff was since long before he decidied to run for this slot, and it's gratifying to see that other folks, who had no horse in the Oregon senate primary race, but share my national concerns have recently confirmed my earlier opinions.
Jul 24, '08
Pat Ryan wrote:
...netroots guys are justified in assessing Jeff as being a hell of a lot closer to Feingold than he is to Schumer ideologically.
Yes, but it's easier for a first candidate to hold progressive positions than it is for a Senator who has experienced several years in the Congressional meat market. Let's hope Jeff Merkley has the chance to demonstrate that his values run deep.
Jul 24, '08
I spent the Senate primary on the fence. Both candidates were so good, for different reasons, that I couldn't choose between them.
Now Merkley is our candidate against Smith, and so I am for Merkley. One week after the primary, everyone in my family sent their annual $50 tax deductible contributions to Merkley. He'll be a great Senator. Every Democrat agrees he'll be better than Smith.
Novick has endorsed him.
If, as I hope he will, Novick stays politically active, the day will come when he gets another shot at statewide office, and when he does, Senator Merkley--if we're lucky enough to be blessed with a Senator Merkley--will be one of his strongest supporters. Most of us at BlueOregon will be there for him, too.
The team that plays together as a team, wins together as a team.
Have I left anything out?
10:21 a.m.
Jul 24, '08
I agree with about 95 percent of everything my friend Jeff Alworth had to say above and regret taking this thread off-track here. I'm glad to see Merkley get national recognition. He deserves it. My point that I could have made more clearly is there's plenty happening here in Oregon too, and the vast majority of Novick supporters (and Novick himself) are supporting Merkley and working hard for him.
Have I left anything out?
Just that defeating Gordon Smith will be a lot of fun, too.
Jul 24, '08
OK, my point, clear and simple:
1) To listen to some folks here, you'd think no one in the history of Oregon was ever bitter about a major primary result prior to Steve losing the US Senate primary in 2008. From the Mondale folks who lost the presidential primary in 1984 to the folks who worked on the campaigns of losing US Senate candidates in the 1990s, I am here to tell you that ain't so. Yes, I understand the pain of losing a major primary, but no, from where I sit I don't think this US Senate primary came anywhere near the unfairness level or nastiness level of some previous primaries.
2) Yes, by all means campaign for Merkley against Smith if your heart is in it, but if not find something else positive to do. There are lots of campaigns this year worth the effort.
3) I have known Steve Novick since the 1990s and Jeff Merkley since before he became Speaker. All of us who know candidates that long before they file for office are going to bring our impressions from those years of knowing someone to a campaign. I took an 18 year old to hear Steve back in 2007 to a) give her a chance to hear a major candidate and b) hear the unbiased impressions of someone who had never heard of Steve Novick before my invitation. How many people here did something similar? (Hint: money and DSCC power never prevented anyone from doing such a thing.)
4) Steve Novick is a very bright guy, but if he and all his followers believe that money (and DSCC interference?) were the only things preventing them from winning the primary, they need to realize that denial is not just a river in Egypt. There is an old Democratic internal debate about the power of money vs. the power of individuals talking to friends or other grassroots activities. I am a great believer in the right of individuals to think for themselves (the old "if you have 5 such people in a room, you may have 4 factions and a moderator").
In numerous conversations over a period of time, I was able to convince someone who was then a new friend to go hear Dr. John Kitzhaber and Denny Smith at Rotary. This is why he ended up voting for Kitzhaber for Gov. although in many ways he leans Republican. "Smith was just another slick politician, Kitzhaber had so much substance I took notes".
THAT, my friends, is the sort of story which drives consultants and some activists nuts--a voter deciding for himself without the help of ads, phone banks, or any of the other tools professional politicians use.
I believe politicians make mistakes in their campaigns. I believe that what some call a "red team" (asking "devil's advocate" questions like "do you really believe that will be effective with those voters?") is a more powerful force in winning over average voters (like the one I know who was unimpressed with the beer ad) than all the money, endorsements, good press for clever campaign tactics will ever win over.
A friend of mine who was a political activist, campaign manager, staffer to an elected official, etc. started in politics as a teenager, and quit cold turkey as a middle aged person. She refuses even to discuss politics anymore, she is so fed up. She votes, mails the ballot, puts the voters pamphlet in the recycle, and never tells anyone how she votes. She once said that the people she worked around who finally turned her off politics were the 5%--activists and staffers who think THEY decide who wins elections. Actually, it is the other 95% of the population (the friend who saw both candidates and thought Smith was slick but Kitzhaber had substance; the 18 year old who went to see Novick having never seen a candidate speak before; the woman who thought opening a beer bottle had nothing to do with running for US Senate) who decide elections. She is a highly informed voter---anyone want to guess how she voted in the primary? I sure don't know.
Folks, if you are unhappy about the primary result, you have a few choices: Get involved in another campaign Do something else entirely (sports, music, family activities, hobbies) Volunteer with the Merkley campaign and tell the folks you work with what you think he did wrong in the primary---such conversation among people doing volunteer work is how change happens in politics Get together with each other and/or with Steve and do a "lessons learned" set of conversations about what might be done differently if/when Steve runs again. Should he perhaps run for an office in the Mult. Co. area where he did so well?
But don't throw around charges like "dishonest campaign". If you have a beef with an individual, talk to that individual in person, don't spread that vague complaint on a blog. Such charges are likely to be remembered long after the campaign is over. If Merkley wins, people making such charges may be considered as just expressing sour grapes. If Merkley loses, such people may find themselves blamed for 6 more years of Gordon. In either case, such charges are a way to lose friends and influence people.
11:58 a.m.
Jul 24, '08
LT, no point you ever make is "clear and simple," I'm afraid. Better hope there is no lightning strike or else the full population of straw men in your comments will ignite and take us all with them.
Jeff's original post was about how weird it is that some in the netroots would be cool to or skeptical of Jeff Merkley. I provided one rationale above. In today's news, we have another.
Bottom line: maybe the skeptical netroots are right, maybe they're wrong. Maybe their reasons are good, or maybe they're bad. But it very lazy to say that their skepticism is somehow surprising. If anyone had asked, or even gone back and read the old dailykos diaries and comments, the explanation would have been fully apparent.
In my mind this post is part of a pattern of overselling Jeff Merkley that has been going on for over a year, and it's regrettable. Hell of a guy, CHECK. Respectably progressive, CHECK. Huge improvement over Gordon Smith? CHECK. CHECK. CHECK. "The most progressive Senate candidate running this year," as Jon Isaacs said to me a few weeks ago? I don't see that. The real Jeff Merkley is perfectly OK. It's when he gets oversold that people get their backs up.
1:26 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
Stephanie V: But it very lazy to say that their skepticism is somehow surprising.
Not "lazy". Simply goodhearted. LT is unwilling to accept that a tiny minority can be so petulant and arrogant as to continue to troll for a candidate who has, himself, moved on. (Based on self-invented narrative of the primary so distorted it would make even FOX News blush.)
She seems to think that pointing out how counterproductive these actions are, not just to the progressive cause, but to the "sour grapes" whiners' own respectability, will naturally help them see the light. She simply can't believe any Oregonian would want any kind of apt comparison between their behavior, and that of the idiots at www.hillaryis44.org.
But I see you've set her straight.
p.s. Jeff Merkley is the most progressive Senate candidate this year. You know it too. If anyone was more progressive, I'm sure you would have named him or her.
2:14 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
"The most progressive Senate candidate running this year," as Jon Isaacs said to me a few weeks ago? I don't see that.
Which current candidate would you suggest is more progressive?
2:54 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
In my mind this post is part of a pattern of overselling Jeff Merkley that has been going on for over a year, and it's regrettable. Hell of a guy, CHECK. Respectably progressive, CHECK. Huge improvement over Gordon Smith? CHECK. CHECK. CHECK. "The most progressive Senate candidate running this year," as Jon Isaacs said to me a few weeks ago? I don't see that. The real Jeff Merkley is perfectly OK. It's when he gets oversold that people get their backs up.
When I posted this--I would do it entirely differently if I were given a second chance--this position is exactly where it was aimed. Stephanie, you claim I "oversold" Merkley here. I would love you to quote the passage where you find the offending language. I quoted someone else for the most part.
When I ill-advisedly brought up Novick, it was in the spirit of saying, "leaving aside whether Steve was more liberal than Jeff, surely it is apparent that Jeff is more liberal than most of the Democratic caucus." That seems like an empirical statement. Is he only a moderate? Where's the evidence for this? That he fails to thrill you doesn't say much about his politics. I'll join Kari and challenging you: who's more liberal?
Jul 24, '08
Why do you have to label and name-call? Just stop. I've been disparaged as a crazy "Obamian" even though he was like my 5th choice. Just stop it Alworth. Thanks.
3:40 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
In my mind this post is part of a pattern of overselling Jeff Merkley that has been going on for over a year, and it's regrettable.
Overselling - at least to some degree, however slight/major - is part and parcel of American politics and always has been. Hell, it's part and parcel of politics - period. For the most part I think that the participants on all sides understand that reality. Where the problems get started is when a faction starts drinking their own Kool-Aid. Not only in buying wholesale into their own exaggerations on behalf of their favored candidate but also their exaggerations about "the other guy/gal".
Jul 24, '08
this thread is a perfect example of why i dropped blueoregon like a hot rock as soon as the primaries were over. (yes, i know everyone's missed me terribly.) so many people here worrying their pet bones like there's no tomorrow. i was hoping to come back and find that people had moved on, were concerned about winning the election in november.
nope! i'm sad to see that so many people still have their panties in a wad over the primaries. there are a lot of good, intelligent posters here. unfortunately, there are also a shitload of eloquent, acrimonious sore losers with chips on their shoulders so sensitive they're set off by any flea fart that comes their way.
maybe i don't understand because i'm a hyperpartisan voter: i'd vote for a dead, illegitimate crack-smoking donkey as long as it was a democrat. i've never voted for a republican and never will. although there are valid arguments otherwise, personally i can't see a vote for third party candidates as anything but a wasted vote in our current system. so as a progressive i've got one logical choice in any election: vote democrat. (note: i have no particular democratic candidate in mind in the above illustration. the vast majority of cracked-out assholes in the american government are republicans.)
to me what's done is done; i voted for merkley in the primaries, not because i had anything against novick, but because i saw two good progressive candidates, and i thought one of them had a significantly better chance at beating smith than the other, and that's what it came down to for me in the end. i think the polling is proving my gut reaction right; i have a hard time imagining novick running even with smith at this point in the race, but that's pointless speculation. had it been novick who won, i would still fill in the little bubble by the great big D in november.
i don't know if that bbq is such a hot idea; reading this thread, it sounds like people might be throwing rocks and hitting each other over the head with baseball bats before the night is through. in otherwords, a typical blueoregon thread. reminds me of a simpsons moment, slightly altered for the scenario at hand:
[groundskeeper willie]
democrats and republicans are natural enemies! just like democrats and libertarians! or democrats and the green party! or democrats and other democrats!
[principal skinner]
you democrats certainly are a contentious people!
[willie, fists raised]
who said that!?
3:48 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
Why do you have to label and name-call? Just stop. I've been disparaged as a crazy "Obamian" even though he was like my 5th choice. Just stop it Alworth. Thanks.
Huh?
Jul 24, '08
i suppose i should submit an addendum:
i didn't word it as carefully as i meant it: i don't consider the acrimonious sore losers i mentioned above to be un-intelligent. just baffling.
4:01 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
Wow, I didn't realize that this was now part of the official Merkley talking points!
Off the top of my head let's see: Al Franken?
Jeanne Shaheen?
Is he really more progressive than either or both of them?
(I don't have the list in front of me.)
On what basis do you make this claim?
4:19 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
Al Franken? Nope. In his own words, he's a very moderate Democrat. He called himself nearly DLC, as I recall. He just got tired of seeing Democratic elected officials acting like a sack of wet potatoes in the face of Bush. Call him the fighting moderate.
Shaheen -- hmmmm.... I didn't look up her issues specifically, but according to ontheissues.org, she supported bankruptcy "reform" (i.e. more power to debt collectors) when Merkley opposed it. She's on record as a supporter of the following: "New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate. (Nov 2000)"
Not that any of this is particularly objectionable. Different Democrats will hold different opinions on things.
But let's make it clear, Stephanie. By asserting that Merkley is not the most progressive candidate - which you have - you've put yourself on the hook to back that assertion up.
4:55 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
Franken supported the war in Iraq when we invaded. Loudly and strongly on his radio show.
Shaheen also initially supported the war in Iraq--finally criticizing Bush on it in 2004.
6:53 p.m.
Jul 24, '08
I didn't make the claim and the burden of proof is not on me.
I said I didn't see it.
Show it to me.
John Edwards voted for the war and has since apologized for his vote as a mistake -- which was why I was able to support him in the early days of the primary season.
Jeff Merkley says he was against the war and I'm sure he was, but he still voted for HR2 and made a mealy-mouthed statement of reservation (not opposition) at the time. I believe his words were "I am not today persuaded..." -- hardly a statement of vigorous opposition. His much vaunted "anti-war column" (published in a private newsletter) was more of the same.
Show me what you're talking about.
Jul 24, '08
"Franken supported the war in Iraq when we invaded. Loudly and strongly on his radio show."
That's a tremendous feat, considering Franken's radio show wasn't on the air when we invaded Iraq.
On another note: Will that Oregonian story about former Senate candidate and Merkley campaign volunteer Candy Neville distancing herself from the mwerkley campaign be appearing on BlueOregon anytime soon?
Jul 24, '08
Stephanie, let me get this straight:
Jeff Merkley voted for an obscure HR (it wasn't even an HJR, so after it passed the House there was no further action) which had been co-sponsored by the Majority Leader. He had the "gall" to support section (2) of the "be it resolved" but he should have known better and not voted yes with 43 others because of section (1) of "Be it resolved...". Merkley was not Democratic leader then (although earlier this year an attempt was made here to say he was). And 2 people who did vote against it were vilified here because they had the gall to write a guest opinion saying something else than "Jeff should be ashamed of himself for voting for the 2003 resolution".
Stephanie, did you object to it in 2003? Did Steve or anyone else supporting his campaign object to it then? Is this why Steve didn't talk much about veterans issues because this 2003 resolution was more important?
Steve has moved on and is supporting Jeff. But if you still want to be saying (even if Smith is re-elected) that we all should be upset about that 2003 resolution because you are, don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously.
I have great respect for the way Steve has behaved since the primary (as friends of mine behaved after they lost primaries). But I remember the political climate in 2003. And I don't want 2008 politics to be about what happened in 2003, but about winning 2008 elections.
Stephanie, maybe you are doing a purity test. If so, you may be lonely, as most people have moved on.
BTW, I am a great Jim Webb fan, esp. for winning the GI Bill fight. If that makes me a dreaded centrist or some such nonsense, tough luck.
Jul 25, '08
don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously.
A subject on which you are familiar.
9:09 a.m.
Jul 25, '08
That's a tremendous feat, considering Franken's radio show wasn't on the air when we invaded Iraq.
The Iraq invasion was March 20, 2003. Air America's first broadcast (with Franken) was March 31, 2003.
We were quite obviously still in the initial invasion/war period..so actually, its not quite the tremendous feat Pat cracked it up to be.
Jul 25, '08
Actually, Carla, the show launched on March 31, 2004...not 2003.
Franken signed a one-year contract in early 2004 to become a talk show host for Air America Radio's flagship program with co-host Katherine Lanpher, who remained with the show until October 2005. The network was launched March 31, 2004. The show was originally named The O'Franken Factor but was renamed The Al Franken Show on July 12, 2004
Jul 25, '08
I heard Al Franken support the Invasion of Iraq. As I remember, he bought the WMD argument. Perhaps he was privy to some of that spiffy inside information that convinced most members of Congress to support Shrub's war crime.
10:58 a.m.
Jul 25, '08
Guys, Google. A search on "Franken support of Iraq war" takes you right to a video clip of him talking about how he was wrong to support it. Based on the way Stephanie has parsed the issue, I think we can say he's to the right of Merkley on that one.
11:17 a.m.
Jul 25, '08
Stephanie's parsing appears even more ludicrous because Merkley never actually supported the war - unlike Franken and Sheehan. He merely took a page from the Hatfield playbook. And nobody - and I do mean NOBODY - confused then-Governor Hatfield's support for the troops with anything resembling support for the Vietnam War in any way, shape or form.
I honestly see no other way to view this than Stephanie & Co. just flat opposing Merkley and plugging in whatever excuse seems to justify it in their own minds.
1:15 p.m.
Jul 25, '08
Correction: I sit corrected and defer to Franken's video saying he was wrong to support the war. :)
1:16 p.m.
Jul 25, '08
Correction:
I sit corrected and defer to Franken's video that he was wrong to support the war. :)
4:52 p.m.
Jul 25, '08
A larger point that is reflected in this discussion is that "Novickians" or even "former Novickians" is not now if it ever was a useful category of analysis, and certainly was not and is not a unified one.
<hr/>