My feeling too, Kevin.

There are ads which pull people in, and ads people ignore or disparage to their friends. Money spent on the first kind is gold--worth every dime.

IMHO, money spent on the second type of commercial is wasted, no matter how many consultants like the ad or how often it is run. Mute button on the TV remote is a wonderful thing! There was a joke in Jan. 1996 that the Gordon Smith "we're all real tired.." ad caused people who hadn't been active users of the mute button on the remote to get in the habit of using it.

Kind of hard to argue with that message. The GOP has made a mess of veterans issues ... and the whole idea of cutting taxes for the rich at the same time that you're waging a zillion dollar war is beyond absurd.

I haven't seen the ad. My only knowledgeable comment would be that I know the VA and health administration first hand. My dad is a vet and chooses to use private coverage rather than the VA. The medical care afforded our service personnel has been declining for 3 decades at least. I applaud ANY politician who wants to take an honest look at it and attempt to turn things around.

I can assure you that if we placed all of our elected officials and administrators in DC on the VA plan that it would get fixed PDQ.

Vets, just another political football to kick around every 2 years.

"Vets, just another political football to kick around every 2 years."

You know it, man. Merkley is the same guy who 5 years ago proved his bi-partisan cred by helping the GOP pass a BS "support the troops" resolution.

If after all this time, all you've got is a "plan" to help the troops, I say too little, too late.

The "free tuition" for my dead parent is an atrocious gimmick. Just because you're in the military, doesn't mean you can't send your kids to school. It's horrible to think that for the majority of enlisted folks who struggle with the costs of education, the best Merkley can do is to come up with such a token only in a time of tragedy.

Dear F of BD.

If Steve Novick had spent as much time talking about 2008 veterans issues (Webb GI Bill, status of Wounded Warrior Comm. reforms, or simply outrage at how vets have been treated which was more than "of course, better treatment for veterans" at the end of a discussion of war policy) I might have voted for him. But he didn't. He did, however, make a big deal about the 2003 resolution and the flammable pants video was linked to the front of his website for way too long. How many clicks did it take to find veterans on his website? Or doesn't that matter because Steve Novick is good and Jeff Merkley is bad?

Let's be clear about something: I'm the child and grandchild of veterans, the high school friend of a disabled vet, and have lobbied veterans issues. Let's get something clear here and now. If Steve Novick had been endorsed by the DSCC, by a major veterans organization, and had raised enough money to run commercials at least once a day if not once an hour for the last month before the primary----but had otherwise run the same campaign he ran this year--I would not have voted for him.

It is time to put all that nonsense away and look toward the future. If Steve didn't like the 2003 resolution, he could have spoken out about it IN 2003!

I've heard from 2 politically connected friends today that although Steve has promise, they just couldn't support the kind of campaign he ran in the primary. One saw the humor in his ads but didn't think they could win downstate voters. The other passed on what she had heard from friends in an email today, "As far as Steve Novick goes--I think he's working hard to prove himself worthy of consideration for higher office in the future. He certainly has been working hard for Merkley".

Some people may not accept that---they may believe that for the rest of his life, any time anyone sees Jeff Merkley in person they should go up to him and say "You voted wrong on that 2003 resolution and I will never trust you again for the rest of your life". Such people should write in Steve Novick for US Senate.

But they should not expect the rest of us to agree with them, or see "You know it, man. Merkley is the same guy who 5 years ago proved his bi-partisan cred by helping the GOP pass a BS "support the troops" resolution. " as anything more than the statement of a sore loser.

Call me any name you want--that sort of nonsense didn't win my vote in the primary, neither did the name calling here. Find an outlet for your anger out in the real world somewhere other than blogging.

Jenni, I agree with you about refighting the primary. But as someone who has fought to remind politicians for the last 20 years that veterans are the most ignored demographic of voters who will actively support a candidate who pays attention to them (one reason Mike Kopetski gave Denny Smith such a surprise!) I do take exception to your comment "...except when it was a featured item on the front page". A) to the best of my knowledge, veterans were never a featured item on the Novick front page, but more importantly B) Merkley had a Veterans for Merkley group. Did Novick?

Apparently either they were impressed with the Speaker of the House and his work in the legislature, and/or they were personal friends of Jeff Merkley. How many veterans do Steve Novick, his campaign staff, his stalwart volunteers know?

This is why I think it would be smart for Steve to do something like volunteering at a veterans hospital or work with a group of veterans on the campaign. It would build him a network of friends, and maybe help him realize and explain to supporters that there are veterans who think there are more important issues than a symbolic 2003 resolution.

In the past, some of the most devoted veterans advocates have been combat veterans in coalition with friends who opposed particular wars but thought veterans were not at fault for those wars and often were maltreated by the "gung ho for the war, but veterans are just people wanting social services" crowd.

This is about understanding a group of people who are important voters but may not think like some activists and public figures. There is an old story about Jack Kemp running into 2 old friends from Buffalo after becoming famous, and inviting them to his speech he was about to give to a Republican activists. These 2 men had been union members and activists their whole adult lives. They liked the beginning of the speech, but there was a section in the middle containing GOP anti-union boilerplate. The men left in disgust after hearing that section of the speech, and Kemp had a hard time understanding why--the boilerplate section was so much a part of his political identity that he couldn't comprehend it could offend anyone.

Elections are not just about websites, and regardless of what some people think, all the money in the world won't alone change the mind of someone offended by the statement of a public figure.

I have met Jim Rassman more than once and I greatly admire the man (the man who retired to Florence, OR and ended up a major part of the 2004 Kerry campaign).

In doing a web search of "Novick veterans issues", the links to the campaign website apparently no longer work. But I did find this: http://vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=916

Yes, it is important to elect Merkley. But not to the point of never discussing anything that happened before the May primary. There are lessons to be learned. I believe one of those lessons is that voters who are put-off or offended by the actions of any campaign (Kemp, Bruggere, AuCoin, or any other candidate) would not have been won over if only the campaign had more money than they knew what to do with.

I know, that is heresy in some quarters. And I know what it feels like to lose a primary--been there enough times.

I think the Merkley ad is a great ad. I think that all those who said Novick ads were wonderful because they were "non-traditional" might want to consider that if Novick had done such a "traditional" ad in the primary he might have won more downstate voters.

Also, name-calling in a primary (no names mentioned, because it is always stupid) is terribly counterproductive because the anger at the names called will last longer than a year after the primary in some cases.

So let's get Merkley elected, but let's also have an honest debate about what happened in the primary. A friend I talked with tonight said he voted for Novick in the primary although he hadn't known much about the candidates. He also said he recently went to an event hosted by a co-worker recently for Merkley and was impressed.

And before anyone calls this friend a "low-info voter" or one who sits around watching TV all day (as one commenter has said recently, my friend is actually a professional who at one time was a national convention delegate and at one time chair of the State Democratic Rules Comm. But as people here who haven't been involved in politics for a long time may someday discover, lots of activists are highly involved in party or other politics in one decade, but perhaps not 2 decades later.

LT,

I recall Novick talking about veterans issues during the primary. And besides, Novick had every right to bring up the resolution, given that the decision to go to war in Iraq was the single worst decision this country has made in decades. Merkley didn't support the war, thank God, but the resolution he did support was something that folks like me found annoying, to say the least, and Novick spoke for us in criticizing that resolution. I faulted Novick for a few things during the primary, but bringing up the resolution wasn't one of them.

That said, NOVICK ISN'T RUNNING FOR SENATE. Merkley is, and his opponent his Smith. Merkley would be a fine senator, and his vote for the resolution never bent me out of shape. Rather than taking shots at a truly inspirational leader who isn't running for anything right now (Steve), I'd suggest devoting your energies to explaining why Merkley -- who lacks some of Steve's charisma -- is nevertheless an infinitely better candidate than Smith, who remains heavily favored. If you have problems with Steve, raise them in the fall, when many of us will be suggesting that Oregon find a place for the guy in a high office. Right now, it's Merkley time. He needs every progressives support, and what's more, he deserves it.

"There are ads which pull people in, and ads people ignore or disparage to their friends. Money spent on the first kind is gold--worth every dime. IMHO, money spent on the second type of commercial is wasted.

You really, really, really think it's a waste of money to run commercials that are ignored or the subject of derision?

You're freaking brilliant, LT. So profound. Really! How do you do it on such a regular basis?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that no campaign has snapped you up as a media consultant.

Daniel, have you ever been in sales? You may think you have the greatest product ever, but customers aren't required to agree.

Yes, I know the primary is over and that there were those during the primary who agreed with "Merkley didn't support the war, thank God, but the resolution he did support was something that folks like me found annoying,"

There were also those who agreed with Jim Rassman. What was more important--what individuals found annoying (although it happened years ago) or attracting as many votes as possible from those you have never met and may not agree with? Or is that too philisophical a question?

My point is this: Had more Oregon Democrats agreed with you, Steve would have done better in downstate counties. Is it so hard to believe there are voters across the state who see things differently than you do?

And as someone who argued personally with Steve about his views on and discussion of veterans issues, I don't think he discussed them enough.

But if you want to say the primary is over and no one should ever again debate anything that happened during the primary because it is impossible to learn any lessons from that particular campaign, fine with me. And where is it that you live, Daniel? How do you know what conversations Steve had about veterans?

"Max Cleland and Jim Rassman agree with me on this one too."

It is sad that they were duped in to reciting the "against the war from the start" slogan. When it was time for Merkley to stand up against the war, he chose to call for having a "conversation another day."

I simply don't believe that mediocrity should be promoted.

F of BD, What were you doing in 2003 to speak out against the war? Or are you just trying to make trouble anonymously as an agent provocatauer?

Either you are one of those who can't understand that Novick was not to everyone's taste, or else you are a Smith supporter.

If you are opposed to mediocrity, who is your example of excellence? Or would it be too much of a strain to say something nice about someone?