Why DPO Went Too Far on Novick--And Why Merkleyites Should Care by: torridjoe Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:45:00 AM PDT

As I've mentioned, I thought all eyes were mostly on Steve Novick's prospective performance Tuesday night, and he did well enough to answer most if not all questions posed (however flimsily) by the candidate and his select but savagely available band of internet warriors. Of particular interest to many, including the Democratic Party of Oregon, was what Novick might have to say about John Frohnmayer and how Novick's preference for him squares with an implicit agreement to back the Democratic nominee after the primary. Novick was direct and about as loud as he got the entire debate, in his full-throated support for the Democratic nominee. In what I think is actually a pivot, but may just have been an additional step to show he was serious, he urged Frohnmayer and his supporters to drop out (and support him, of course). I think he's being totally honest (or else why on earth bring it up!), and he is stating an ideological kinship with a potentially decisive sector of the general electorate that feels left out by both parties. Merkley will NEVER capture a majority of those voters, because he is the Democrats' representative of what the Democratic hierarchy thinks Americans want from their Democrats. Novick is what a lot of people anywhere want from whatever candidate in whatever party: someone who's on the ball, will work to give everybody a fair shake, and for God's sake is honest and talks in real terms. And thus would the way be cleared for a fully united effort to change the real rot in Washington, el Gordo. AND, and, that whole idea of Steve carrying Frohnmayer's trust with him in November can be used NOW, in the waning days of the primary, as a reason to think about Novick's edge in a general. All of which is to say that Novick genuinely thinks well of Frohnmayer. But he knows he really can't win and can mess it up for getting rid of Smith to boot. So preferring Frohnmayer and voting Democratic in the fall are not mutually exclusive events. And could you blame Novick for wondering why he should support a Democrat who seems to have no compunction for attacking his fellows on the slenderest of reeds? One thing, however, is clear: at no time did the name Frohnmayer and the phrase "general election" come in communicable disease-level contact. If you suspect that's what he meant, I'm going to argue it pretty strongly, but I can't dictate people's interpretations. But it was never said by Steve Novick that he would support Frohnmayer in the general election, and at the event being used to allege it, he makes clear--however belatedly, if you wish to interpret it as a change of heart--that he will support the nominee.  Which makes the letter from Meredith Wood Smith of the Democratic Party of Oregon, delivered to all county chairs just hours before the biggest debate of the Senate primary, amazing in its assertions/ {the letter, below}

torridjoe :: Why DPO Went Too Far on Novick--And Why Merkleyites Should Care

Dear Chairs, In the last couple days we have been receiving a lot of questions about how to deal with the contested primaries. Specifically the Presidential campaign has really heated up and the Senate Candidate Steve Novick's comments about supporting Independent Candidate John Frohnmayer in the General Election have generated a lot of controversy...we urge Democrats to pledge to unify around the eventual nominee, and work for a better America. As a partisan I think even if one feels that way, to stick it out there immediately before an event in which the party is supposed to stand in neutral observance, is a damned shame. On top of it, I received this response from spokesperson Marc Siegel: My understanding is he may put this issue to rest tonight in the debate, which would be good for everyone. I'd sure love to know the timing of that information--before or after the release was put out, or when Novick's campaign was notified it was going out? Because why do it if you knew he was going to make good that night? If we're operating under the assumption that the SUSA poll is in the neighborhood (KGW and The O certainly did when they invited Neville), how is it good to publicly tell the frontrunning candidate to haul his ass back in line?  But I'm willing to let all of that be the Democratic Party's business, or at least between themselves and the Novick campaign. (They don't know I'm writing this, and as Siegel notes I'm sure they'd like the less said about it the better, but I think the record needs to be established). The issue I have is nothing to do with the yoking of a party representative. It's the verifiably, documentarily rebutted notion that Steve Novick was "supporting Independent Candidate John Frohnmayer in the General Election." It didn't happen. You can think that's what he meant, you can infer it if you're hungry to do so, but not only is it not true, Wood-Smith certainly also knows what Novick said that makes it NOT true. It's just not responsible in my view to make a claim about someone who has done nothing but support the Democratic Party his entire political career in Oregon, and do it when there's simply no way to support it in fact. So while the issue seems to be tamped down and addressed, I needed to raise my objection. I like Marc; he's doing an amazing and relentless job forcing people to examine Gordon Smith's record. And I've been raving about Meredith's spot-on press releases and reactions to news in the political cycle since the beginning. The difference was enormous. So I object with respect, but I most certainly object. I have asked the Party to correct the allegation that Novick actively supported anyone but the Democratic nominee, and was refused. They are doing the job they are paid to do, and they certainly have more pressing concerns than dealing with me. But they're doing one of their own wrong, and if they looked at it under the very strict microscope of "did he really actually say this" and considered their evidence, I think they'd realize the answer is no, so I'd urge them to focus on the specific accuracy of their statement. The moral admonishment I don't think much of either, but I'm not their editor nor their publisher. But I do know what Novick did and did not say in that interview, and it should be stated for the record. ...a record, by the way, that should concern Merkley supporters almost as much as those favoring Novick. Why? Because this meme that Novick actually supported Frohnmayer has leaked into the blogs and also into Julia Silverman's writings at AP, when she explicitly claims that "When recently asked by the Willamette Week who he'd support in November if he lost the primary, Novick answered: "I'd vote for John Frohnmayer." In the short term, maybe it's good for Merkley, makes him the good and loyal Democrat. But long term, the issue of Merkley's fitness in the general will come up, and Smith will have two handy documents--Wood-Smith's letter and Julia Silverman's article--saying that Steve supported Frohnmayer in the general. If your primary opponent wasn't even going to vote for you Jeff, why should Oregonians statewide do so? (he would ask).  So if you think Merkley is going to win, you're definitely going to want to take advantage down the road of the fact that Novick never has said he'd back anyone except the nominee on November. Otherwise, now Smith has paper in his hand claiming that Novick won't even vote for ya, Jeff! It ain't true--but it's in the papers and his own party said he said he would buck the party, so how can it NOT be true? Take those two pieces away, and Smith would have a much harder time using it against Merkley. That's a craven reason to do the right thing, if you need one. I'm more interested in correcting the record, and seeing the allegations properly put to rest.

Tags: 2008 Elections, US Senate, Democratic Primary, Candy Neville, Jeff Merkley, Steve Novick, Willamette Week, endorsement interview, John Frohnmayer, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email