Ted Backs Jeff; Steve Undeterred--Blames College Sports

'Hillaryesque?' (0.00 / 0)

I thought this was going to be a clean campaign... ;-)

Anyway, you can't blame Merkley for announcing endorsements.  If you've got a problem with Kulongoski or Roberts throwing their weight around and disturbing the natural development of the race, I think those two should be your targets.

---

by: James X. @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 14:44:56 PM CDT

Never blamed Jeff (0.00 / 0)

I was asking what motivated Ted and Barbara to announce in favor of one or the other, and why now. If the announcement was coordinated with the Merkley campaign, I didn't mention it.

---

by: torridjoe @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 14:47:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Campaign Co-chairs (0.00 / 0)

I'm guessing it was coordinated.

---

by: James X. @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 15:55:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It certainly may have been (0.00 / 0)

But I have no evidence of that, and if Steve had the governors' ear as closely as Jeff, I'm sure he would have been seeking their endorsement as well. My interest is in the guvs substantiating why they made a choice between Jeff and Steve, and why they did it in August. (Maybe they did it now so it would have the least impact, and Novick fans should be thanking them, I dunno. I'm just asking).

---

by: torridjoe @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 16:23:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, fer cryin' out loud... (0.00 / 0)

Of course it was "coordinated!"  Seriously, it came from a JeffMerkley.com email address - and it was on Merkly for Senate stationery. 

Do you really think it's plausible that Governors Kulongoski and Roberts would just appoint themselves the co-chairs of the Merkley campaign without talking to the Merkley campaign?

You guys are seeing conspiracies where very simple explanations are obvious.

---

by: karichisholm @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:39:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

duh (0.00 / 0)

I can read a press release. OBVIOUSLY the mailer was coordinated and discussions were held between Merkley's people and the governors. I wasn't speaking about coordination; I was asking about timing.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:18:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kitz? (0.00 / 0)

Kitzhaber's absence is conspicuous.  I can't imagine that the Merkley campaign would ask Governor's Kulo and Roberts and not solicit the endorsement of Kitzhaber.

I wonder if he's staying neutral in the primary, or if an endorsement is "planned" for later.  Kind of keeping news in the queue.

While I have the most respect, personally, for Governor Roberts' opinion of the three Governors, I imagine that Kitzhaber's endorsement is probably the most coveted.  Lots of Oregonians seem to think that the Kitz walks on water, and I'm sure any campaign would love to have Dr. K's name attached to it.

Curious.

---

by: maloney @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 18:55:08 PM CDT

Good Point (0.00 / 0)

---

by: James X. @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 19:22:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

timing and intent (0.00 / 0)

Usually a campaign announces its big name co-chairs to kick off major fundraising efforts and in preparation of a high-dollar plate/ticket/etc. event that the co-chairs will "host".  Torrid, I know you've backed Novick early...but to call into question the timing and intent of announcing campaign co-chairs is a little amateur.  If anything, I thought you would have opined why Kitzhaber was missing from the announcement.  That would have been more interesting.  Novick's response however was smooth...

---

by: JTT @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 23:02:58 PM CDT

again, you are talking about Merkley (0.00 / 0)

I know what the campaign wants--I'm talking about the former governors. They are not inherently his co-chairs; they either offered their support or were asked for it and said yes. It's not dirty politics, but they're all savvy people, and Ted and Barbara know they are sentinel supporters, signalling to the circle of donors they influence that this is where their money should go.

As I said, I'm sure Steve would seek to lock up prominent endorsers in the same position. It's not about Steve and Jeff, it's about the former governors. The choice for them was simple, or at least in their view sufficiently informed. What they do and when they do it has meaning, and I pointed out that theirs was a conscious choice. I was curious about how they made that choice. Just a reminder that things happen in certain ways for certain reasons.

The sensitivity towards "negative campaigning" seems to be running high early on...

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:30:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

one possibility... (0.00 / 0)

i think that the idea is out there in people's heads is that Gordon Smith is as good as beat, and the only jockeying to be done is who is going to replace him.

while i'd like to believe that myself, and sometimes i do, i think we'd be better off focusing on who is actually more likely to beat El Gordo in the General Election.

I have this persistent daydream/mare? that Gordo and Merkley are debating each other in the primary and that i've lost my glasses and i can't tell the two of them (visually) apart.  i then contrast that with a visual of Novick and Gordo sharing a stage and the difference being abundantly clear.  i'm not implying Merkley and Smith are the same politically, just that they both looklike politicians.

i'm afraid that the "Oregon Democratic Party Establishment" is going to try and keep there from being a primary and that we're going to lose to Gordon by choosing (AGAIN) a "safe," traditional politician type to go up against him.  We've lost with that "type" TWICE against Gordo.  TWICE.

This is beginning to sound like a campaign slogan, but we're going to need someone DIFFERENT to beat Gordon Smith.  Merkley is not different.  The race against Gordon Smith has not already been won, and Steve Novick provides us (Oregonians) with the best chance of sending someone to DC who will actually look after Oregonians and not Corporations.

---

by: maloney @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:03:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another possibility (0.00 / 0)

Gordon Smith is not even close to "as good as beat".  And he will not be beat without money, infrastructure and a whole lot of work from the STATE and NATIONAL level. If you think that Smith won't call on every one of his resources to hold this seat--you're crazy.  And everyone who wants to beat him will have to call on all their resources as well.

Jim Webb didn't win in Virginia because he was different. And the idea that the Democrats in leadership around the state didn't help him or back him is ludicrous.  He won because he suited the electorate and because he had a lot of help from people all over the country.  I could tick off a list of progressive and Democratic victories that all included that same thing.

If after all the progressive work that Jeff has done during his time in the House qualifies him as the same as Smith when you lose your glasses and squint--then honestly, you just have flat not been paying attention.

I get that some people are bent out of shape that Jeff has the backing of the DSCC.  Lots of other really wonderful progressives in the Senate have had the same backing. I made the decision to join the Merkley campaign because I believe that Jeff is the progressive candidate who WILL DEFEAT GORDON SMITH. 

And as much as I like Steve--after watching him campaign and seeing the reactions of audiences, as well as his fundraising, I just don't think he can do it.

I want Gordon Smith out. I want a progressive, dedicated Senator who will work for Oregon. That man is Jeff Merkley.

 

---

by: carla @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:09:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

can you name some? (0.00 / 0)

"I get that some people are bent out of shape that Jeff has the backing of the DSCC.  Lots of other really wonderful progressives in the Senate have had the same backing."

Jim Webb wasn't a DSCC candidate until the very end. But can you name some wonderful progressives in the Senate who were backed over more centrist candidates?

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:19:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DSCC backed Webb in the primary (0.00 / 0)

Jim Webb was backed by the DSCC in the primary.

The DSCC pushed hard unsuccessfully to get DeFazio to run for the seat.  He would have been a great fit had he chosen to take the job.  Few would say that DeFazio isn't progressive, in general.

The DSCC backed Sherrod Brown in Ohio over Paul Hackett--who was definitely closer to a centrist than Brown.

---

by: carla @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:34:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They backed him very late (0.00 / 0)

They stayed out of the primary (because they thought Allen would beat either candidate), but they only supported Webb at the very end. He was grassroots all the way.

And you'd best not bring up Brown. The DSCC fucked Hackett over severely. They recruited him to run for Senate, and then when Brown decided late that HE wanted to run, they pushed Hackett aside and began sabotaging his campaign. 

And THAT is what I fear happening in this race.

Saying DSCC pushed for DeFazio is all well and fine, but there were no other candidates in the race. I'm talking about picking between multiple candidates.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 10:54:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

clarifying (0.00 / 0)

When I say "stayed out of the primary" and "very end", that's a little contradictory. They stayed out of the vast majority of the primary, not endorsing Webb over Miller until the final week.

And did little to support him after that until mid to late October.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:03:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And... (0.00 / 0)

The DSCC doesn't generally back a candidate in the primary unless they feel very strongly about it, according to what I've read.  And actually, the other guy (I believe his name is Miller) was the anti-establishment candidate--going after Webb for not adhering to core Democratic principles.  Webb won because he was the better fit for the state--and the grassroots/netroots people caught on to that once the primary was over.

You asked when the DSCC chose the more progressive candidate over the centrist.  That's what happened in the case of Brown/Hackett.  I wasn't thrilled with the way the Hackett situation was handled--DSCC screwed it up.  But in the end, the more progressive candidate won.  So in fact I will bring it up.  Cuz in the end it was the right thing.

---

by: carla @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:07:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm agreeing with you (0.00 / 0)

carla,

I'm agreeing with you that Gordon Smith ISN'T "as good as beat."  That was my point, is that I think that despite all the publicity that the fish kill is getting, his transparent election night conversion on Iraq, and his votes on corporate giveaways, he's still going to be a serious contender.  I'm trying to push against the sentiment I feel rising that the race is the Dems' to lose; that the only race that matters is who is going to beat him.  I'm glad that both camps are training most of their guns on Smith, and hope that they (we) continue to do so.

The "squinting" issue was purely about image and style, not about policy.  I had hoped that I had made that clear in my comment, but apparently I was unsuccessful.  I think Merkley would be a vast improvement over Smith, but I think that Novick would be as stronger voice for populist progressive issues in the Senate, AND I think that he's got a better chance against Smith.  That's why I'm backing him, not because I dislike Merkley.

As for the DSCC/Oregon Democratic Party Machine, I still think that it's a legitimate issue.  Torrid and Kari may have come to a "truce" on the matter over at the other blog, but I think it's pretty disappointing that the DSCC would insert itself into a state primary the way that they have. 

I think that the role of the National Machine to take in a primary is to soften up the eventual opponent, not try to pick the horse to run against them.  (i like to mix metaphors)  We apparently disagree on that, but I'm going to keep humming the tune.  I think a lot of Oregon Dems are going to be peeved that the National Dems would choose sides at a point where most Oregonians aren't even aware that there's a Senatorial primary coming up.

---

by: maloney @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:41:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Since when is Merkley "safe?" (0.00 / 0)

I'm a little confused by the claims I've been seeing that Merkley is a safe, traditional, humdrum politicion of the good ole boys' school who won't change anything.  Let's remember that this is the many who schemed and worked and succeeded in taking back the Oregon House from the Republicans.  I'm pretty sure Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott wouldn't call him "safe" or "boring." 

As for your question, TJ, about why the two governors might be announcing their membership on the Merkley Campaign Committee, I would refer you to the comment about using the campaign committee as a fundraising tool.  Usually, the members of the campaign committee are announced early in a candidate's run.  I think it would be more suspicious if Roberts and Kulongoski accepted membership on a directing committee for a campaign and didn't announce it publicly.

---

by: Blueshift @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:10:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

doesn't address the timing (0.00 / 0)

I understand that the CAMPAIGN wants people in their chairs early, but that doesn't mean it has to include the sitting governor. It is NOT usual for a sitting politician to choose sides in his party's primary, especially before either has made his case relative to the other.

I'm sure Minnis wouldn't call him boring; she might call him the guy who helped her keep her seat by signing off on that disastrous, poorly thought out hit-piece commercial on her, though.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:15:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That "poorly thought out hit piece"... Huh? (0.00 / 0)

That "poorly thought out hit piece" helped give the Dems the House. That Minnis ended up having to sink over 1 million in her own race (and only by the skin of her teeth managed to squeek a win out of it) meant that she wasn't spreading the money around the GOP caucus and candidates races and we flipped probably 2-3 seats as a result.

If that is a "disastrous hit-piece"... give me a dozen more like it  please.

cheers,

Mitch Gore

---

by: lestatdelc @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 20:28:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no way (4.00 / 1)

it came in the last week of the campaign, and destroyed the edge Brading had as the positive campaigner. Editorials the last week made no moral distinction between the two of them, which was a horrible shame. The only race it likely affected was Brading's, for the worse.

Now if we're talking about the strategy of pushing Minnis hard to keep money from the rest of the races, I've got no beef with that. But the ad was not helpful.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 21:14:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

gotta disagree (0.00 / 0)

sorry Mitch,

as someone who was on the ground canvassing for Brading, gave him money and phone banked like hell for him, that ad took the wind out of a lot of our sails.

i initially volunteered for Brading's campaign as a way to get rid of Karen Minnis, but found myself developing a deep respect for the man.  he's an ethical, honest, and deeply thoughtful person. 

after we qualified for the ballot through gathering signatures, as opposed to paying the nominal fee, i was out campaigning FOR Brading and not against Queen Karen.  here was someone who was willing to fight a strong and ethical campaign, and staying on the highroad.

after the ad came out, i had a long talk with his campaign manager, Marah, and told her that i was very disappointed and was glad that if it HAD to come out, (and it don't think it did) it came out at the end.  my willingness to canvass, phonebank, and talk up the campaign shriveled after that ad.  I primarily blame FuturePAC for the ad (and, by association, Merkley) but Brading's campaign did sign off on it.

it changed things, and not just for me.  there was a lot of "blowback" among the volunteers, and i think very little (that was positive) came of the ad.  the ad did not flip seats, with the possible exception of Minnis'.  i believe to this day that we would have won had it not been for that ad.

---

by: maloney @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 22:49:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then we will agree to disagree (0.00 / 0)

as someone who was on the ground canvassing for Brading, gave him money and phone banked like hell for him, that ad took the wind out of a lot of our sails.

As someone who was on the ground canvassing for Brading, gave him money and phone banked like hell for him, and have had numerous discussions with people at the DPO, coordinated campaign, numerious DLs in the Mult Dems and with Brading's advisors about this very subject... I stand by what I have said.

cheers,

Mitch Gore

---

by: lestatdelc @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 23:00:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

agreed (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: maloney @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 23:48:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

one person (0.00 / 0)

no one person was responsible for the 2006 takeover of the Oregon legislature.  no one organization was responsible for winning back the House and Senate.  the press release seems to give credit to Merkley for that, but it's not an accurate portrayal.

a handful of candidates, hundreds (?) of paid campaign staff, thousands of volunteers and tens of thousands of voters made it happen.  it was a good session, and Merkley deserves some credit for it, but so do the other Legislators, committee chairs, citizen activists, and legislative aides.  politics is not a solo sport, and to give one person, even a person in a leadership position, credit for the outcome of an entire session is inaccurate at best, and disingenuous for sure.

i'm pretty sure Wayne Scott and Karen Minnis realized that the tide had turned against them, largely in response to the national political context.  i doubt either of them would name Merkley as their "enemy #1." 

the Democratic Majorities in the Oregon House and Senate had as much to do with what was happening in Iraq and the Bush Administration as it did with anything else.  If you'll notice, other states "turned Blue" in 2006 as well; Oregon politics don't happen in a vacuum.

---

by: maloney @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:54:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Candidate appeals to ... (0.00 / 0)

One reason we had so many successes in taking back the state House last year was that the D recruits were generally not out on the fringe and didn't scare the independent voters.  They also didn't have primary challenges, in which a contest to find the candidate "most appealing to the Democrats" might have been further from the center and thus less successful in November.

Perhaps people like Steve Novick and Dennis Kucinich can win our hearts with their visions on policy, and we can fervently desire those visions to become ascendent.  In the world of money-driven politics, contested on the uncommitted middle ground of the electorate, candidates can win only if they seem "safe" or "tested" enough.

I'm glad to see the support coalescing behind Jeff early, because we need our candidate against Smith to project as much strength as possible.  He has passed some tests that Steve hasn't and thus deserves our support.

---

by: Fair and Balanced @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 13:21:58 PM CDT

hooey (0.00 / 0)

Primaries aren't contested on middle ground. And "safe" and "tested" is what we've been doing, and we're not getting the candidates we want. It's a poor strategy.

I agree we need strength. We need forthrightness, a recognition that the current GOP is not interested in compromise, and a willingness to listen to the people rather than the party and the dollars. Those are tests that Steve has passed, IMO.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 13:50:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hooey? (0.00 / 0)

Yes, yes, no and no.

As I implied above, the new House Ds were elected to form a new progressive majority partly because they were more centrist (still progressive, though) than some of the more extreme candidates who might have emerged from a primary.  But we did get the candidates it turned out we wanted, because we won, and got a lot done.  It may be a poor strategy from a purely ideological standpoint, but it's the only one that can work politically.

Who are the "we" you're referring to?  The ideologues or the working and middle class voters who want peace, prosperity, good affordable health care, and a clean environment? 

In this environment, "we" (whichever) need a candidate who can beat Smith, and that'll be somebody who can listen to ALL the players -- including the party and the dollars.  I am confident Jeff is doing that, not so confident about Steve.

---

by: Fair and Balanced @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 14:10:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you're wrong (0.00 / 0)

There's no evidence the House D's were elected because they were "more centrist." It's a poor strategy both ideologically AND politically, because the electorate is in change mode, and changing a little bit is a waste of time. People are tired of politics as usual, and as good as Jeff is he's part of the system, a system that is not currently giving us what we want or need.

The "we" refers to Oregonians. I'm overwhelmingly confident Steve has the ability and natural inclination to reach out to regular voters.

---

by: torridjoe @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 14:20:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

context, context, context (0.00 / 0)

The slate of candidates we ran in 2006 would not have had the same level of success in either 2004 or 2002.  Period.

The BIG difference was not running "centrists" (which I don't believe to be true) at all.  The difference was the political climate.  The attitude of voters had turned away from favoring Republicans, for any number of reasons, and towards supporting Democrats.

We will win big again in 2008 if this holds true.  Political campaigns, for all the time that is put in, do their best when they capitalize on momentum that's already built.  Political campaigns fail when they ignore the political context and go textbook.

If Oregon was the only state that "went Blue(r)" in 2006, then I might agree that there were special circumstances here.  However, the nation turned Blue(r) from shore to shore.  2006 was a reaction to the failures of the Bush Administration and clever candidates found ways to "nationalize" their campaigns.

We're still in the midst of the Pendulum swinging towards Democrats, and I say we seize the opportunity to put a strong progressive populist like Steve Novick into the US Senate.  The time might come again soon when what he's talking about might seem radical again.  But we've got a chance, in Steve, to put forth a Senator from Oregon who really "gets it" in terms of connecting the issues of Health Care and Education, of Economics, of Civil Liberties.

---

by: maloney @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 15:54:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]