OK, he didn't literally stop Gordon Smith, the voters did--and if you wanted to catalog all the people that had a hand in creating an environment that would allow Smith to be stopped, the list of names might get rather long. Kari Chisholm extends on Jeff Mapes' analysis of how Merkley managed to beat an incumbent Republican in a wave election, including the online outreach and info clearinghouse efforts:
Jim Ross did a whole heckuva lot more than "set up a Web site". At the beginning, he built the entire Stop Gordon Smith effort. Working with the DPO's Trent Lutz, they set up a communications operation to hold Smith accountable, including a Web site (which I built), a press secretary, and regular outreach to lots of organizations around the state. The DPO's 36-county grassroots organizing campaign, funded in part by Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, was also a key early capacity-building effort.
I met Jim during the Kulongoski campaign, late in the game after he had come in and rescued a moribund plod to November with some sharp attacks on Ron Saxton's flank, and a smart media approach. I knew there was major DPO effort behind the Stop Gordon Smith site, but what I did not know is that Ross--apparrently mostly from his Bay Area base--was the architect of the project. But he got his props from Kari. So too Trent Lutz.
That's not what made StS go and kept it up for months on end through the election, though. What got it done, what made the goals and the plans and the money worth it, was the highly active outreach to state and national media regarding the race and particularly Smith's record. For a contest where the incumbent was working overtime to obscure and obfuscate his record, it was crucial to have the facts ready to throw back in his face. Ross, Kardon, Lutz--to their credit, they knew he'd do it from the start, but someone had to do the grunt work of pushing the info out there at the right times, countering quickly and keeping things active overall.
And THAT guy was Marc Siegel of DPO. From the day it went live, Marc worked both in concert with Chair Meredith Wood Smith and on his own, pushing Gordon's record, hypocrisy and behavior on the opinion makers in state media. Of course the goal wasn't for DPO to release a statement, it was to make sure that the "she said" of any he said/she said story a reporter was putting together, included the facts that made a weasel out of Smith.
Obviously I don't know what his relationship and utility were to various members of the professional media, but it was a forward looking sign to see Siegel so engaged with the netroots. If I didn't mention anything on LO about something he'd sent, more often as not I'd get another pitch for it. It was always my decision, he never got mad or even snarky about me letting several items go by, he just kept trying.
And a lot of the stuff I used, because it was effective. It answered Gordo's bullshit, exposed his foibles, and made the usually timely case to get rid of the guy.
The worst part of Siegel's job had to be the shit he allowed me to give him about the various things I didn't like that DPO was doing. I still don't know what the point was of sending a letter to county clerks essentially smacking Novick's pee pee in the primary on the eve of the big debate, but Marc went dutifully back and forth with me under stern questioning. As another example, I think some were a bit put off by the exclusive-feeling celebratory party, in a number of ways that felt out of step with the joyous, open celebrations right in the middles of streets. We chatted about that beforehand, as well. But he remained a reliable conduit to the state office, and kept doing his job in a professional way.
So hats off to Marc Siegel for making Stop Gordon Smith part of the team effort to bring down a roadblock Senator--one whose legacy will carry the stink of Bush when history checks back in with him down the road. He--Siegel, not Smith!--deserves to be mentioned, deserves to be thanked, and deserves to sip some of that sweet Senate champagne.
They've poked at it, worked at making the case, tied it in to other criticisms, used it as a lever--Jeff Merkley and the DSCC have done plenty so far to tie Gordon Smith to George Bush and the policies that Smith explicitly enabled through his votes. But this is the best try yet, one that puts it in the starkest and most direct possible terms:
The latest assist from Chuck Schumer to Jeff Merkley is a pretty good one, called "Party." It subtly portrays Smith as someone partying while the country suffers for their avarice. Maybe it's a good thing that DSCC needed to come in and boost the Dem candidate; their ads have been somewhat better, although both theirs and Merkley's are infused with that mainstream, 20th century ad approach.
I've not been shy around the net lately, pointing out what I think is whiny and time-wasting reaction to Gordon Smith's misleading ad on punishment for sexual offenders. The ad is technically true; Merkley did vote against the bill Smith claims he did, and the bill would have done what Smith says it would have done. The issue for Merkley is what Smith did with that information, using an emotional shortcut to sub for the facts, with the implication that Merkley doesn't care enough about rape victims.
But there are two realities here, the first being that Merkley's no stranger to attack ads that skirt the issues, stay technically true but attempt to smear his opponent by leaving out a lot of context. So for me, the sense of outrage is a little faux, considering he doesn't have qualms about doing it in a primary, much less a general election.
The second reality is that calling "low blow" makes you look defensive and weak, and allows your opponent to set the frame. If the Merkley campaign had opted to respond instead with a pivot showing just how weak Smith is when it comes to protecting women and kids, that might have been more effective.
In any case, as it has on numerous occasions so far, the DSCC is riding to the rescue with an attack ad on Smith that hits him where he's vulnerable, and on a topic getting far too little attention this election season: Iraq. Check it:
I didn't know this was going to be published, I have no idea who the author was, and I first heard about it when it showed up in the Lefty Blogs wire. I don't think there's any new knowledge being dropped since we covered the big exdpenditures from the June report (still waiting on Q2 numbers for the Senate race that I know of; should know after the 15th), and so it's a little apropos of nothing, beyond the diarist's discovery that Chuck Schumer's DSCC laid out a lot of money to beat Jim Neal and Steve Novick with Kay Hagan and Jeff Merkley, respectively. They're not the same kind of candidate, and many consider Neal to have been far less competitive--but their discovery makes the same point we did at the time, and continue to make: why is the DSCC spending so much of our money to defeat other Democrats? For instance, wouldn't that $800,000 dropped on behalf of Merkley be really helpful right now?
In the North Carolina and Oregon Democratic US Senate primaries this year, two great progressive candidates ran for the nomination: Jim Neal (NC) and Steve Novick (OR). The DSCC, who is not supposed to pick sides in a primary, appears to have secretly funded their preferred candidates anyway (Kay Hagan (NC) and Jeff Merkley (OR)).
If the DSCC leaders personally had a preference, that’s fine. BUT IT IS NOT OK TO FUNNEL MONEY TO ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!!!! That's unfairly taking sides and deliberately influencing an election, and that is not what the Democratic Party is about.
The diarist, who goes by the poetic handle of spnj889, shows exceptional acumen by quoting my story on the financials from the June reports at length, specifically the part where Chuck Schumer pays Jeff Merkley's light bill so Merkley has the money to buy expensive air time for his commercials attacking Novick.
Again, I don't think they had quite the same race in NC--but the point is that it doesn't matter. It would have been just as wrong for Schumer to funnel a bunch of money to Novick, because they suddenly felt with exposure he could really win. (Oh, to wish). It isn't any more right to spend money to defeat the less progressive Democrat, than it is to spend it defeating a less progressive one. It's using Democratic donor money to beat Democrats. Not good for the party, not good for the movements in each state. Leave them alone.
The anger at Schumer putting his thumb on various scales before primaries is not limited to Oregon, it would appear. I just happened across this diary. Just sayin', is all.
While we're certain to elicit cries that this reportage represents mere Surreptitious Succor for Smith, something else seems to be motivating Congressional Quarterly and Oregonian political reporter Jeff Mapes--twice--besides lingering bitterness over Oregon's Senate primary.
No, the noteworthy reaction is based on the release of May's expenditures in the federal races, which you can peruse here (click on the "June Monthly" link; watch out for the file size--it's 1000+ pages). Folks who want the details can read on beyond the quotes below, and there's a good lively diary at LO already on the subject (which I'm now poaching attention from; sorry Larry). But here's the professional analysis, dry from CQ and with a little more local color from Mapes. From CQ's Greg Giroux, a pretty good reporter himself:
The DSCC reported $409,000 in “independent expenditures” to produce and air a television advertisement opposing Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, whose November opponent is state House Speaker Jeff Merkley. Party committees can make unlimited independent expenditures, so long as the spending is done independently of candidates’ campaigns.
The DSCC also reported $279,000 in “coordinated expenditures,” which are limited by law but can be made in concert with candidates’ campaigns. The largest share of these funds went to assist Merkley, whom the DSCC preferred in the May 20 primary election over Steve Novick, a lawyer and liberal activist who lost by 3 percentage points. The DSCC also used coordinated funds in May to boost the campaigns of North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan, a state senator who is her party’s nominee against Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole ; Kentucky Democrat Bruce Lunsford, a businessman who is challenging Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ; and Landrieu, whose Republican opponent is state Treasurer John Kennedy.
Note who else got the money; we'll compare Merkley's situation to theirs, and what was done for each. But last above the fold is Mapes, including a flattered Steve Novick:
[T]he level of direct support was remarkable. All told, the committee spent $386,000 in coordinated expenditures with Merkley, which doesn't count the advertising the DSCC produced and paid for on its own. It helped give him resources Novick couldn't match.
I called up Novick, wondering if he thought he could have won if the DSCC had stayed out of the state. He said he was now backing Merkley, but he couldn't resist saying:
"I'm very proud, and I think my supporters will be extremely proud, that it took that kind of humongous effort to beat us. They clearly gambled that Jeff Merkley had a better chance to beat Gordon Smith and they had better be right...If they're not, a lot of Oregon Democrats will justly be mad at them."
The wound was healing. Some scabs still showing, of course, because it hasn't been that long and it was an ugly wound. And then here comes Mapes and those journalistic fingernails. Suddenly it's all fresh and painful and bleeding again.
In this AM's OregonLive, Mapes covers the final financial reports on just how much money Chuck Schumer's Bullyboys spent defeating a grassroots progressive Democrat: $386,000 not counting the "independent" advertising.
In a lovely bit of writing, Mapes reports that in the final weeks of the campaign, Schumer spent $250,000 paying"paying everything from Merkley's payroll to his garbage bill in May."
I'll take a couple of little purple pills, chase them with a couple of slugs of liquid anti-acid, and go on with my day. But any weakening I felt in my decision on how I'll vote in the the Oregon Senatorial race has disappeared.
If I vote in that race at all, I'll vote to give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Up Chuck."
(Chuck Todd's lips to God's ear! - promoted by torridjoe)
From the excellent Chuck Todd's excellent First Read
*** Down the ballot: There are some interesting House and Senate primaries in Kentucky and Oregon today. The DSCC has a little something on the line, as both of its preferred candidates in Kentucky (Lunsford) and Oregon (Merkley) are struggling to win their nominations. Lunsford should hang on, but Merkley's another story. His foe, Steve Novick, seems to be benefiting from the increased turnout of new voters created by Obama's candidacy. Does anything north of 12 points for Obama mean a Novick victory? Astoundingly, the DSCC has spent some $300,000 on Merkley's behalf, so losing would be a real embarrassment to Chuck Schumer. It's going to be a nail-biter.
The bold text is mine. I admit I'm gonna be sorta crushed if Novick loses. I'm so looking forward to a summer of Barrack and Steve whacking on McBush and Smitty.
Some folks in the MSM are noticing that Senator Chuck isn't the political Midas they gave him credit for being, citing Oregon's senate race as the case in point.
Taegan Goddard's Political Wire news aggregator carries a link to an AP story making that point but you have to read a web posting from the Janesville Gazette Extra to get the full text.
Writer Matthew Daly points out that while Schumer actively recruited Merkley (even after Novick had declared) and has thrown a bunch of money into the campaign, "Polls show the race is too close to call."
Daly also offers a great quote from Novick on the subject: "Why they think Merkley can beat Gordon Smith if they have to prop him up to beat me is beyond me."
You can read the rest of the story for yourself, but there's one more point I just have to make. The standing joke in political circles around in NY and DC is that the most dangerous place you can find yourself is between Chuck Schumer and a microphone. I'll let Daly say it, "Schumer, who typically makes himself available to reporters, declined to comment for this story."
We're headed into the final weekend, and Jeff Merkley is doing everything humanly possible with every kitchen appliance he has to beat Steve Novick for the nomination. The three prongs of his support base--the DSCC network, the legislature and the beholden unions--have all come into play on his behalf over the last couple days, most urgently just now.
First, the grotesque display of wanton disregard for state autonomy shown by DSCC Chair Senator Chuck Schumer, whose response to a campaign labeled locally as "tone deaf," "disappointingly negative," and generally lacking in charisma or promise, was to double and triple down his money.
Having dropped 100K into the campaign as seed money to get it started, as much as $300,000 more has poured in since, musch of it late in the form of ads that swipe at Gordon Smith but then only mention Jeff Merkley. Here's one:
Having soaked up three weeks' worth of generally empty airtime, Jeff Merkley's ad campaign seemed to have brought him the first good news in a while--according to the latest Survey USA poll, he'd pulled into something of a tie with Steve Novick for the Democratic nomination.
That's always nice; it was nice to know Steve had established an early base and solidifed it while Merkley caught up. As we said at the time, he'll have to spend a lot of money on TV to try and get up to speed--and that's apparently what he did.
But he's still nominally behind, and in what is looking like a freaking goldmine of votes in Multnomah County (more on those data, you bet!), Merkley might be in danger of suffering a loss on a much grander scale of total votes than he projected in his 50%+1 model. If 58% of the new vote is young, and Merkley partisans are as willing to accept some parts of the SUSA poll as others--Merkley is in a world of hurt: Novick crushed him in the crosstabs for 18-34 ages, 35% to 11%.
I suspect the closer you get to 18, the better Steve does--and the better proportion of the new registrants are 30 and under. It's like someone left Bus Project seeds in every neighborhood, and our infamous winter of discontented weather germinated a huge sprout of democracy.
This, it turns out, was not a surprise to Chuck Schumer and the DSCC back East, They've been keeping an eye on their money...I mean, their candidate, and certainly they can't be popping Cristal. The relatively good polling news notwithstanding, this is so NOT where any of them expected Jeff to be heading into the home stretch. Fighting the tide to organize through a clearly more energized campaign doesn't just happen, and I don't know where they're doing their work, but it's not where a whole shitload of voters are.
It's that delightful season again, the last couple of weeks of a fundraising quarter. I'm as big a proponent of public financing as anyone, but the game goes on while we try to change the rules some, and money is needed to get the job of running for Senate done. It's also, because of that phenomenon, a proxy marker for campaign health and prognosis. As the underdog candidate working against the pressure from national and state elites to push for Merkley, it's understood that the well is poisoned somewhat. But a good showing not only has practical effect (ie, you can spend it), it creates a psychological buzz among the punditry. It's like hitting RBI's in baseball as a strategy to win MVP--it's a good way to impress the writers, even though it's a horrible way to judge someone's skills.
So while there are many causes to find your dollar this holiday season--beyond the blessings you may bestow on family and friends--there are few as important as bedrock American values in crisis: trivial things, like habeas corpus, a ban on torture, wiretapping only with warrants, and accountability for those who break those commandments of democracy.
And we've heard it all before so we forgive you for being cynical--but Steve Novick is for real. If that stuff happens in the Senate, it won't be because of him...and even as a backbencher he won't be afraid to try to lead from the position of defending the Constitution from enemies domestic.
Can you find a way to drop even a touch of gold into our ActBlue account for Steve? We're closing in on $600 from Loaded Orygun readers, which is pretty nice. But as you can see, there are actually quite a few people and groups who have started their own fundraising pages for Steve, and we're losing our prominence among proxy solicitors.
This is fairly audacious,it's also kicker time--and I know I used kicker money to make a donation to Steve. I'm going to set a goal of $1500 by the end of the quarter, or $900.
Now that I'm out on a limb though, you gotta help catch me. Will you help support the effort to put a real fighter in the Senate? I wish I was being overdramatic, but in these days where it looks like telecom immunity will go without a fight, can you afford not to?
The Bend Bulletin reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is trying to fix Oregon's Senate primary. The Bulletin reported that:
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent about $73,000 for an advance team from Arkansas, The Markham Group, to promote Merkley's campaign kickoff tour. It paid about $20,000 to a Washington, D.C., firm for 'research.'
I'm pretty steamed about that news. I'm not pleased to hear that a few people in Washington, D.C. are trying to dictate who we send against Gordon Smith in November. I think a lot of Oregon Democrats will share my indignation and more generally I bet there are a lot of grassroots Democrats across America who resent being told who they should support in their respective Senate races. The purpose of the DSCC is to help Democrats beat Republicans in the general election. That's a legitimate function. Senate races are national races. Republicans from all over the country are pouring money into Gordon Smith's campaign, and after we win the nomination, we will need some help from Democrats around the country in order to balance that out. It might be nice if we could prohibit all out-of-state contributions - but since we can't, it makes no sense to unilaterally disarm.
(James X does it as well as I would have, and got to it first, so here's the news if you haven't already heard. Also on our page is a diary from Senate Guru 2008, who thinks it's a Novick stunt. Take your pick. - promoted by torridjoe)
I know this is a controversial issue around here, so have at it: The Bend Bulletin, in an article behind a pay wall entitled "Merkley looks like early Senate pick for Dems," reports that the DSCC has given Merkley $93,090, according to Doug Daniels at PolitickerOR. In the comments, Colin Maloney quotes from the Bulletin article, saying that the donation is more than three times what was given to Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, who received the second-largest contribution from the DSCC.
The DSCC reported spending about $141,000 on "coordinated" expenditures, the limited outlays that party committees spend in concert with candidates' campaigns. Most of the funds were spent in coordination with the campaign of Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley, the state House Speaker who is the leading Democratic candidate against two-term Republican Sen. Gordon H. Smith.
Update II: There doesn't look to be anything about this on the DSCC's site, but I find it interesting that the featured story on their News Center page is a poll showing Smith's vulnerability, despite there being at least three stories on the site that are more recent. Taken together, it looks like Oregon remains a top-tier race for the DSCC.
Earlier today, Senate candidate Steve Novick sent out an alert e-mail in response to an article in the Bend Bulletin noting that the DSCC had spent $93,000 on behalf of Oregon Speaker Jeff Merkley's Senate campaign. The Novick campaign's e-mail suggested:
If we want to take our politics back from the Washington establishment, it is up to us to stand with Steve and make sure Oregonians are the ones who pick our nominee.
If Mr. Novick is true to his principle (and isn't just trying to take a quick shot at Speaker Merkley for enjoying some establishment support) that Oregonians, and only Oregonians, should be the ones to pick the nominee, and out-of-state fundraising is contradictory to that principle, will Mr. Novick agree to return every financial contribution to his campaign that comes from outside of Oregon? Surely, he wouldn't want the financial contribution of a Washingtonian or Californian impacting the electoral decision of Oregonians. Will Mr. Novick further eschew financial support from the DSCC should he win the Democratic nomination (and willingly put himself at a major financial disadvantage against Gordon Smith, who will no doubt enjoy some support from the NRSC)?
If Mr. Novick isn't willing to return every out-of-state financial contribution, then this alert rings hollow. If Oregonians alone should pick the nominee, and Mr. Novick extends that sentiment to financial support, he ought to return every contribution that has come in from outside of Oregon, lest his charge seems hypocritical, like the argument of a candidate who shuns "establishment" support not for any principled reason against it but rather for no better reason than he simply lacks "establishment" support.
My point with this post is not to pick on Mr. Novick by any means, though I found his "alert" flimsy. Both Mr. Novick and Speaker Merkley are progressive candidates who would be vast improvements upon Gordon Smith. Both Novick and Merkley want to bring the troops home from Iraq, want to expand health care, want to increase opportunities for workingclass Oregonians, and so on. Both also understand grassroots politics. Either would be a terrific Senator. So let's have a positive primary campaign that focuses on the policy differences between Merkley and Novick and discusses both men's experiences and demonstrates why it would be a mistake to re-elect Gordon Smith. And let's leave these fairly silly stunts out of it.
(I have to say honestly it's not altogether prudent for Merkley OR Novick to take on Chuck Schumer just now, but there is some merit in seeking an alternative way to display your disagreement (as both men should and I presume do), perhaps by refusing money from his PAC. Schumer's vote through committee and (again, one presumes) Yea vote on the floor are pathetic pass-through capitulations. But Merkley can't bite the hand that almost literally feeds him, and Novick wants to avoid being the high draft pick who calls out the coach before he even has a contract.
This move obviously would hurt Merkley more, but it's getting to the point where somebody, sometime has to stand on principle for once. What's happening with Mukasey is simply absurd and appalling. Novick has called on Democrats generally not to cave, can't say as I've seen something from Merkley yet (could be wrong). Reid has said Mukasey will get a no vote from him; will they filibuster?
Heh--sorry for piggybacking on your thread, Darrel. - promoted by torridjoe)
Maybe it's just me, but if I was a Senate candidate who believed that waterboarding was torture and that Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey didn't satisfy my conscience that he would not only consider it as such but that he would vigorously investigate and prosecute any allegations of torture by whatever methods used to interrogate prisoners who are (or have been) in US custody, I just might not take calls from Democratic Senate Campaign Committee chairman Sen. Chuck "Yea!" Schumer, even if he'd promised me bags of cash.
I made one of my periodic visits to the KPOJ studios yesterday, and in a rare moment of weakness Carl and Heidi basically let me go for 10 minutes straight, summarizing the "Greenlick Letter" contretemps* as best I could from my self-admitted subjective view. I'm usually on at the bottom of the hour, but Thursday we went with the top of hour 2, so on this POJcast I'm pretty much the first thing...and away we go from there.
Usually there's at least one thing I say that's blatantly wrong, but this time I think I got all the facts straight. Wait, the one thing this time is "John Podesta." (You'll understand if you listen).
Thanks as usual to Heidi and Carl and their producer Paul for being so kind to have me on once in a while. And while I'm always at work by the time Thom gets on the air, he's been especially good to me and LoadedO in general. (And Steve!) We're pretty jaded (and truth be told I'm as little a fan of liberal shock troop radio as I am the conservative brand), but Portland has some very strong original programming on their Air America station, which many other cities do not. Buy the shit that people advertise when I'm on, OK?
* "Greenlick Letter" not only misses Nolan's participation, but it sounds like "Canuck Letter." Come up with a better name for this whole thing, in comments.
One of my favorite non-Oregon blogs is Ridenbaugh Press. Journalist Randy Stapilus does a great job of offering analysis that doesn't rely on he said/she said, but also keeps his opinion cards very close to his chest.
Theirs was not a "left vs. moderate" sort of thing: Wherever they are on such a scale, they're not far apart ideologically.
But there was a difference, and it wasn't subtle.
Merkley made only one quick, glancing reference to Novick, simply acknowleding their joint appearances, nothing substantive. (His speaking, by the ways, seems to have gained in smoothness and strength since last we saw him.) He seemed to take little notice of him.
Novick, while focused on Smith (coupled, of course, with the Bush Administration) and his own views, did carve out a couple of minutes to discuss Merkley, planting one substantial barb along the way.
(late night date-function fuckup! - promoted by torridjoe)
Well, it sure was an interesting weekend. I managed to recover from late-week coughing fits enough to tool over the Santiam Pass (although McKenzie should get some of the credit for beautiful scenes like Sahalie Falls at left) for the biennial Democratic Summit. The ride through the Deschutes area in my $15 rented Hyundai was uneventful and typically gorgeous, especially once you hit the peak point and the clouds break off and you notice the high desert climate change.
Thankfully squire Nothstine was along for immoral support, making the 5:15AM start much less painful. The ride back sucked harder than those Dyson vacs owing to rain and a motorcycle accident on I-5 around Keizer. (By the way, the campaign to rename their baseball team the Wilhelms starts here.) In between rides, I had a fine team presenting to, talking with and listening to the meat of the Democratic Party in Oregon--many legislators, lots of aides, county chair types, former pols, consultants, etc. Some interesting things went on, particularly at the "hear the candidates" event late in the program on Sunday, a clearly hastily thrown together doo-dad but one which offered its own insights--the implications and ramifications of which continued to reverberate today.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
Well, it sure was an interesting weekend. I managed to recover from late-week coughing fits enough to tool over the 