When Jeff Merkley, the Speaker of the Oregon House, decided to enter the Democratic primary to take on Republican Sen. Gordon Smith at the end of July, the only announced candidate, Steve Novick, didn’t raise a fuss. In fact, his cordial response set what appeared to be a friendly tone for the primary campaign in the months ahead:
I commend Jeff’s decision to follow me in taking on Gordon Smith. […]I look forward to an inspired primary where each of us makes our case for why we must replace Gordon Smith and presents our respective visions for Oregon and America. And I propose a series of joint appearances across the state with Jeff and any other candidates that enter the primary to let voters make up their minds.
[…] Over the next ten months, I plan to travel the state – listening to voters’ concerns and sharing my vision. It would be my great pleasure to have Jeff join me in that journey.
However, despite Novick’s proposal for a primary campaign with the heat directed entirely at Gordon Smith, it sure appears that Novick is spending a great deal of time launching unprovoked barbs at Merkley. One of the first signs came in late August, when Novick found himself reading similar talking points as the state GOP to portray Merkley as a candidate who has flip-flopped on the Iraq War–something that isn’t true–because of a non-binding resolution passed by the Oregon House in 2003 that Merkley voted for in order to express solidarity with the troops. Remarks that Merkley made on the House floor clearly corroborate Merkley’s claim that he was opposed to the war since the beginning.
Next up, Novick slammed Merkley as the “insider’s candidate” in a message sent to his online supporters after a recent fundraising push:
And yes, if you’re wondering, we outdid our opponent in the Democratic primary in online fundraising this week. The insiders’ candidate sent out the same kind of last-week appeal that we did – to an email list that seems to include everybody in the state – and you smoked ’em. Oh, we’re sure he got lots of big checks this quarter; that’s what insider candidates do. But in online last-week enthusiasm, you rocked him hard.
Huh. And here I thought his campaign was about “rocking Smith hard”. My mistake.
But wait, it gets better! Both candidates recently announced their third quarter fundraising totals. Merkley outraised Novick by a $294K to $125K margin. While not extremely strong numbers for Merkley, he did begin his campaign at the start of August, and therefore only had two months to raise funds for the quarter compared to Novick’s three. Nevertheless, Novick’s campaign wasted no time in releasing the following statement to the press:
From Merkley’s campaign spokesman Russ Kelley: “People are really responding to Jeff’s message of opportunity and his solid record of accomplishment.”Or are they? says Novick’s campaign manager Jake Weigler. Democratic Senate candidates in other states who, like Merkley, were recruited by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, have posted much higher fund-raising totals.
“Merkley’s ‘surge’ did not succeed,” Weigler said. “These numbers show it’s going to be a highly competitive primary.”
Excuse me? Merkley’s “surge”? Certainly an interesting choice of words.
So what kind of primary campaign is Steve Novick running?
You tell me.
But Novick had to do this. On the issues there’s probably not a whole lot of big-time differences between them. In which case Merley’s superior fundraising and connections would probably prpel him to victory. So the only way Novick can gain traction is by calling Merkley the insider candidate.
That he’s doing so this early in the campaign indicates he’s not liking his odds with all the support Merkley has.
While I like both men, and often don’t buy into ‘establishment ‘ consensus, I found Jeff to be a very good representative. And I believe that deserves reward before considering a challenger when you have a record as solid as Merkley’s.
I understand why Novick’s staff and supporters make the choices they do by trying to cast a pall on Jeff wherever they can. But there’s just so few things where Jeff has made a mistake as a rep that there’s nothing to sustain a negative campaign on.
Face it, if Novick’s going to beat Merkley, he can only do it by offering better ideas and capturing the public’s imagination and support from that.
This is a primary campaign and his job is to distinguish himself from an establishment candidate who will outraise and outspend him and would like to drown out Novick’s voice.
His job is to keep raising hell and, yes, distinguishing himself from Merkley, and that’s exactly what he’s doing.
Merkley is playing the old “above the fray” game — almost as if he were already the incumbent — all the plays from that playbook including being VERY coy about agreeing to the series of debates/joint appearances Novick proposed in the blockquote included in the original post.
A non-establishment candidate has to carve out his own space in a primary, and it’s obvious that Novick is getting under Merkley’s skin, which is an interesting effect.
When you think about it, after all, if Merkley thinks that Novick’s campaign tactics are somehow inappropriate, it’s better we should find that out now, because we can’t let Merkley take on Gordon Smith if that’s the case. Smith will eat him alive.
We Democrats have had no problem talking about Novick’s “electability” but haven’t cared a lick for the problems with Jeff Merkley’s record. If we honestly don’t think that Republicans will take the Iraq issue from Merkley because of H.R. 2, we’re deluding ourselves.
Also, I think it should be known that the Merkley campaign (even before H.R. 2 was mentioned) showed no sign–beyond lip service–of actually doing joint appearances with Novick. They’ve tried to ignore Novick completely and run Merkley as the only candidate in the race.
Anyway, I think Steve Novick is running an issues-based campaign, and when you talk about issues, sometimes the other candidates’ stances don’t quite stack up.
I must ask: what kind of blog are you writing? Are you a Merkley supporter? You play down the fact that Merkley, one of Schumer’s “big four” candidates couldn’t raise even as much as Larry LaRocco in Idaho (in the exact same amount of time!). Also, you seem to have missed the fact that the Novick campaign has more cash on hand (218k to 215k). Your omissions speak pretty loudly.
So far as I can tell, Novick is running a good campaign, an inspiring campaign and , above all, a transformative campaign.
I’m struggling to find a way to be shocked by these terrible revelations, and I’m afraid I just can’t get there.
Either candidate will be an improvement over the Republican incumbent, and will receive substantial support if he’s the nominee. There’s money to spare in the national party coffers.
Maybe the Democratic voters in the state of Oregon are the best judge of which candidate to nominate?
To me, the most interesting number in the fund-raising totals for the quarter just behind us, for a Senate race, remains the $310,000 raised by Andrew Rice in OK-SEN:
http://www.andrewfor…
and if there’s anybody online here who’d like to see the pace of that effort keep rolling, you can donate a few bucks to Andrew there, or here:
http://www.actblue.c…
Or if you do have a strong preference for one of the Oregon candidates, and want to back him with actual cash, they both have ActBlue tabs on this page:
http://www.actblue.c…
where there’s also a tab to put money in the kitty that goes to the winner, after the primary. If I had money to spare for the Oregon race, that’s where I’d put mine.
You genuinely don’t have a problem with a guy who promised to run a positive campaign using terminology that links a fellow Democrat’s alleged fundraising strategy to the actual murderous military policy of Dick Cheney which has cost the lives of untold thousands?
I’m all for rough-and-tumble politics, but I also believe in saving most of our firepower for the other side.
Also, I think there must be a link missing from your post, one which shows that somehow Novick is getting under Merkley’s skin.
Posts on no sleep should be avoided.
Andrew Rice in Oklahoma is what I meant. Regardless, there is a point to the cash on hand. Between your statements on Novick’s messaging, James, you point out all sorts of things about Novick and Merkley. These subtle points generally indicate “Merkley has kicked Novick’s ass” in one way or another. I’m just looking at the undercurrents of content in this piece and pointing out a few biases and making a few corrections, that’s all.
There are some things written here that don’t quite reflect reality.
1) Novick’s proposal for the campaign has been mostly ignored by Mr. Merkley–which is his right, but that doesn’t require Novick to stand by the phone without adjusting.
2) Novick did not “read similar talking points” as the GOP; that’s utterly baseless. What he DID do was point out that if Mr. Merkley refused to acknowledge a clear trap vote by state Republicans (the bill saluted Bush’s courage with the bait of “supporting the troops,” and Novick pointed out you wouldn’t catch him dead voting Yea on any bill that said that), how would he fare against the much tougher national version? The author’s statements on this topic are simply inaccurate and should be corrected, please.
3) Is it really strange to refer to the “insider’s candidate” when Sen. Schumer and the DSCC are interfering with a statewide primary to tilt the scales for the candidate from the establishment? It’s kind of relevant as regards fundraising ability.
4) And speaking of fundraising ability, the strong attempt to push donors towards Merkley (Schumer has included him in at least one letter without the slightest mention of a primary or another highly qualified candidate) created an expectation for Mr. Merkley to perform as one might expect in a highly targeted race such as Oregon. Similarly, $125K in an environment where the sitting governor is telling donors to look elsewhere, looks a little different. That includes $35K in the final week, by the way, and Novick’s online total is almost 3-1 over Mr. Merkley.
5) The kind of campaign Novick appears to be running is one that is charged from the grassroots, highly specific (look over his issues page and compare it to Mr. Merkley’s), and directed at changing the culture of the Democratic Party in DC.
I might suggest that next time a review of the Oregon blogosphere not be limited to Blue Oregon, a fine blog but one with professional ties to the Merkley campaign. I run LoadedOrygun.net, which does formally endorse Steve Novick, but does so entirely independently. And of course there are other blogs covering the race whose inclusion would offer better context than is provided here.
If we want a fillibuster proof senate then it is important that we get top-tier candidates in all states and if we want to win in Oregon then we sould run Jeff Merkley.
Blue Oregon, a fine blog but one with professional ties to the Merkley campaign.
BlueOregon has no ties to anyone. It’s a bunch of bits on a server. To the extent that it’s a group of people, we’re neutral.
I’m one of the editors of BlueOregon, and I’m a consultant to the Merkley campaign. Charlie Burr, one of the other editors of BlueOregon, has endorsed Novick. Leslie Carlson, one of our most involved contributors, was Novick’s press person for the first several months.
Most of our contributors haven’t expressed a preference either way (and I don’t really care), and there are roughly the same number that favor Merkley as there are that favor Novick.
If we are going to take back this seat in 2008, each candidate had better keep the campaign focused on what is wrong with Smith and not attack his opponent. Case in point: Montana Senate 2006. The democratic primary weakened Burns as each candidate criticized him and Burns was left without sound bites to use against Tester in the fall.
Compare that to the 2006 California’s governor primary. Each campaign spent a fortune to show minute flaws in the other candidate and distinguish himself from the other. Pure gift to Arnold. Unfortunately, that’s what the latest from Novick looks like to me. I am also bothered by the comments supporting his action. This is just what the supporters of Phil Angelides and Steve Westley said at the time. And look where it left is. It’s a self-defeating strategy.
Disclosure: I like both candidates and want either one over Smith.
First of all, here’s the FULL text of HR2, the Iraq war resolution Jeff Merkley voted for. (Emphasis on the preambles supplied by me.)
Five members of the legislature had the courage and smarts to avoid this Republican trap. None of them were Jeff Merkley, even though he was ostensibly the Democratic leader at the time. I don’t care what the Republicans think about this resolution OR his vote. I care what I think, and what other Democrats should think: I’m tired of legislators who walk into traps like this, like the Patriot Act, whatever, because they want to avoid being criticized by the Republicans. GUESS WHAT? The Republicans will criticize you no matter what you do. At least have the courage of your convictions.
I believe Jeff Merkley when he says he opposed the war. But that makes me even angrier that he voted for this thing.
Just look around the blogosphere and see for yourself, David. Merkley’s surrogates are out in force accusing Novick of “going negative” or losing focus on Smith.
Well, as inconvenient as it is for Merkley, there’s a primary election first, and two candidates who are competing to earn the right to take on Gordon Smith. Merkley’s running a modified Rose Garden streategy, as if he were the incumbent and could cut off Novick’s oxygen by ignoring him. It’s even possible Merkley can ride that strategy into a primary victory. But if he does, Smith will eat his lunch AND steal his milk money in the general election, because the Republicans are much nastier than Steve Novick on his worst day.
I find it more than interesting that none of those who have supported Novick’s change of course for a more aggressive campaign in this thread have decided to defend Novick’s “surge” rhetoric. Perhaps because it is indefensible?
I certainly would be interested in seeing someone explain why comparing Novick’s fundraising to Bush’s war policy is acceptable in order for Novick to “gain traction”.
I am a Merkley supporter, but I really have nothing against Novick. I’d be enthusiastically supporting his candidacy if Merkley weren’t in the race. I think that it’s too bad that the tone of his recent remarks has changed so much since his initial response to Merkley’s candidacy. Talking about real policy differences is useful, but referring to insiders’ candidate and surge is off-putting.
is rather telling that he is extremely nervous about Merkley’s candidacy. Personally I was indifferent towards Novick running for senate, now he seems rather… Off.
Jake didn’t say that Merkley was like Bush in any respect. He used a word with a very current and strong connotation of “lack of success.” I don’t see why any defense of his word choice is necessary.
A comparison is how you interpret it based on the same word being used in both cases.
If you’re asking whether better word choice might have avoided the question altogether, I’d say yes. But your argument here is rather akin to the one the GOP made against Durbin for his “Nazi” comments.
In the first place, James L’s original post was probably the lamest excuse for a legitimate political story that I’ve read since I started following Swing State.
In the second, I can’t think of the last time I saw a better example of Democrats/Progressives forming up a firing squad. I’m supporting Novick, not because I think he’s a silver bullet but because I always liked Wayne Morse better than I liked Bob Packwood and I always liked Maurine Neuberger better than I liked Mark Hatfield (though I did have a fierce crush on MarkO).
That doesn’t mean I won’t campaign for and contribute to Merkeley if he wins the nomination. I almost certainly will unless, of course, his surrogates and supporters start crying like little girls every time somebody uses a word they don’t like and squealing like Ned Beatty in “Deliverance” when they think somebody’s been mean to them. In that case I’ll just hold my nose and vote for him.
Gimme a break, folks, politics is a game for grownups. There is AND THERE SHOULD BE no story here!