OR-SEN: Novick Sweeps Portland Paper Endorsements

There are three Portland-based, general circulation newspapers: The Oregonian, The Willamette Week, and the Portland Mercury*. The number of times they've all endorsed the same candidate for a major office recently can probably be counted on one hand (or less!), but when it comes to the Democratic nomination for Senate, they're in perfect harmony: they want the guy with the hook.

We covered The O's big Sunday endorsement of Steve; let's add in the others. First, Willamette Week, whose nod may certainly have been less of a surprise than that from the House of Stickel, but which comes on the heels of a joint endorsement interview Novick's critics–and even some supporters–mark as his low moment of the campaign. The ed board may or may not have liked Novick's answers on the peripheral questions of the race, but they liked Merkley's issue positions even less, making note of three separate areas of "concern."

In the end, the editors appear happily surprised to have Novick exceed their expectations to become a legitimate, solid candidate with the potential for greatness:

Let’s be clear. Back in January 2007, Novick was little more than a placeholder. Novick has a rapier wit, a winning affinity for sports references and an impressive behind-the-scenes résumé working for worthy causes. But Oregonians were waiting for another, more credible Democratic challenger to Smith, a telegenic senator who’s raised boatloads of cash and worked to style himself in the moderate image of past Republican icons such as Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood and Tom McCall. We all thought that other person would come along.

We were hotly divided between the fun, speak-his-mind insurgent who calls to mind the late Sen. Paul Wellstone and the impassive Merkley, who calls to mind the widely respected Sen. Al Gore—the wooden version, before he became as steaming as the planet.

In the end, we rallied around Novick because we see a capacity for a refreshing independence and an unwavering willingness to tackle our toughest issues, like providing universal health care and ending the war in Iraq. We recognize, too, he could be a spectacular failure, a quotable firebrand for the left who is both alienating and alienated. Our hope is he commits himself to becoming the Senate’s best workhorse before shooting for the ranks of Sunday talk-show showhorse. Novick, please play nice.

 {the Merc's endorsement, and even bigger swipe at Merkley, below}  

 Near the bottom of a long list of City endorsees, in today's issue The Merc gets to the statewide races and makes their call for Senate:

We've gone back and forth on this endorsement for weeks. Were we choosing the candidate who would make the best US Senator, or were we picking the one best suited to topple formidable Republican Gordon Smith—someone who'd put up a better fight, even if they weren't ultimately successful?  

Finally, we realized that attorney and political activist Steve Novick is the best choice on both counts. Not only will he give Smith the toughest challenge—just look at the momentum he's got against Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, a solid political leader, and the guy plenty of Democrats assumed would be coronated as the nominee—but assuming he wins in November (and we're starting to believe he can), we're excited to see what he'd do in DC.

At first, we thought his campaign was heavy on schtick—relying on viral ads highlighting Novick's steel hook prosthetic left hand—and short on evidence that Novick would be an effective representative for Oregon. But as the campaign has heated up, we're pleased to see that Novick's record on things like taking on the Oregon Lottery Commission to fight for more school funding has translated well to federal policy issues—we have no doubt that Novick will be a strong advocate to end the war, create universal health care, and help the working class.

The brainy Novick's penchant for saying exactly what's on his mind has gotten him in trouble a few times, but it's apparent that he's learning to temper that impulse. That said, he'll continue to do things differently, in a way that makes you wonder why more politicians don't follow his lead. Meanwhile, his opponents like Candy Neville and Jeff Merkley are virtually on the same page when it comes to agendas and policy positions. Smith, however, would trounce Neville. While Merkley would likely be a solid senator, given his track record leading Democrats in Salem, we're just not that into him. Vote for Novick. [emph me]

Ouch. Leave it to the Merc to put out there as plainly as possible: Jeff Merkley just does not inspire many people, or make them believe that he has the potential for greatness. This is an election to get excited about making real change, and Merkley is coming up short. 

What's the practical value of these endorsements? Hard to say, although there is certainly some kind of benefit to having all three major papers backing the same guy (especially, as I said above, when they generally don't agree). Veteran OR politico Charlie Burr thinks he has an idea of their impact, however, and he states it in comments at BlueOregon:

The Mercury endorsements will matter more than usual this year for the same reason WWeek's will: 30,000 new voters registered by the Oregon Obama campaign. The Obama campaign may have registered them, but these new voters will still be looking for additional cues for other races on their ballots.

 

 You do have to figure that particularly with these latest two, the demographic skews towards younger voters. And with a lot more younger voters in the mix who cannot WAIT to vote in this primary, there's no question that seeing Novick's name downticket in the endorsement will help shade some of those folks–who may be so jazzed about the Pres race that they haven't been following some others–towards Steve. Nothing wrong with that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The Portland Tribune obviously exists as well, but for the purposes of endorsement the Pamplin ownership group makes a blanket call for all its papers in the area; and while there are other papers publishing in Portland, they are aimed at specific rather than general audiences.

Help Me Respond to an Editorial by a Right-Winger

I have noticed recently that my local newspaper, The Daily Tribune-News (Cartersville, Georgia) runs only editorials from right-wing talking heads like Mike Reagan, a former chair of the county Republican Party, and the like.  A couple years ago, there was balance.  The chair of the county Democratic Party, Howard Dean, and a local Democratic activist all had columns at one time.  Now, that’s changed.

But I digress.  The object of this diary is not to complain about the right-wing slant of my local paper.  It’s to ask help in formulating a response to one column published recently.

More over the flip.

In this column (linked and quoted), one wingnut spouts out the typical Democrats undermine troop morale bullshit:

http://www.daily-tri…

Before political correctness, a person who gave someone a gift and later took it back was called an “Indian giver.”

This is what a majority in the House did last week when they “gave” their support to American forces fighting to stabilize Iraq and defeat our enemy and then promptly took it back. How else should one interpret this “nonbinding” resolution when part one said, “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq,” but part two negates part one: “Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week sending a note withdrawing the sentiment.

Last Saturday, Republicans managed to block a similar effort in the Senate, but by only four votes. Senate Democrats — and a few like-minded Republicans — vowed to try again.

Once, most members of Congress supported the president’s prosecution of the war. That was when his approval numbers were sky-high. Now that those numbers have fallen, so has congressional support. Most Democrats claim, falsely, that the November election was a referendum on the war. If the president’s policy succeeds, though, two things will happen. First, some members who opposed him will claim they were behind the troop surge all along. Second, most Democrats will assert that success is actually failure because they can’t afford politically to admit they were wrong.

Do the troops feel supported by this House resolution? There are no opinion polls of military and civilian workers in Iraq, but two comments have come to my attention. One is a letter to the editor of The Washington Times from John McFarlane, a military trainer for Northrop-Grumman Technical Services in Elizabethtown, Ky. McFarlane writes that he has just returned from Iraq “after coming out of retirement to go there … I can tell you that the greatest fear of the young service members over there is that the American public will fail to pursue total victory and will leave early, thereby wasting their battle buddies’ life and blood. They feel pain every time somebody pays lip service to his or her conscience with the line: ‘I support the troops, but not the policy.’ (They) know they are the policy and that you should feel shame if you as an American would commit them to anything less than total victory.”

The second letter is from Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, about whom I wrote in a column last week. Sgt. Dobson says he was in the chow hall in Mosul, watching CNN on the day of the House vote. He writes in an e-mail, “…it made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to. The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick.”

So much for the assertion by some members of Congress that the House resolution, with the promise of more and binding ones to come, will have no affect on troop morale. How many other soldiers feel this way? How many others might be affected by these “no-confidence” votes? Of equal importance, how emboldened does the enemy feel as he sees the prophecy of Osama bin Laden coming true, that America doesn’t have the stomach or staying power for a long war and will eventually give up if enough death and injury is inflicted upon American troops?

If Congress wants to end this war, it should immediately vote to cutoff funds and receive whatever benefits, or consequences, that result. But too many who lack the spine to win also lack the spine to accept accountability for defeat. The only victory they appear committed to is the next election.

Some points I would like to make:
1. Thomas leaves out that all three Iraq war veterans in Congress are Democrats and all three voted for the resolution.

2. Voting for this resolution does support the troops by saying they should not be thrown into the middle of a civil war.  What is so hard to comprehend about that?

3. He leaves out the fact that most Americans oppose the escalation.

4. His saying the election was not a referendum on the war is bullshit and the exit polls say so.

5. Keeping point four in mind, is he saying that most Americans don’t support the troops and are enabling the terroists.

Please chime in with points, information (citations especially), ways to word things, etc.