Novick hasn't yet raised the issue of Merkley's Iraq resolution vote in his campaign appearances. But with Democrats at the national level backing Merkley instead of Novick, the lesser-known candidate sees the resolution as something that can win Democratic voters to his side.
"It is coming up as an issue," Novick said in an interview with The Associated Press in which he made it clear he plans to talk about the House resolution in the campaign's coming months.
"I think there will be a lot of Democrats who will want to vote for someone who loudly, proudly and at every opportunity expressed his opposition to the war," said Novick.
Merkley's campaign said it would have no direct comment on Novick's assertions about Merkley's vote on the House resolution.
"Jeff Merkley knows that the best way to help Gordon Smith get re-elected is for Democrats to attack each other," Merkley spokesman Jon Isaacs said.
It's getting a little Pavlovian at the new Merkley digs, almost. Say anything about Jeff that isn't explicitly positive, and out come the "attack" charges. What constitutes negativity, and where does its avoidance become a bar on distinguishing two good candidates? Based on the ruminations of the pundits Cain sought out, the CW is that Novick can't win unless he strikes out against Merkley and lowers his theoretical well of favorability.
Look again at what Steve says that appears to have brought the click-whirr response from Isaacs: "I think there will be a lot of Democrats who will want to vote for someone who loudly, proudly and at every opportunity expressed his opposition to the war,"
The reaction suggests that not only is pointing out potential deficiencies in Merkley's record not OK, but highlighting positive traits about Novick is out--if by comparison they imply Merkley comes up short.
More Steve: Novick argued that he himself never would have voted for the 2003 resolution acknowledging Bush's "courage" in pursuing the Iraq war. He also noted that five Oregon House Democrats voted against the resolution that day, despite the pro-war sentiment in the country at the time.
"I think voters respect people who are willing to stand up for their principles, even when doing that is politically difficult," said Novick, who strongly opposed the war from the outset and marched in several anti-war demonstrations.
"A lot of Democratic voters have been demoralized for years because they feel their leaders have missed opportunities along the way to take a strong stand against the war," he said.
The five Democrats who voted against the resolution in 2003 pose a little problem for Jeff. Put aside the nonsense the GOP is trying to push; Merkley was obviously against the war then as now. But where Novick is making the distinction is in how Democrats respond to that nonsense. The trap votes that the Republicans keep throwing out whether they're in the majority or minority are designed to frame the discussion on their terms. Democrats validate those terms when they vote safely instead of making the tough political stand .
The Iraq vote was not a vote to "support the troops;" it was a baiting tactic to get Democrats on the record for the whole shitbag we all now hold. And instead of thinking "I don't want to be seen as not supporting the war," Novick's point is that the proper response is "This bill is a bullshit bill, and you don't vote Yes on bullshit, even if there's a lollipop hidden in the manure." So far, Merkley has only responded to the Republican argument; if he intends to treat the more salient argument as an attack, will he leave some voters wondering how they should view him when their questions turn "to the bill," as they say?
|
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
