Most Active Stories
- Sources: KATU set to release eyebrow-raising poll showing Merkley in 3rd place
- Monty Python and the Neverending Campaign
- Walker ready with budget-cutting pen
- Rural county voters give serious consideration to a Democrat
- Adamson to be Merkley’s business liaison
- Haugen: Support from ORGOP is like 'holding our jewelry while we get water boarded'
- SD-20: The replacement process for Schrader
- OR-5: County fairs have a Mike Erickson problem
- Future PAC, Macpherson lead in fundraising
- House Dems scramble to keep majority
Recent Press Releases
- Sep 23 2008
- Jun 12 2008
PolitickerOR Partners
January 2, 2008 - 7:34pm
News
Merkley responds to Novick on debates
By Alex Isenstadt, Politicker.com ReporterRuss Kelley, spokesman for the Jeff Merkley U.S. Senate campaign, is responding to Democratic rival Steve Novick on the issue of debate negotiations.
“It sounds like the Novick campaign can’t take yes for an answer,” Kelley tells PolitickerOR.com Wednesday evening. “It seems, no matter how many times we agree to do the debates, we just can’t satisfy.
“We prefer to do the negotiating across a boardroom table rather than in the press. But, however it shakes out, we’re happy to debate along with all the other candidates in the race.”
Syndicate
if yes
if the answer is yes, then how come Merkley hasn't done a single interactive appearance with Novick, since August? And let's be serious here-/he won't debate unless Candy Neville and Pavel Goberman are there too?
Looks to me like merkley would rather not take on his only viable opponent one on one..
Novick cries fowl.
Is Steve Novick too chicken to debate the entire field? And who says TJ or the Novick campaign gets to determine the level of 'viability'?
I mean, even in the Presidential primary debates no-shot candidates like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (not to mention Tancredo, Paul and Hunter) were included in the debates.
It sounds like Steve Novick is the one drawing an unnecessary 'line of viability; here, not Jeff Merkley, who seems to be opting for inclusion in a real debate. Ironically, the major theme of Novick's campaign is railing against 'outsiders' determining the viability of a candidate.
Merkley is a Master at revising history
Are we supposed to believe now that Novick has been the obstacle to debates?!? It's already been widely reported how Speaker Merkley has been playing dodge ball when it comes to debates.
Russ Kelley's quotes ring of such revisionism, it makes me wonder if he's the one behind Merkley's HRes2 'splanations (as to why he voted to acknowledge the "courage of President George W. Bush"). We're supposed to believe that Merkley's floor speech was "anti-war" and that it condemned President Bush just because he and his surrogates claim so. (pssst. not the case...)
Merkley has made several references to an "article" he wrote opposing military force in Iraq (before the war began). Now that his campaign is touting his foreign policy cred, perhaps he could remind us just exactly what he said/wrote (and how he voted) as Bush took us to war.
Seems to me there were some prayers about the conflict being brief... Still, no idea what Merkley wrote in his definitive anti-war "column."
“We prefer to do the negotiating across a boardroom table "
And the implications of that statement are why my household is sending money to Steve Novick.
There you go again TJ.
There you go again TJ. Hasn't the whole Team Novick Crew been howling about letting the voters decide about "viability?"
Does Novick actually want to debate in a forum where all ideas are on the table or is the old "My Way or the Highway" for the self styled Outsider Candidate? How bad does he want it?
The fact that Novick seems to keep encountering unacceptable roadblocks on the debate issue might be one good indicator of his ability to govern effectively.
After all, there are 100 US Senators and the winner of the Oregon race will need to be able to make common cause with enough of them to get legislation passed. Otherwise, why would Oregonians elect him?
Can't take "Yes" for an answer looks a lot like yet another example of "Does not play well with others."
Laughable
The idea that the Novick team is holding things up is just silly. Novick's been calling for debates for months.
Merkley's the presumed front-runner. If his campaign was making an honest claim that it was Novick holding up the debates because he wanted to restrict them, they could just announce when and where they would be, open the doors to all comers, and let Novick show up or not.
Novick could do the same thing, but as the underdog in the race, he doesn't have the pull Merkley does to get media attention. Although I hope the Novick people go ahead and show up Merkley by doing something of the sort.
agreement
the fact of the matter--confirmed by two of the four campaigns there--is that everyone EXCEPT Merkley agreed to six debates, beginning with one in Pendleton and one in Eugene. NO objection was raised by any campaign about inviting everyone, a condition apparently (as far as I understand from Neville) that was Merkley's idea. And Neville also confirmed to me what I was told by the Novick campaign, that she is invited to the first two for sure. After that, the host--KGW, KATU, City Club Portland--would have input into invitees.
Since that falsehood's been dispelled, can we ask now why Merkley would rather not debate his main primary opponent one on one?
viability?
TJ, what's your viability threshold? Is it poll numbers? Money raised? How do you define it? By what criteria is Candy Neville not viable - and Steve Novick is?
all of it
All of that and more, anonymous commenter. Polls show Novick within the margin on Smith, to whatever degree it reflects his strength, the generic "Democrat" strength, or a combination. Where they are compared, Novick runs slightly ahead of Merkley, if anyone is ahead.
Novick has raised over half a million. If Neville has $50K I'm surprised.
Novick has a full layout of positions across a wide range of issues, which are easy to read at http://novickforsenate.com . I'm pretty confident that Iraq is about 80-90% of Candy Neville's platform.
And that is the main problem, to me--she's selected a very important issue, but one in which both main candidates have solid positions that virtually match hers.
I'm sure you had already figured that out for yourself, but I indulged you.
Candy Neville for U.S. Senate
Re: "Iraq is about 80-90% of Candy Neville's platform. And that is the main problem, to me--she's selected a very important issue, but one in which both main candidates have solid positions that virtually match hers."
My name is Candy Neville, and neither Steve Novick nor Jeff Merkley has positions that virtually match mine. We are all "against" the war. I am not just "against" it, I am "actively" pursuing the end to it in a country that has resignedly taken it's existence for granted. On my website I have an orderly and methodical exit plan and a bill by California Wooley re details after the exit.
Because this issue bleeds our blood and economy and keeps us worried, weak, and less secure at home - it causes us to lose our grip on other excedngly important issues. I posted a thumb nail sketch of my stand on issues in the Eastern Oregonian and will add them to my website. A few days ago I sent out a press release comparing the stimulus plan to "alms" - less than the price of a dinner and speech by Karl Rove.
I have deep opinions and concerns regarding all issues - pro health care (would actively take stand against pharmaceutical pricing which I compare to a sneaky form of price fixing). I am a strong environmentalist, pro labour/unions, immigration and more. I will update my website and invite you to see that I am a multi-issue candidate.
People complain that politics is all about money. Don't let it be. In this day of internet, newspapers, etc., money spent with lavish dinners and balloons, posters and slogans - though fine in itself - should not be a deciding issue regarding candidates.
The rhetoric in the Republican Presidential primaries is about war. Exit "timeline" is a dirty word with McCain and others. We need a Senator willing to take that mentality on, to be persuasive, unswerving and relentless. That is me. As I said in Pendleton, "It's not the economy, Stupid...it's the Iraq war that drains the economy ... and all our other resources." The single action that facilitates the funding and support of all other issues is ending this war.
Who would imagine we would be in this hideous predicament? I can if we continue to ignore it. I am not a single issue candidate, but I am the single candidate willing to do full battle with the single issue that is a bane, scourge and drain on our wonderful country.
Please check out my website in a day or two with updates on the issues.
Post new comment