Witigonen

Feeds Feeds

Steve Novick's Misleading E-Mail

Posted by Ben on March 13, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. in Politics, Oregon
Tags: jeff-merkley jon-tester or-sen politics steve-novick
A fundraising e-mail sent on behalf of the Novick campaign misrepresents the candidate and points to a larger credibility problem.

Previously, I've written about various unethical dealings within Steve Novick's U.S. Senate campaign. And earlier this week I received an e-mail that shows me these problems are continuing and that Novick is developing a credibility problem.

Last Sunday, March 9, a fund-raising e-mail was sent out on behalf of the Novick campaign. This e-mail, directed to his supporters in the Seattle area, has a serious problem: it misrepresents Novick through false comparisons and misstatements. A friend who received the e-mail sent it to me, and I've been trying to make sense of it since that time.

The e-mail itself is pretty long, but here are the meat-and-potatoes sections which have me scratching my head (posted after the cut):

*From:* John Hoyt
[mailto:j...@pyramidcommunications.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2008 4:21 PM
*Subject:* A rare opportunity in Oregon

Novick is on fire.

I am volunteering my time to raise money for Steve Novick (see my email note below and check out Steve). He can win. *He is the Jon Tester of 2008*. I hope you will consider learning more about Steve and donating to an amazing candidate. *This is an important race with a really fun and inspiring candidate*. Come on Wednesday or go to ActBlue and check out Steve! Hope you are well and that I will see you soon.

I am supporting and volunteering for Oregon's U.S. Senate candidate, *Steve Novick* because I believe he is *the only candidate who can defeat the incumbent, Gordon Smith*. Steve, like Obama, has denounced the war in Iraq from day one while his primary opponent supported a resolution praising the "courage" of George W. Bush at the start of the war. Novick, is the most interesting and certainly one of the most viable candidates against a vulnerable incumbent in the country and a recent interview in Harper's... will give you an idea of why this race is receiving national attention.

That's why, this week *former Oregon Governor* *John Kitzhaber endorsed Steve*, and recent polls show Steve is leading his primary opponent. And *this weekend the Oregon Education Association (OEA) endorsed Steve...

I have been involved in politics since I was eight years old and have seen only a few candidates as good as Steve (My father... and Jon Tester of Montana). Brilliant, passionate, progressive and straight-forward, Steve would be a refreshing addition to the US Senate.

The full text of the e-mail is located here, and the above emphasis is mine.

I find three glaring problems with the e-mail's contents, leaving for a moment the known faults with the race's polling. First, Steve Novick is not the Jon Tester of this election cycle. I'm sorry, but saying it over and over just doesn't make it true. In fact, it's almost the opposite: Tester has strongly endorsed Novick's opponent, Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley. And, when you scratch the surface, it's easy to see that Jon and Jeff are very much alike: prior to running for Senate, they both led their respective legislative bodies back into majorities; they both earned reputations as being strong leaders in their newly-found and hard-fought majorities; they both were endorsed by the sitting Governors of their respective states when they decided to run; and they both they had success at fund-raising while running. In fact, I had the honor of meeting Jon at his endorsement/fund-raising event with Merkley, and I had the chance to ask him why he supported Jeff's candidacy. Well, his answers spoke for themselves.

Second, am I mistaken, or is the claim that Steve Novick opposed the Iraq War from the start a bit misleading? He opposes the war, sure, but I'm having a hard time finding any front-line evidence that he came out publicly and strongly against the war at its inception. Does anyone have a published statement, a written article, or a vote they can produce to demonstrate this claim? Considering that Steve has worked as a political consultant and in public relations, this is a pretty glaring omission. In that light, the e-mail's comparison seems little more than a blatant attempt to ride Barack Obama's coattails. And moreover the Novick/Obama comparison is surprising at best, considering Steve's lukewarm endorsement of the Illinois Senator's Presidential campaign.

And, third, the assertion that Jeff Merkley voted for a resolution praising President Bush at the start of the Iraq War is misleading. The resolution praised the President in-part, but also expressed strong support for "the courage, dedication, professionalism and sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their families in the defense of freedom." Furthermore, immediately after the vote in question, Merkley issued a statement defining his support for the troops and opposing the war. The e-mail never discusses or mentions this fact. Here's what was said by Merkley:

Colleagues, I have not been and am not today persuaded that Iraq was a significant threat to the United States or that the war we fight today is the best strategy to fight terrorism or the wisest application of our superpower resources. But that is a conversation or a debate for another day. Today I rise to praise our young men and women serving our nation at great personal risk. Today we are not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal; we are Americans concerned about the safety and support of our troops

So, what does this mean? While Novick has found success in recent weeks by winning a few key endorsements, his campaign remains dogged by ethical and factual problems. In light of this e-mail and past situations, one has to question the credibility of the Novick campaign. Will they play fast-and-loose with the facts as long as it benefits their candidate? I've come to expect these sorts of distortions and half-truths from other political parties and candidates running elsewhere in our country, but this is Oregon and we're Democrats. We should expect and demand higher standards from our candidates and elected officials.

If we want to have any chance of beating Gordon Smith in November, we need a candidate who'll speak truth to power and be honest with the Oregon people. Considering how Novick is represented by the above e-mail and the campaign's past ethics problems and developing credibility issues, it's becoming clear that Steve Novick isn't that candidate.


Spread the word

Facebook Share

Comments

Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.

  • Wow their still pulling the Jon Tester comparison? Even after he endorsed Merkley? Amazing.

    Posted by: bdunn on March 13, 2008 at 5:55 p.m.

  • I sure hope you hooked up a safety harness before you climbed out on that limb, Ben.

    Posted by: pmalach on March 13, 2008 at 6:38 p.m.

    • I don't know about Ben, but I put on waders for the shitstorm that was bound to come down on anybody that says anything bad about Novick.

      Posted by Michael on March 14, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.

  • Malach try rebutting the argument made. Oh yeah right you cant do it.

    Posted by: bdunn on March 13, 2008 at 6:44 p.m.

  • Let me get this straight.

    1. You provide no evidence that Steve, or even anybody affiliated with his campaign, claimed to have the endorsement or even support of Jon Tester. I'm pretty sure we're allowed to briefly compare one man to another without having to attain the express written consent of the latter.

    2. 'Yeah, the resolution kinda praised President Bush's courage, but it also said _!' isn't anything remotely resembling a refutation of Mr. Hoyt's claim, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

    3. You provide no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Steve Novick didn't denounce the war from the beginning. Your claim is entirely conjecture.

    That's three strikes. You didn't land a single blow with this pathetic piece. And it is utter nonsense that the campaign is "dogged by factual and ethical problems." Says whom? You, Kari, and Bradley? Riiiight.

    Cut the bullshit and stick to the issues.

    Posted by: Galen on March 13, 2008 at 7:22 p.m.

      1. Proclaiming yourself to be just like someone who has explicitly rejected your campaign just plain reeks of desperation and a profound disconnect with reality.

      2. Hoyt is parroting a Republican talking point. That reeks of desperation even more than the Tester thing does.

      3. The claim that Novick opposed the Iraq War from the start is his own. The onus is on him to back it up. Thus far all I've seen or heard is hot air.

      Some people talk the take - Novick Some people walk the walk - Merkley

      Posted by: Kevin on March 13, 2008 at 9:42 p.m.

      • To be fair I think 3 is kind of nit-picky.

        What I want to see is a fight about why Merkley is better at defeating Gordon Smith than Novick (or, hell, vice-versa) or what kind of accomplishments they'll do in the Senate.

        Honestly, all this bullshit about who supported what when is insanely annoying. As a Merkley supporter, of course, I blame the Novick campaign for perpetuating it, but I'm sure the other side feels the opposite.

        Posted by Michael on March 14, 2008 at 12:03 a.m.

        • I certainly understand where you're coming from, Michael. And it's a fair position, IMO. But I think that #3 actually speaks to why Merkley is the better choice - he has a solid record. It's awefully easy to take potshots from the bleachers and claim to be all sorts of things. It's another thing entirely to back it up with actual achievements.

          If Novick wants to claim that he'd have handled HR2 differently then he is the one making his own anti-war record fair game for questioning. There is nothing at all unseemly about asking him to back it up.

          Posted by: Kevin on March 14, 2008 at 8:30 a.m.

    • Galen, I'm just trying to raise a few points I have a beef with. The Tester thing's been out in the public sphere for a while, and I thought the ongoing comparison questions were common wisdom. And the fact that Tester himself's been out heavily in support of Merkley also bears on this. With the resolution, I feel limiting himself to what he said goes against the full scope of the story. And with the third point, I'll put the question back at you. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this third point.

      And I think Jack below speaks well to the nature of the e-mail.

      Posted by Ben on March 13, 2008 at 9:51 p.m.

  • Oh, and another thing. If anybody thinks this piece isn't a hit job, and was just written out of mere curiosity, look at the title. "Steve Novick's Misleading E-mail." Did Steve send this email? Nope. Did a campaign staffer even send this email? Nope. It's misleading and deceptive, which are the things you're accusing Steve of. Nice!

    Posted by: Galen on March 13, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.

    • Galen all over the blogs you just rag on anyone that raises serious and legitimate questions about Novick. Guess what that doesn't stop the questions.

      It also seems like Geraldine Ferraro is just a Clinton fundraiser and said some things that were rightly jumped on by the media.

      Posted by: bdunn on March 13, 2008 at 10:11 p.m.

      • Nope, Bradley, not anyone. Mostly just you, because you're completely full of shit, and you have been since the beginning of this campaign. I'm sorry to say it, but the outrageous lengths to which you go to manufacture controversy and smear Steve Novick, and your predictable and fawning support for others doing those same things, have truly made you the laughingstock of this campaign.

        Posted by: Galen on March 14, 2008 at 12:26 a.m.

        • I expected a better level of of discourse from an alumnus of the Bus Project's Politicorps program, (No offense, bdunn). Make a contribution, not a subtraction, to Oregon politics, Galen.

          Seriously, I thought it was 'forward', not 'hard left and ascerbic'.

          A volunteer sent this email. Not just any volunteer, but a coworker of Novick's who's taking the entire month to raise funds for his campaign. Obviously he's well connected and tied into the campaign.

          Either the campaign fed him these points, or they're OK with the contextual liberties that Hoyt has taken. Which would you prefer? Neither is a compelling argument for the Novick campaign's ability to take down the Smith machine this fall.

          Posted by: Jack Murray on March 14, 2008 at 1:39 a.m.

          • I think we should just accept that anybody who actually bothers to comment on a blog is a huge asshole (myself included).

            Posted by Michael on March 14, 2008 at 2:07 a.m.

          • Hey, Jack. It was a harsh statement, I will grant you that. However, I think there is absolutely a place in politics to forcefully call somebody out who has engaged in an extended smear campaign against another progressive.

            Posted by: Galen on March 14, 2008 at 8:45 a.m.

  • The email was certainly written on the campaign's behalf, as Hoyt says he's volunteering to raise funds for the campaign. The alternative to this inference is to suggest that the Novick campaign has very little control over its volunteers, which would be a different, yet substantive, issue for the Novick campaign.

    The email certainly insinuates that Jeff Merkley supported the Iraq War at its beginning. That claim is patently false. It is misleading to position Steve Novick as the anti-war candidate in this race when BOTH candidates were arguably against the war from the beginning: Jeff Merkley has a statement that confirms his early opposition, and while I trust that Steve opposed the war early, too, there's no substantiating documentation of that. And that's okay, because Jeff Merkley isn't calling Steve Novick an early pro-war candidate.

    Posted by: Jack Murray on March 13, 2008 at 8:39 p.m.

  • Where's the evidence that Steve Novick was against the Iraq War from the very beginning? No, let me rephrase that... Where's the evidence that if Steve Novick was against the Iraq War from the very beginning that he did anything, anything at all, to influence public opinion against the War?

    I'm serious! Is there a single piece of objective evidence to support the claim? A letter to the editor? A news piece? Video footage? Anything at all?

    Some people talk the talk. Some people walk the walk. We know that Jeff Merkley walks the walk because there is objective proof that he very publically opposed the War and the rational behind it. Thus far it appears that on this subject Steve Novick only talks the talk.

    Posted by: Kevin on March 13, 2008 at 9:51 p.m.

  • your point about iraq is just more obfuscation; novick spoke out against the iraq war in a willy week interview on 08-06-2003. read it, and then please correct your merkley spin, i mean, article:

    http://wweek.com/story.php?story=4188

    here's the quote, e called it:

    "An oil grab and public-relations gimmick, sold on false pretenses, which is now producing $4 billion a month's worth of chaos."

    that link was right on the wikipedia entry for steve novick. you obviously didn't even try to find a source.

    imho, the fight over the tester comparison is getting pretty old. if you want to just take superficial criteria and compare them, you can make either candidate more like him (missing extremities? steve/tester check. the non-establishment choice? steve/tester check, unorthodox campaign? steve/tester check, not afraid to criticize other democrats? steve/tester. etc).

    the only point you make that passes muster is is the hr2 omission. no, it doesn't tell the full story. however, if you are going to call steve on that, then you should call merkley on the outright lie about novick "Recently" supporting nader.

    Posted by: petrichor on March 13, 2008 at 11:07 p.m.

    • Dude, 5 months delayed. Merkley's anti-war speech was on day 2 or 3.

      Of course, don't take my word for it, I work for the establishment.

      Posted by Michael on March 13, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.

      • dude,

        novick was not a prominent public figure, thus his quote was not sought out until he was in a more public position (as speculation for earl's seat).

        besides, if your point is that speaking out 5 months later is no good, then what good is 2 to 3 days later?? that is 2 to 3 days too late!

        Posted by: petrichor, er, "dude" on March 14, 2008 at 6:20 p.m.

  • Talk about misleading email. "A friend" just sent me this missive from Jeff Merkley, where he claims (again): "I am the only candidate for the U.S. Senate in Oregon who spoke out against the war from the beginning."

    I hope he's not referring to his famed HRes 2 floor speech. At that point, Merkley hadn't yet made up his mind if invading Iraq was the "best strategy" for dealing with Saddam. So maybe Merkley is again alluding to that column/article he supposedly wrote. Where is it team Merkley?

    AWOL. I remember the candlelight vigil for peace on the Hawthorne bridge last August. Merkley made it as far as under the bridge where he "gave a speech." Did he march? Nope. Had better things to do. Novick marched. Then there was this big rally/march in September, organized by 55 local peace and justice related organizations. Novick marched. Merkley... AWOL.

    There's a pattern here. I remember the recent SEIU 503 rally in support of the PPS workers. Merkley did the walk around the block, and then must have gone inside to get warm or something. Novick walked the picket line with the rest of us afterwards.

    Now, you can hate the messenger, folks and take your cheep shots. Above are the facts as I have experienced them. I want a fighter, and Jeff hasn't impressed me as such. Still, props for his SEIU endorsement.

    Merkley's got to come clean on this supposed anti-war article he wrote. It's getting to the point that should he produce anything, we may have to question when it was composed. Better to get it out now.

    Posted by: East Bank Thom on March 14, 2008 at 6:14 a.m.

    • The simple, provable fact of the matter is that Jeff Merkley actually is the only candidate for U.S. Senate in Oregon who spoke out against the Iraq War from the very beginning.

      That last part is crucial - "from the very beginning." It's a matter of public record.

      What the public record doesn't appear to reflect at all is Mr. Hoyt's claim that "Steve, like Obama, has denounced the war in Iraq from day one."

      Notice the last part of that sentence - "from day one." Where's the evidence? Surely Mr. Hoyt knows that it would be a blatent lie to claim "from day one" when FIVE MONTHS LATER appears to be closer to the truth.

      This is just one more example of Novick & Supporters playing fast and loose with the truth. The pattern is becoming difficult to overlook.

      Posted by: Kevin on March 14, 2008 at 12:17 p.m.

      • Then prove it Kevin. What did the Speaker write in this supposed anti-war "column" he keeps referencing?

        I'm not impressed with his floor speech, which by the way he has mischaracterized.

        "So i stood up on the House floor and said what i had said in an article previously that the Iraq war is uh...uh...uh...using military force is uh...is uh... uh... uh... uh... uh... terrible way to approach this. And it is uh... I have grave doubts about this strategy."

        The above claim by Speaker Merkley is quite simply a lie.

        Posted by: East Bank Thom on March 15, 2008 at 6:47 a.m.

        • Earth to EBT: Nobody cares whether you are impressed with it or not. Your opinion of it is as relevant as the current price of tea in China.

          Five months later is not "from day one" as Hoyt alleges.

          Posted by: Kevin on March 16, 2008 at 9:50 p.m.

          • Nice and patronizing of you, Kev. Rainsticks and stones may break my bones...

            Merkley lied about his floor speech and we're left to believe that he at the very least "exaggerated" about having published an "anti-war" article before the invasion.

            Congrats on your first ever Peace March, Mr. Kamberg. You're a credit to the activist community.

            http://www.loadedorygun.net/showComment.do?commentId=4500

            Posted by: East Bank Thom on March 18, 2008 at 10:38 a.m.

  • Is the Merkley campaign really going to keep pushing the "he spoke out against it, after he voted for it" line.

    How well did that kind of rhetoric work for president Kerry? Oh damn!

    Posted by: pmalach on March 14, 2008 at 9:03 a.m.

    • I think you're the only one pushing that line.

      Posted by Michael on March 14, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.

      • Something I think we both can agree on, Michael, is that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. So if I came up with it, don't you think Gordo and crew already have.

        "He spoke out against it, after he voted for it."

        I'm very sorry, but that's exactly how they'll play it, and lower-information voters will entertain Jeff's nuanced explanation for about as long as they did John Kerry's in 2004.

        The GOP talking point will be that Merkley flip-flopped.

        The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party's :) talking point is much different. It's more about wanting people in Washington who will stand up to Republican traps that use jingoism as bait.

        Posted by: pmalach on March 16, 2008 at 12:36 a.m.

        • Your reasoning is ludicrous, as usual, Pat.

          The history of his own stance on the Iraq War is Gordo's achilles heel. He knows it. Jeff Merkley knows it. Gordo knows that Jeff Merkley knows it.

          Posted by: Kevin on March 16, 2008 at 9:47 p.m.

We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.