Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, including Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley, faced off in front of a small crowd at Western Oregon University Thursday, and one question from Merkley sounded as if it caught Novick off guard.
If Merkley is to have his own “did your pants catch on fire?” moment in this Democratic race against Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), this might have been it.
Turns out that House Resolution 2, the “support the troops” measure also expressing “support for the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power,” which Merkley approved on March 21, 2003 and that Novick has used to argue that Merkley once backed the Republican rationale for war, had sibling bills in the U.S. Capitol. They are Senate Resolution 95 from March, 20 2003 and House Concurrent Resolution 104 from March 21, 2003 — and all of the members of the Oregon congressional delegation voted for them. The records are here and here, in case you’re skeptical.
Now here’s the transcript from the event in Monmouth with the gotcha question:
Merkley: Steve I’m very proud to have opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning. And I’m very proud to have stood up to support a resolution that defended the sacrifice and dedication and courage of our troops. And indeed I’m very proud to have opposed the war in exactly the same way that Peter DeFazio did and exactly the same way Senator Wyden did. Each of them supported a resolution the day, the time, that I did that supported the courage and sacrifice and dedication of our troops. But then, as I did, they stood up and gave a public speech that said, “Let there be no confusion. This is the wrong war.” Now, you have tried to distort this and attack me as not being against the war. And I’ve been disturbed by that. Are you saying then, that if I did this the wrong way, are you also saying that Peter DeFazio and Ron Wyden did this the wrong way?
Novick: Speaker Merkley, I never said that you weren’t against the war. What I said was that there was a resolution which started by reciting the Republican rationale for the war. It said, whereas Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with weapons of mass destruction, and numerous other such statements, we the House of Representatives acknowledge the courage of President George W. Bush and his cabinet — it didn’t say including but not limited to Donald Rumsfeld, but that’s implied [audience laughter] — and we support the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power. And then is said, and we support the troops. I think that you had a choice. You could have said, “Of course I support the troops.” But I oppose this resolution because I don’t believe this war is an example of the courage of George W. Bush. You made a different choice. I happen to disagree with it.
Merkley: Since Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Peter DeFazio did it in exactly the same way, are you saying that they also made a mistake?
Novick: I wasn’t aware that they voted for a resolution praising the courage of George Bush, and if they did, I wish they hadn’t.
They did, however. But Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio also gave short speeches similar to Merkley’s saying their “yes” votes were to support the troops not the war.
On March 20, 2003, Blumenauer said: “My vote on this resolution affirms my support for our troops, but should not be mistaken as an affirmation of the administration’s foreign policies and diplomatic efforts, which I find wanting.”
The following day, Merkley said: “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.”
- Novick Trounces Merkley at OEA Endorsement Conference The Orego
- Undecided Voters: the Debate, the Poll and Novick-(Neville)-Merkley KATU just
- Election Updates: Merkley Takes Narrow Lead Over Novick We promis
- Not Exactly Amazing Grace at Parties for Merkley (The Winner) and Novick (The Loser) The pres
- I’ll Take “Before & After” for $400, Alex: Novick in “Jeopardy” no more Look, we
Merkley is horribly exposed on the war issue. If anything, his floor speech in defense of his vote was nothing but equivocation. Sure he rose to wave the flag in support of the troops, but he wanted to talk about the war "another day." That was 5 years ago and Oregonians are still there!
Blumenauer was clear that his "yes" vote was not for the administration. (Of course he later voted for $50 Billion of "surge" money – full disclosure: I’m working to unseat him, http://www.walsh08.com) It would have been better had Blumenauer voted "no" and explained his vote and expressed his support for the troops in such a statement. Personally, I don’t think we need to "vote" on the courage of our troops. It’s a frickin given.
What makes Merkley the greater weasel? Glad you asked…
He got his friend Rep. Mitch Greenlick (who had the courage to vote the right way) to put his name on a swiftboat post on BlueOregon which claimed "Jeff attacked the war, and President Bush in his floor speech." And yet Jeff didn
What am I missing?
"I wasn’t aware that they voted for a resolution praising the courage of George Bush, and if they did, I wish they hadn’t. "
Where did Novick not tell the truth, exactly? Merkley wasn’t telling the truth in the previous debate, which is why he was called on it. I don’t see anything similar here…and in fact, when asked whether DeFazio and Wyden shouldn’t have praised Bush’s courage, said Yes.
Also, the resolutions are similar but not the same. The US version "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President as Commander in Chief," which makes a broad statement in support of the role of the office as the leader of the armed forces in an active conflict. HR2 specifically praises a personal attribute of a specific President, and also specifically supports the invasion and deposing of Saddam.
The US version backs the role of the President in armed conflict. The Oregon version praises the current President, specifically for invading Iraq. Not for leading troops as the office demands, but for invading Iraq.
Beth, read those resolutions. There’s nothing in either of those two resolutions about "the courage of George W. Bush."
Those other pols didn’t vote for "the courage of George W. Bush." So your "they did" line isn’t accurate.
Moreover, as Novcik pointed out, Merkley can’t even ask a question without including a bald-faced lie.
Novick has never accused Merkley of supporting the war.
He accused Merkley of falling for a Republican trap that held "support for the troops" as bait to get Democrats to vote "yay" on a resolution with which they disagreed with the majority of substance contained.
While the gist of these resolutions is the same, they are not twins or triplets.
Any democrat who voted for a resolution affirming Bush’s reasons for going to war and commennding his courage simply because the GOP tacked a jingoistic phrase on the end would not have represented me very well.
Many, many Democrats are tired of this kind of spinelessness in regards to the Iraq war (and maybe Iraq soon).
So Merkley and the others spoke out against it after they voted for it.
Great!
"pmalach writes on Apr 25th, 2008 7:22am
Beth, read those resolutions. There’s nothing in either of those two resolutions about "the courage of George W. Bush."
Wrong The title of Senate Resolution 95 is "Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America" and the very first lint after all the whereas statements syas:
"Now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress–
(1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq;"
The war had already started. Merkley spoke out before, during, and after the vote. He was opposed to the war. This wasn’t some law authorizing force, it was a non-binding expression of sentiment, and the only opportunity the Republicans would provide to express official support for the service members we sent to fight there. I have no problem with Democrats opposed to the war voting this way and making clear their specific position with separate language.
There you have it, folks. All the Novick supporters lining up to attack Democrats.
Their’s is a strategy of division and demagoguery.
It’s a strategy which can only result in Gordon Smith being reelected to the Senate.
Is that what you want? If not, vote for Merkley!
But first consider the cold, hard facts. Novick has sent out fundraising emails claiming to have opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning. But in fact the objective evidence shows that he waited and waited and waited… until August of 2003 before publically opposing the war.
When Speaker Merkley and Senator Wyden and Congressman DeFazio stood up to publically oppose the war, public sentiment was overwhelmingly supportive of the war they were speaking out against.
By the time Steve Novick finally got around to publically opposing the war those same public sentiments and dropped dramatically. In other words, Novick waited until it was "safer" to voice opposition to it.
Senator Wyden and Congressman DeFazio have made all Oregonians proud with their principled and courageous representation of us and our values in Washington D.C.
Jeff Merkley will also make us proud in the very same way, just as he did in standing up against this War when to do so was considered by most everyone (apparently, including Steve Novick) as political suicide. But we Oregonians don’t take our cues from the nattering nabobs of negativity and neither do Merkley, Wyden or DeFazio.
Hillary Clinton has one potentially fatal flaw. She’s not as electable in this cycle of change as Barack Obama. She has decided to change the math by bringing Obama’s numbers down.
Jeff Merkley is in the same swiftboat. He never caught on with the voters, despite Chuck Schumer’s money and the brain trust at Mandate Media. His HRes 2 vote and subsequent lying about his "anti-war" speech has made him unfeasible for the droves of committed, anti-war progressives who are flocking to vote in the Primary. So Speaker Merkley launched the Negative Novick attacks. A clever political jujitsu.
Hearing that Kari is just returning from a gig at the Clinton Library, we can see he has learned well from his mentors.
http://thomsword.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-i-distrust-dscc.html
Like Clinton, Merkley is willing to burn a village to save it. James and Kevin, you can attack the messengers all you want. But it’s high time for Merkley to come clean. (Before yet another honorable vet claims that Merkley was "against the war from the start.")
http://www.loadedorygun.net/showComment.do?commentId=4500
Good to see the EBT is still as delusional as ever trying desperately to push the canard that Merkley = Clinton, which is laughable on its face given that Merkley was co-chair of the Edwards campaign here in Oregon, and has come out in support of Obama after Edwards dropped.
BT, like TJ and Vard (aka Portlandia) are prime examples of exactly the old divisive politics that we can do with out. They reflect the same exact egoist, strident, divisive streaks which flair up within Novick and his campaign, which makes him an inferior choice for being a Senator for Oregon, despite being relatively indistinguishable policy wise from Merkley.
Thanks for reminding me that I have missed little since stepping back due to work, from the day-to-day commenting on the race and the constant barrage of mudslinging form the Novick crew. I see you continue to be stuck in the Nader rut of destructive, counter-productive snipping from the bitter trenches of purity-left. Good to see you and the other partisan hacks flinging fabricated outrage against someone who spearheaded the most progressive session in the legislature in decades just like the CLinton hacks flinging molehill distractions of negative blather at Obama, and then try and project the hooey that Merkley is the embodiment of Clinton. How ironic without intending to be you guys are. But keep attacking the people in the democratic party and on the left, that will surely be a winning strategy, after all… the cannibalistic tactics of the Novick campaign already lost me as a supporter and fund-raiser awhile back for their internecine strategy, which runs from top to bottom.
Let me get this straight. Kevin has a problem with "Novick supporters lining up to attack Democrats," so he lines up to attack Democrats (Novick and his supporters). I guess in Kevin’s world, it’s OK to criticize certain Democrats, but if it’s one Kevin supports, it’s an "attack". No hypocrisy there. Oh wait, didn’t Merkley’s first ad start out saying, "Tired of his party’s inaction…"?
The distinction between criticizing a single political candidate vying for the same office and criticizing a wide swath of Democrats who aren’t vying for the same office may be too subtle of a difference for (begin irony) "subtlefuge" (end irony) to grasp.
Notice how Merkley didn’t have to criticize anyone but Novick to remain consistent but Novick was forced to criticize Wyden and DeFazio to himself remain consistent. And that doesn’t even get into his long history of taking totally gratuitous shots at many, many different elected Democrats, or his crowing about Portland having voted more for Ralph Nader than Seattle (who went more for the… [wait for it]… DEMOCRAT) did in 1996.
Kevin–
First of all, Wyden and DeFazio didn’t praise the courage of Bush, so he didn’t end up criticizing anyone. But even if he did, so what? That’s what’s wrong with party politics–if you’re a Dem, it’s OK to be weak on the war?
In any case, Mr. Bring People Together just attacked his opponent personally, calling Novick "crass" and "selfish." Nice!
So let me see if I’ve got this straight.
Steve "speaks truth to power" Novick waited from early 2003 until yesterday to criticize Wyden and DeFazio, both of whom weild significantly more "power" than Merkley ever has?
This would be the same Steve "speaks truth to power" Novick who waited until August of 2003, when public support for the Iraqi Occupation had dropped significantly, before finally publically criticizing the Occupation.
Check the polling data, folks. When Merkley, Wyden and DeFazio spoke out against the Iraq War public opinion polling was at a fever pitch in support of the War. By the time Novick finally peaked out of the closet long enough to test the winds of public opinion, the polls show that sentiments were significantly different.
"Truth to power" or "greed for power"?
"Steve "speaks truth to power" Novick waited from early 2003 until yesterday to criticize Wyden and DeFazio, "
He didn’t criticize either of them, since they didn’t praise Bush’s courage. Which is what Novick said, specifically.
And based on the supposed anti-war article that Merkley has FINALLY released, it doesn’t look like Merkley spoke out against it, either. The best he could muster was "don’t forget diplomacy" and "we can talk about whether the war was right on another day."
But what’s fascinating is that you hammer Novick for being critical of Democrats on the war…and then follow that up with a comment hammering Novick for NOT being critical of Democrats on the war. Hmmmm….you seem tough to please.
The House Resolution certainly appears to embody aggressive support for the war in Iraq and its justifications, as offered by Bush. Here are a few excerpts, which seem at least equal in pro-war sentiment to the Oregon resoltuion:
"Whereas on March 18, 2003, the President transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the President’s determination, consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and that the President’s use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;" . . .
"Whereas, when Saddam Hussein failed to comply, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to commence military operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein during the evening of March 19, 2003, under the code name of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in order to liberate Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction;" …
"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation–
(1) to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism; . . .
Harry Esteve (filling in for Jeff Mapes) of the Oregonian has audio of the interchange and it doesn’t seem like Novick was "caught off guard" at all. Don’t take my word for it though, give it a listen.
Article:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/04/novick_still_willing_to_zing_f.html
Audio:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/04/novick.mp3
Thanks for the link. Go Jeff!
Here’s what’s going to happen. Merkley will get the nomination, only to lose to Gordon Smith in the general, despite how weak Smith may be. Bet me money