(Crossposted on Open Left)
Jeff Merkley is running his latest attack video where he takes out-of-context quotes from Steven Novick's blogging past and uses them against him.
Quoting someone's published work to criticize them is totally fair. Quoting someone's published work from two-years ago--before the presidential primary--out-of-context to make them appear to say what they were not saying is dirty, but may be fair--this is politics.
I am not really concerned with fairness; I am very concerned about the precedent being set, and the actual message of the attack, which are:
if you have political ambitions (especially in Oregon), do not post your thoughts critical of fellow Democrats within the progressive blogosphere because the establishment candidate, or some campaign surrogate or operative will use them against you.
when you look at the context of the quotes (which are below the fold), what we actually have is Jeff Merkley attacking Steve Novick for positions that are highly progressive.
Cut defense spending by eliminating weapons systems? Check.
Let the estate tax repeal expire? Check.
Don't susbsidize corn-ethanol? Check.
Don't ban flag-burning? Check.
Don't vote for stupid illegal wars? Check!
The real message of the ad is that Steve Novick is too progressive and has strayed from the pack. This is not the first time Merkley has attacked Novick from the right either.
Let me emphasize what I said above: everything anyone ever posts on the internet is fair game. We see this all the time when the right-wing hacks in the traditional media go quote farming on dkos to brand us all as the looney left. However, the progressive blogosphere is supposed to be a place where progressives discuss and disseminate progressive ideas with each other, not a place where what you say is going to be distorted against you by fellow "progressives" in attempt to further their electoral goals. What kind of candidate does this?
The quotes, with links, are below:
"Novick insulted Hillary Clinton as a "coward" and a "traitress"."
the blog post:
(Does everyone know that Hillary Clinton supported a Constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning? To me, that's at least as bad as the war. The fact that Americans have the right to burn the flag is one of the things that makes that flag worth flying.) ... And if Hillary Clinton is a coward on the war, and a traitress on the First Amendment, why should we expect anything else when it comes to global warming?
"Steve insulted Barack Obama "nothing to like", "special-interest fraud""
the blog post:
If you look at Barack Obama’s Senate Web site, you see virtually nothing about the minimum wage – nothing about the poor – nothing about labor. You see uninspiring pablum on a variety of issues. And one thing that sticks out:
"...The Senator has also supported ... and the acquisition of new weapons systems".
Focus on that last point for a second. ... a blanket endorsement of "new weapons systems"? That is the mark of a complete sellout to the military-industrial complex. And of a politician sorely lacking in fiscal responsibility. "Cutting weapons systems of the kind originally designed for the Cold War that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism" isn’t just a relatively safe position; it’s a totally safe position...
The fact that Obama doesn’t even have a nod toward those ideas shows a stunning degree of fealty to the military-industrial complex, and/or unjustifiable political timidity.
...Obama gives me nothing to like very much and one thing to intensely dislike.
the other blog post:
Speaking of global warming, corn-based ethanol doesn't help, because it takes about as much energy to produce it as it generates. But ethanol from sugar is much more energy-efficient; it's actually worthwhile. But tariffs on sugar, backed by our domestic sugar industry and corn ethanolites, prevent the U.S. from developing a sugar-ethanol-fuel industry. I am not against all tariffs per se, but this one is insane. And, according to a recent New Yorker article, Barack Obama of Illinois has stood with other Midwesterners in supporting the sugar industry. Doesn't this prove that Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud...
"Steve insulted Darlene Hooley "lie""
the blog post:
[The Estate tax} Repeal would cost $745 billion between 2011 and 2021. Is giving a tax break to really rich people four times as important as recovering from Hurricane Katrina? The babble about ‘farms’ and ‘small businesses’ is malarkey; in 2004, there were only 440 taxed estates (about 2% of all taxable estates) where farms or small businesses represented more than half of the assets, and most of those paid an effective tax rate of less than 10%. Exempting the first $1.5 million – as the estate tax does – leaves out most ‘family farms.’ In fact, the estate tax repeal advocates are unable to cite a single example of a ‘family farm’ that the family had to sell in order to pay estate taxes. ... Darlene Hooley, last I checked, still supports estate tax repeal and peddles the ‘family farms’ lie.
The attack ad comes with a one page attack site, created by Merkley surrogate Kari Chisholm by lifting code and images directly from the Novick for Senate site.
All that said, none of this is really surprising; Novick has run a very strong underdog campaign, whereas Merkley expected to cruise to victory behind the establishment. Their campaign is getting desperate, and this attack will probably backfire. From what i have heard locally, the Clinton and (especially) Obama campaigns are not happy about seeing words like "fraud" and "traitress" associated with their names in a democratic ad.