U.S. Senate (D)
![]() |
BY WW EDITORIAL STAFF | 503-243-2122
[April 30th, 2008]
Steve Novick
Tattoo he'd get: “This machine kills fascists”—a reference to the sticker on Woody Guthrie’s guitar—on his prosthetic arm.
Fifteen months ago, longtime liberal activist Steve Novick wrote a cover story for WW titled “If I Ran” (Jan. 31, 2007). In 3,000 words, Novick outlined what it would take for a Democrat to challenge—and defeat—U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Eleven weeks later, he jumped into the Democratic primary. “The question is not: ‘How can I beat Gordon Smith?’” Novick said then. “The real question is: ‘How the heck can he possibly think that he can beat us?’”
Let’s be clear. Back in January 2007, Novick was little more than a placeholder. Novick has a rapier wit, a winning affinity for sports references and an impressive behind-the-scenes résumé working for worthy causes. But Oregonians were waiting for another, more credible Democratic challenger to Smith, a telegenic senator who’s raised boatloads of cash and worked to style himself in the moderate image of past Republican icons such as Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood and Tom McCall. We all thought that other person would come along.
When Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley announced his bid in August, politicos greeted the news with an air of inevitability. Here it seemed was Merkley—a respected state legislator who’d regularly rated as a “good” or “outstanding” lawmaker in our unscientific-but-telling “Good, Bad and Awful” ranking of area legislators—to assume the candidate’s mantle.
Yet Merkley, like Novick, had his own baggage. He was, essentially, the Democratic establishment’s fourth choice after former Gov. John Kitzhaber, plus U.S. Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer all said no thanks.
Meanwhile, Novick’s rookie campaign displayed some of his wonkish worst, prone as he is to didactic emails and phone calls peevishly haranguing reporters with post-publication parsing of his quotes. He sometimes made us feel like we were back in college poli-sci class with Professor Know-It-All. Yet this much is also true: In the past several months, Novick’s campaign has translated to politics what the ex-St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Joaquín Andújar said about America: “You never know.”
Novick’s outsider campaign has raised nearly as much money as Merkley’s camp, even without the help of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which tapped Merkley as its favorite. And Novick surprised many who can’t imagine a 4-foot-9 man with a hook for a left hand entering what’s known as the “world’s most exclusive club.”
We were hotly divided between the fun, speak-his-mind insurgent who calls to mind the late Sen. Paul Wellstone and the impassive Merkley, who calls to mind the widely respected Sen. Al Gore—the wooden version, before he became as steaming as the planet.
In the end, we rallied around Novick because we see a capacity for a refreshing independence and an unwavering willingness to tackle our toughest issues, like providing universal health care and ending the war in Iraq. We recognize, too, he could be a spectacular failure, a quotable firebrand for the left who is both alienating and alienated. Our hope is he commits himself to becoming the Senate’s best workhorse before shooting for the ranks of Sunday talk-show showhorse. Novick, please play nice.
We have three chief concerns with Merkley’s bid to take on Smith.
On the war, we think Merkley’s yes vote on House Resolution 2, the state measure to declare support for Oregon’s troops and “the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power,” would hamstring him from making the case that Smith’s flip-flops on the war were unconscionable.
On immigration, we think Merkley has acted not with courage but with calculation. As House speaker, Merkley last session didn’t allow a hearing for a bill that would have granted the children of undocumented immigrants in-state tuition at Oregon colleges and universities, even though he says he supports a similar federal proposal known as the DREAM Act. This isn’t an immigration problem, this is a civil-rights issue. Also, in the February special session, Merkley voted for a measure that blocks illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses and, as a result, car insurance. That’s punitive, not practical.
And on fiscal responsibility, Merkley is outshined by Novick, whose mantra about taxes needing to land much harder on the wealthy shows us he’s more frank about the need for a fairer tax system.
Candy Neville, a Eugene real-estate agent and Quaker minister, deserves praise for her willingness to stick her neck out. And we appreciate the focus on immigration brought by David Loera, a mental-health counselor. Fitness buff Pavel Goberman and Roger Obrist are non-starters.
The toughest and smartest guy in this race is Novick.
Video of WW endorsement interview (thanks to Portland Community Media)
I whole-heartedly agree. I want to look at my politicians and say "He/She is smarter, savvier, and wonkier than I am -- thank god." Novick is someone I can stand behind for his humor, his intelligence, and his overall understanding of the issues at hand. I, too, am "Hooked on Novick".
I disagree. Your endorsement criteria don't seem to place much weight on actual performance in the kind of job being sought. Jeff Merkley has as good a record as a progressive legislative leader as can be found anywhere, having led the Democrats' resurgence and eventual takeover of the Oregon House, and passage of a raft of progressive legislation with a razor-thin majority. There are no policy differences between him and Novick worth mentioning, considering that all legislation will have to get through 99 other Senators, plus the House and new Administration. Merkley's stellar experience indicates that he will be very successful in navigating that process, while Novick is a totally unknown quantity.
Jeff Merkley has as good a record as a progressive legislative leader as can be found anywhere, having led the Democrats' resurgence and eventual takeover of the Oregon House, and passage of a raft of progressive legislation with a razor-thin majority. There are no policy differences between him and Novick worth mentioning, considering that all legislation will have to get through 99 other Senators,
Steve R seems to acknowledge that Merkley wouldn't be a leader but a backbencher for much of his first term at the least, so his leadership qualities don't seem all that relevant.
As for no policy differences, au
contraire, mon frere!
Steve Robinson makes a germane point, particularly in light of the reasons WWeek cited for endorsing Republican Kevin Mannix.
TJ, interesting leap from my description of a "progressive legislative leader" to "acknowledging ... would be a backbencher." Wow!
Either Jeff or Steve would become part of the progressive wing of the Senate Democrats. How soon either could become a leader would depend on how strong that wing becomes, and how well either would work within it. Jeff has demonstrated he can work extremely effectively in such a situation, while Steve has been more of an outside advocate.
I hate to sound like a broken record -- I have written this on blogs all over the place -- but a US Senate nomination is not a gold watch for past meritorious service at a lower level of government! It is a wager on the future. We already know that Merkley is dull but good. We also already know that Novick isn't dull, and holds within him the potential of greatness. That's not a bad wager in my book.
I think it's a pretty rare occurrence for The Oregonian, the Willamette Week AND the Portland Mercury to all agree on a candidate in a contested Party primary.
They've done so this time around for Steve Novick. I think that's fantastic.
The General election against Smith would be tough for either Novick or Merkley, but Novick is the one with the best chance of winning.
Thank you, WW.
Steve Novick would bring honor, intelligence, and the unique Oregon spark to the US Senate. As far as the election goes - Smith will lose on the war and his support for this Presidents disastrous policy. Merkley's vote for the war resolution shows us all we need to know about how he would stand up for us in the Senate - he would not, and Novick would.











"If I Ran":
wweek.com/editorial/3312/8503/