Neville still fighting

Former Democratic Candidate candidate Candy Neville again says "NO" to the Politics of Wait. In a half-hearted attempt to attract her 38,000 votes in support of peace and justice earned at the end of Oregon's Democratic primary election to nominate a candidate to challenge Sen. Gordon Smith, Jeff Merkley tapped her to chair his "Campaign to Bring the Troops Home."

Merkley, who falsely claims to have been "against the war from the start," was in desperate need of a beard. My suspicions were confirmed with Neville's departure from the Merkley campaign in July, less than a month after Merkley's Primary win.

Today in an Op-ed in the Oregonian, Neville reveals why she chose to go her own way and to her credit, repeats her call to really bring the troops home.

I was asked to join Jeff Merkley's campaign as chair of the Bring the Troops Home Committee and lend my passion to the cause. I agreed and began to arrange for Merkley to meet with representatives from Oregon's vibrant peace community and watched him pledge to listen and respond. But he did not answer or return the phone calls he promised, on camera, to make.

Kudos to Candy for rejecting the Coalition of the Willing to Wait!

The Novick Brand

Former Democratic US Senate candidate Steve Novick commented today on the nexus of money and marketing in political campaigns.

I’m still not sure what “branding” is, but I do know that it matters. According to The Oregonian, my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Oregon—although ultimately unsuccessful—was good at it...

Now, again, we lost, so apparently branding isn’t everything. But I think it’s fair to say that we did better than expected. As a first-time candidate running against the speaker of the State House, I was outspent by roughly 2-to-1, and lost 45 percent to 42 percent. Compared to other recent “progressive underdog vs. moneyed establishment candidate” Northwest races, that’s not bad...

We ran a campaign that did about as well as it could among newspaper readers and people who were just really ready for something different. What we failed to do was let issue-oriented voters know how much I cared about the issues that matter to them.

So the bottom line is: Branding matters. Humor helps. Not every consumer responds to the same message.

And money matters too.

[Read the entire article...]

“Now, again, we lost” [Steve Novick]

I wouldn't equate losing the campaign with having a losing campaign strategy.

In many ways (save for the most significant - the outcome) the US Senate primary in Oregon echoed the race for the Democratic nomination for President. Cue Senator Clinton. She was the Chosen One, beginning the primary season as her party's presumptive nominee. She had the early institutional support which also came with an steady stream of campaign contributions. But her problem throughout the race was her brand. “Buy me. Trusted and True.” Even if the consumer bought into the pitch, they weren't necessarily inclined to buy the product. The will of the people having been essentially thwarted since the 2000 election and with “war on war” fatigue setting in, the voters were content to keep their eyes wide in the face of the Hillary Express and despite the early and omni-presence of Clinton 2.0 along side the original version.

And along came Obama. Something different.

In the OR-Sen race, there was no challenger to Goliath. “If I ran” became “Why I'm running.” In Steve Novick we had a candidate offering something very different. It was a winning brand for Obama and it should have worked for Novick. So what went wrong?

With many dissimilarities to be sure, the Merkley/Novick race nevertheless offered Oregonians a portrait in miniature of the Clinton/Obama match. But Novick didn't set out to challenge a presumptive nominee. Instead, such a one was chosen by Chuck Schumer after Novick began his campaign. Speaker Merkley was then presumed to be the odds on favorite and future challenger to the Republican incumbent, Gordon Smith. He all but ignored Novick... at first.

In normal cycles, big name endorsements are a typical indicator of the choice of the insiders and eventual nominee. Merkley emerged early with nods from former Governor Barbara Roberts as well as many of his colleagues in the Legislature. (The Bend Bulletin was one of the first in the MSN to detail the DC establishment support for Merkley flowing from the DSCC.) Even still, Novick became the front-running underdog. Because of his establishment status, another new name in Merkley's column wasn't big news. But each time Novick picked off a significant endorsement (Les AuCoin, John Kitzhaber), he gained momentum.

For six months Merkley spurned calls to debate. As a result, both candidates remained relatively unknown. As late as the beginning of April, Novick could boast out-polling Merkely 2 to 1. Of course Merkley was only receiving 11% of the vote, coming in third behind Eugene activist, Candy Neville.

[A word on Neville... Having received a very respectable 7% of the final vote, some might regard Neville as a spoiler. Given that her chief causes (impeachment and ending the Iraq occupation) were more aggressively supported supported by Novick than Merkley, one can't assume that Novick was denied Neville's entire share of the vote. Just as many Oregon independents registered as Democrats for the soul purpose voting for Clinton or Obama, Merkley or Novick (as was the case with me), with over 38,000 votes going her way, she can also boast having enlarged the Democrats big circus tent. Too bad we don't have instant run off voting. Still, I don't criticize her presence in the Primary, nor her subsequent off-again / on-again involvement in the Merkley campaign.]

The Novick campaign strategy worked. It worked where and to the extent which it was employed.

In this cycle, voters are attracted to champions of change. It's not enough just to be different. Not just any non-white or woman or short man with a hook for a hand can attract a following. In fact, one of Novick's notable differences, his prodigious intellect was early rumored to be a deficit. “He's a brainiac. He can't relate to 'normal' people.” I liked what I was reading about Steve Novick. But I wanted to take the measure of the man myself The lede was his hook, but the hook for me was his message. I bussed 3 hours across town to hear him in person in Aloha. His message was “I can beat Gordon Smith” He made me think he could, but more importantly, he made me want him to beat Gordon Smith. Steve Novick had the brand. “We need change and it'll take someone a little different.”

Barack Obama: “Change you can believe in”

Both Obama and Novick qualify as “different” candidates unto themselves. That's the selling brand this cycle, but what Obama excels in more than most is charisma. Over the many months of the Primary, I saw Steve Novick grow into his new roll. No longer just an issue manager or an activist, he was becoming a leader... a man to look up to. No, he's no Obama. Luckily, his challenger Jeff Merkley was charismatically challenged. This certainly had an impact on the grass roots fund raising. Barack Obama, of course was stellar. Steve Novick's numbers were impressive. Jeff Merkley lagged. But still he managed to build a bigger warchest than Novick. Unfortunately, his booty was in part bogus. Were it not for the debt he incurred on one of his homes and his indebtedness to the DSCC, Merkley would not have had the money to advertise his brand, however mediocre. He also had the wherewithall to run attack ads. He was given the resources to undermine Novick's brand. No wonder in the end there was an undervote in the OR-Sen race to the tune of 85,000 Oregonians who couldn't be persuaded to vote for either Novick or Merkley.

“And money matters too.” [Steve Novick]

Money matters most of all. It trumps other virtues like being right on the issues or possessing the ability to accomplish an agenda. Because of money, what we need is not always what we get. We need a maverick who will speak truth to power, even when the power rests in one's own party. What we'd get with Merkley is a man beholden to the Democratic leadership.

In the course of the primary I wrote that a true grassroots candidate needs to be organic and locally grown, without any Washington DC Miracle-Gro. I was right about the needs of a grassroots candidate, but that isn't necessarily the right recipe for a winning candidate. Artificial sweeteners can taste pretty good, even if they are toxic. Democratic Party money knocked off Novick and may be able to deliver Oregon a win this November but I doubt it can break the bank of Senator Smith's warchest given their difficulties in taking out Steve Novick.

In marketing an off-the-shelf Democrat, not only is the DSCC promoting a candidate who will struggle to get the support of conservative Democrats, but there are many in the far left who will either sit on their hands or even support Smith in the General. Practical motivation for casting a Smith vote is simply this. If Merkley (who's campaign used Rovian tactics to attack Novick as a “tax and spender” and described his base of support as “the inner circle of the Kremlin”) can win the Senate seat without the support of peace and just progressives (code for activists working to remove Bush from office and thus end the US occupation of Iraq), they will have even less influence with Oregon's delegation in Congress than at present. Democrats are certain to retain the leadership in both chambers. Perhaps a minor liberal backlash will give them the courage to do what they have failed to do after so many of us worked so hard to give them control in 2006; bring Bush to justice and bring our troops home.

On an even playing field, branding is most important. But money is trump no matter how the cards are stacked.

Speaking Merkally

I was invited to a candidates' forum this evening at the local Friends meeting house. First to address the assembled was Candy Neville, who recently ran for the Democratic nomination to unseat Oregon Senator Gordon Smith (R). Having lost the election to Jeff Merkley (and Chuck Schumer's cronies in DC) she has joined forces with Oregon's House Speaker to chair the newly created "Merkley Campaign to Bring Troops Home."

The townhall style meeting was organized by a local 911 truth group and all candidates or party representatives were asked to address the following four issues:

• The events of 9/11
• Afghanistan and Iraq
• The war on terror
• Impeachment

Candy Neville first spoke to the issue of 9/11. Here she seemed to share exclusively her own sentiments, rather than speaking for the Merkley campaign. She called the attack "avoidable" and attributed it to a government which was "acting ill-informed and unprepared."She then went on to address Iraq and Afghanistan, referring to the military interventions as a "travesty of justice." The "wrong" wrought by America's engagements was said by Neville to "falling on deaf ears" with regard to the "multitudes." I quite agree. Even most progressive Americans seem content to wait for the Democrats to seize the White House before correcting our suicidal course in Iraq. As much as I respect Candy's work to end the Occupation, I have to say I bristled a bit when she expressed the US troop death toll in a round figure... "4000 plus Americans," she said. The last current figure I was aware of was 4116. At the time of this post, the death toll has risen by two. I don't quote these figures by way of statistics. On the contrary, I hope to illustrate that owing to our collective pause, two more families are mourning the loss of someone who died in service to their country, because too many of us are willing to wait.

In this new coalition of the willing (to wait) I count Rep. Jeff Merkley. According to Neville, Merkley agrees "We need to get out of Iraq" but "Afghanistan is something we deal with after we get out of Iraq" (reminiscent of his stance at the launch of America's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, when he stood up on the House floor presumably to explain why he had just voted in favor of a GOP driven resolution which acknowledged "the courage of George W. Bush. Merkley said at the time:

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.

In a subsequent Q&A session I asked Candy Neville what Jeff Merkley could have said to her to convince her that he had become a peace and justice candidate (given his continued exaggerated anti-war record and his moderate, establishment stance on holding the Bush administration accountable for its high crimes. In her initial comments Neville had echoed Merkley's stance on impeachment, articulated first in public in September 2007 that it "should never be off the table" and that Congress should conduct "investigations" into the possible misdeeds of Bush/Cheney & Co. (Thank you very much to the Department of Too Little, Too Late.)

Neville spoke of outreach made by the Merkley campaign toward the close of the Primary and shortly thereafter. Simply put, Candy Neville is a tremendous woman of faith. She has been both an educator and lay minister. She remains an entrepreneur and an activist. Jeff Merkley told her that he wants to hold Bush accountable and bring the troops home. He chose the name "Merkley Campaign to Bring Troops Home." "I do believe and hope he will," she responds.

I have lost my faith. Neville said of Merkley, "I expect him to keep his word." I reminded her of his recent broken promises made to the Palestinian activists in Oregon and by extension how failed to keep his word with the Muslim community. He broke faith with the peace community when he failed to use speak out against the war when it was most critical. Merkley chose instead to hide his light under a bushel, pretending to give Bush advice, when in reality his milquetoast musings were merely placed in an internal newsletter for what would generously be called a think tank.

In an attempt to rewrite recent history, Jeff Merkley would go on to boast:

"I am the only candidate in this race who published a column against using force in Iraq before Bush launched the invasion. I am the only candidate in this race who rose to speak against the use of force two days into the invasion." - Jeff Merkley, live blogging, November 17, 2008

Because of these and other lies, I told Candy Neville that I did not believe in Speaker Merkley's conversion and that I could not support his candidacy. I didn't tell her that I thought she was just being used by the Merkley campaign. As Chair of the "Merkley Campaign to Bring Troops Home" she functions effectively as the Speaker's beard, or perhaps not so effectively.

With the same sense of passion (if not courtesy) that Neville and I share for removing Bush and Cheney from office and thus ending the Occupation, there were also so-called "9/11 truthers" who had their axe to grind. They were expecting I guess that Neville, speaking for Merkley, would declare the attacks on 9/11 to have been an inside job. "You don't know the first thing," one man scolded.

I felt like jumping to her defense, but had had my say and I didn't want to appear pushy, which in retrospect make me a little ashamed. I mean to apologize to her the next time I see her, which I imagine will be again soon. We are fellow travelers even as she takes this minor detour with Team Merkley. She wants to make the Democratic party stronger and who can blame her. I gave it my best shot too. I fought the lawmakers in DC, but the lawmakers won. I wish her only success where I failed. It's that important.

For my part, I thanked her for her response as well as her own candidacy. She garnered 7% of the vote in the Primary and there certainly is a case to be made that Merkley owes his own continued candidacy to Candy (if not a lot of sugar from Chuck Schumer and the DSCC. ) Full disclosure, I contributed to her Senate race (although I was a staunch Novick supporter). Her erstwhile campaign as well as that of Republican turned Independent John Frohnmayer raised the profiles of peace and impeachment, although I struggle to believe any good was wrought.

For Candy's part, she cast a glimmer of crisis of faith. One of her parting comments was, "I can't believe there aren't more people in this room." Welcome to the fold of the faithless. I too find it unbelievable that America is willing to wait another 6 months.

I can't hardly wait. (But we'll see.)