Voting Merkally

Jeff Merkley ran for the US Senate as a populist. But lacking deep grassroots support, he ran on Chuck Schumer's dime, and today we witnessed the first payback.

In the course of the campaign, Merkley repeatedly assailed his opponent Sen. Gordon Smith for canceling out the votes of Oregon's "senior" Senator, Ron Wyden. But when it came to one of the most important votes in his new career as a DC politician, Sen. Merkley did not vote with his Democratic colleague. He didn't even vote his conscience.

When then candidate Merkley went on the record regarding the Reid-Pelosi-Bush $700 Billion bank bailout, he to the opportunity to slam Smith and while lauding Wyden.

"I commend Ron Wyden for standing up for taxpayers and doing what is necessary to restore accountability on Wall Street. The easy thing to do would have been to vote yes on this bill. I have dedicated much of my life to advocating for consumers and I believe it is just wrong to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bailout the very Wall Street financiers who created this crisis. This bill will allow those same executives to walk away with golden parachutes, while doing nothing to end the abuses of oversight that caused this mess or help working families who need their own economic rescue. This proposal is badly flawed and adding a number of important unrelated items, no matter how worthy, does not fix the problems with this bailout."

The first $350 Billion vanished into air thick with golden parachutes in the planning. And today when the new Democratic super Senate was called on to exercise some oversight with respect to the last half of the bailout money, they bailed. Jeff Merkley cast his vote with Schumer and against Wyden and and sold out the US Taxpayer when he endorsed this second $350 Billion blank check.

Update: And it didn't take the Treasury long before they began pissing it away. (Couldn't we at least wait for Obama's cronies to get their hands on the loot?)

Big loss at Bank of America as feds give it $20 billion more By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — With a new round of turmoil gripping the financial markets, the Bush administration late Thursday night rushed $20 billion in emergency funding for Bank of America. [More...]

Paulson pitches plan

When Goldman Sachs' golden boy - otherwise known as Bush's Treasury Secretary - floated his bank bailout plan on the Sunday talk shows, the heavy lead wasn't so much the $700 Billion price tag (we'll have spent more than that on the Iraq debacle before it finally ends). Although Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd was entertaining the idea of a "clean" bill (ie. no help for homeowners, no check on executive compensation, no oversight whatsoever).

Just like our lending system, the phone lines to DC were clogged (I know first hand). Sam Donaldson's toupé postulated on Sunday that taxpayers would be so afraid of losing everything that they'd willingly give in to this giveaway. (I disagreed, but his skepticism may have been warranted. Most Americans don't seem bothered that the government now snoops in mail, invades homes, condones torture and engages in warrantless wiretapping.) Well, it seems folks are finally mad as hell and while they're certainly fearful for their 401k's, they're just as interested in seeing the corporate criminals brought to justice.

Paulson lays it on thick: "I share your frustration. I feel those frustrations."

I listened to the entire 5 hours of speechifying and testimony before Sen. Dodd's banking committee. On the hot seat were Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke. What follows are some augmented notes I scrawled as the proceeding went on (HP = Paulson, BB = Bernanke. Quotes are approximate).

8:00 HP "We need oversight." That represented a radical shift from his song, dance and loony toon when on Sunday he was pleading for all the money quick without any strings attached. He claims now his 3 page plan to save the economy didn't include any oversight provisions because that's Congress' job and it would have been presumptuous for him to have included that on his own. (At which bullshit futures on the NYSE went through the roof.)

8:10 BB Anything regarding executive compensation "can't be punitive." Paulson was saying the same thing since Sunday too and repeated it today. Evidently a corporate CEO would rather his or her firm go bankrupt than accept any kind of limit on salary or platinum parachute. I for one would like to test the theory.

8:15 SEC Chair Christopher Cox (whom McCain wanted to instinctively fire like a monarch call for a head on a pike. Anyone's head!) had this to say. "This type of voluntary regulation doesn't work. " Read it again... Let it sink in... "voluntary"... "regulation"... "voluntary regulation." Nope, I wouldn't expect that to work either, Einstein.

8:35 BB says the corporations in need of a taxpayer funded bailout are "not failing... they're contracting." And that my friends is how a business can turn a "negative profit" and still pay their executives millions.

8:40 HP "American people don't care who owns it..." Paulson has repeated his contention that Americans don't care if we bailout foreign owned banks if that's what's required to stabilize the system.All hail our new Chinese overlords.

8:35 Sen. Tim Johnson asked what punitive measures are there for the "bad actors." HP dissembled talking about how the situation is all our fault and even went on to blame "future administrations" psychically accusing them they "let [it] exist." I guess if we punish the greedy executives and dishonest brokers we'd have to punish ourselves.

8:55 BB "It's a reverse auction." This sounds interesting. He explained what it was and how it would somehow make us potentially rich. There seemed to be lingering confusion as to what all these "illiquid assets" might be worth but HP assured all "There will be a price discovery mechanism."

9:17 Chuck Schumer asked why the President needed the whole $700 Billion authorized at once. "Why not in trauches... $150 Billion at a time?" HP called this idea a "grave mistake" because the plan has to do with market confidence. I for one am reassured.

9:22 Again, reading the writing on the wall (etched with the pitchforks of the masses) Paulson agreed "there has to be oversight. We'll work with you on that," he promised.

9:51 "The taxpayer is already on the hook through no fault of his or her own." HP And Paulson often repeated how deeply sorry he felt for the American taxpayer and that this whole plan has us first and foremost in mind. Either we pony up the money or we'll lose our jobs, retirements, cars and homes.

10:25 Sen. Dodd found his spine and declared "Any plan that we come up with will talk about executive compensation."

10:35 Sen Evan Bayh seemed to be eating a peanut butter sandwich. Not very Presidential.

11:08 As to why we need to bailout foreign banks, Paulson pointed out "Our systems are integrated." Yes... and???

11:11 Sen. Dodd finally got around to addressing "Section 8"

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency - Section 8"

But then his spine gave out: "Maybe I'm speaking for myself here - this language cannot last." Maybe? Maybe?! It's labeled "Section 8" because it's certifiably insane to even consider giving ONE MAN sole discretion over $700 BILLION. And then Paulson tried to wiggle away. HP "This is not a position I wanted to be in. ... very easy to second guess it .. we need something that has strong oversight... we need the protections.... but I don't think we need that here." Sure, they'll get around to figuring out the oversight AFTER they've already authorized a Trillion dollar blank check.

11:15 Even the Republicans were less than enthused. Sen. Sheldon offered this cautious criticism: "Buying toxic securities from foreign banks... I think it's a bad, bad precedent." Did all these guys get their economic degrees along with Bush?

11:21 "Filibustering for Schumer" Our friend Chuck was supposed to have more camera time, but he was either in the bathroom or writing checks to his hand-picked candidates... I dunno. Members jibber jabbered for the TV camera but finally decided to call an end to the charade... for the day.

11:24 Just before the CNN feed went black, a woman stood up and shouted, "The fox is guarding the hen house!" Gawd bless you!

[Sign petition opposing Bush's bank & billionaire bailout]

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.