« Willy Week flirting with yellow journalism? | Main | Does Drudge Go Too Far? »

February 29, 2008

Different window dressing, same political BS

Steve Novick likes to remind us (constantly) that he thinks we need something "a little different" in the U.S. Senate. I'm not sure that he's wrong when he says that. But his big finish to the slogan is "he's little, and he's different".

That's supposed to mean he's the guy we should hire for the job.

I can't be the only one who is wondering if Novick, outside of playing up his physical attributes, is going to show us that he's not the same old, same old.

So far, he looks like just another guy who is willing to say or do most anything to win. In other words, the campaign that promised us it would be Wellstonian is turning out to be nothing more than a warmed-over version of people we've seen run for office time and again.

Novick is Oregon's version of Ralph Nader. He shows contempt for the Democratic Party not because there's an ideological or policy issue, but because Novick wasn't handed the party's support on a silver platter. His sense of entitlement is poisoning not only his own campaign, but many of his supporters.

Novick's backhanded endorsement earlier this week of Barack Obama while shining the Hillary apple shows again why he seems perfectly comfortable speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Monday, Novick gushes about Hillary:

Rarely have I read anything so impressive about an American politician. I felt completely at home with that Hillary Clinton. She’s read the same history I have. (Since she’s a bit older than I am, and she has directly experienced more of it too.) She’s come to the same conclusions. She knows this stuff. She could be a great President.

Novick even talks about how he thinks Hillary's health care plan is better and how she knows more than Obama what's wrong with the country and how to fix it.

And this is in an Obama endorsement blog post.

But at a January peace rally speech in Salem, Novick essentially calling Hillary a "coward" because of Iraq:

Novick says in the video and in his Obama nonendorsement that he can't vote for Hillary because he just can't forgive anyone who voted for the Iraq War.

Here's a news flash for Steve: John Edwards voted for the Iraq War. And you didn't have any trouble at all climbing onto the Edwards Bandwagon, especially since it was politically useful as you try to appease us blogger types.

This is the same type of mealy-mouthed political pandering that I've seen from politicians my whole life. That's one of the main reasons I've been an indy for so long. Talk about uninspiring. And absolutely no conviction.

And then there's Steve's ethical woes.

Steve Novick showed a contempt for those of us who showed up to the mess that was the PDA endorsement meeting where his internet director was trying to game it for him. Not addressing the issue of his staffer's conflict was problem enough itself. But then to show up to the meeting with his own conflict of interest hovering over his head, that seems very politics as usual to me.

Then there's the case of Novick's staffer trying to muck up Jeff Merkley's wikipedia page. Novick's defenders will surely say that the staffer took responsibility for his actions. I agree. Unfortunately, there seems to be some sort of culture at the Novick campaign that allows this sort of unethical conduct to go on in the first place.

And this morning at BlueO, Novick's campaign manager Jake Weigler has what is at best a temper tantrum. It seems like every time someone hits Novick a little too close to the truth, Jake throws silly snark on the blogs.

We don't need something "a little different" in politics. It's pretty clear that using Steve's definition, we'd get the same political shit handed to us that we get from any wishy-washy politico.

We need something A LOT DIFFERENT in the U.S. Senate. That's not Novick.

Posted by Kevin at February 29, 2008 10:16 AM