Even Novick's supporters are worried about the Kimmerly fake-endorsement debacle
If you didn't check in on BlueOregon over the holiday weekend, you missed a big story. In fact, my initial post about it generated over 270 comments - blowing away BlueOregon's previous record of 211.
If you're so inclined, you can dive into all the details on my two earlier posts...
- Fake endorsement backfires on Novick campaign operative
- On Saturday night, Liz Kimmerly continues to pretend she doesn't work for Novick
...or, here's a brief recap:
On Tuesday, the Merkley campaign got an email inviting Jeff Merkley to an endorsement meeting this Saturday for the Portland chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America.Four days notice is pretty tight for an endorsement meeting, but that was only the first red flag.
The email was sent by the "State Coordinator" of the Progressive Democrats of America.... Liz Kimmerly. Who is Liz Kimmerly? She's a senior staffer for the Novick for Senate campaign.
That's right: The endorsement process by which the PDA would endorse a U.S. Senate candidate is being organized by the staff of one of the candidates.
Fortunately, after I called Tim Carpenter - the PDA's national executive director - he stepped in and stopped the process. Curiously, Carpenter told me that the Portland chapter had only been created "48 hours ago" -- which contradicts what Liz Kimmerly told the Eugene Register-Guard (that the chapter had been created a month ago.) I'm not sure what the facts are there, or even if there's a conflict (maybe the paperwork was started a month ago and completed last week?)
It doesn't really matter - the bottom line is that Kimmerly created the Portland chapter and then tried to hold an endorsement vote before the group had held its first organizational meeting... y'know, the usual stuff: setting bylaws, picking officers, arranging a regular meeting time, etc.
That smacks of a sham endorsement by a shotgun chapter to me. Especially since this much is undisputed: Liz Kimmerly didn't follow two of the national endorsement rules specifically designed to prevent sham endorsements by shotgun chapters -- #1, 30-days notice to members of an endorsement meeting; and #2, a written questionnaire to the candidates in advance of the endorsement meeting.
Now, I'm a Merkley partisan, that's for sure. And a casual observer might easily dismiss this as intra-campaign sniping. But a read through the 270+ comments on my initial post reveals LOTS of usually solid Novick supporters raising big concerns. Here's a sample (with my bolds)...
Kristin Teigen (who wrote glowingly of Steve here):
I heart, heart, heart Steve Novick, would hope that someone that smart could be my senator someday. Would you do some very loyal Novick supporters (aka, me) a favor and let us know your side of the story? Please?[Later:] OK -- so I've been a strong Novick supporter, I've volunteered, I'm on all of the lists, even wrote a pro-Novick post for this blog, but I REALLY, REALLY wish they would respond to what's going on here, beyond what Jake has done. I ask the following questions because I want to still believe in the campaign.
Why did Liz not disclose her alliance? Why has she yet to respond, considering the issue is being covered now on several blogs? Why did Steve allow her to continue without disclosure? Why did this whole issue go seemingly unaddressed at the PDA meeting? ...
So, again, please, Novick campaign, coming from someone who has been a true blue supporter, and coming from a place of great respect, could you all take a minute and answer some of these questions? I want to stop (I say so hopefully) worrying.
Chris Lowe:
The question is not only whether or not an endorsement occurred. It also is whether Liz K tried to hijack an endorsement process in favor of her candidate. There are a lot of circumstances that make it look as if she might have. And yes that is unethical if it happened, both in terms of the campaigns, and in terms of Liz Ks duties to PDA. If she did this it would be a significant betrayal of PDA. Given her apparent strong ties to them predating Novick involvement, that might suggest a reason to think she wouldn't do it.[Later:] I think the PDA people need to look at this situation, because if Liz Kimmerly is not being open about her affiliations, it has the potential to be damaging to an organization that we should all want to function for the long haul and not only in relation to this one primary.
[Later:] I've been a Novick supporter though not as much as Kristin -- no volunteering, just a little money. But this bugs the heck out of me and if his campaign doesn't get its act together to give us some answers, let go Liz Kimmerly or tell us why they're not, and get Kimmerly to step down from her PDA role whatever else they do in order to help repair the damage she & now others including Novick have done to the organization, I won't be sending in my mites anymore.
T.A. Barnhart:
this PDA/Novick thing sucks bigtime because i support both. it sucks because i think Steve is too smart to let this kind of thing happens. it doesn't matter if Liz is trying to cheat or not; it's the appearance of impropriety that is so deadly in politics. it's what a politician or campaign appears to be doing that hurts. even if Steve honestly thought this was a minor tempest, it was pure dumb of Liz to put him in that position, and even dumber of them both to let it slide. it's not because PDA is a major organization; it's not, not around here. but it's fuel for Smith in the general. and it's just bad practice. if Steve wants to prove he's superior to Smith -- to the voters, not to me -- he can't have this kind of nonsense going on. shit, the bastards can take a man's honorable service in Vietnam and turn it into cowardice and treason. it don't take much, and this is too much.
Stephanie V:
The behaviors alleged and described by Kari, if they can truly be attributed to Liz, are troubling. No question about that. ...This is what I know: Steve and Jake are both very honorable men of great integrity and decency (as Jeff Merkley appears to be - I just don't know him as well). I am confident that neither of them would tolerate or condone behavior like that alleged here IF IT HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED THE WAY KARI DESCRIBED IT. Because they are both caring and humane guys, though, and because Liz is someone they have known and trusted, it is entirely reasonable for them to take more than 24 hours over a holiday weekend to investigate the matter themselves, figure out as best they can what actually happened, and then, based on what they learn, decide what to do. In fact, it would be unreasonable for them to do otherwise.
It's not just Merkley's supporters who are bothered by Liz Kimmerly's actions. A bunch of Steve Novick supporters are asking questions and waiting for answers, too.
|
January 22, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (122 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: torrridjoe | Jan 22, 2008 1:19:43 AM
Man Kari, you've thrown away all shame. Why do you think your view of things takes precedence over the PDA national field coordinator? Why do they seem so unconcerned in the face of all your facts? (Including making up a story about a chapter in Oregon in late 2007, apparently)?
I'm curious, by the way--how did you find your way to call on behalf of the Merkley campaign, and was that who you were representing when you called? I mean, did you say this is Kari Chisholm from Mandate Media, or Kari Chisholm calling on behalf of Merkley for Senate, or Kari Chisholm, Concern Troll--what was it?
This is three columns in a single weekend, all of which seems to have failed to riled the press corps, which in Mapes' case consists mostly of bemusement rather than scandal. And now despite not the faintest whiff of concern from national--quite the opposite really, they seem to think Kimmerly is doing a fine job for them--you're going to push this smear of Novick. The people who are in charge of the organization you are so valiantly protecting, just sent a big fat "all is well" message. Are you asserting they just don't care about their reputation? You have to be, at this point.
Bravo.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 1:37:09 AM
When I called Tim Carpenter, I told him that I'm a local political consultant in Portland, Oregon. I said that I'm calling on behalf of the Jeff Merkley campaign, who asked me to call because I'm a fan of the PDA and a friend of Thom Hartmann. I was very clear about all of my affiliations, including BlueOregon.
I related the whole situation to him, from the initial Kimmerly email, to the fact that she was working for Novick, to the statement that the endorsement decision would happen on Saturday.
I had the impression that he had no idea about any of it. He didn't seem to know that she worked for Novick, that or that she'd announced an endorsement meeting. He laughed, and said, "We only created that chapter 48 hours ago when Diane was in Portland over the weekend!" and then explained that there's a strict process and that Liz is just "an overenthusiastic volunteer" because she'd clearly not read the endorsement policy.
I can't explain the gap between his "48 hours ago" comment and the now-twice-stated timeline of late December 2007, other than the way I did above... that is, that it's probably some gap between the start and end of the process. I don't think it's some big gotcha, rather just a definitional problem of timelines.
That doesn't really matter, though. It's undisputed that Kimmerly announced an endorsement meeting without the required notice, without the required questionnaire, and at the first organizational meeting. It also seems that, according to at least two witnesses, she never bothered to mention her conflict of interest at the meeting this weekend. That's just plain ugly.
I'll continue to give the national PDA the benefit of the doubt. They don't appear to have full-time staff (Diane and Tim appear to have day jobs - and there's no office phone number that's answered by a live person). So far, they've behaved admirably -- pulling the plug on the endorsement process that Kimmerly had under way.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 1:38:21 AM
More to the point: It's way past time for Steve Novick to address this issue... which is why I sent his campaign manager, Jake Weigler, the following email earlier today:
Jake --It should go without saying, but maybe it doesn't, so I'll say it.
At BlueOregon, we'd welcome a guest column from Steve or Liz that explains what the hell this PDA endorsement thing is all about. As I'm sure you know, lots of our readers (including some active Novick supporters) have lots of questions that are going unanswered so far.
You can feel free to send it to Charlie, who will post directly - without my review. Thanks.
-kari.
Posted by: JHL | Jan 22, 2008 2:30:07 AM
Kari, you continue to demand (at least passively) that the Novick campaign owes you an explanation.
But you're a smart guy. You know very well that such a response would be a textbook tactical blunder. You know it, I know it, anyone who's camaigned knows it. (Or should know it.)
However, it continues to seem that you're trying to play two roles here... First, the unabashed Merkley agent who discloses his affiliation and proudly goes after the opponent. Second, though, the plucky quasi-journalist to whom an explanation from the Novick camp is owed. Sorry, but as a member of Team Merkley, you don't get to demand that the Novick camp make that blunder. You can certainly ask it of them, but don't pretend to be surprised when they don't acquiesce.
I am supporting Jeff Merkley for US Senate. Speaker Merkley is, for better or worse, the frontrunner in this race... but I'd be much more secure in my decision if he (and his campaign) started acting like it. Three threads on this subject following a post thinly suggesting that we shouldn't vote for Novick because he's short is cheapening BlueOregon, and it's cheapening Jeff Merkley.
Posted by: edison | Jan 22, 2008 2:36:17 AM
Uh ... how much longer before this primary thing is over?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jan 22, 2008 3:16:52 AM
JHL,
It's not just Kari demanding. He hasn't misquoted me, & I've written directly to the Novick campaign requesting an explanation.
On the other hand, I agree with what you're saying about overkill, & if I end up dissatisfied with Steve's response or lack thereof, this is not particularly persuading me that Jeff is my best alternative. Most likely I'll disengage from the primary instead.
torridjoe for reasons I don't quite understand doesn't supply the link to the posting on Loaded Orygun that contains the message from the PDA national office to which he refers. It is worth a read.
Personally I think TJ draws far more extensive conclusions from the document than it warrants, given the nature of the document.
Also, in some respects it makes me even more confused about the PDA "chapter" & its history (I have a comment about this over there). It tends to worsen slightly my impression of PDA national level and suggests their contact with Oregon is limited, e.g. reference to starting chapters in "a range" of congressional districts.
But one feature of it is a description of PDA recruiting members at the Scott Ritter event that was held Monday Jan 14 at Lincoln High (a bunch of people from PDX Peace went, so I know it really happened). This suggests to me that some of the direr suspicions & impuatations here that the whole PDA chapter is just a Kimmerly fabrication for Novick benefit are wrong.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 22, 2008 3:21:22 AM
Actually, I'm now beginning to feel like this topic has gone beyond being beaten to death.
Is there really nothing else going on in Oregon politics to where we can have three posts over a period of four days?
Some ideas...
- State Senator Roger Beyer (R-Molalla) resigned on Friday. Why? He is considering taking a job as a lobbyist for an Oregon agricultural organization.
- The Oregon Constitution Party endorsed Ron Paul for President.
- Oregon Transportation Commission signs off on new drivers license rules.
- The whole debacle with TriMet and its lack of action in east county. Now we find out that there's no guarantee that east county will get a security station, as they consider the "east side" to be everything east of the river and it may very well go into Portland.
- Oregon State Hospital violates patients' Constitutional rights.
- A resolution calling for Bush/Cheney's impeachment made it out of committee in Washington's state senate.
- Anniversary of Roe v Wade, which is today.
- OHSU laying off staff and hiking tuition because its liability caps have been removed.
- The University of Oregon wants to use state-guaranteed bonds to borrow $200 million. For scholarships? New labs? Scientific equipment? No. A new basketball stadium. All the while UO is slipping academically.
It only took a quick scan through local news to find these stories - I'm sure there are plenty more.
Yes, people want an answer from the Novick campaign. We get that. But there are also a lot of other important topics out there that could be covered.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 3:22:18 AM
JHL, Novick doesn't owe anything to Kari personally, but I can't fault anyone voting in this primary to ask for an explanation.
However, I don't see why Steve would give BlueO an exclusive on this. It doesn't hurt Kari to offer, though, I suppose.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 22, 2008 3:26:52 AM
I can't believe I have to jump back into this cluster all the way from Melbourne, Australia, but here goes.
Kari, you called me a liar over on dailykos the other day, and while I was somewhat put out at the time, I have lately begun to realize that coming from you, that's truly quite an insult, because you seem to have a very elastic sense of the truth. In this instance, you have selectively quoted me in the most misleading possible way.
In so doing, you omitted with a well placed ellipsis the whole core of my comment. Here are the words you omitted:
However, it's clear that (a) we don't have all the facts here; (b) Kari has made a point of writing his account in the most prejudicial manner AND has the world's largest (if not the sharpest) ax to grind; (c) the emotional temperature of this primary campaign is so overheated that both sides are eager to believe the worst of each other; and (d) most of us here are under the illusion that what we write on blogs matters to anyone who doesn't read blogs.
So let me be clear: I don't buy your version of what happened. And now we DO have more facts, and your version of this story is beginning to seem more and more remote from objective reality.
A few points come to mind:
1. Thanks to the robust and enthusiastic efforts made by you and other concern trolls in recent days, there is ZERO chance that the leadership of PDA is unaware of Liz Kimmerly's political activities.
2. The PDA owns its own rules and bylaws. Therefore I am inclined to trust the PDA to decide how the PDA's own rules and bylaws should be followed.
3. So far all we have from the PDA is a statement restating its support for Liz Kimmerly as Oregon coordinator and expressing no discernible concern of any kind about her dual roles.
If there are more salient facts, I have no doubt that they will emerge. But if they are exculpatory of the Novick campaign and/or Liz Kimmerly personally, it is clear that BlueOregon and its progeny -- the rest of the Merkley echo chamber in the local blogosphere -- will not consider them newsworthy.
I also have no doubt that you will all keep beating this lame drum as long as you can. It's what you do, just pound out post after post trumpeting alleged new developments, complete with all your protestations about how "difficult" it is for you. That's just a pantload and it's obvious to everyone. Spare us your faux regrets. And kindly refrain from rhetorically conscripting me, or others who don't agree with you, into your sorry-ass cause.
G'day, mate!
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 3:29:52 AM
Jenni, obviously I'm in no way connected to BlueO, but I have a feeling Kari would welcome you as a contributor if you'd like. I'm not sure if there would be any issues with cross-posting to Blog for Oregon.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 3:44:24 AM
I keep hearing arguments that seem to reduce to, "If the issue is avoided in official PR, the issue doesn't exist." I remain unconvinced.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jan 22, 2008 4:22:05 AM
Kari,
Take a valium, dude.
I suspect most Novick supporters, like me, are sick and tired of (a) Bill/Hillary Clinton's relentless negative campaigning and distortions and (b) your attempt to play the role of judge, jury and prosecutor prematurely.
It's really hard at this point not to ask why Merkley doesn't get on this cess pool of a blog and say that he doesn't condone your relentless negative campaigning.
Are the two candidates debating or aren't they? If so, the question -- if it's worthy of a discussion -- will come up, and then you'll hear from Novick directly. If Merkley had taken my advice and not ducked Novick, they'd be on the road together many times a month, and the issue would have already been resolved one way or another.
Please, Jeff -- come in here and tell your pit bull that we're talking about two Democrats here, not a Democrat (Novick) versus a Rovean (whoever Kari happens to work for at the time, apparently).
Posted by: Steve | Jan 22, 2008 6:21:41 AM
Beautiful, lets not talk substantive issues or hwo to defeat Gordon Smith. Let's just keep hammering on a rogue staffer and screw yourselves. THis is about as important as the Merkley being a slumlord issue from a few months back.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Jan 22, 2008 7:15:37 AM
Actually, I'm now beginning to feel like this topic has gone beyond being beaten to death.
Is there really nothing else going on in Oregon politics to where we can have three posts over a period of four days?
Sorry Jenni, that's really my fault. I've been moving back into my house after winter break the past two days, and before that I was driving back out here, so I've been a little slow in my duties. Starting today I should be back to posting as usual.
Posted by: tim carpenter | Jan 22, 2008 7:27:34 AM
Kari,
It was my hope that after you began your effort to misrepresent my conversation with you on the phone you would allow the work of PDA to move forward.
I was wrong!
When you called me I had just completed my chometherpy session and just had a shot in my eye...you never said you were blogging... simply calling to ask a few questions..I never said anyting about 48 hours...never.. Liz was active in PDA in California before she moved to OR to begin a Portland Chapter. she had been on a number of calls with national PDA...her work with PDA predates her move to OR... if you are really about building the progressive movement which I think you are...it's time to stop the swift boat campaign and allow the PDA chapter to move forward and the Senate race to get back to talking about single payer heatlh care, the end of the occuaption of Iraq and building the movement.
It was never my intent to jump into this...it's time to get back to organizing...finally I invite folks to visit the PDA site at PDAmerica.org and read about the great OR PDA work that is moving foward ...onward!
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 7:40:14 AM
It sounds like Daniel's trying to get a candidate to condemn someone they pay due to their "Rovian tactics."
Those Rovian tactics apparently are trying to get a candidate to condemn someone they pay due to their "Rovian tactics."
Would it be sufficient for Merkley to say, "Kari's company built our campaign's website, but he speaks only for himself?"
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 7:45:17 AM
Wow.
OK, Tim. My recollection is different than yours. The phrase "48 hours" wouldn't have just popped into my head. I remember it specifically.
But, I'll drop that part of the discussion. As I've said repeatedly, that particular factoid doesn't matter.
The fact remains that Liz Kimmerly is a Novick staffer who organized the PDA Portland chapter, decided to have an endorsement vote at the very first meeting, gave the candidates four days notice, did NOT notify the PDA members with 30 days notice (as required by the PDA policy), and did NOT provide a written questionnaire (as required by the PDA policy.)
There is no "swiftboating" going on here, Tim. As I've said many, many times, I want a strong Portland PDA chapter and a strong Oregon PDA effort. I believe that Liz Kimmerly got this effort off on a bad start by trying to shotgun out a sham endorsement.
Tim, if you're going to jump in here, I think there are a lot of open questions from lots of folks. I'd suggest addressing some of them so that we can move past all this - and yes, get back to organizing to defeat Gordon Smith and put a progressive in the U.S. Senate from Oregon.
I'll give you a call to discuss over the phone shortly.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 7:47:42 AM
Tim, I forgive you for not having read all that's been written, but it's been acknowledged that Liz is from California and was active with PDA there. Kari needs to explain the 48 hours part. But I'm disappointed that you want to pretend the conflict of interest doesn't exist and never has. To exclaim "onward!" without addressing the issue, claiming this is between progressives so we shouldn't air our dirty laundry, is shady. Even Daniel said he didn't want the issue swept under the rug.
Posted by: KJ | Jan 22, 2008 7:54:02 AM
Tim,
I am very disappointed in your response. PDA is choosing to stand behind Liz Kimmerly even though there is an appearance of a conflict of interest between Liz's dual roles as paid campaign staffer for Novick and volunteer state coordinator for PDA. At Saturday's chapter organizing meeting there are credible reports that the professional relationship between Liz and Steve was not acknowledged to the attendees -- and in my opinion it should have.
I was unable to attend the Saturday meeting due to the short notice so I can not speak from personal experience but instead am relying on credible reports. But it is bizarre for Liz and Steve to pretend in public that there was no other relationship between them other than invited candidate and event coordinator who did the inviting.
I have sent an e-mail to Diane Shamis expressing my concerns and have not yet received a reply.
This is not a swift boat campaign. There are legitimate questions that have not been addressed by the Novick campaign and until now not by PDA either. One thing that your e-mail makes very clear is that you and others in the PDA leadership are aware of the controversy and choose to circle the wagons. That is not a reassuring response to those of us who have great hopes for PDA in Oregon.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 7:55:36 AM
By the way, Tim, if you talk to Kari again, ask him what phrase to use in a BlueOregon comment thread if you want to get someone labeled "Rogue of the Week" in print publications around these parts.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 7:59:02 AM
Daniel asks: Are the two candidates debating or aren't they?
Yes, today. Pendleton. 5:30 (i think).
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 8:00:11 AM
Kari: I think that was a rhetorical question. So what's up with this 48 hours thing?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 22, 2008 8:06:17 AM
Kari Chisholm wrote:
"If you didn't check in on BlueOregon over the holiday weekend, you missed a big story."
Funny, but actual journalist Jeff Mapes mentioned this "low-stakes drama" (his words) only in passing on his blog, the place Kari says newspapers "dump" stories they don't think merit real coverage in the paper. And Mapes called this a "low-stakes drama."
if you read RG reporter david Steves coverage (again blog only), you'll notice his version of events is quite a bit less hysterical that kari's.
Also it's funny, to hear Kari now try to propel this story on the number of comments its generated. because I remember quite clearly that kari argued previously and quite forcefully that the number of comments a post generated had no relationship at all to how important or interesting it was.
What you're seeing here is kari Chisholm, in full-on Jeff Merkley campaign political operative mode trying to propel a story into the mainstream media.
They're not biting, because they know a blown-out-of-proportion hack job when they see one.
In football, fans like to chant "over-rated" when a team is losing. I think the chant for this post should be:
"OVER REACH" "OVER REACH" "OVER REACH"
It’s not unreasonable to ask why kari is trying to make such a big thing out of a "scandal" nobody else but Merkley's internet partisans seem all that interested in. Merkley is a paying client of Chisholm's company, Mandate Media. That same company publishes BlueOregon. There’s no disputing that.
The question is, does BlueOregon come along with the deal when a candidate hires Chisholm and Mandate Media, which thrives on its Democratic Party establishment clients? Sure looks like it does, especially when you consider the "Is-Novick-too-short-to-be-elected?" post that preceded the current "scandal" Chisholm’s trying to build up against his client's opponent.
There's a real reason Oregonian columnist Steve Duin referred to Chisholm as the "Democratic Party errand boy who runs BlueOregon." It's no mistake he's already earned Willamette Week's Rogue of the Week for his "excessive use of bullshit in his mudslinging" against the Novick campaign.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 22, 2008 8:09:20 AM
Willfully turning a blind eye to universally accepted ethical standards for political campaigns (i.e., FULL DISCLOSURE) destroys the credibility of whomever does it and places them on the same exact level as their counterparts on the far right (Rove, DeLay, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.)
Posted by: Ben DuPree | Jan 22, 2008 8:18:32 AM
The question is, does BlueOregon come along with the deal when a candidate hires Chisholm and Mandate Media, which thrives on its Democratic Party establishment clients? Sure looks like it does, especially when you consider the "Is-Novick-too-short-to-be-elected?" post that preceded the current "scandal" Chisholm’s trying to build up against his client's opponent.
I think the other editors and contributors of BlueOregon might contest that notion. And I think we're getting out onto thin ice if we're headed in this direction.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 8:21:25 AM
This is disappointing. It appears the official strategy is for everyone to plug their ears and make it go away.
It is true, that this is not a candidate being indicted. No one embezzled campaign funds or cheated on their wife. It's not going to lead the local news. Merkley and Novick don't even have much name recognition. This is of most interest to people who are really interested in Oregon politics. Like those who follow Oregon political blogs. It's kind of a big story around these parts.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 22, 2008 8:25:28 AM
beaver Boundary front-paged on BlueOregon with "tax-and-spend attack against Novick.
Greenlick and Nolan front-paged on BlueOregon personally attacking Novick.
Oregon Eco blog front-paged on BLueOregon asking if Novick isn't too short to get elected.
No less than three posts on a trumped up story that nobody's shown much interest in outside of Merkley's internet partisans.
How mant negative article about Merkley on BlueOregon so far? Zero
Thin ice? I'd say the case for the BlueOregon/mandate package deal sale is getting thicker and thicker as this primary goes on.
(And don't forget the Mac ATTACK on the attorney general candidate)
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 22, 2008 8:27:49 AM
oh SHIT! Did or did not the exec
director of PDA--and Kari's primary source for the weekend's entertainment--just
call him out for misrepresenting the conversation and trying to swiftboat Novick?!?
Where I sit, Kari's source just called him a liar with a smear agenda.
This certainly kills one story--and starts another.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 8:40:05 AM
TJ, you've pronounced the story dead at least three times already. And this does appear to be the tactic. Stall a few days, tell everybody to hold their horses and wait for a response, then declare the story over without addressing it. Like I told Tim: Shady.
At least there's a debate today so we can see what Novick has to say.
I still do want to know what Kari has to say about the 48 hours thing.
Posted by: Kristin | Jan 22, 2008 8:45:50 AM
Hey! Kari, Dude! Chill!
I totally stand behind what I said -- again, I TOTALLY stand behind what I said, and Kari, I have defended you in various comment strings on this topic -- i.e. "The lack of pro-Novick posts are not because Kari has kept me back as part of a conspiracy to keep BlueOregon Merkleyville." and "Also, why did the Novick campaign basically blacklist Kari...While Kari and I may have planned on voting differently, his role within activist communities and the Democratic Party should at least have earned him a returned phone call."
But dude, this is not cool. Again, stand behind what I said, but I didn't say it to be used to make someone else's point.
Also, Kari, if we're all about full disclosure, why did Thom Hartmann have to remind you to say that you worked for Merkley this morning?
Of all the posts, I so deeply appreciate Karol's this morning. While I await the Novick campaign's response, I am ready to move on. Will you join me, Kari?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 22, 2008 8:57:23 AM
James, I think when your primary source says you misrepresented the conversation and that what you're doing is a baseless smear, you don't have a pot to piss in anymore.
And I didn't stall a thing. I said "it's a holiday weekend, wait for the supposedly aggrieved party to weigh in." Now they have--and they are backing Kimmerly and destroying Chisholm's credibility in his version of events. I cautioned folks against accepting attacks by a rival campaign at face value; this is why.
Posted by: BHamm | Jan 22, 2008 9:02:15 AM
It doesn't hurt Kari to offer, though, I suppose.
No, in fact, it would help him! That exclusive, like the exclusive breaking story on this, would gain publicity for his blog and company! Surprise! Kari Chisholm has an agenda! Stop the presses!
No one has read anything Kari posts without a hefty grain of salt since August. Hence why this scandal hasn't ripped across the front page of this morning's Oregonian. It's been scrawled across the bathroom wall at BlueOregon in a nasty shade of bitter. People don't trust your investigative journalism. I hope future campaigns will understand the kind of baggage they pick up when they hire Mandate.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 9:08:55 AM
Kristin, I know you didn't address that challenge to me, but I want to both resolve this issue and talk about other issues. I don't necessarily equate a response from the Novick campaign as resolving the issue, but I hope it will.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 9:17:43 AM
Kimmerly serves two masters: the organization making an endorsement and a candidate being considered for the endorsement. PDA won't address it, they just attack the person who points it out. Novick is silent so far, but the people around him attack the person who points it out. This isn't resolving the "it" that was pointed out.
Posted by: Harry | Jan 22, 2008 9:30:20 AM
I am a more passive observer (NAV) on this one, but two things caught my attention on this:
1) Kari never mentioned (or did I miss it?) that he WAS ASKED by the Merkley to 'investigate' this issue with PDA. Kari did disclose that he was pro-Merkley, and that Merkley was his client. In my view, it is one thing to bird-dog on your own for your favorite candidate. But it would have been nice to know in Kari's first post (not his third, after your primary source questions your integrity and honesty about the conversation you two had) that the Merkley campaign ASKED Kari to call PDA on this issue.
Kari writes:
"When I called Tim Carpenter, I told him that I'm a local political consultant in Portland, Oregon. I said that I'm calling on behalf of the Jeff Merkley campaign, who asked me to call because I'm a fan of the PDA and a friend of Thom Hartmann."
Kari, in my view, letting your readers know that your involvement is AT THE REQUEST OF THE MERKLEY CAMPAIGN is not a small little detail. Maybe everybody else assumed this little detail, but I did not. (If I missed your disclosing this bit, then my bad!)
2) Kari's basis for much of this is the conversation he had with PDA National, ie Tim C.
Tim C. now gives us more context about the conversation that Kari had (THAT CAMPAIGN MERKLEY PUT HIM UP TO).
tim c. writes:
"When you called me I had just completed my chometherpy session and just had a shot in my eye...you never said you were blogging... simply calling to ask a few questions..I never said anyting about 48 hours...never.."
Didn't the Repubs (Gonzo, et al) have a pressurized conversation with the Atty Gen'l (1st guy, ex-Sen, cant think of his name) when he was in the hospital, putting pressure on him for his approval of something or other, while he was fighting cancer, or in a post-op, or something?
Chemo session? Shot in the eye? No disclosure that you would blog on this?
Wow.
And now we know that "48hrs" was not true! How many times did Kari restate the 48hrs in the last 3 days?
Wow.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 22, 2008 9:48:20 AM
Interesting that Thom Hartman expressed concerns about this situation on the air this morning. It's not the non-story TJ or Tim Carpenter would have us believe.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 9:55:11 AM
Kari did say Merkley's campaign had him call, it was in the first post on the matter.
I'm a big fan of the PDA (and a friend of radio host Thom Hartmann, a member of their national advisory board.) So, the Merkley campaign asked me to find out from the national organization if this "endorsement" is for real. So, on Wednesday, I called Tim Carpenter - the executive director of the PDA.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 9:55:21 AM
James, I addressed the "48 hours" thing above. Maybe you missed it.
Kristin asked, Also, Kari, if we're all about full disclosure, why did Thom Hartmann have to remind you to say that you worked for Merkley this morning?
Because he interrupted me before I had a chance to say it. It was part of my rap -- as it always is when I talk on KPOJ about one of my clients.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 9:57:37 AM
Harry asks... Kari never mentioned (or did I miss it?) that he WAS ASKED by the Merkley to 'investigate' this issue with PDA.
Actually, Harry, I said that in the very first post I wrote. I'll cut-and-paste: So, the Merkley campaign asked me to find out from the national organization if this "endorsement" is for real. So, on Wednesday, I called Tim Carpenter - the executive director of the PDA.
Full disclosure.
Posted by: lin qiao | Jan 22, 2008 10:00:14 AM
Here's another outrage: I just learned that the Novick campaign is also responsible for the car with expired California pplates that's parked in front of my house.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 10:06:22 AM
Last thing about the call with Tim: For the record, I talked to him BEFORE he went in for medical treatment (not that I would have any way of knowing about that before I called him.)
I called him on January 16th (and followed up by email on 1/16 at 1:02 p.m.)
He replied by email a few minutes later at 1:38 p.m.:
I will be out tomorrow with a chemotherapy session so I have asked Diane - PDA Field Director who is on this thread to be in touch so we can get everyone on the same page
I then sent him an email apologizing for talking politics while he was seeking medical treatment, ahd shifting my attention to Diane. I continued to copy Tim on my emails to Diane Shamis.
He had his chemotherapy and the shot in the eye on January 17th (and wrote me that day - "had chemotherapy and a shot in my eye today" - on 1/17 at 5:05 p.m.)
So, I'm not the only one with a faulty recollection here.
And to be clear, the national PDA - via Diane Shamis - immediately assured me at the time that they understood there was an actual problem and they were going to fix it. Diane wrote me on 1/17 at 6:50 p.m.:
We are immediately acting to alleviate concern and to insure clarity regarding a fair and full hearing from all candidates at the PDA Portland chapter meeting. Liz had assured me that in fact she had invited all the candidates to make presentations to the PDA Portland chapter. She is in the process of writing an email, explaining that the endorsement meeting to vote on which candidate to support will occur next month. It will also clarify that the meeting this Saturday, which I hope you can attend, will lay the full roster of our PDA work in terms of legislative advocacy, citizens lobbying in the District and our work with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as laying out the endorsement process which begins at the local level and follows with a vetting at the National level through a Candidate Questionnaire. This process will be completed next month in full compliance with our National Candidate Endorsement policy available on our website.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 22, 2008 10:16:38 AM
Wow, yes I did miss that and the entire comment it was in, Kari. Sorry.
Also, you said earlier that when you called Tim, "I was very clear about all of my affiliations, including BlueOregon." He says, "you never said you were blogging." If both statements are true, I guess Tim would be parsing things pretty finely -- I mean, "I'm a blogger," followed by questions, seems like fair enough warning, no?
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 22, 2008 10:37:40 AM
Diane's email in Kari's comment above seems to assume that everything is developing according to plan here in the Portland Chapter of the PDA. But given the facts we've learned from firsthand accounts (ie Ben from Witigonen), the Portland chapter doesn't seem to be developing according to the PDA guidelines.
First of all, Diane says something about 'citizen lobbying in the District'--which I assume refers to Congressional Districts. The PDA organizes its local chapters by congressional districts, not by major cities or states. The problem with a PDA-Portland group is that Portland and its metropolitan area are in three different CDs (1, 3 and 5). The congressional district chapters of the state come together in a state caucus.
From my knowledge, the endorsement process requires the recommendation of CD chapters moving to a state caucus, and then to national. All we have in Oregon is some ill-defined 'Portland' chapter.
So, does Diane believe that Portland is one congressional district (even Portland proper is in 3 CDs), or is she OK with having some loosely-defined 'Portland' chapter speak for all three CDs? Furthermore, there are 5 CDs in Oregon--are we going to hear from all of them before PDA-Oregon moves to endorse a candidate?
It seems that PDA National is either ignorant of the Portland group's state of development, or they really want an endorsement to happen before the actual organization of the group is in place here in Oregon.
From Tim Carpenter's comment, it seems like they're out of the loop.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 22, 2008 10:43:07 AM
Diane Shamis' email is interesting because I attended the meeting in question and I must say that the "full roster" being layed out to which she refers did not occur. There was some small talk at the very beginning which covered some of that in passing. But the clear focus as well as the overwhelming majority of time at the meeting was devoted solely to endorsing in this Senate campaign. So much so that when Ms. Perez asked to be allowed to give a pitch for her campaign for city (county?) council campaign, she had to be assertive about it because Moses Ross was reluctant to change the focus to anything beyond this Senate race.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 22, 2008 11:00:19 AM
As I mentioned in a comment in one of the earlier threads, the inherent conflict of interest is still the issue and would remain so even if Kari Chisholm was never even born.
When you join the PDA via their "join" form on the National website, you receive the auto-response email saying the following:
Dear (your name), Welcome to Progressive Democrats of America! You will soon be contacted by your state coordinator. Find out about the chapters in your state, and about our five top priorities. If you have any questions, please contact field@pdamerica.org.(emphasis mine)
The person who is our state coordinator here in Oregon for the PDA is Liz Kimmerly, who is the paid campaign staffer in the Novick campaign at issue. That fact that anyone who sign-ups to the PDA that are in Oregon has their contact info auto forwarded to the Novick campaign staffer, right out of the gate makes this a serious problem and conflict of interest. There are a myriad things she could do to game the process at this point. The very fact that the Novick campaign has possible access to the contact info for anyone signing up to the PDA in the state of Oregon is a red-flag to the issue of possible abuse and gaming of the process and a clear conflict of interest.
Because of this, it begs numerous questions... are all communications about what is going on in the Oregon Chapter(s) which can be sent out to PDA members in Oregon passing through the hands of at least one part of the Novick campaign? Is part of the Novick campign gaming it through emails which could done separately since it has all the contacts of PDA members in Oregon? Can the Oregon PDA co-ordinator generate her own subset of Oregon PDA members to communicate separately after beating it against the Novick lists (and PDA requires not just email address, but first and last name as well as address)...?
As I said there are myriad ways that abuse can take place to game the process because of the inherent conflict of interest her being involved holds. It compromises the integrity of the PDA, the Novick campaign and the process of endorsement. Novick's staffer may very well be the most pure of intention person on the planet who would never think of doing anything like gaming it, but because of the inherent conflict of interest, part of Novick's campaign has hopelessly compromised the process.
That this didn't set off alarm bells with Steve Novick himself, or Jake Weigler (the campaign manager) is disturbing. This is a relatively minor endorsement (let's be honest about that) but if they don't grasp the issues of clear conflicts of interest and the ethical code of conduct that is expected at this level, it is disturbing indeed.
That Tim Carpenter doesn't understand this either apparently and how this works against the fledgling organizing efforts of the PDA speaks very poorly of the PDA as well.
This is a reason why clear and open processes be established and are critical if you hope to have legitimacy, so that conflict of interest and concerns about abuses are mitigated. Let's hope that Novick sees the problem and addresses it, particularly if he hopes to be United States Senator should he be my parties nomination.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 22, 2008 11:09:03 AM
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 22, 2008 10:43:07 AMDiane Shamis' email is interesting because I attended the meeting in question and I must say that the "full roster" being layed out to which she refers did not occur.
I wasn't at the meeting, and even if I were, I wouldn't be able to pick Diane out of a line-up. But since her cotnact info is listed as being in Maryland, was she even at this meeting? If not, who generated the content of the email she put her name to? Could it be Liz Kimmerly putting the best face on this mess?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 22, 2008 11:15:20 AM
it DOES beg some questions, Mitch. Chief among them would be why you persist in working from the version presented by the Merkley campaign, a version that has been declared to be full of shit and an attempt to smear Novick?
If you think PDA is not as concerned about Kimmerly's role as they should be, take it up with them. It's their organization. But leave Novick out of it then; the allegation that they've
done anything wrong comes only from the now discredited Chisholm, and associated Merkley scandalmongers.
Your reporter has been called out by his source as wrong and out on a smear agenda. I'd quit while you're behind.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 22, 2008 1:07:46 AM
And as always, for the record: My company built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.