Fake endorsement backfires on Novick campaign operative
This is a difficult post to write.
So far, the campaign between Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley has been a clean one. Hard-fought, especially in blog comments, but between the two campaigns it's generally been a clean race.
But this week, something's happened and I feel it's important to let you know about it. I don't usually write about my client work, but I'm so disappointed in my friends at the Novick campaign that I'm going to share it with you. (David Steves broke the story on the Eugene Register-Guard's blog here, but the Novick campaign hasn't told him the entire story.)
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. (I've posted a copy of the email after the jump.)
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.
Thankfully, the national Progressive Democrats of America had nothing to do with this. Tim told me that he didn't know that Liz Kimmerly was working with the Novick campaign, nor that she had called for an endorsement meeting. Tim told me "that's not how we do things here". He also told me that Liz was an "overenthusiastic volunteer" who clearly hadn't read the instructions for PDA endorsements -- which include a written questionnaire prior to the interview, and 30 days notice to all local PDA members about the interview meeting.
One more thing: He told me the Portland chapter was only created "48 hours ago". That's right, folks: the Novick campaign not only sought to bamboozle the Merkley campaign, but they were bamboozling the Progressive Democrats of America -- setting up a shotgun chapter of a national organization in order to get their endorsement.
Novick's operatives are so desperate for their first organizational endorsement that they tried to fake one. This is pathetic. And it's sad. Steve Novick is a good man and a great activist, and he deserves better from his campaign. Steve Novick himself would never condone these sorts of dirty tricks. He needs to figure out who on his campaign is responsible, and remove them from his operation.
Before all the Novick partisans here at BlueOregon jump all over this, ponder this: What if the Jeff Merkley campaign had set up a sham organization and an endorsement meeting in the space of a week? You'd all be outraged. And rightly so. We'd have a nuclear meltdown on our hands. As I said, I know Steve Novick is a better man than this. I'm confident that Steve will do the right thing and eject the rogue operative(s) responsible from his campaign.
As for the Progressive Democrats of America, I'm excited that the national wants to start a local chapter. I told Tim Carpenter that I'd gladly help them get off the ground and get organized. If we're going to defeat Gordon Smith, we need a strong local chapter, and the strong involvement of the national PDA in Oregon. That's what makes this so sad: If Novick's operatives had their way, they'd have destroyed the local reputation of the PDA in order to win a cheap shotgun endorsement that's not worth the paper the press release is printed on.
Late today, Liz Kimmerly notified the Merkley campaign (and the Novick campaign, haha) that the Saturday meeting would be simply an informational meeting - rather than the "endorsement" meeting she'd planned before. Funny - that only happened after the Register-Guard started asking questions.
Stay tuned. I'll keep you posted.
###
Here's the original Tuesday email, printed in full...
Subject: Progressive Democrats of America Endorsement
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:27:58 -0800
From: lizkimmerly[at]gmail.com
To: steve[at]novickforsenate.org, jeff[at]jeffmerkley.com, candy[at]candyneville.comDear All,
I'm writing to let you know that the Portland chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America will be meeting on Saturday, January 19th to decide on its endorsement for Oregon's US Senate race. You are all welcome to state your case and will be given a 10 minute window to present yourselves to the chapter. Please remember that this will also be a regular business meeting for the chapter and you will need to stick to your time limit.
The address is 131 NW 2nd Ave. Mixing and mingling will begin at 6:30 and the endorsement part of our meeting will begin at 6:45.
Your Participation is Appreciated,
Liz Kimmerly
State Coordinator
Progressive Democrats of America
And the one on Thursday from Liz Kimmerly:
From: lizkimmerly[at]gmail.com
To: steve@novickforsenate.org; jeff[at]jeffmerkley.com; candy[at]candyneville.com
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: Progressive Democrats Meeting for Saturday
Dear Candidates,
This is just a reminder for our Saturday meeting of the Progressive Democrats of America. If you have not replied to me with an RSVP, please do so soon. If you can not appear, you are welcome to send someone to speak for you.
Peace,
Liz Kimmerly
State Coordinator
Progressive Democrats of America
And the final one today, after the Register-Guard started asking questions. (Emphasis mine):
Subject: Progressive Democrats Meeting for Tomorrow and Next Month
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:03:42 -0800
From: lizkimmerly[at]gmail.com
To: steve[at]novickforsenate.org, candy[at]candyneville.com, jeff[at]jeffmerkley.comDear Candidates,
Please note that not all candidates have responded to me in regard to Saturday's PDA meeting. We will be holding our endorsement vote during next month's meeting. You are still welcome to participate in tomorrow night's meeting. See email below.
Sincerely,
Liz Kimmerly
Unbelievable.
|
January 18, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (286 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Comments
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 5:28:03 PM
I have said before and will say again, someone with elected responsibility is only as good and as effective as those around them. Without going negative, I have been warning and hinting at the entire negative approach those around the campaign has taken. It was a factor (but not the only one) which made me reconsider my support and look seriously at the Merkley campaign, which I am now a proud supporter of.
I hope that Novick can change the course of his campaign, and stop the sort of hack, negative misleading approach that some of the more noticeable supporters (with tacit approval of the campaign) have engaged in, which we see more manifestly apparent in what the Novick online netroots organizer has tried to pull here.
Novick deserves better, the party deserves better, the race deserves better, and Oregonians deserve better.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 5:32:13 PM
Wow, that's a lot more detail than the Register-Guard story. What's telling is that the added detail does not clear the Novick campaign of wrongdoing; in fact, it seems to imply the opposite.
While there's no sure way to know the outcome of this sham endorsement process, it's clear that the deck had been stacked from the outset of the local group's formation. I don't know of any group that has among its very first items of business the endorsement of a candidate(s) in hotly contested primary races.
But then again, this is the same Novick campaign that employs an intern named Henry, who will 'do anything, say anything' to elect Steve Novick to the Senate. Apparently his colleague Liz holds the same work ethic, and it is unbounded by conventional ethics.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 5:32:21 PM
Assuming this is true, clearly this shouldn't have happened, and I agree that Novick's campaign would have been much better served without it happening. But I would prefer to ask for an explanation first. I hope people can hold their tongues on unproductive comments, too.
Posted by: Harry | Jan 18, 2008 5:36:08 PM
"Steve Novick is a good man and a great activist, and he deserves better from his campaign."
------------
True opinion and statement.
"Steve Novick himself would never condone these sorts of dirty tricks."
-------------
I hold the same opinion that Steve would not do such a thing. Did you verify that opinion with a call to Steve to get his read on this? Was Steve 'unavailable for comment'?
"He needs to figure out who on his campaign is responsible, and remove them from his operation."
------------
I agree. And he should act quickly.
Again, did you attempt to contact Steve or his campaign to get his side of this story? Maybe this is the first that Steve has even heard about this?
It would have been a more complete (and less biased, even though you did put in your disclaimer..thank you) story if you even just had the obligatory 'Steve's campaign did not return calls prior to our publishing this'. Not that you have to adhere to journalistic ethics, you are just a blog... who supports the other guy, as you said.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 5:37:38 PM
You'll have to forgive me, but Kari Chisholm, somebody whose company makes money from the Merkley campaign, isn't exactly a fountain of objectivity in this race, so I'll take the advice of James X and wait for further reporting by actual journalists.
But this post does raise one question: When you say this is "unbelievable," do you mean like when BlueOregon, run by Head Cook and Bottlewasher and Merkley internet consultant Kari Chisholm, allowed an anonymous blogger to use BlueOregon's front page to attack Steve Novick with a right-wing tax-and-spend talking point -- especially when it turns out that the anonymous blogger is deeply connected to the Democratic party establishment and to an old-guard party establishment legislator who had also previously used BlueOregon's front page to personally attack Steve Novick.
You mean kind of unbelievable like that?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 5:37:42 PM
Key sentence from the Register Guard piece:
She said the endorsement will be determined by the vote of all PDA members present.
So in context, 48 hours after the local chapter is formed they call an endorsement meeting in less than 4 days for PDA members around the state to attend in Portland, and the endorsement will be determined by the few that show up at this less than a week old chapter's called for meeting which is chaired by the Novick campaign's online organizer.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 5:38:27 PM
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 5:32:21 PM
I about the unproductive comments part. I also think it would be productive for Steve Novick to look into this matter himself and hold his campaign staff to account for any proven misconduct.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 5:39:49 PM
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 5:38:27 PM
ack...
I agree with James X.about the unproductive comments part.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 18, 2008 5:41:57 PM
My gut sense on this is that Kari's right - that Steve Novick wouldn't have gone for a dirty Rovian trick like this. I'm confident that he'll prove us correct by severing his ties to whomever is responsible.
Obviously Liz Kimmerly's fingerprints are all over this. The question in my mind is who else on the Novick campaign was in the loop on this?
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 18, 2008 5:42:06 PM
I have had this story up on my blog for some time now and I really find it deeply disturbing.
How complicit is Steve Novick in this huge breach of ethics by his staff? Did Novick know? Did his campaign? Did they put her up to it or just tacitly approve of these immoral tactics? If she is rogue (which I don’t think she is, considering Novick accepted the interview invitation), what actions will they take to hold her accountable for what is clearly an unethical conflict of interest?
These details about the recentness of the creation of the chapter are even more disappointing than Steves' article. We need to replace the Karl Rove culture in Washington with people that have respect for fair play and who will restore honest and progressive discourse to our nation's capital. With unethical tactics like this it is clear that Steve Novick cannot be trusted with that crucial task.
If she was acting alone, Novick needs to fire Kimmerly immediately, and if Novick was complicit, voters should punish him for this unethical Rove-like behavior at the ballot box this May.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 5:44:09 PM
And while we're waiting for an explanation from the Novick camp, maybe I can get an explanation from Kari or anyone who wants to chime in: If Merkley could figure this out, why couldn't Steve? I mean, his own senior staffer emailed him directly, telling him that she was holding a surprise meeting to endorse a candidate. Didn't that smell funny to him?
(I ask for an explanation from Kari because he's already shifted the blame off Novick.)
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 18, 2008 5:49:24 PM
Posted by: Harry | Jan 18, 2008 5:36:08 PM
I did seek comment from the Novick campaign for my blog piece. They have thus far refused to comment. They have had more than their fair share of opportunities to respond.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 18, 2008 5:50:17 PM
oh, the mock horror! If only there were an award for mortified concern trolling.
I'll let the campaign unravel this one, but a couple of notes
of interest on this bit of manufactured outrage:
There hasn't been an endorsement, but Kari already has it pegged as a fake one. Prescient!
To my knowledge Ms. Kimmerly was involved in PDA before
coming to Oregon, and as Kari discovered, the chapter was apparently created properly and with the full approval of the national. Yet Kari calls it a sham organization. ?? Moreover, he nominates HIMSELF to create a chapter instead. As if that clears up any suspicion of bias?
Forgive me if I don't buy the disillusionment surrounded by tabloid rhetoric that doesn't appear to match the facts he was given.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:23 PM
Wow. We have a good week and the attacks are unleashed on Blue O.
I will let Progressive Democrats for America speak for themselves on this, though my understanding is substantially different than the one you present Kari.
On behalf of the Novick campaign I will say this was never an attempt "bamboozle" "fake" or "trick" our way into an endorsement. PDA uses a fully democratic process that allows every member to cast their vote and, as I understand it, every member on their email list in Oregon was contacted. Liz herself will have no role in deciding who is selected and will actually be recused from the voting process.
Progressive Democrats for America is a national organization, with 2300 members here in Oregon that - to date - has had no state chapter. Liz Kimmerly, our online director, has had a long-standing relationship with PDA prior to joining the campaign and moving back to Oregon. When they approached her about creating a state chapter, she accepted, putting in numerous volunteer hours on her own time to pull it together.
My understanding of the emails you posted is that the Merkley campaign said that holding the endorsement vote this Saturday would not work for them and so the vote was moved to next month to accommodate them. Apparently that was insufficient as they have now passed these emails on to you to throw attacks at Steve.
Again, I'd emphasize that Liz Kimmerly (despite your repeated inuendos) has no say in who the chapter decides to endorse and that every members has a vote. I'd hope that everyone interested in starting a PDA chapter in Oregon will show up to this meeting (and the endorsement one next month) to make their voice heard. That democratic process is a far cry from the DSCC and numerous other organizations that have endorsed Merkley without even contacting our campaign.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:27 PM
Oh, and I'll quibble a bit with the term "dirty trick." That seems to me to imply more of a harmful and malicious scheme against an opponent. Again, assuming this is true, it was definitely a trick, and improper conduct, but it was more about creating Potemkin support for one's own campaign rather than trying to sink the opponent. Not that that's any less a disgrace. I just don't know what a more accurate term than "dirty trick" might be. Well, I can come up with one, but it would violate my own "no unproductive comments" advice.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 5:56:27 PM
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 5:37:38 PM
Right on cue with the negative obfuscating crap flinging to divert attention from the issue, which is that Novick is being harmed by the approach of those around him (officially or unofficially) who signal the direction and set the tone for their supporters, and in this case apparently willing to behave unethically to try and get a wholly compromised "progressive" endorsement which, if history is any indication, while be used by Liz's netroots volunteers to go negative against Merkley with to mislead progressives about Merkley.
Steve is a solid progressive as is Merkely, and unfortunately those who Steve has around him are not serving himself, his candidacy, the party, the race, or the state well.
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:57:34 PM
Oh, and I have to add the fact you didn't even bother to call us about this before posting suggests what your true motives are here.
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 18, 2008 5:59:50 PM
TJ:
If this was a Merkley staffer you would be howling demanding that whoever responsible was fired. Your lack of response just shows your bias.
You have previously made the argument that the Novick campaign runs a tighter ship than Merkley. These actions just prove that Novick campaign is about shenanigans and doesn't have the ability to seriously take on Gordon Smith.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 18, 2008 6:00:19 PM
one other thing--does it seem at all plausible that Kimmerly figured the Merkleu campaign wouldn't recognize her name in the emails? They know who's staffing Nocick at senior levels.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 6:06:10 PM
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:23 PMProgressive Democrats for America is a national organization, with 2300 members here in Oregon that - to date - has had no state chapter. Liz Kimmerly, our online director, has had a long-standing relationship with PDA prior to joining the campaign and moving back to Oregon. When they approached her about creating a state chapter, she accepted, putting in numerous volunteer hours on her own time to pull it together.
If Liz has been involved with PDA for such a long time, she must have known that the PDA endorsement process requires 30 days' notice and a written questionnaire. Why did she botch that, and why did she move to make an endorsement within the very first week of the group's existence? And why didn't anyone know about it? There's still no notice of the meeting on the group's website. None.
Liz may have done work for this group in her own free time, but it appears that she began mixing business and pleasure without regard for process.
Jake, do you stand by Liz's actions? If not, how are you going to hold her accountable?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:08:22 PM
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 5:44:09 PMI mean, his own senior staffer emailed him directly, telling him that she was holding a surprise meeting to endorse a candidate. Didn't that smell funny to him?
Exactly. Steve is a good guy, and wants to fight the good fight, but this is a valid point which, Unfortunately for Steve, only comes from building a team of people who can effectively keep you on track. That takes someone with the experience to build that team, know how to lead it, where the red flags are, how to work within a team (while being responsible for it and leading it) to be effective not just as a candidate, but to the real things that ultimately matter, being responsible as an elected official, particularly at this level (United States Senate).
Steve is there on the issues, is there on the passion for wanting to affect change, but it takes more than that. It takes not being a one man show and takes having the right skill-set to be a team leader and assembling that team and setting the standards, direction, etc.
That is not to say that Steve is incapable of that, but for me alarm bells went off long ago to take an assessment of who would better serve to take the fight against Smith and have that needed skill set which goes beyond just being bright, wonkish, and heartfelt commitment to effectively bringing about the changes needs at the Federal level for Oregon and the country (which both men share).
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:08:24 PM
Ok, the Novick campaign's position is that this was completely legitimate, and that Kari is attacking with malice.
But why does the executive director of the organization say "that's not how we do things here?" Why was this organization set up with the intent to meet about endorsements within a week, if it wasn't created ad-hoc to endorse a candidate? And why do you assume malice? You don't hold yourself to the standard of "involved with a campaign, therefore conflicted," so how can you hold others to that standard?
Also, there's no way I can keep up with the comments here, so apologies for my comments being so 10 minutes ago.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 18, 2008 6:11:01 PM
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:23 PMWow. We have a good week and the attacks are unleashed on Blue O.
Jake,
Read the short comment thread (before Kari shut it down) and the comment thread at the linked blog and you'll see that multiple Merkley supporters chimed in in defense of Novick. That's hardly a partisan attack.
That said, Blue Oregon didn't originate that story. They linked to it from two different sources, one of which was a journalist with the newspaper of record for this state.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jan 18, 2008 6:11:56 PM
This looks pretty lousy, for sure.
I am curious about the discrepancy between what Kari reports from Tim Carpenter, that the PDA chapter was formed Tuesday or Wednesday (not quite clear when you talked to him, Kari), and David Steves statement at the R-G blog that it was formed a month ago.
Liz K's last e-mail looks to me like it might not be a response to the R-G but from PDA national. What it describes looks as if it would fit the PDA rules that Tim C describes. Part of what is at stake is rescuing any sort of legitimate PDA endorsement process according to the rules. Clearly Liz Kimmerly couldn't be part of it.
Since PDA has 2300 members in Oregon, according to information at the R-G blog, I'm not sure the "shotgun chapter" characterization is quite fair -- it looks like Liz K hijacked what might otherwise have been a legitimate chapter formation process. The logic Kari outlines for having one, vis a vis the effort to unseat Gordon Smith existed on Monday as well as today. An Oregon PDA activist writing over at the R-G, who is quite disgusted at the whole thing both as an illegitimate endorsement process from a local PDA point of view and in terms of the Novick campaign, says that "Coordinator" is a real title and that chapters are in fact created by coordinators in the usual order of things.
Kari's account of his conversation with Tim Carpenter says Tim C called Liz K "an overenthusiastic volunteer." Does that mean she was lying in claiming the title of Coordinator? Or can coordinators be volunteers? In other words, did she hijack a legitimate chapter-forming process in which she had a legitimate role (one that may embarrass Tim C at this point), or was she illegitimately claiming a role that wasn't really hers, in addition to abusing the endorsement process? Again, a comment posted over at the R-G suggests reasons to think Liz K has legitimate & high-level connections with PDA, & indeed it seems Tim Carpenter knew who she is though not some important things she's been doing.
While I hope it's clear that I do think this was abusive and it reflects badly on the Novick campaign (& at least one of our usual suspects in inter-campaign rancor here is less fastidious than Kari in not accusing Steve himself, over at the R-G), I do have to question your writing Kari when you write of "Novick operatives." As far as you've yet revealed, Liz Kimmerly appears to be one person :->.
Mitch Gore / Lestat also makes ominous noises about this being characteristic of the campaign in general, linked to comments about rancor on this blog. But are those commenting here really part of Steve's campaign?
Finally, Kari, I'd suggest that it might be best for PDA if the work of creating a fully fledged, fully legitimate Oregon chapter, able to survive the vicissitudes of wherever this episode and the primary more generally go & be in position to work well in the general, were not handed from someone who does web work for Novick to someone who does web work for Merkley :->.
I'm not suggesting you'd do anything similar, just that both from the point of view of appearances and of damage control to unified party effort in the general, you might not be the ideal candidate. Surely there's someone who could be found to take over the work who has a more neutral profile?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 6:12:38 PM
"why does the executive director of the organization say 'that's not how we do things here?'"
Perhaps he's only heard one side of the story so far.
Remember your earlier post about waiting?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:14:26 PM
The conflict of interest perception alone, much less the clear violation of PDA rules and norms, should have made this move a non-starter. Jake's comment (non-denial denial), lack of judgment in seeing this should have been a no-go form the start, and spin (this got moved because of the Merkely campaign) is troubling, and underscores what I said up-thread.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:17:23 PM
one other thing--does it seem at all plausible that Kimmerly figured the Merkleu campaign wouldn't recognize her name in the emails? They know who's staffing Nocick at senior levels.
Well, "Anastasia Beaverhousen" probably would have been more suspect.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 6:17:51 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 18, 2008 5:50:17 PMTo my knowledge Ms. Kimmerly was involved in PDA before
coming to Oregon, and as Kari discovered, the chapter was apparently created properly and with the full approval of the national. Yet Kari calls it a sham organization.
torridjoe: The organization may have been created in compliance with rules and regulations, but it's pretty clear that the intent of the creation of the organization was to quickly endorse a candidate in the Senate race. Why is that pretty clear? Because that was the group's first order of business! Before adopting a charter, before recruiting fellow travelers, before establishing a regular meeting place, and before defining what it means to be a 'progressive Democrat' in Oregon, the group called an endorsement meeting--within the very first week of its existence.
Kari's conversation with Tim Carpenter makes it clear that such intent is indeed taboo:
Tim told me that he didn't know that Liz Kimmerly was working with the Novick campaign, nor that she had called for an endorsement meeting. Tim told me "that's not how we do things here".
Again, the national director recognizes and does not excuse Liz Kimmerly's intent.
That's a fact.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 18, 2008 6:17:55 PM
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:08:24 PM
Timely and appropriate questions, James. I'm going to edit them slightly and organize them a bit because they do go to the very heart of the matter here.
1. Ok, the Novick campaign's position is that this was completely legitimate, and that Kari is attacking with malice. But why does the executive director of the organization say "that's not how we do things here?"
2. Why was this organization set up with the intent to meet about endorsements within a week, if it wasn't created ad-hoc to endorse a candidate?
3. And why do you assume malice? You don't hold yourself to the standard of "involved with a campaign, therefore conflicted," so how can you hold others to that standard?
Jake,
Would you be so kind as to answer each of these questions one at a time?
Thanks!
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:19:35 PM
Pat, I am trying to frame things as questions and hypotheticals for now.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:20:14 PM
Kari's account of his conversation with Tim Carpenter says Tim C called Liz K "an overenthusiastic volunteer." Does that mean she was lying in claiming the title of Coordinator? Or can coordinators be volunteers? In other words, did she hijack a legitimate chapter-forming process in which she had a legitimate role (one that may embarrass Tim C at this point), or was she illegitimately claiming a role that wasn't really hers, in addition to abusing the endorsement process?
I can't speak to the process, etc. which you raise, but it it worth noting that the PDA page for Oregon, on the national site states Liz as the coordinator.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 18, 2008 6:20:55 PM
if the national approached Kimmerly first, that makes it awfully hard to charge that the chapter was created under false pretenses, no?
If the endorsement process is not being properly followed, it should be. And it looks like now it will. The rest looks like faux outrage. Particularly when Steves took time to ding Merkley for flopping around on NCLB, and here at BlueO there were only crickets...
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 18, 2008 6:25:23 PM
Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:23 PM
If every member of the PDA was contacted how do you respond to claims in the comments of the Steves' piece that members of the PDA were not previously contacted.
Further, it is disappointing that in response to such serious allegations the Novick campaign resorted to its one trick pony, bashing the DSCC. Well, I hate to break it to you Jake but Merkley doesn't employ Chuck Schumer. Your campaign clearly crossed significant moral/ethical lines and Kimmerly should be fired.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:25:44 PM
And if I knew my questions would be so formalized, I would have crafted them with a bit more care. Also, I was trying to add levity with the Beaverhousen reference, but I realize it might sound like a cheap shot, so I take that back.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 18, 2008 6:27:42 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 18, 2008 6:20:55 PM
Don't change the subject, TJ. It looks like your trying to draw attention away from a serious allegation of misconduct.
What the national branch didn't know at the formation of the group is that Liz is knee-deep in a hotly contested primary campaign. And as the state coordinator, her first action item was to convene an endorsement meeting. Kimmerly should have disclosed to national that she's working for a campaign. But she didn't.
Instead, she kept that affiliation secret and worked towards a flawed endorsement process--all within a week of starting the group.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 18, 2008 6:29:24 PM
If something like this were to happen this summer then you can bet that Smith would mop the floor with the culprit, brand the entire campaign as complicit and cruise to reelection.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 6:30:47 PM
Pat, I am trying to frame things as questions and hypotheticals for now.
Roger that. I was just offering one of the possible answers :)
It might also be appropriate for BlueOregon to find someone else to cover this story in the future besides the guy who refers to one of the candidates involved as a "client."
"I'm confident that Steve will do the right thing and eject the rogue operative(s) responsible from his campaign."
That would be one surefire way to propel this story into the unforeseen future. I can see multiple-post coverage on BlueO now.
Moreover, high profile knee-jerk demands that someone be fired from his or her job so that one campaign can score political points may be business as usual in politics, but it doesn't exactly reflect a beacon of humanity.
There are real people involved here, folks. And this time they're Democrats.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jan 18, 2008 6:33:49 PM
Scratching my head on Mr. Weigler's comment,
My understanding of the emails you posted is that the Merkley campaign said that holding the endorsement vote this Saturday would not work for them and so the vote was moved to next month to accommodate them.
and ignoring all of the special pleading regarding the truly remarkable coincidence that Ms. Kimmerly apparently decided to form the Oregon chaper of the PDA about two days before she sent the emails offering the candidates four days to respond, the best that I can glean from the text of the emails above:
Progressive Democrats of America will be meeting on Saturday, January 19th to decide on its endorsement for Oregon's US Senate race
Just saying, that if I received this email, I would understand it to say that the PDA was going to meet on Friday to decide on its endorsement.
Hey, that is exactly what it says. But then comes the second email which doesn't address timing at all, and finally on to email #3 which says:
Please note that not all candidates have responded to me in regard to Saturday's PDA meeting. We will be holding our endorsement vote during next month's meeting.
So while it indeed changes the date, there is no mention in that email or any others as to the reason.
So if Mr. Weigler read something else it was not, as he avows, in any of the above emails.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:34:50 PM
Somewhat off-topic, while I applauded her heartfelt convictions and activism to hold Bush accountable for this administrations mendacity about the war, I find it odd that Cindy Sheehan, whose rather sad public break and attacks on the Democratic Party, as being on the advisory board of the national PDA rather incongruous with the purpose as a grassroots PAC operating inside the Democratic Party, and outside in movements for peace and justice. Perhaps Liz's screw-up may be an electoral blessing in disguise if nobody gains the PDAs endorsement.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 18, 2008 6:38:29 PM
There are real people involved here, folks. And this time they're Democrats.
Giving those involved a pass because they happen to be Democrats is symptomatic of the very "the ends justify the means" mentality that allowed this to happen in the first place! More to the point, it's exactly what the Republicans have been doing for YEARS.
I'd like to believe that Democrats are capable of holding themselves and their own to a HIGHER moral and ethical standard than the party of Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, An Coulter and the rest of the gang.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:39:09 PM
I'm going to join Pat in refraining for now from demands for heads. I think that should come after the facts are more settled.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:42:01 PM
From the first email Liz sent:
Please remember that this will also be a regular business meeting for the chapter and you will need to stick to your time limit.
How many meetings has the less than a week old chapter held so far, regular business meeting or otherwise?
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:45:28 PM
Although, things seem to be settling pretty fast. TJ, Jake, come back! Shake the snow globe again!
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 18, 2008 6:47:05 PM
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 6:30:47 PM
Considering that the progressive community has condemned these tactics for years and demanded that Karl Rove and the other Republican perpetrators of such dirty electioneering get fired, it is only fair that we apply the standard to our own when they cross the line and engage in unethical tactics.
Pat you don't seem to be concerned about the real harm perpetrated by the Novick campaign here on real people, members of the Progressive Democrats of America. PDA on a national level is a good organization and did not deserve their hard work to be tainted by such unscrupulous opportunism by the Novick campaign looking to shore up a poor list of endorsers with such a cheap political ploy.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:47:47 PM
How can the Oregon PDA give a legitimate endorsement for the state-wide race at all given this:
State Caucus The Oregon State Caucus needs your help in forming. For information, please contact our State Coordinator(s) listed below.
Only coordinator listed is Liz of the less than week old coordinator?
So how does this endorsement process work exactly for statewide races?
Who votes since from their web-page, the state caucus hasn't even been formed?
Maybe there website needs some serious updating, can anyone even clarify what the membership is, it processes, how it meets, how it votes for statewide race endorsements, how the local chapter works?
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 6:49:05 PM
"I'm going to refrain for now from demands for heads. I think that should come after the facts are more settled."
That sounds a lot like, "Don't worry, you'll get a fair trial before we hang ya."
That's not what you meant, is it?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:53:29 PM
Before heads are called for and the Rove name is K-bombed, I think we need some clear answers on a whole raft of issues this seemingly Astroturfed "endorsement" process which raised red flags (rightly so) for the Merkley cmapign are addressed. I would find it highly unikely that Steve would embrace anything or condone Rovian.
Personally, I have to step away for a few hours from the keyboard, and with luck at least some might be forthcoming when I get back on later tonight.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 18, 2008 6:54:52 PM
Ugh... should have read as:
I would find it highly unikely that Steve would embrace or condone anything Rovian.
Posted by: Sarah Lane | Jan 18, 2008 6:56:19 PM
Even if Kimmerly has no influence on the endorsement itself, it does seem like a conflict of interest for an online director of a campaign to be involved whatsoever with the process. She should be excluded completely from the endorsement process and that includes setting up the meetings with the candidates. Kimmerly should have just stepped aside and let someone over at Progress for America take the reins on the meetings etc.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 7:00:14 PM
Pat, demands for heads are a given. They've already happened. I'm just calling for some time for jets to cool, if I may so recklessly mix metaphors.
Posted by: John-Mark Gilhousen | Jan 18, 2008 7:05:04 PM
Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate stated:
as I understand it, every member on their email list in Oregon was contacted
This is absolutely false. I am one of those members, and receive PDA emails regularly (and as recently as the 15th of this month). I have received none announcing the formation of an Oregon chapter, let alone that a vote was imminent on that chapter's endorsement in the senate race.
I live in The Dalles, and if given reasonable notice of such a meeting, I would do whatever it took to arrange to be there. That is one important reason why the PDA guidelines for endorsements requires 30 days notice.
The only public notice of this meeting I've been able to find is on the Novick campaign website. It may not have been an attempt to stack a deck, but it would be difficult to craft a process to more perfectly achieve that result, and certainly creates that impression.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 7:12:09 PM
Unfortunately, I have to bow out of this discussion for a few hours. Don't decapitate anyone until I get back, ok?
Posted by: To paraphrase | Jan 18, 2008 7:26:33 PM
I have it on good authority that somebody did something they shouldn't have, and somebody else should have kept them from doing that, or (even if they didn't) then somebody ought to be fired because it reflect poorly on the guy I'm voting against. And I spoke with a well known head of the board of directors, and he confirms that somebody may have done something they shouldn't have without getting somebody else's permission first.
But Novick's a really nice guy, ran a clean campaign, and I wish him nothing but the best: who cares if he's too short to be elected.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 7:35:13 PM
Damn, I should have walked out the door before everything got so pissy. Now I'm leaving.
Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 18, 2008 8:08:03 PM
In my view, this is Merkely is astroturfing outrage at a potential goof that might have looked like it was almost maybe going to happen, but didn't, because when it was called to the attention of the people involved, everybody involved recalibrated and did the right thing. Scandal!
Carl, you go way down in my esteem for participating in this echo chamber smear. This is Merkely grasping for negative straws because he's beginning to see the writing on the wall. Steve is the better candidate, and the voters are going to see that.
I was on the fence about whether to show up for the PDA thing Saturday night. No more.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 8:19:58 PM
Steves has updated his report.
...the PDA has put the endorsement meeting off for another month and taken Kimmerly off the job of organizing the event. Democratic consultant Moses Ross, who was asked to take that duty over, said he’d been concerned that Kimmerly was trying to rush the endorsement process. But he added that he didn’t think the Novick staffer was trying to rig the process to benefit her boss—even though that could have been the effect. “I don’t sense there were any dirty tricks involved - just enthusiastic activists,” said Ross, who is not involved with the campaigns of any of the Democrats running for the Senate seat held by Republican Gordon Smith.
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 18, 2008 8:38:40 PM
Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 18, 2008 8:08:03 PM
The reason why this unethical endorsement process didn't go through is because people strongly objected to Novick's unethical stiff arming tactics.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 8:19:58 PM
Just because the person on trial professes their innocence doesn't mean it true. Even if it Novicks claims of innocence are true, the inability for Novick to see the inherent conflict of interest and the ethical quagmire that Kimmerly's actions put him in shows that he is in no way prepared for the rigors of taking on Gordon Smith. If this happened in the general election, Smith would have the entire MSM condemning Novick as a morally challenged hack and would demand Kimmerly's head. We can't afford to nomination such a huge liability with such poor judgment.
Posted by: Scott Jorgensen | Jan 18, 2008 8:45:32 PM
Keep it up, guys. If I were Gordon Smith, I'd be reading this and laughing my ass off......
Posted by: messieur t | Jan 18, 2008 8:59:41 PM
This is a difficult post to write (sigh). Without getting banned (again) by Kari.
Does anybody think the PDA's endorsement will sway more than 50 voters? Doesn't all this faux outrage jeopardize at least that many votes?
Too much inside baseball? This is more like two umpires discussing their prostates in a crowded elevator. Way too much information: even if you love baseball.
Mountain. Mole hill.
Time to find another child abuse victim to exploit for political gain.
Posted by: carla | Jan 18, 2008 9:09:17 PM
My understanding of the emails you posted is that the Merkley campaign said that holding the endorsement vote this Saturday would not work for them and so the vote was moved to next month to accommodate them. Apparently that was insufficient as they have now passed these emails on to you to throw attacks at Steve.
Then your understanding of the emails is false.
The Merkley campaign has never responded to those emails. When we saw the four days notice and the fact that it was being led by a paid staffer of the Novick campaign, we contacted the national chapter.
We were told by the director that the Portland chapter of PDA was 48 hours old. He also told us that the endorsement meeting wouldn't happen this weekend because it would be a violation of their rules. The change in the meeting had nothing to do with Merkley's schedule and everything to do with the fact that it was going outside the organization's own processes.
They also had no idea that Liz Kimmerly is employed by one of the potential endorsees.
It's apparent that had we not contacted them, this sham endorsement process would have gone forward.
Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 18, 2008 9:23:37 PM
Let me get this straight:
Liz Kimmerly is being crucified for her conflicts of interest while Kari Chisholm points the finger?
Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 18, 2008 9:42:02 PM
And another thing...
I can't help but compare this to Merkley going on Huffington Post implying that he's already won a primary. That wasn't ALMOST or MAYBE. That actually happened. No retractions, no backoff. All we got was, "Well, ANYBODY running could equally well say what I said." Anybody who didn't mind misleading the reader.
Posted by: Harry | Jan 18, 2008 9:49:06 PM
" Kimmerly is being crucified for her conflicts of interest while Kari Chisholm points the finger?"
Yep. That is how operatives work. Especially paid operatives. The good ones light the bomb and walk away. The shrapnel rarely hits them, but if it does, then they are also the victim too.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 10:28:47 PM
Stephanie, Harry: Kimmerly can start a blog and write anything she wants. To risk overstretching the blogging metaphor, what Kimmerly is accused of is much more akin to using sockpuppets for the illusion of greater grass-roots support.
And while we're on that topic, how is it that Kari is astroturfing, Katie? All I've seen is the insinuation that Kari is privately taking pleasure in this news.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 18, 2008 10:33:43 PM
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 18, 2008 9:23:37 PMLet me get this straight:
Liz Kimmerly is being crucified for her conflicts of interest while Kari Chisholm points the finger?
Kari Chisholm wasn't involved in a rogue endorsement process.
Liz Kimmerly was involved in a rogue endorsement process. Not only was she involved in it but she was the coordinator of it.
See the difference?
A more relevant comparison would be to compare Liz's ethical choices, as illustrated in this post, with those of her counterpart on the Merkley campaign - Carla.
Carla cut ties even to the two blogs she'd cofounded (Preemptive Karma and Loaded Orygun) even though nobody demanded it much less asked it. She did it, on her own initiative, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Posted by: All the piffle thats fit to print | Jan 18, 2008 10:36:20 PM
A volunteer, Liz Kimmerly, is being crucified? More like "blogofried".
Matt Wingard is being crucified, by the left and the right. And his parental fitness is being scrutinized by a bunch of asshats who will never meet either one of them. Or care about them.
To what end? Just to diminish Wingard's chances of winning a seat in the Oregon House. Pure Piffle.
And real conflicts of interests continue to fly under the B/O radar (last boarding call for the Air Johnson Shuttle, with direct service from Scappoose to Quantico).
Wonder all about it.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 18, 2008 10:44:25 PM
Kimmerly's not a volunteer, to be clear. She's online director, a paid professional position (something I'm happy to say is a new phenomenon, but a spreading one in following elections. Career FYI!).
Also to clarify this statement:
"even though nobody demanded it much less asked it."
I think suredly there was no doubt in Carla's mind that she'd separate, not least the conflict with the blog's endorsement--but primarily on the basis that you just can't run a private blog and be a candidate's online messenger. The campaigns shut you up. Carla had a looser leash for a couple of weeks it seemed, but that stopped pretty quickly. I know for a fact that Novick's requirement was almost total online silence that isn't on message. It's understood.
Neither of us really needed to bring it up, it was understood. But I certainly would have asked and then demanded, were it someone less gracious and forthright than Carla.
Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 18, 2008 10:59:52 PM
The astroturfing is all the Merkley partisan posts above that try to make it appear that something actually happened. It didn't! Someone got ahead of themselves, but it was undone before any harm could come of it.
How about the poster above putting words in my mouth to make it look like I'd acknowledged something unethical had occured? Carl, please delete that post!
Carl's guilt is in the ponderous staging and careful description of this might-almost-maybe-potential goof, for which there is no evidence whatsoever of unscrupulous intent, to make it seem like it did.
What the whole thing says to me is that Merkely has gotten the drift that he can't win in a fair fight, so is diving for the gutter.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 18, 2008 11:34:12 PM
Big whoop.
The only thing interesting about this is to see the two editors of Loaded Orygun dance around their opposing positions!
Posted by: LT | Jan 18, 2008 11:35:46 PM
This is a quote from the Dave Steves blog:
"A newly formed chapter of Progressive Democrats of America is interviewing three Senate candidates Saturday—including one who is the boss of the chapter’s coordinator.
Liz Kimmerly isn’t just the PDA state coordinator in Oregon, a position she accepted a little more than a month ago when the chapter formed. She also does online campaign work for Democratic Senate candidate Steve Novick.
Which could make the other invited Democratic candidates, Jeff Merkley and Candy Neville, a little skeptical about whether they’ll get a fair shot at the group’s endorsement. "
I used that Steves quote so no one would get into whether BO was pulling a fast one.
I had 2 instant feelings about this when first reading it:
1) Years ago, Margie Hendricksen was running for Congress against Peter De Fazio, and some women from feminist groups were saying things like "Anyone who doesn't support Margie doesn't support women" with all the vehemence TJ uses in saying things like "There hasn't been an endorsement, but Kari already has it pegged as a fake one. " This was an esp. strange situation because of the women not living in the 4th Cong. District telling women who did live in Eugene or elsewhere in the district they had no right to decide after knowing Peter and Margie a long time which to support---if they "supported women" they would vote for Margie. We all know now how that primary turned out. In the process, the women from outside the 4th district alienated a lot of women who thought they were being bossy. Margie Hendricksen never won major office after that and eventually moved to another state.
Supporters of statewide candidates need to decide now what their goal is: win the primary and the general, or defeat the opponent? The ordinary folks who have not yet tuned into this campaign are more likely to vote for the disciplined campaign with good ideas than for the campaign which seems more interested in defeating the opponent. I knew a woman in 1996 who was impressed with Gordon Smith because she saw him in a restaurant near her family, and "that poor man's food must have gotten cold but he spoke politely to anyone who came over to his table and interrupted his dinner with his family". That woman's vote counts just as much as the vote of someone who can tell you where the candidates stand on a multitude of issues!
A friend of mine from Eugene who was working as an affirmative action officer in an agency in 1986 when Peter DeFazio was first elected to Congress after winning the primary. My friend was of the (fairly common, apparently) belief that having voted for both Peter and Margie in previous elections (legislative, county) these people thought Peter had the better temperment and skills to survive in Congress and were going to vote accordingly.
My friend and I were at a luncheon for a women's group when a discussion of an upcoming state convention led to one young woman at the luncheon saying of the endorsements, "Well in the 4th district, we have Margie" and someone else asking point blank "has the endorsement already been finalized before the convention?".
At best, Liz K. is an overenthusiastic volunteer who sounds like the young woman at the luncheon all those years ago jumping the gun by saying "in the 4th district, we have Margie".
Which leads to my second point. To know someone for many years is to know a 3 dimensional person with assets and liabilities. The sort of knowledge which can lead to statements like "really appreciated what she did with---but BOY! did she make a mistake when she_______".
I've known Steve for many years, probably before I knew Jeff Merkley existed. Very bright guy but that doesn't mean I have agreed with everything he said or did. After the campaign started, I will give him credit because we had an email exchange where I told him something he had said once which I had considered stupid (among other things) and he wrote back something like he would have been stupid if he'd said that, but what he thought he said was.....
I've had a bad feeling for a long time that Steve is very bright but that isn't enough to run for major office. Gordon Smith is in the US Senate at least in part because the Bruggere campaign (which Steve worked on) made some really dumb mistakes and offended some potential voters. There were multiple 3rd party candidates in fall, 1996, and people turned off by the partisans campaigning could chose one of those as a protest. Has Steve ever contemplated what mistakes the Bruggere campaign made and instructed his campaign manager to tell staff and supporters those mistakes are not to be made by his campaign?
This is a test of Steve and Steve alone. Not his campaign manager or staff, but Steve. Steve is as responsible for the actions of his staff as any other candidate. A true leader would have a long talk with Liz K. and tell her she made the campaign look bad, and then explain to the general public just exactly what happened.
TJ, Stephanie, and the rest of the Novick backers here should do some soul searching and talk to Steve. Was this a stupid mistake or an overly enthusiastic volunteer? Were any national organization bylaws violated? What to do next?
Rules, procedures and protocol exist for a reason. When someone stands up at a party meeting to ask for a quorum call before voting on a resolution the chair is trying to push through, is that person a subversive? Or is that person someone who thinks rules should be followed? That's the basic premise here.
It is a fact that the local chapter of PDA was created on a certain day. It is a fact that there is a national organization. Either it is in their national bylaws that they have a 30 day notice of meetings, or it isn't.
One of the reasons I got burned out on politics was the folks who would shrug at facts like the ones in the previous paragraph--they are right, so who needs rules?
Long before computers existed and well before any campaign had an online director, there were some eternal verities about campaigns. The good candidates established a standard of behavior for supporters and staff.
This is a test of leadership for Steve. He needs to get the straight story from Liz K. and then decide what to do next. I've known too many campaigns which succeeded or failed because of actions by individuals in the campaign to think this is just about Liz or Steve or 2008.
This is one reason I have remained neutral. Neither US Senate campaign so far has measured up to some of the classic statewide campaigns of the past.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 18, 2008 11:37:17 PM
And, Kari, you should certainly make it FAR more clear what YOUR involvement is with these campaigns! I assume you built the Novick web site? That's what I conclude from the following:
I don't usually write about my client work, but I'm so disappointed in my friends at the Novick campaign that I'm going to share it with you.
If that isn't the case, you need to step up your full disclosure big time.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 18, 2008 11:43:35 PM
Is Kari Chisholm really taking the bold action of criticizing his own client as he suggests?
I didn't see a Mandate Media link on the Novick web site... hmmm, must have forgotten that.
Oh, but, weird, I do see one on Merkley's web site...
So he built both sites? What's going on here? If he built Novick's, then bravo for criticizing. If he built both sites, then a 1/2 bravo for criticizing. If he only built the Merkley web site (from his comments, this doesn't seem to be the case), then he should not comment on this... to do so calls into question his objectivity.
Well, wait... I guess he isn't objective... but then that should be clearly and abundantly noted on Blue Oregon.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 11:44:54 PM
Wait, who is Carl and what did he say? Maybe I just need some sleep. Anyway, we can't delete our comments.
Also, I may be naive, but I don't think the commenters here are orchestrating anything.
Posted by: Katie | Jan 19, 2008 12:12:09 AM
I'm having a little trouble following how there can be a "fake" endorsement when there hasn't been an endorsement at all. But never mind that - what ARE the rules?
Is it unfair to try to secure an endorsement without giving your opponent a full open opportunity to make his/her case to the endorsing organization? Or is that just part of the politics?
Just wondering.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2008 12:19:05 AM
I apologize for the lack of follow-up this evening. I've been in Cannon Beach with family, and they had a fire last night at a fiber optics switching station. Both Qwest and Verizon have been down for nearly 24 hours - rendering Cannon Beach a telecom-free town all day today. (I had to drive out of town to post this at 5 p.m.)
Anyway...
At 5:32, Harry asks if I called Novick for comment. I did not. On another story a few weeks ago, which I did not publish, I was told that the Novick campaign wouldn't provide comment to me when I write for BlueOregon - because of my role as a consultant to the Merkley campaign. That's fair and quite understandable. Of course, the beauty of a blog is that Steve Novick himself is able to respond here instantly.
At 5:37, Pat Malach says that I am not a "fountain of objectivity." That's right. I'm not pretending to be a journalist. As I thought I made clear in the post, I'm quite clearly an active participant in this situation.
At 5:55, Jake Weigler responds. I'll leave his hyperbole alone, and simply respond to the facts. The meeting was moved to next month after Tim Carpenter, the PDA's executive director, was alerted - and he told me that the PDA requires a 30-day notice to all of its members. A 30-day notice that Liz Kimmerly didn't provide originally. The endorsement vote was moved purely and simply because the original vote as scheduled by Liz Kimmerly violated the PDA's rules.
At 5:57, Jake whines about me not calling for comment. Jake, don't you remember when you told me that the Novick campaign would not comment to me about stuff I write on BlueOregon? It was only, what, three weeks ago?
At 6:11, Chris Lowe asks about volunteers versus state coordinators. Chris, I think it's legit that their coordinators ARE volunteers. Tim definitely knew who she was - but didn't know that she had organized an endorsement meeting in a US Senate just 48 hours after forming the local chapter.
And yes, Chris (and TJ, above) it would certainly be bogus if I were put in charge of the PDA Portland chapter. That's not what I offered. (I'm too busy for that.) I simply told them that I'd be available, if they wanted my help, in publicizing the effort, etc. I don't want to be in charge. I've got a brand new baby, remember?
At 6:30, Pat Malach once again confuses my role with that of a journalist. I'm a participant here, not an objective observer. I'm posting over my own name, and you can judge what I write on its face. As for whether someone should be fired, that's up to Steve Novick. I do know this: This is the dirtiest thing I've ever seen from a Democratic campaign in Oregon. The Novick people and the Oregonian went nuts when the Merkley campaign did a few still-legal robocalls. This is 1000 times worse. Someone needs to be held accountable.
At 8:08, Katie B provides unintentional comedy and hilarity. Let me understand, Katie. It's not unethical because when I blew the whistle on it, the national folks yanked the chain on their local volunteer and made sure she wasn't doing any unethical. Can we call it an "attempted dirty trick"? I can live with that. (And stop calling me "Carl", please.)
At 9:23, Stephanie V implies that I've got some similar conflict of interest as Liz Kimmerly. Here's the difference: #1, BlueOregon isn't part of any national organization. #2, BlueOregon predates this campaign by years. #3, my conflicts are clearly stated. #4, BlueOregon is owned by Mandate Media, my company. #5, BlueOregon is just a blog.
At 11:37, Peter Bray is confused. I did not build the Novick campaign website. I do have friends at the Novick campaign. I continue to consider Steve and Jake good friends. Jake and I talk regularly (though not as often as before). I don't know how they feel about me today.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jan 19, 2008 12:32:51 AM
My take:
Bad: Liz Kimmerly trying to pull this fast one. Inexcusable. Period.
Worse: Jake Weigler chiming in here before all the facts are known and a communications strategy is in place to handle this.
Worser: The attempt by Jake and other pro-Novick partisans to shift blame by attacking Kari. Do they seriously think people are that stupid? That that would work?
Worst: The inescapable conclusion that Steve has simply not put together a remotely credible campaign organization. Massive tin ear, bunker mentality, shaky ethics, maladroit media management - this is the crew that's going to take on Gordo and the Republican attack machine?
If they are, say hello to six more years of Senator Smith.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 19, 2008 12:42:38 AM
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jan 19, 2008 12:32:51 AM
Steve, get outta my head.
Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 19, 2008 12:51:08 AM
Karl, Sorry for getting your name wrong. Stand by my other comments. Whole thing is nonsense. Turn the smoke generator up to full blast and hope other people will start yelling, "fire!" No better sign than that that it's the only card left in your hand.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 19, 2008 1:23:49 AM
Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 19, 2008 12:51:08 AM
Katie, the facts have been pretty clear here. If there's smoke blowing around and obfuscating the points for you, please indicate exactly how you're befuddled.
It's clear that:
a) Liz Kimmerly is the Novick campaign online director
b) Liz Kimmerly set up the PDA-Oregon chapter and
c) Proceeded to move the endorsement process within 48 hours of forming the group for this Saturday (giving the campaigns involved only 4 days' notice) and
d) Failed to contact or notify many of the 2300 members of the national PDA here in Oregon, which
e) Violated the rules of the national PDA endorsement process with require 30 days' notice and a written questionnaire. What's more,
f) Kimmerly should have known about these processes due to her 'long involvement' with the PDA, and would have followed them if her intentions were purely fair, but
g) Since she didn't, this is clearly an attempt to game the endorsement process of a large national organization for the perceived benefit of her employer, Steve Novick.
Is that lucid enough for you?
Two implications arise:
1. Steve Novick said early on that he intends to run an inspired primary campaign on the issues. Will he hold Kimmerly accountable for her attempted sabotage of the kind of race he wants to run?
2. Gordon Smith would make quick work out of the kind of campaign that acts in this manner. If Steve Novick doesn't hold Kimmerly accountable, how can we trust him to effectively challenge a two-term incumbent senator with a huge warchest and decades of successful campaigning?
Katie, let me know if that's not perfectly clear. I've got all night.
Posted by: JHL | Jan 19, 2008 1:56:58 AM
I guess the Novick campaign should have gotten their endorsement "Kate Brown Style" by calling the PDA first and not allowing any other candidates to be interviewed.
That way, the "newsworthy" event would have made it to Blue Oregon with a positive headline explaining how he "wins" a "big national endorsement."
Because, apparently, the correct way to land an endorsement is to contact an organization and have them endorse you without even contacting your opponents.
Posted by: Jack Murray | Jan 19, 2008 2:08:42 AM
Posted by: JHL | Jan 19, 2008 1:56:58 AM
For starters, no one on Kate Brown's two (maybe three?) person campaign staff is a member of the 21st Century Democrats, much less the organizer of the local chapter of that group. The opposite is true for the Steve Novick campaign vis-a-vis online director Liz Kimmerly.
Furthermore, there's no wrongdoing on the part of the Kate Brown campaign in the instance you mention. They applied for endorsement, and the 21st Century Democrats were willing to make that endorsement based on their existing policies and protocol concerning primary endorsements.
The PDA has very explicit policies regarding endorsements that set it apart from the 21st C. Dems. For one, they require 30 days notice to all members of the chapter, who all get to vote. Secondly, there has to be a written questionnaire sent out to the candidates in the field. Both of those items are the responsibility of the local chapter--and Oregon's local coordinator, Liz Kimmerly (Novick's online director), followed neither item of process/protocol.
The fact that she's a paid staffer for Novick only exacerbates the fact that she held little regard for the endorsement process--especially in the embryonic stages of an Oregon chapter of PDA.
Posted by: Erik Sorensen | Jan 19, 2008 3:14:23 AM
Sad. That is all I can say. On second thought, I will say a little more. Hearing this will definately make me look a little more suspicious on anything further coming from Novick's campaign.
Along the lines of what Jack Murray mentioned, any word if Kimmerly is going to continue with Novick? I suspect if he knew nothing of it that it would be good to cut her loose to save a little ounce of credibility, and maybe dignity at that.
Funny Lars Larson didn't mention anything of this when Steve was on his show yesterday. I think Lars is starting to slip more and more on these things. Whiskey and cigars will do it everytime.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 19, 2008 6:25:27 AM
Peter, Merkley is Kari's client, that's pretty well-known, and Kari was shorthanding the reference. Also, Carla hasn't been an LO editor for a long time. And Katie, check out Kari's name one more time.
And, jeez, since when can an insider not blog about stuff? Kari had information, he shared it. He tells us all the time who his clients are, so we can make our own decisions about whether to believe him. But to insist he withhold information when it could harm any of his many clients' opponents would make this one sucky source for Oregon political info.
Posted by: Phil Philiben | Jan 19, 2008 8:40:51 AM
Oh Boy! In't it great bein a Democrat!
Posted by: paulie | Jan 19, 2008 8:44:30 AM
What a sad situation. Leave it to a woman to use a sports metaphor, so here goes. A team is only as good as it's coach. In this situation I expect a team meeting held by Coach Novick and Coach Merkley in seperate locker rooms reviewing campaign ethics yet again, (good sportsmanship) before they hit the field to play. As coaches they are the stewards of fair play.
Posted by: carla | Jan 19, 2008 8:50:51 AM
I think suredly there was no doubt in Carla's mind that she'd separate, not least the conflict with the blog's endorsement--but primarily on the basis that you just can't run a private blog and be a candidate's online messenger.
Indeed. You can't. Nor should a paid staff of a campaign be shoving through a shotgun endorsement as the volunteer state coordinator for an organization. If it's an unethical conflict to run a private blog, then surely it's a more unethical conflict to do what Liz Kimmerly has done.
I feel comfortable saying that had I been caught setting up the state chapter of an organization and gone around the organizations rules to set up an endorsment process that my boss is participating in--my ass would be on the curb.
In other words, I'd be fired and the the local press would pillory me. And they'd be right to do it. Not to mention the fact that I'd probably be nuclear in Oregon politics afterward.
The campaigns shut you up. Carla had a looser leash for a couple of weeks it seemed, but that stopped pretty quickly. I know for a fact that Novick's requirement was almost total online silence that isn't on message. It's understood.
Actually, most of the shutting up has been my doing, not the campaign's. I felt it was inappropriate for me to comment most of the time because of my paid position.
I'm also reasonably intelligent--and I have an obligation to Jeff Merkley to represent him and the campaign appropriately. That's why I would be fired if I'd done something like what has been described here.
Neither of us really needed to bring it up, it was understood. But I certainly would have asked and then demanded, were it someone less gracious and forthright than Carla.
Exactly. You would have demanded that I act appropriately and ethically. And you'd have been right to do it.
I look forward to seeing you carry that standard in this case as well.
Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 19, 2008 9:22:10 AM
"I'm not pretending to be a journalist. As I thought I made clear in the post, I'm quite clearly an active participant in this situation."
Don't flatter yourself Kari, I NEVER would confuse you with journalist.
I'm just saying it looks pretty smelly when BlueOregon's publisher, the only person in this primary to earn a Rogue of the Week for his attacks in this primary and whose company makes money from Jeff Merkley's campaign, is the only person covering this for BlueOregon.
So much for that credibility thing.
Seems Moses Ross, democratic consultant who DOESN'T WORK FOR ANY CAMPAIGN, didn't think there were any dirty tricks here. Did you Call anyone for the other side for the story?
No, because you wanted a scandal, not the truth.
In fact, the entire, "Wow I hate to do this" intro was some great acting. You deserve an academy award. 'Cause there sure ain't gonna be any awards for fairness coming your way.
Posted by: paulie | Jan 19, 2008 9:38:02 AM
Pat Malach
Please stay on point. The Eugene Register Guard and the Oregonian published the story yesterday. My concern is the shame brought to our political party.
Posted by: Kristin | Jan 19, 2008 9:56:01 AM
Liz Kimmerly -- (I'm sure you're reading this), one of the best lessons from the Clinton (Bill) machine is that they responded immediately when put on the defensive.
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?
Posted by: typical | Jan 19, 2008 9:56:06 AM
Typical of the Novick supporters. Merkley's involvement in this is what? Novick's folks commit an error that you are more likley to see a 20 something first time campaign manager for a state House race commit. Then, rather than his backers (who have done nothing but question--tacitly and implicitly--the progressive credibilities of Merkley, saying oops, we messed up, they instead act like a four year old who blames a sibling. And there seems to be many a commenter here who have taken pots shots at the Speaker who are saying this is a "sad situation" and implying that this somehow reflects poorly on the Merkley campaign as much as it does the Novick campaign. See Phil's comment about it being great to be a Democrat. It is great to be a Democrat! We have a wonderful pair of candidates. One messed up, and he and his campaign need to address their credibility. Then he can get on to focusing on those progressive ideals that make this a great race. Merkley? Keep up the hard work. Keep raising money. Keep staying above the fray. Keep wracking up the legit endorsements...AFL, AFT, AFSCME.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 19, 2008 9:58:50 AM
Paulie,
Please pay attention
From Steves' report:
Democratic consultant Moses Ross, who was asked to take that duty over, said he’d been concerned that Kimmerly was trying to rush the endorsement process. But he added that he didn’t think the Novick staffer was trying to rig the process to benefit her boss—even though that could have been the effect. “I don’t sense there were any dirty tricks involved - just enthusiastic activists,” said Ross, who is not involved with the campaigns of any of the Democrats running for the Senate seat held by Republican Gordon Smith.
Just one of the things kari would have learned had he actually investigated this incident with the intent of discovering the truth rather than flaming a scandal.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 19, 2008 10:10:54 AM
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 18, 2008 11:43:35 PMIf he only built the Merkley web site (from his comments, this doesn't seem to be the case), then he should not comment on this... to do so calls into question his objectivity.
That would be analogous to, if Novick drove a Ford Taurus, Bill Ford (executive chairman of Ford Motor Company) not being able to comment on anything Novick does because his company built the vehicle. Let's be blunt here, that's what a web site is - a vehicle. Nothing more and nothing less. The website builder isn't responsible for content any more than Bill Ford is responsible for what drivers of his cars say.
Posted by: Bernard | Jan 19, 2008 10:39:02 AM
Posted by: Katie | Jan 19, 2008 12:12:09 AMI'm having a little trouble following how there can be a "fake" endorsement when there hasn't been an endorsement at all.
It's like, if you aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger and you miss, that's not murder. But it sure as hell might be attempted murder. Still a crime.
Posted by: James X. | Jan 19, 2008 11:03:15 AM
Pat, I may not be getting it, are you saying that Kari should include opinions of third parties in his blog posts?
Posted by: James X. | Jan 19, 2008 11:07:03 AM
Ooh, ooh! Analogies! But where are the Star Wars ones?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2008 11:11:36 AM
At 9:22 this morning, Pat Malach complains that I'm "the only person covering this for BlueOregon." First, I'm not the only, I'm the first. And second, as I think I've said over and over now, I'm not "covering" it. I'm describing MY ROLE in what happened. I am an active participant here. I called the PDA. I told them what Kimmerly was up to. I blew the whistle. Me. Active participant. Not disinterested observer. Not journalist. Not "covering" it. Participating. Telling you what I'm up to. Got it? (And as always, feel free to evaluate what I have to say. I don't have some monopoly on the omniscient truth. Just what I saw and heard and know.)
At 9:58, Pat hangs his hat on a throwaway quote from Moses Ross. Look, Moses is entitled to his opinion. That's fine. He's trying to make peace, and he's trying to salvage the reputation of the local PDA chapter. Personally, I think the smart move for the PDA is to make clear that Liz Kimmerly wasn't acting on their behalf - and to jettison her immediately. But that's up to them. As for the "facts"... The basics aren't disputed here. Moses has an opinion about Kimmerly's intent. I disagree. But he doesn't dispute what happened.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 19, 2008 11:30:29 AM
Pat Malach, Moses Ross was brought in after the impropriety of what Liz was doing was brought to light. So your strange assertions that Kari is being remiss to "investigate" the situation is absurd and changes nothing about the facts of what Liz did, and what Kari is reporting here.
Kari is not however the issue or the story here, as much as you would like to make it. Aside from the (at best and most charitable interpretation) dumb and improper thing Liz did, the larger issue this incident exposes which I and others have touched on up-thread, is the questions it raises about Novick's skill-set at building a team, know how to lead it, his skill at spotting the red flags as they pop-up, and how to work within a team (while being responsible for it and leading it) to be effective not just as a candidate, but where he to hold office, being responsible and effective as an elected official, particularly at this level (United States Senate). While the candidate/elected official are the leader and are ultimately responsible, they are actually just the most visible and central member of a team if they want to be effective at all. No matter how smart or intelligent they are, at this level it is impossible to be effective and responsible as a one-man team.
Posted by: Harry Wilson | Jan 19, 2008 11:47:26 AM
Unrelated clarification: The Harry posting earlier on this thread is not Harry Wilson. Harry Wilson is me, the guy that works for Kroger, enjoys midnight touch football, has a passion for Fresca and cupcakes, and who cannot do a handstand. I, Harry Wilson, plan to stay out of posting on debates about candidates in the Democratic primaries, but if I do post, I will always identify myself by including my last name.
Posted by: Katie | Jan 19, 2008 11:49:25 AM
Bernard - Thanks for replying.
What about the second part of my question?
Is it OK for campaigns to try to gain a procedural advantage when seeking organizational endorsements, or are they ethically obliged to make sure the other guy gets an equal opportunity at it?
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Jan 19, 2008 11:52:10 AM
All I have to say is, someone's going to be nominated to run against Gordon Smith, and then we all have to be ready to shake hands and go to the mat for that one.
It might help if we didn't slice up the candidates and each other like Thanksgiving turkeys ahead of that moment.
Posted by: Moses Ross | Jan 19, 2008 11:53:13 AM
Kari, you are correct. The facts are what they are. I do not dispute what happened. However, I don't know what her full intentions were. It was not completely shared with me. One can make their own assumptions based on her actions.
I do know that I was approched by her to facilitate the endorsement process section of the meeting. I was not involved in the actual chapter organization details.
I warned Liz of legitimacy problems due to the shortened time periods but was assured that she was in contact with national PDA folks and that they knew of the situation. I never spoke personally to anyone at PDA national.
All I do know is this. If I am involved in this local chapter being organized and in this local chapter's endorsement process, I will make it as fair and transparent of a process as possible, in regulation with the national PDA charter, to assure legitimacy.
Lets keep in mind that the Progressive Democrats of America is an excellent national organization, with some high caliber progressives in their leadership. They do great work in supporting the grassroots via education and activism. So starting the state chapter is a good thing. However, for this to work, given what has happened, we need to make sure that the organizational process and the endorsment process is legitimate and not tainted due to some over-enthusiatic campaign activists.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 19, 2008 12:00:09 PM
Admiral Naismith makes a good observation. But the ethics of this are such that given how much weeping and gnashing of teeth the Left has vented at the shenanigans of the Right, we can hardly keep quiet about shenanigans by the Left and be surprised when Centrists and Righties call us hypocrites.
That said... does anyone honestly believe that if nobody had said anything and Liz had gone ahead with the sham endorsement... that the Smith campaign a) wouldn't have figured it out and/or b) wouldn't have used that silence to bludgeon the Democratic candidate (even if it's Merkley) in the general election as being ethically challenged, if for no other reason than for his silence? If you do then I'm here to suggest that you pull your head out of your posterior and begin dealing with the real world.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 19, 2008 12:12:19 PM
Thank you, Moses, for playing a responsible role here.
Katie asked, Is it OK for campaigns to try to gain a procedural advantage when seeking organizational endorsements, or are they ethically obliged to make sure the other guy gets an equal opportunity at it?
Working hard and fighting hard for an endorsement is to be expected. For example, it's reasonable for both campaigns to campaign hard for the support of local OEA members in the OEA endorsement process that's underway right now.
What's not OK is breaking the rules. Liz Kimmerly broke the explicit endorsement rules of the Progressive Democrats of America. That's not at dispute here. Beyond that, there's an ethical question as to whether it's appropriate for a campaign staffer to play any role (even just setting the meeting date) in an endorsement in that campaign.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 19, 2008 12:22:43 PM
Posted by: Moses Ross | Jan 19, 2008 11:53:13 AM
Thanks for posting here to give more information on this Moses (Mitch Gore here). Do you know of what steps were taken to actually notify the PDA membership in Oregon about the rushed endorsement meeting beyond Liz posting it on the Novick campaign site?
When were you asked by Liz to facilitate the endorsement process section of the meeting?
When were you made aware of the problems of timing and when did you express your concerns to her about it?
When/where were you aware that she is a high-level paid staffer in the campaign for Novick?
I realize you are now in a situation filled with a few land-mines because of what Liz has done here, but I hope you can fill in the answers to some of these questions.
Posted by: bdunn | Jan 19, 2008 12:28:13 PM
Posted by: Moses Ross | Jan 19, 2008 11:53:13 AM
I warned Liz of legitimacy problems due to the shortened time periods but was assured that she was in contact with national PDA folks and that they knew of the situation. I never spoke personally to anyone at PDA national.
Moses, you don't consider someone lying to you about getting the national organization to sign off in order to pacify your fears of bias in the endorsement process proof of unethical intent?
Posted by: Ben DuPree | Jan 19, 2008 12:32:07 PM
What a mess... I hope all outstanding questions get answered, as this is just strange and mystifying.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | Jan 19, 2008 12:51:12 PM
Phil Philiben, best comment on the thread.
Kari, Peter B's confusion results from a very confusing disclosure. You are normally very good with those, but this one was very bad. Read it again.
None of this, on any side, is "Rovian." Rove put a former governor in federal prison. Rove reshaped the Justice Department to serve his politics. Some perspective here, please.
Isn't it a campaign's job to assess the value of an endorsement before pursuing it? I'll admit this smells fishy, but anything beyond that is hyperbole -- and very damaging hyperbole, at that. All this head on a stick stuff. Geez.
Posted by: Miles | Jan 19, 2008 1:08:18 PM
I do know this: This is the dirtiest thing I've ever seen from a Democratic campaign in Oregon.
If hyperbole were a measure 11 crime, Kari, you'd be going away for at least 5 years.
the larger issue this incident exposes which I and others have touched on up-thread, is the questions it raises about Novick's . . . [ability to be] responsible and effective as an elected official, particularly at this level (United States Senate).
Wow, Lestat. I'm not sure you went far enough. I think this particular incident -- an overzealous campaign staffer engaging in pedestrian antics -- actually demonstrates Novick's dismal existence as a human being and his possible role as the antichrist in the coming apocalypse.
Posted by: Ben DuPree | Jan 19, 2008 1:11:22 PM
Hyperbole? Really? I think the story speaks plainly enough for itself for hyperbole to be mostly off the table...
Posted by: Katie | Jan 19, 2008 1:13:36 PM
Thanks for replying, Kari. Actually, as I understand it, Liz Kimmerly almost broke the PDA endorsement rules, but Moses Ross is going to be sure they are followed to the letter. Any chance it was an honest mistake? Liz wouldn't be the only person who ever failed to "read the directions on the package" first.
But I guess your main point is that it is unethical for a campaign staffer to have any role in an endorsing organization? I'm trying to understand the rules here.
Posted by: LT | Jan 19, 2008 1:26:54 PM
Excuse me, but this is not "slicing up candidates". This is the sort of accountability that I think Speaker Hastert wished the House GOP had done when the election results came in on that Nov. night in 2006 and he realized that in 2007 he would no longer be known as Speaker Hastert, just a member of the minority.
I liked this:
the ethics of this are such that given how much weeping and gnashing of teeth the Left has vented at the shenanigans of the Right, we can hardly keep quiet about shenanigans by the Left and be surprised when Centrists and Righties call us hypocrites
I have just written to a political friend that we have primaries partly to see how candidates deal with challenges.
To take this back to a wider level, this is a great time to think about campaign philosophy in general. A party with the attitude "our guy is best, and thus allowed to do anything to win" should be considered a to have a "Rovian" attitude, as many people here don't remember Oregon's version of Rove--a Democrat named Dave Dix prior to his great loss in 1990.
The Republican party is coming apart right now into factions, with old timers saying they don't recognize the party any more. There is evidence of that in a wonderful book I just checked out from the New Books shelf at our public library:
Victor Gold, "Invasion of the Party Snatchers".
Gold speaks of his glee on election night 1994 when the Democrats lost their congressional majority, and equal glee when the Republicans (who had turned into every bad adjective he'd used for Democrats) lost in 2006. He'd been a Republican activist since his days working for Barry Goldwater, but despaired the 21st century GOP had lost the moral core they had with Goldwater.
In the book, Barry Goldwater has campaign advice that all the 2008 candidates would do well to heed:
"Politics is like bullfighting. Getting gored is a risk you take".
I agree with Steve Mauer and Jack Murray. Does that mean I have a Merkley bumper sticker on my car or have otherwise declared myself? I am a declared undecided voter and may well decide on other primaries before I decide on this one.
Those of you who don't think Kari's chronlogy is fact owe it to us to explain where he is wrong. Lord knows the number of times I have hotly disagreed with Kary, but I especially appreciated this:
At 9:23, Stephanie V implies that I've got some similar conflict of interest as Liz Kimmerly. Here's the difference: #1, BlueOregon isn't part of any national organization. #2, BlueOregon predates this campaign by years. #3, my conflicts are clearly stated. #4, BlueOregon is owned by Mandate Media, my company. #5, BlueOregon is just a blog.
Listen folks, I have lived through nasty campaigns where my candidate who was also my friend before and after the campaign was subject to world class attacks. If those were of the "swift boat" variety, what has gone on here is barely a raft or a canoe.
I see at the top of the Novick website that there is a debate scheduled Jan. 22--E. Oregonian.
Are there more than a handful of comments on this blog from people who don't live in the Portland metropolitan area? Paulie lives in Jackson county, I live in Marion county, who else is there? For those of you who are partisans for a candidate, I would suggest you work with your campaign and with folks outside the Portland area to come up with a straight answer if someone asks about the campaign's role in this episode.
But if the goal is to win votes and thus win the primary, the odds are that out in E. Oregon, the PDA is not a major factor in local politics the way it might be in Portland. The issue of how this episode was handled might be a topic of discussion, but the economy, health care, Iraq, and many other issues may be more important there.
One reason Gordon Smith won in 1996 is that he was "faster on his feet" (more able to deal with opportunity and the unexpected) than Bruggere, and his manner won over ordinary folks.
There are undecided voters who use episodes like this to decide on the basis of which candidate they think has the strongest moral backbone.
All you Novick folks, you may think Steve Novick is the best US Senate candidate of the last several decades. But if an undecided voter reads about this and says to a friend "If Novick doesn't fire that woman, he has all the moral backbone of a wet noodle", there is nothing you will be able to do about that--and like other private conversations, you will have no idea if/how often something like that happens.
So don't take the risk of blog comments which might strike some people as whining. Have heart to heart talks with Steve on what you personally believe he should do about this situation--that would be more useful.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 19, 2008 1:27:24 PM
As Jake pointed out earlier, Kari, who claimed in another thread that his role in this incident was to "investigate," failed to contact one of the involved campaign's to give them a chance to tell their side of the story -- as common courtesy (not to mention an actual quest for the truth) would dictate.
Kari's "investigation" amounted to presenting his client's version of events to the DPA and then recording the response here at BlueOregon.
So call me a cynic if his crocodile tears about being disappointed in his friends at the Novick campaign rings a little hollow. If he really felt that way, a phone call was in order to ask for their side of what was going on?
Actions speak louder than words. His failure to extend the common courtesy for the Novick campaign to have a chance to defend themselves reveals Kari's motives in this "investigation" on behalf of his client. because it's an "investigation" that would make Alberto Gonzales blush.
Posted by: Navel Gazers, Unite! | Jan 19, 2008 1:47:08 PM
I think there's still a little bit more lint buried in this belly button. Keep digging, Progs.
I'm sure this is one of those issues that primary voters really care about. Really. A lot.
Posted by: Katie | Jan 19, 2008 1:56:46 PM
I have been trying to figure out what all the commotion is about here. Apparently Liz Kimmerly should have read the PDA endorsement rules before scheduling a meeting. She didn't, so now someone else (who has read the rules) is going to schedule and run the meetings. Did I miss something?
There's been no "fake" endorsement and no one can point me to any clear ethical rules about participating in multiple organizations.
If you all think this dialogue is advancing the cause of good government and the Democratic Party, please continue on. I'm going to call it a "Tempest in a Teapot," put the lid on it, and go to the movies.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Posted by: Nitin Rai | Jan 19, 2008 1:59:54 PM
I am a late comer to this news..wow! If I were Steve Novick I would be cleaning house. This is not a good sign and validates my comments on another thread about Steve Novick's first ad was "slick" and I still wonder "where's the beef?".
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 19, 2008 2:13:16 PM
Let's imagine that a paid campaign staff member of a campaign inserted themselves as the chair of Washington County Democratic Party without disclosing that they were a campaign partisan. Gained access to the statewide party membership list, had sole control over that list, then "announces" an organizational meeting (the first) of the country party which nobody has yet to have actually seen, brings in another Democratic volunteer and tells them that the DNC is all onboard with having an endorsement meeting even though the process and timing of the meeting violates the DNC rules and guidelines, even though we have from the DNC that no such approval to break the rules occurs, is questioned about the timing by the volunteer she brought if she has made sure that the process and timing are legit and reminds them that they need to make sure each and every candidate is properly invited, then this person invites their main rivals campaign, to this endorsement meeting that who knows who has actually been invited to, and at this meeting they are to decide who the DPO (which has yet to even been formed) is going to give its endorsement for the U.S. Senate race.
How would Multnomah County Democrats feel about that? How would Marion County Democrats feel about it? How would any Democrat who was not privy to/ad or was not able this sudden organizing/endorsement meeting feel about the legitimacy of the endorsement or the process?
And that analogy is with using parties who have verifiable membership and established by-laws, etc. which the organ
Posted by: Missy | Jan 18, 2008 5:27:47 PM
Steve needs to protect his brand better than that. If he's a different sort of politician, he can't employ a standard, dirty-trick campaign.
Did anybody see The Daily Show this week with the guy who went to jail for jamming Democratic Party GOTV phones in New Hampshire on election day? He was arguing that everybody does these sorts of dirty tricks. I thought to myself that, no, it is just Republicans who do this stuff. Apparently, I was wrong.
This stinks.