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 |
Sponsored Advertising
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.
Post a comment
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.