A Teachable Moment

Kevin Kamberg

According to a piece yesterday in Willamette Week, a paid Merkley staffer was caught trying to finagle his way into the Novick campaign by posing as a college student who wanted to help the Novick campaign raise money. But sharp-eyed Novick staffers recognized him and his unethical plan was foiled.

Rather than attempt to shirk responsibility or ignore it altogether, the Merkley campaign forthrightly aknowleged it and accepted responsibility.

Merkley campaign spokesman Matt Canter confirmed Ingraham misrepresented his identity when he went to Novick's headquarters. He said Ingraham took the action on his own initiative and has apologized to Merkley and to the Novick campaign.


"His behavior is unethical and he's apologized,'' Canter says, adding that Ingraham has been reprimanded and told he would be dismissed if it happened again

Not every campaign handles this kind of ethical malfeasance in such a straightforward, honest manner.

Take the Smith campaign for example. When NRSC tracker Tim Lussier was caught in his own tracking scandal, Smith spokesman RC Hammond blamed the Democrats:

Asked about his tactics, Smith spokesman RC Hammond said the Republican experience with trackers came from watching the Democrats.

Gordon Smith: master of obfuscation. It says a lot about Smith's character (not to mention the character of RC Hammond) to not take responsibility for an ethical lapse done on his behalf.

The measure of an individual or his/her political campaign isn't in how close they get to perfection, since to be human is to err. Rather the measure of an individual is in how that person deals with adversity... with their own failings or the failings of those employed on their behalf.

It speaks volumes about Jeff Merkley and his campaign that the staffer was reprimanded and dealt with immediately. They didn't hide from it. They didn't ignore it. They didn't point fingers at their opponents and project fault. They owned it.

These unexpected occurences give us a glimpse into the character of the candidates vying for our votes. From dogcatcher to President, pay attention to how a campaign handles adversity. It will teach you practically everything you need to know.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Aside from thus being yet ANOTHER Merkley-themed piece despite assurances Kamberg would find other things to talk about, this is laughable. Forgetting for a moment that it's absolutely ludicrous to laud a campaign who has been caught in an ethical breach according to its own standards and that of the state party, Kecin himself said that Merkley's manager told him violators of the ethics agreement would be fired. The campaign has said explicitly it was a violation, yet are not firing anyone.

    Why is Kamberg praising Merkley's campaign for outright lying to him?

  • (Show?)

    Outright lying? How about seeing it from a different perspective once it's one of your college age kids who ends up doing it?

    Hey, I'm all for showing sympathy to Republican kids as Americans. I said that at the time. My knock against Mr. Issacs (Jeff's campaign manager) is probably that he was a touch too harsh in his original response against that GOP kid. (I believe this, not withstanding the fact that the GOP started immediately lying, spinning, trying to shift blame, and all the other crap they typically pull when they got caught.)

    But if a campaign is going to make a mistake, I'd rather it be on the side of being too forgiving than too harsh. I think forgiveness is a liberal hallmark - but please, haters on the angry-left, feel free to disagree.

    Oh, and while we're on the subject, torrid. Please tell me who Steve Novick fired for blatantly trying to rig an endorsement from the PDA... Did he even issue a mea culpa?

    Ethically challenged candidates shouldn't throw stones.

  • (Show?)

    "who Steve Novick fired for blatantly trying to rig an endorsement from the PDA... Did he even issue a mea culpa?"

    You know as well as I do that this is a false allegation without any evidence, made up by Kari Chisholm, and negated by the PDA's reference to Chisholm's efforts as a "swiftboating" of Novick, so I don't see your point.

    But of course, even if you'd like to believe it's true, the Novick campaign never said they'd fire someone who tried to get an endorsement from PDA like you say they did. On the other hand, the Merkley camp DID say they'd fire anyone who violated their ethics agreement. They didn't say anything about the GOP kid; they talked about the standards in THEIR campaign.

    And now they're not firing anyone. What other explanation do you suggest Isaacs give Kamberg for telling him it was a firing offense, and then not firing the offender?

  • "Cole" (unverified)
    (Show?)

    His fake name "Cole Stewart" was great. It is quite the name because he has an identical twin brother whose name is Cole. Stewart probably comes from Jon Stewart. Thus we have Cole Stewart. I decided on Merkley after I saw Novick's comments on Obama, but this kind of stupid stuff has plagued Merkley's campaign. They better get their act together. He should have been fired.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What did the staffer actually do? Politicker OR says he requested a bumper sticker and remit form, while WW provides a more vague "wanted to help Novick raise money." Also, the Politicker piece says he violated a signed code of conduct. But the articles make it look like he's been given a free pass.

  • joeldanwalls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Another piece of courageous investigative journalism from Willamette Week, underwritten by the phone-sex advertisements.

  • (Show?)

    torridjoe: You know as well as I do that this is a false allegation without any evidence, made up by Kari Chisholm

    Nuh huh. OK, Mark. Yes, yes, it's all a big conspiracy. Evidence you don't like won't exist if everyone claps loud enough and just believes. That will bring the magic ponies to make it go away. Kari is the antichrist. The anti-Unitarian as well.

    There! I admitted it. KARI IS THE ANTI-UNITARIAN! Watch out, PDA members! He's going to poison your soy-milk lattes to turn you all into DLC Clintonites, just you see!!

  • (Show?)

    "Nuh huh. OK, Mark. Yes, yes, it's all a big conspiracy. Evidence you don't like won't exist if everyone claps loud enough and just believes. That will bring the magic ponies to make it go away. Kari is the antichrist. The anti-Unitarian as well."

    I don't know what all this means, but I do know that documentation exists showing the allegations were proven false and Kari was reprimanded for attacking Novick unfairly. No conspiracy, just no story.

  • R. Mexico (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise."

    I recall a while back when the Colombia mishap took place, many expressed concern regarding the Merkley campaign's utter lack of attention to detail and an understanding of what it takes to run a campaign. Namely thinking three steps ahead.

    Seemingly, the "foot in mouth" examples dont seem to be coming fast enough. (for the purposes of this post, I will focus on the specific flaws in this particular argument)

    Mind you, Russ Kelley is no longer the spokesperson, which is an interesting ploy in the middle of a race....yet the stumbles continue.

    Bold, ridiculous remarks, suggesting and implying a "higher than thou" attitude has clearly come back to show exactly how clearly overmatched and underprepared this campaign truly is.

    Criticize Mr. Hammond, if you will, but at the end of the day, you can also say he was correct. Apparently the tactics WERE learned from Democrats.

    Now someone needs to tell RC to stop taking lessons from Dems. And maybe Kevin needs to look at the quotes from his own candidate in order to see the hypocrisy in this post. (Dont worry Kev, I posted them below).

    How a Campaign Manager doesnt call an all-staff meeting and make it clear that because of his Comm Director's (sorry, former) bold remmarks, under no circumstances are people to misrepresent themselves is another clear sign that Merkley is not ready for the big leagues. I think the Mayor's race is still ongoing though, Mr. Speaker.

    But instead, you praise the Merkley campaign's "forgiveness."

    "It speaks volumes about Jeff Merkley and his campaign that the staffer was reprimanded and dealt with immediately. They didn't hide from it. They didn't ignore it."

    Really, honestly....are you really writing this Kevin? They threw him under the bus....said he acted alone (right...just like these posts aren't dictated by Merkley staff).

    "He said Ingraham took the action on his own initiative and has apologized to Merkley and to the Novick campaign." NEW (and maybe not so improved) Merkley Spokesperson, Matt Canter.

    I wonder if RC has time to maybe teach a class or two on Communications for Matt and Russ....clearly, he isnt going to need to develop any sort of talking points, the way your boy is going.

    You realize this is big boy politics, and when the photos of the two Smith boys (Abercrombie and Stitch, as I like to call them) were posted, you were the first to state that this is what comes with the territory. But your boy gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and its all about "second chances."

    This is why Novick is a better candidate...he doesnt double talk, he doesnt feel the need to "soften" his comments...Merkleites are screaming from the rooftops for him to change his comments on Obama, but he stands up. He doesnt say "well what I meant and what I voted were two different things....or I kind of sort of support No Child Left Behind....wait, I dont....and come on, who doesnt mispell Colombia...we would never lie to get access to another campaign...we are about honesty).

    The PDA issue comes, and Novick doesnt bite...he doesnt budge. Merkley has bent and cajoled more than a girl at the Bunny Ranch the last few months, yet you want to call Smith the flip flopper?

    At the end of the day, its no surprise Novick or Smith havent felt the need to react to you and Kari's bait....you are doing a fine job burying Merkley yourself.

    By NOT cutting this kid loose, all that it shows is that Merkley is willing to go back on his word, and doesnt have the ability to make hard decision....(hmmm, Iraq vote?)

    Novick did not cut loose Liz Kimmerly, because he believes in her....and not once did he throw her under the bus (as your boy did with this "student" today).

    I would be willing to bet good money Lussier was fired, or at worst, relieved of his duties and reasigned....though im sure you didnt do the research to find out if that was the case before your "heartwarming" post.

    As Marlo says on The Wire: My Name is My Name!

    Nice to know Merkley values his reputation....im sure if he wins the Dem nomination that the Smith camp wont use all this flip flopping against him....but keep it up Kevin...its great fodder and im sure it helps your clip collection...DailyKos will surely come calling soon!

    <hr/>

    "But there’s an honest way to do it, and there’s a dishonest way to do it. You find out where they are through public notices and things like that. You don’t call and misrepresent yourself,” --Merkley spokesman Russ Kelley

    "Asked if the Democratic Party of Oregon is encouraging its spy to mislead in order to gain entry to Smith events, Seigel responded: “Absolutely not. The rules are very clear. Always be honest about who you are.” Marc Seigel, DPO

  • (Show?)

    funny you mention Kos--at the same time the WWeek story was breaking, bdunn and kevin and the rest of Jeff's Blogger Mafia were there trying to get Obamaniac Kossacks to bite on Steve's comments. They couldn't even make it to the end of the day before their own team interrupted the news cycle with another campaign fuckup. Not exactly "three moves ahead. "

  • (Show?)

    Certainly a teachable moment for the many ex-Reed students who are working in local politics.

    I can't even figure out what Hayes could possibly have wanted. Dirty tricks between the Merkley and Novick campaigns? These are both pretty squeaky clean candidates.

    Dead silence over at witigonen. I've been warning them that being solely an echo chamber isn't very effective, and can come back to bite you. Time to step up to the plate, boys, and enjoy the crow.

    At thes same time, the older hands here can reflect a bit upon the blog vitriol, and what signals it is sending to our new generation of political workers. I guess the new politics in Oregon is anything goes in intraparty warfare.

  • (Show?)

    torridjoe: [D]ocumentation exists showing the allegations were proven false

    Only in your head, Mark. Only in your head.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, the Oregon chapter is the only state group in the entire PDA that has to have an endorsement committee of 5 people heading it (2 for Novick, 2 for Merkley, 1 uncommitted) to make sure these kinds of corrupt shenanigans don't happen again. Our state - supposedly the cleanest in the nation.

    Pretty damned embarrassing.

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good to see this kind of rapid-response by the Merkley campaign to freelance wrongdoing by one of their interns.

    I'm glad that Jeff Merkley has built the kind of campaign that will own up to this kind of stuff in a professional and honest way. We need more responsive and accountable leaders like Jeff in the U.S. Senate.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My comment from the "In the News" post detailing this WW story:

    "Isn't this the point where Preemptive Kevin chimes in to tell us all how this episode actually proves Merkley is the best candidate, and then tries to link Novick to COMMUNISM?

    Thanks, Kevin, for being so predictable.

  • (Show?)

    Much has been said by pundits and armchair QBs about the ethical choices facing political candidates at all levels. Barack Obama's own choices have been criticized six ways to Sunday, as the old saying goes.

    In the case of Obama we have seen him fire and we've seen him distance without disowning.

    Personally, I admire his integrity and unwillingness to cede the difficult choices to critics or focus groups. I see Jeff Merkley in exactly the same light.

  • R. Mexico (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting....your column and your comment seem to be saying two different things. So is your comment saying what you meant in the column...or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?

    So when the two elected officials decided to go to bat for Merkley in an effort to "stop the GOP talking points" from the Novick camp, that was Merkley choosing not to cede to others? Even when he was given the opportunity to read the document before it was posted on BO?

    If he wanted it to stop, why didnt he do/say it himself? Better yet, why not have his spokesperson say something? There are a number of examples, on all sides.

    My point is that politics is a game of strategic moves...but to write that your candidate isnt playing the game and he is straight up, just isnt true, and the evidence shows that.

    Its not that Merkley isnt playing the game...its that he is playing it terribly.

    PS- You, by nature are no more an armchair QB than anyone on this thread. Afterall, you are the one that made the decision to post this column.

  • petrichor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    and so continues the long, slow, sad descent of blue oregon...

  • (Show?)

    TJ: You know, I didn't really want to speak out too much about the PDA incident. In all honesty, it was unethical. Completely and utterly unethical to be hosting an endorsement event for PDA while you're working for one of the candidates up for that endorsement. I was totally surprised that no steps were taken in regards to that ethical breach. While I'm not happy at what this Merkley staffer did, at least the Merkley Campaign isn't trying to hide from it.

  • local mom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Did anyone catch the irony in Henry Kraemer being one of the Novick staffers who "caught" Hayes Ingraham? I thought that was hysterical. And "caught" him doing what? Taking a free bumper sticker? Come on - let this one go. They're both young and will, I'm sure, improve with age - like all of the bloggers above!

  • Oats (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm starting to wonder if Kevin works for Novick.

    Maybe this is a reverse psychology mindtrip.

  • Randle McMurphy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kevin,

    I can't believe you compared Obama's remarks on race, perhaps the most soul-searching political speech in modern American history, with Merkley's response to a rogue Reedie who recently requested bumper stickers from the Novick office.

    Although I am leaning towards Merkley, it is obvious to me (even if not Kari) that you are a detriment to Merkley's campaign, much at TJ is to Novick's campaign. Whether you recognize it or not, you and TJ deserve each other.

  • (Show?)

    Actually, looking back on this, I noticed something. Steve Novick himself, and his actual campaign surrogates, are not taking part in these attacks over this kid. It's merely his most overenthusiastic blogger fanboys. So I withdraw my comment about "ethically challenged candidates shouldn't throw stones" because he's not. At least not this time.

    In other words, torridjoe may be a real dick for doing his best to get the kid fired (and, presumably, hurt his job prospects long term), but Steve himself is acting much more honorably.

    So good on both Jeff and Steve. Keep it up guys.

  • (Show?)
    And "caught" him doing what?

    According to the Merkley campaign spokesman, he was caught unethically misrepresenting his identity. And officially reprimanded. Apparently they thought he'd sone something, even if you don't.

  • (Show?)

    I can't believe you compared Obama's remarks on race...

    Did Obama "distance but not disown" race? Are you sure? I've read the speech and I'm certain that it was his former pastor rather than race which he distanced himself from without disowning. But I'm certainly open to being corrected. If you'd be so kind as to point me to the specific part that I got wrong...

  • (Show?)

    You know, when I saw the title of this blog post, "A Teachable Moment," for just a second there I thought, yes, the Novick campaign's gracious handling of this ethical breach by the Merkley campaign has shown us all that it's good to pause and take a deep breath and remember that things get heated in the course of a campaign and a lot of the participants are very young.

    For just a second there I thought, yes, we can all learn something from this teachable moment, and now nice that we are pausing to reflect on that.

    But then I saw the byline and remembered that I was reading Blue Oregon and realized that it was just another in the series of hack-job Rovian efforts by Merkley's cheering section to try to turn one of the Novick campaign's manifest strengths (in this instance grace) against it.

    Carry on, Kevin. You aren't doing Jeff any favors. I love that.

  • (Show?)

    I said it over at the Willamette Week too, but I think people are getting a little carried away with the whole "Novick is so gracious" thing. Beth Slovic got tipped to the story from someone, and I'm guessing it wasn't the Merkley campaign.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie V: Carry on, Kevin. You aren't doing Jeff any favors. I love that.

    This from a person who just used the words "hack-job Rovian" to describe a Democrat she disagrees with and whose article said nothing bad at all about her candidate.

    Wow. Hypocrisy is truly blind.

    Let me repeat something I wrote to both you and Mark on loadedorygun several months ago: please, for pity's sake, don't extend your "special" kind of advocacy over to the candidate we both agree on - John Kroger for AG. That's a tight race, and I'm not sure he could survive your campaigning for him.

  • (Show?)
    Only in your head, Mark. Only in your head.

    ...and the pages of Blue Oregon. Or does the phrase "Kari, please stop swiftboating Steve Novick" from the head of the PDA slip your mind? Whatever you're claiming about the way Oregon's chapter is set up for an endorsement, what does that have to do with the Novick campaign, given Moses Ross having always been the point person for that effort?

    Sarah, you should probably go back to not talking about it, because we all found out it was made up by Kari, and in fact there was no ethical breach...unless you count the point that the Merkley team had their concerns satisfied by PDA national, and THEN complained to the media about a non-problem they'd been assured was a non-problem. I wouldn't call it an ethical breach, but it sure is craven and substanceless politics. But at no time did anyone on the Novick campaign "host" or even preside over an endorsement event. We know that.

    Hey, here's a howler from Maurer:

    In other words, torridjoe may be a real dick for doing his best to get the kid fired

    I'm doing nothing of the sort. I don't give a rat's ass about whether the kid stays or goes; sounds like he does Novick a favor by staying. What I'm doing is wondering why Jon Isaacs lied to Kevin and said anyone doing this would be fired, when in fact they have no intention of making good on that promise--and why Kevin has no problem with that at all. Point being, Kevin is praising Merkley for stepping up and taking responsibility--when pretty clearly, he's failing to observe his own standards for ethical behavior by not even following his own rules...which say the kid is supposed to be fired.

    "Anyone found to be involved in this matter will no longer work at the White House."

    a familiar refrain of the traditional politician...

  • (Show?)

    "That's a tight race, and I'm not sure he could survive your campaigning for him."

    Gee, I dunno--given that Novick is leading Merkley in every poll, maybe John might be able to "survive" that kind of momentum, too.

    Mac is a similarly milquetoast traditional politician, but he doesn't have a coterie of people lying for him and smearing Kroger, just because he's falling behind. That's a key difference.

  • (Show?)

    There appears to be at least one major question about the accuracy of the Willamette Week piece written by Beth Slovic. Specifically, her allegation that Hayes Ingraham told the Novick campaign folks that he "wanted to help Novick raise money." The PolitickerOR coverage makes no mention of that allegation. Nor do any of the comments attributed to Merkley spokesperson Matt Canter even infer it.

    What apparently is agreed upon by everyone is that Hayes tried to pass himself off as another person, which would indeed be unethical and inexcusable, but mostly just stupid.

    What is Beth Slovic's source for what amounts to her very serious allegation of attempted espionage?

  • (Show?)

    Why WOULD he try to create a false identity if all he wanted was a remit and a bumpersticker? It doesn't add up.

    I don't claim to be neutral, but it seems to me that the subterfuge signals that his intentions were more complex and less benign.

    Kevin assumes that WWeek got it wrong. It's at least equally likely, and perhaps more likely, that Politicker got it wrong.

  • (Show?)

    I don't know what all this means, but I do know that documentation exists showing the allegations were proven false and Kari was reprimanded for attacking Novick unfairly.

    This isn't a thread about the PDA, but I'll just mention this one thing:

    There was a dispute about a single element of that story - a disagreement about something that was said in a two-person conversation. None of the rest of the facts are disputed. And the minor factoid in dispute doesn't change the bigger picture.

    It's worth noting that Tim Carpenter, the exec dir of PDA, claimed - while disputing my recollection of the phone call with him - that the call happened on a particular date. But I've got the emails to prove that he was flat wrong. (He wrote me in a follow-up to the phone call on the day before he says the call happened.)

    Again, I think that piece of the puzzle is irrelevant to the overall story - and TJ's efforts to turn a minor disagreement over one factoid into a complete dismissal of everything that happened is patently laughable.

    One question, TJ: If Liz Kimmerly didn't do anything wrong, why has she been removed as one of the state coordinators?

  • (Show?)

    Oh hey, this is my first comment on this thread - so here goes:

    Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak here only for myself.

  • (Show?)

    Are we going to see three overheated comment threads here in succession about what an ethical outrage has been attempted against the Novick campaign?

    Since even if you consider the PDA thing an "ethical outrage," it stands as an attempt, with no harm done (and much hay made in the aftermath)?

  • (Show?)

    Matt Canter's statements, both as quoted and as characterized by Ms. Slovic, in the WW piece are 100% consistent with what the PolitickerOR piece says happened. They are not consistent with all of Ms. Slovic's allegations, even though she's the one who characterized and quoted them in her own piece.

    Why would the young man misrepresent who he really was? That's a fair question. But so too is the observation that he's: a) very young, and b) employed by a candidate directly competing with the Novick campaign from whom he was requesting a bumper sticker and a remit form, and c) the newest hire to a campaign in a primary contest which has been very widely noted as contentious.

    BTW, I hope Blue Oregon readers take the opportunity to read what has become a possibly very informative comment thread on the PolitickerOR piece.

  • (Show?)

    Yes Kevin, that's a GREAT idea! That way the story can stay at the top of the "most active" list at PolitickerOR, where folks can see it.

  • (Show?)

    The Politicker OR article is the article that gives the situation the most balance. Considering WW and especially Beth Slovic's well known anti Merkley bias and Politicker's neutrality thus far in the race it would make sense.

    TJ and Vard have taken this thing over the top. Yes Hayes did something incredibly stupid and unethical. But Merkley handled a one time lapse of judgment the right way having Hayes apologize to the Novick campaign and putting him on notice.

    Compare that to the Novick campaign which didn't have Henry Kramer apologize to Merkley when he violated Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies when editing Merkley's wiki page or Kimmerly's PDA endorsement sham. Or Compare that to the Smith tracker who lied repeatedly in several different instances, who didn't even apologize and Smith's spokesperson tried to blame it on Democrats.

    I think only one campaign has dealt with their staff's disappointing them the right way.

  • R. Mexico (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TJ and Vard have taken this thing over the top.

    TJ and Vard werent the ones that wrote a piece on top of the "in the news" announcement, essentially begging for a response.

    TJ and Vard were also not quoted in print when those other incidents took place stating that honesty is the best policy when it comes to these tactics and thats not how they will run their campaign.

    Criticize if you will....but to give Merkley credit for responding quickly to being caught, when his camp previously stated that they would not stand for these types of tactic is beyond reproach.

    Glamorizing anyone for going back on their word is just ridiculous (and the Merkley camp has gone back on their word, they said they wouldnt stoop to these levels). Telling others that its bush league for calling them on it is even worse.

    Just eat your crow.

  • (Show?)

    Beth Slovic doesn't make the news, Bradley; she only reports it.

    She and Willamette Week have been plenty hard on Novick. "Balanced" doesn't mean "more accurate." It just means "easier on Merkley." We don't know all the facts and until we do, we can't say for sure what happened.

    We can say, though, that Henry didn't engage in deceit of any kind. He edited a publicly editable document in a transparent way, and made it more complete (and more accurate, I might add).

    Your pal Hayes Ingraham, on the other hand, adopted a false identity to get ... SOMETHING, we don't know what yet ... from the Novick campaign. We do know that he didn't have to create a fake identity to get a bumpersticker and a remit, so he must have had something a little more substantive on his mind.

    He's young, Young people make mistakes. But his mistake was deceitful and far bigger than Henry's. Henry committed a protocol violation based on wikipedia guidelines. See what Pete Forsyth of the Oregon Wiki Project said, referring to the furor over Henry's actions as "a tempest in a teapot". Pete Forsyth is not a Novick supporter to my knowledge.

  • (Show?)

    I think it's generally irrelevant to the discussion whether vard or bdunn or I think it's a serious breach of campaign ethics; the issue is whether the Merkley campaign thinks it is. We know they believed it was, based on it them declaring it a violation of the staff agreement each one signed. We know Isaacs called dishonesty in dealing with other campaigns a firing offense.

    So why is Kevin (and the rest of the Merkley clan) praising the campaign for bamboozling them and giving their own ethics rules short shrift? I mean, Kev used to be a Republican, so maybe it's what he's come to expect from his politicians--but it does make you wonder.

    Say one thing, do another. Same old, same old.

  • (Show?)

    yes Kari, a minor disagreement over a single factoid is exactly what must have made Tim beg you to stop swiftboating Novick. No other facts are in dispute...except the ones claiming Kimmerly did anything wrong by PDA rules, was ever in charge of an endorsement process, or that the Merkley campaign wasn't satisfied by PDA's explanation before whining to the media after the fact.

    As for your question, how should I know? Are you trying to suggest she was removed because of the incident? Forgive folks if they don't exactly take your word for it, given your history on it. Could she perhaps have...quit?

  • (Show?)
    We do know that he didn't have to create a fake identity to get a bumpersticker and a remit, so he must have had something a little more substantive on his mind.

    You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that. He could have asked for a remit and bumpersticker like politicker said and they tried to introduce themselves to him and he used a fake name, which is what Politicker OR said happened.

  • (Show?)

    As for your question, how should I know? Are you trying to suggest she was removed because of the incident? Forgive folks if they don't exactly take your word for it, given your history on it. Could she perhaps have...quit?

    <h2>Yeah, and nobody who ever "resigned" from a job was actually "fired".</h2>

connect with blueoregon