On Saturday night, Liz Kimmerly continues to pretend she doesn't work for Novick
Kari Chisholm
Well, well, well...
It sure does seem that we've got a firestorm on our hands. This PDA/Novick endorsement debacle just gets curiouser and curiouser.
There's still no explanation from Liz Kimmerly, the Novick staffer at the center of the controversy.
(If you don't know what I'm talking about, catch up here: "Fake endorsement backfires on Novick campaign operative")
I've been out of town all weekend at a family reunion, but Saturday night's inaugural meeting of the Oregon chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America went ahead as planned.
As planned, that is, except that after I blew the whistle and called the national executive director of the PDA, the meeting downshifted to a meeting in which the endorsement process was merely discussed. (And, btw, after David Steves of the Register-Guard started asking his own questions.)
Ben DuPree attended and blogged about it at Witigonen. (The bolds below are mine...)
Tonight I attended the PDA meeting, which showed me just how problematic this endorsement process has become. If it goes forward, I assert that it will lack legitimacy and will demonstrate just how the Novick campaign attempted to rig an endorsement. It's an ethical mess, and those involved should be ashamed of themselves. We're DEMOCRATS, people! We don't need to adopt the Republican code of ethics here! ...Am I the only one to feel that an endorsement from this new group, given all that has happened, would damage its reputation? The last thing we need is a new chapter of an important group to be damaged because one campaign (or at least some of its officials) wanted to game the system by driving a new group (that a campaign staffer launched!) to a rushed, almost-certainly partisan endorsement. At least the vote was delayed for a month, but there was no talk about how the membership would approach the endorsement or would organize in any real way. Indeed, once the talk of endorsement was over, everyone just got up and left!
And that's why tonight's event was just a mystifying mess. Nothing substantial happened to organize this new, progressive group; and that's perhaps the worst part of all.
Kevin Kamberg at Preemptive Karma was also there - and he noted that Liz Kimmerly ran the meeting and yet never once noted that she is a senior staffer for the Novick campaign.
Liz Kimmerly's nefarious scheme having been exposed, I attended the PDA meeting last night fully expecting it to be yanked back within the realm of ethical propriety, if for no other reason than to avoid damaging the national PDA's reputation since she had already trampled on numerous of the PDA's guidelines. But there was Liz Kimmerly, her boss Steve Novick and another staffer, all acting as if there was nothing wrong with one of his senior staffers running the meeting of an organizatin he hoped to get the endorsement of. Not once did any of them point out that "oh, by the way, Liz Kimmerly here is a paid staffer on my campaign and I just want to be upfront about that."It was clear that the room was stacked with active supporters of Steve Novick and for them no disclosure was needed. But several members of the audience spoke up during a Q & A session and expressed bewilderment at the veiled talk of the process having been politicized - clearly they didn't know anything about it and very likely had no clue that the woman running the meeting works for one of the candidates vying for it's endorsement. Neither Steve Novick nor Liz Kimmerly enlightened those folk with the truth. ...
Not once did Liz practice anything close to full disclosure. In fact, near the end of the meeting Liz got up and was addressing the meeting via the microphone at the front and an old man in attendance interrupted her with the question, "who are you?" Liz responded, "my name is Liz" and proceeded to describe herself as the state coordinator of the Oregon chapter of PDA. Nor did Steve at any point aknowledge that Ms. Kimmerly is a paid senior member of his campaign staff.
This is just bizarre. Some have pointed out that Liz Kimmerly had a relationship with the PDA before she moved to Oregon last summer. You'd think that, having been caught with her hand in the cookie jar, she'd have removed herself completely as the "state coordinator" of the Oregon PDA chapter - if only to salvage the reputation of the Progressive Democrats of America.
So far, the national leadership of the PDA has behaved admirably -- yanking her chain, and making sure that the rules are followed for their endorsement process. Hopefully Liz Kimmerly will see the light, remove herself entirely, turn the organization over to someone who isn't on staff with one of the US Senate campaigns - and we can get on about the business of defeating Gordon Smith.
Full disclosure, as usual: My company built the website for Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate. I speak only for myself.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 21, '08
kari, i think you forgot to mention how much it hurt you to have to write this.
fortunately, i have insomnia, and was checking my email when my rss feed just chimed in, so i am here to remind you.
-petr
Jan 21, '08
For those of your just joining us: Kari just forgot to explain that he works for Liz's boss's opponent.
So you can see how easy it is to forget to make those little disclaimers. :)
Jan 21, '08
since i'm here anyway, and can't sleep...
"Hopefully Kari Chisholm will see the light, remove himself entirely, turn BlueOregon over to someone who isn't on staff with one of the US Senate campaigns..."
anyone remember back when jerome armstrong let mydd go silent for most of a year while he consulted for howard dean? back when the big bloggers had integrity. kos posted his disclosure on the front page, and did not engage in any smearing of the other primary candidates (except maybe kucinich).
12:57 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
Ha - JHL, you're right! I'm updating my post. Cute. Sleep deprivation sucks.
1:03 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
Petrichor... Your suggestion has been asked and answered previously on this topic. Since it's a good hundred comments in on the earlier thread, I'll repost:
<h1>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.</h1>And one last thing: If I didn't write at BlueOregon except for any time when my company doesn't have any clients, well, there wouldn't be a BlueOregon. (And note that Jerome has blogged continuously at MyDD for years now, despite his growing client list.)
It's a non-issue. I suggest you read Jeff Alworth's "Toward Ethical Political Blogging" which continues to guide our work here.
Jan 21, '08
that's why i referred to the good old days when jerome armstrong let his blog go quiet. however, it is worth noting, that when he was consulting for mark warner, not only was he always open about it, but he was a complete evangelist--he never portrayed himself or his blog as neutral on the subject--he was trying to convert people (most notably markos) to the cause.
i haven't followed the blog much since the stoller/bowers era, so i don't know if that is still the case. anyway, it is not the case here.
-petr
Jan 21, '08
Can an insider not blog?
Jan 21, '08
i should elaborate--i don't really care if people blog and have clients and blog about their clients--i know bloggers have to pay their bills, and clients pay them money--that's why their clients.
so have clients, and blog away. but drop the whole "we're neutral" thing. it is not possible--it's almost insulting. even if BO had another equally prominent blogger who had an equivalent relationship with the novick campaign, and posted similar hit pieces, and interlinked copiously with a practically self-contained subnetwork of novick affiliated blogs, it would not be neutral. it would be bipolar.
so please sing your support for merkley from the rooftops, and accept his money for the official work you do. you're earning it in more ways than one.
Jan 21, '08
actually, if you wanted to hold on to the whole "we're neutral" pretense, you really should have a prominent pro-novick blogger here.no, it wouldn't be neutral, but it would be more interesting, and it would make this place feel less like the main cog in the mandate-merkley machine.
and on that note, i would suggest that you invite E.B Thom, who you so unceremoniously banned from BO for no good reason, to be the resident pro-novick blogger.
i don't think there is an equivalent pro-novick mini-blogosphere, but i'm sure loadedorygun could do some heavy lifting.
Jan 21, '08
This whole episode--hell, this entire senate race--proves one thing clearly: Blogs are a horrible, useless source of information about campaigns.
Between Kari's clear conflicts of interest (yeah, you just "built the website," but you've also become the loudest mouthpiece for the Merkley campaign), TJ's pimping for Novick on Loaded Orygun, and that embarrassment of a "blog" Forward Oregon (which might as well be the Merkley campaign blog), political blogging in Oregon has become nothing but unreadable, non-credible recitations of campaign talking points.
Say what you will about the mainstream media, but at least when we read something by a journalist, we know they aren't a part of the campaign they're writing about.
Maybe Kimmerly fracked up royally, and maybe Novick should cast her aside, but, as a reader, I have absolutely no reason to believe any of the bloggers who are currently writing about it--from either side. So, thanks for making political discourse completely meaningless.
Of course, if something like this came up in the general, and it was Smith you were beating up on, I'd be inclined to believe you and line up alongside. Normally. Now, though, I'm just inclined to believe you're full of crap, and stop reading.
(Full disclosure: I plan to vote for Novick in May, but I have exactly zero involvement in his campaign.)
Jan 21, '08
So I guess Blue Oregon is going to evolve into nothing more than an attempt to manufacture a scandal against Novick -- kind of like the Rush Limbaugh show, where progressives are bashed incessantly, only in this case, the intended beneficiary is another progressive.
Kari, you seem to think you've uncovered another Watergate, but I don't see it. All you're accomplishing with this sort of thing is to make Gordon Smith's day. The real victim is Merkley, who will come across as the kind of politician whose lieutenants felt the need to go relentlessly negative in order to eke out a victory against fellow Democrats. Maybe when this is over, you can go work for the Clintons and tear into Obama. Or better yet, set up a shingle and hold yourself out as someone willing to work for any Democrat who has something negative to say about a fellow Democrat but doesn't just want to say it once ... or twice ...
Jan 21, '08
Ok, I'm still ready to change my mind with new evidence, but scheduling a snap endorsement and determining who gets notified of it, while working for one of the endorsement candidates, presents a definitive conflict of interest. If evidence comes in that she didn't schedule it and that she didn't determine who was notified, I'm ready to reconsider my position. Even in such a case, though, it's still an obvious decision that when the employee of a candidate is running an organization that's considering that candidate's endorsement, that employee should choose which job she wants and temporarily step down from one of them. The conflict of interest here is textbook.
Jan 21, '08
Also, this issue will not have currency by the time Smith starts running negative ads -- I'm sure he will be able to think of much less esoteric things to base his attacks on. But that's not a reason to sweep this under the rug, either. It really is not a stretch to see a valid question of ethical conduct in this issue. It should be addressed.
Jan 21, '08
James,
I'm not suggesting the issue should be off the table permanently. I'm saying that we all need to hear from the Novick campaign about this before piling on with story after story using scandal-filled rhetoric as if we know all the facts. Right now, the level of the rhetoric from Kari is making it difficult to motivate the Novick campaign from even talking about it. After all, let's say that a stupid but relatively innocent mistake was made. Who would want to admit that, only to be faced with all sorts of innuendo about bad faith and the requirement to fire people. This level of rhetoric is best reserved for general elections, not primaries, especially when people who spread the stuff are paid operatives of one party who claim to be friends of the other.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
That said, I'm never one to advocate sweeping things under rugs. If there's an issue here, and if people like Kari can stop acting like they're hunting for bear ... then I agree ... let's hear the truth. As for me, I've spoken to nobody from the Novick campaign or Novick himself about this, so I have no idea about this other than what I've read here, and remain agnostic.
Jan 21, '08
I am a life long union member and proud member of the Democratic Party of Oregon. One of the reasons that I CHOOSE to belong to both my local union and the DPO is my strong personal ethics and honest values.
Beginning in February, my partner and I were going to start collecting information from the candidates to determine who we are going to support to replace Gordon Smith. We thought that this would be difficult because so many people that we know and respect are divided between Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley.
If what Kari has written and others seem to be confirming is true then our decision has been made for us by Novick himself. We will have no choice except to support Merkley.
At this point the only way we could consider voting for Steve Novick is to hear directly from him (in detail) about this issue.
Karl Rove is happy to be able to cheat and get his clients elected (or selected) because he isn't honest or ethical. As a Democrat, I refuse to support anyone who stoops to the level of Rove, Atwater, or Ails.
I haven't really heard of any substantial differences between the two candidates positions on issues that I care about so character counts.
So Steve, let us heard directly from you, not a spokesman, about the serious charges raised by Kari.
Well Steve?
7:53 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
To all the night owls and early birds: Kari is not the issue here. The issue is: Which D candidate running US Senate has the best chance to defeat Gordon Smith?
Jan 21, '08
Daniel, given what we know, if I had my own blog, I wouldn't be calling for heads at this point. Given Kari's first-hand involvement, maybe he feels a better sense of what happened and is more comfortable calling for Kimmerly to be fired, but from an outsider's perspective, it could easily seem like Kari tried to push the story ahead of where it was. If I were in the Novick campaign, I'd probably want to kill the story over the holiday weekend rather than drag it into the next week, but I'm willing to wait some more for a response.
Also, "Well Steve?," it would be nice if you could pick an identity, so we know who you are from post to post, and don't confuse you for others who seem to think the name field is a good place to put a subject line.
8:00 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
Very well said! I'm not a Democrat, but I very frequently vote for Democrats. And I too refuse to support anyone who stoops to the level of Rove, Atwater, Ails, DeLay, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.
Jan 21, '08
I suggest you read Jeff Alworth's "Toward Ethical Political Blogging" which continues to guide our work here.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
8:19 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
The issue is: Which D candidate running US Senate has the best chance to defeat Gordon Smith?
Yeah that's one Paulie, and another might be, which candidated has a functional moral compass.
This story broke last week. Some facts are clear and not in dispute. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to make this whole thing go away is for someone from the Novick campaign leadership to clearly repudiate this behavior and shun those who demonstrate a bit too much ....shall we say...moral elasticity.
They could have (and should have) addressed this issue days ago and gotten the high ground. That they have not is not the responsibility of Kari or of the Merkley partisans.
This thing will continue to be a problem until the Novick campaign addresses it in one public forum or another. As progressives, we're not supposed to be the dirty tricks guys are we?
Jan 21, '08
Enough with the effort to distract, my fellow Novick partisans. Yes, blogs, like newspapers, television and radio stations, are sullied by conflicts of interest. BlueOregon is no better and no worse than the Oregonian, KGW, etc., but none of that changes the essential facts here.
A paid employee of Steve's campaign attempted to rig an endorsement process. Steve and other paid campaign staff showing up on Saturday night is pretty strong evidence of the complicity of both Steve and his campaign. Yuck.
Steve, even great politicians make mistakes and their campaigns make even more. But truly great politicians admit their mistakes (John Edwards and Les AuCoin come to mind with the Iraq war vote and the check-bouncing scandal), apologize, and move on.
You have a chance to keep this incident a tiny blip that everyone will forget in a day if you simply address the situation in an honest fashion. You might actually earn some support for showing the courage to do what's right, just like you will as a U.S. Senator.
Please, Steve. You're either getting horrible advice from your staff or from your usually spot-on conscience. This issue is going to get bigger as time goes forward unless you step away from it now while it is still only a blog item.
9:12 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
At 1:23, Petrichoer is confused. I am not neutral. I have never pretended to be beutral. I am very much pro-Merkley. BlueOregon, however, is a neutral venue. Among our editors, Charlie Burr is a Novick supporter. Among our contributors, Kristin Teigen and Leslie Carlson are both Novick supporters. (Leslie, in fact, has worked as press agent for Novick.) Our contributor, Les AuCoin, is Novick's most prominent endorser. I don't have the foggiest clue where most of our contributors stand on the race, and they're welcome to post anything they want, anytime they want, without any filter from us. As for EB Thom, there's hardly "no good reason" for why his commenting privileges were suspended. He's got his own blog, he's welcome to use it.
At 2:00, Daniel Spiro tries to minimize this. Dan, can you name a sleazier thing done by a Democratic campaign in Oregon? As I've said repeatedly, I think Steve Novick is the kind of guy who wouldn't stand for this unethical behavior from his staff. I really hope he doesn't prove me wrong.
I'm willing to acknowledge that my rhetoric may be flavored by my views of the overall race. But so far, no one from the Novick campaign - not least of all Liz Kimmerly - has any facts to contradict mine. (Except for the one open fact question: Was the chapter started a month ago, per Kimmerly? Or was it started last week, per the PDA's Carpenter?)
It's well past high time for Liz Kimmerly to provide an explanation.
9:39 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
I am tired of hearing from whomever is of the opposite opinion to Kari that he shouldn't be commenting or writing on this blog. Do these same people take the same position on the Daily Kos when Kos writes? The great thing about blogs is that you don't have to pay for them to read them and you can always ignore them. However, if you don't like the opinion of an editor you can refute it with facts or a well stated opinion. Telling an editor that he shouldn't be posting is ridiculous, regardless of other conflicts, as long as the conflicts are made public.
I daresay that over time the dissenters will also side with Kari on some other issue and be glad that he supports their position then.
I am personally glad that Blue Oregon exists and I appreciate the contribution Kari makes, even when I do not agree with him.
9:42 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
That is a sterling point. The measure of a politician isn't her/his level of perfection, none of us is perfect and we delude ourselves if we think otherwise, rather the measure of a good or great politician is in how they handle adversity... particularly of their own making.
If this endorsement scheme was somebody else's idea and Steve merely aquiesced and now finds himself caught up in a situation he is having a hard time coping with, few, if any, of us will think less of him if he steps forward now and reasserts ethical propriety to his campaign. Indeed, I would very much respect him if he did that because the longer this festers the more courage it's going to take to do the right thing. But by continuing to let it fester he runs the very real risk of being perceived (and rightly so) as either tacitly complicit or crassly calculating for effect - neither of which would reflect well upon him or the state he seeks to represent.
Jan 21, '08
This witch hunt needs to stop. Can we please leave this poor girl alone? She made a mistake and im sure she is suffering enough. This is a non-story anyway, stop destroying this poor girl for political gain.
Jan 21, '08
These attacks against those who post on Blue Oregon -- and in particular on Kari -- have gotten absurd.
Look, the default assumption is that everyone who blogs on this site is a partisan. We all have opinions. The fact that Kari receives a check from the Merkley campaign doesn't make his opinions or his factual accounts any less legitimate.
It's important to distinguish Kari's role from that of a newspaper reporter, who purports to present an unbiased account of the day's events. Kari makes no such pretenses.
It's also important to distinguish Kari's role from a campaign staffer who is organizing a formal endorsement by a third-party organization. Like a news reporter, a third-party organization purports to have made an unbiased assessment of the candidates, and by making an endorsement, the organization attests to the candidate's strength in promoting the organization's agenda. Obviously, if a staffer for the endorsed-candidate's campaign organized the endorsement process, that undermines the endorsement's (and the organization's) credibility.
The point is: Kari is biased -- and so are the rest of us. Who cares? All he is doing is posting on a blog.
10:41 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
Jeff's & Steve's major differences are limited to style and the divergent life experiences that qualify them in very different ways to hold this office. On policy issues, they both support all major Democratic policy initiatives. That's why what we learn about their characters throughout this campaign and see how they behave when the going gets tough is so important.
Most voters don't know or care who or what PDA is or who they endorse. But voters should care about how candidates go about trying to win influence, how they run their campaigns, and how they deal with scandals. Steve needs to deal with this one right away, up front, and decisively or he will lose his credibility as a "new" type of politician. This looks a lot look like same old, same old to me.
Jan 21, '08
Sorry Jesus, this isn't just going away.
10:54 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
I think by this point that, despite Kari's continued defense of him, Steve Novick is clearly in up to his eyeballs on this. I've been around a campaign or two, and I've never seen anything even close to this level of importance happening without permission from the campaign manager, and knowledge and tacit approval from the candidate.
But if there is any doubt, Steve Novick's behavior has sealed it. Not only has he made no effort to distance himself from the scandal, he's clearly trying to pretend it isn't one, that this is all just a partisan smear by his opponents, and continues to damage the credibility of the PDA for his own benefit. It's the Oregon Democrats' own Watergate in a teacup.
I'm sorry, Kari. You may have known Steve Novick and thought he was a stand up guy. But from an outsider's perspective it's clear that Steve has, like many rich and/or successful people, previously seemed moral only because his morality has never truly been tested. This is probably the first time in his life he's ever had to actually choose between honesty and winning. And he's clearly decided to jettison his honesty.
Yes, yes, I'm sure I'll be flamed for this observation from the people with such partisan investment in Steve that it's blinded them. But really, I'm only saddened. I was previously hoping that, even if he didn't jump immediately into the US Senate, we could find a place for Steve in State politics in a position commensurate with his talents. Now I'm reevaluating that. And frankly, until I see some genuine reflection on his part, I can't see myself changing my mind.
Jan 21, '08
"I am not neutral. I have never pretended to be beutral. I am very much pro-Merkley. BlueOregon, however, is a neutral venue. Among our editors, Charlie Burr is a Novick supporter. Among our contributors, Kristin Teigen and Leslie Carlson are both Novick supporters. (Leslie, in fact, has worked as press agent for Novick.) Our contributor, Les AuCoin, is Novick's most prominent endorser."
Kari,
i am hardly confused, i know your claim is that BO is neutral. i guess you think if you say it enough it must be true?
you left out editor Jeff Alworth who is a Merkley supporter. your contributor list is long enough that you can cherry pick a few, and claim anything.
but that ignores the facts that:
11:12 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
Steve,
Just because a candidate doesn't respond to blogs doesn't mean he is aware and dissing you. Steve's campaign manager did respond in the prior thread and had some reasonable comments to make in the campaign's defence. Steve may in fact not be aware of this discussion and/or not able to comment yet. Until he does, please give him time to respond. The candidates are very busy and don't have the same chance to blog as we do. Just because we are focused on this thread doesn't mean the rest of the world is even aware of the discussion. I also think that we should not overstate this situation as the ultimate test in ethical behavior. Regardless of whether we believe that what was done was not in the best interest of open politics, this does not make me believe for one second that Steve is a dishonest person.
Having said that, I do believe that the campaign does need to respond to the new issues that Kari has raised.
Jan 21, '08
Steve M. says what I have been thinking, and reminds me of what someone of my parents' generation said some 40 years ago--that a person's moral strength is like a teabag: you don't how strong it is until it is put in hot water.
As for Liz K being a "poor girl"? Sorry, but the minute anyone accepts a paycheck from a campaign, they give up the right to that sort of sympathy. Had Liz K been a novice volunteer, that would have been a different story.
Here is what I liked that Steve M said,
"I'm sorry, Kari. You may have known Steve Novick and thought he was a stand up guy. But from an outsider's perspective it's clear that Steve has, like many rich and/or successful people, previously seemed moral only because his morality has never truly been tested. This is probably the first time in his life he's ever had to actually choose between honesty and winning. And he's clearly decided to jettison his honesty.
Yes, yes, I'm sure I'll be flamed for this observation from the people with such partisan investment in Steve that it's blinded them. But really, I'm only saddened. I was previously hoping that, even if he didn't jump immediately into the US Senate, we could find a place for Steve in State politics in a position commensurate with his talents. Now I'm reevaluating that. And frankly, until I see some genuine reflection on his part, I can't see myself changing my mind."
Jan 21, '08
In the Oregonian article about the upcoming Pendleton debate, there was this quote from Steve,
Novick plans an aggressive strategy, saying he'll spend plenty of time pointing out why Smith should be replaced, but also why he's better suited for the job than Merkley. He said differences between the two campaigns already have started to emerge.
For example, Novick said he has called for stabilizing the federal budget by cutting spending but also by raising some taxes, particularly on the wealthy -- something Merkley has not done.
"This is a time for candor, not caution," Novick said. "I see Jeff Merkley running a very cautious campaign."
Steve, we would like some candor from you on the PDA situation.Perhaps if you had been more cautious, we could be discussing issues now rather than an endorsement controversy!
11:50 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
As I repsonded in a different thread on this issue.
This mess is entirely of Novick's campaigns making, and Kari's association with the Merkley campaign in no way diminishes the conflict of interest inherent in Liz Kimmerly's actions are, which she has engaged in with seeming tacit approval and participation by the Novick campaign. The attempts to make this about Kari is subterfuge (at best).
Even if Kari were the highest paid partisan operative for the Merkley campaign possible, it in no way would alter the facts that:
1) Liz Kimmerly is a paid staffer for the Novick campaign
2) she has an inherent conflict of interest to be an organizer of local chapter of a national organization (PDA) whose endorsement her boss is seeking
3) she is the gatekeeper of organizing said local chapter
4) she called for and arranged for the initial meeting for the purposes of endorsement
5) she violated the rules of the endorsement process of the organization
6) she made no disclosure at this organizing meeting that she was a part of the campaign of one of the candidates to the group she was organizing for the purposes of endorsing a candidate in that race
7) has yet to clarify the myriad questions and issues her actions have raised about the ethical lines she has crossed, and the only public statements made by the Novick campaign is a single post by Jake Wiegler, which contained numerous inaccurate assertions which raised more questions than it answered
...but somehow this is all the problem because Kari posts on a blog his company runs and which he started?
Your numerous posts in multiple threads amount to nothing more than the Chewbacca defense done poorly.
11:54 a.m.
Jan 21, '08
If Novick is not aware of what is happening when it involves his Internet Coordinator (who better at least be doing her job and reading all of this) and at least one other senior staff member (Jake) than he needs to fire his staff and start over. What excuse are we going to use when he's in office and his staff breaks a rule or even the law? That Novick bears no responsibility because no one told him? That, gosh, it was all a big mistake? It doesn't work that way. Novick's name is on that campaign, and he needs to take responsibility for what is being done in his name, whether he approved it or not. It's been four days since this story broke. In campaign time that's too long not to address something that has the very real possibility of derailing his bid for the Senate.
12:02 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Don't you think it is problematic that when an endorsement solicitation is presented his by an group his own staffer is the organizer of, didn't set off alarm bells at the obvious conflict of interest issues it would raise?
Don't you think it is problematic that he accepted the invitation to speak at this event to a group which his own staff member is the person in this group who arranged the entire thing as being not just odd, but an obvious ethical violation?
Let's put aside the scope of how this bodes for a candidate to take on an entrenched hugely well funded incumbent, and look at the end goal here and does this speak well about the skill-set of a candidate who hopes to be a United States Senator where the issues of ethics involve the most serious of issues imaginable?
These are real questions, which I hope Steve Novick can address and allay these valid concerns, particularly if he somehow does win the nomination of my party.
12:07 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Shit, one day I will learn to type and wrote better:
Should read:
12:12 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Exactly. I hope Steve Novick can address these issues in a way that can mitigate these valid concerns.
12:21 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Look people...
The stunningly obvious flaw in the logic of those attacking Kari's objectivity is that if we follow that reasoning to it's logical conclussion then Gordon Smith is virtually guaranteed reelection. After all, whomever is running against him in the General will be rightly understood by every Oregonian to have an axe to grind. All Smith would need to do is point that objective reality out and the facts become moot, whereupon he cruises to victory. N'est pas?
Do any of us truly believe that our fellow Oregonians are so dimwitted as to not grasp that simple concept?
12:27 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Misha,
The second distinction you make is getting blurrier by the day, as nobody from the Merkley campaign has distanced themselves from what Kari has to say. (Carla's comments on the previous thread were helpful though.)
The following statement, from Steve Lover, has not been proven: A paid employee of Steve's campaign attempted to rig an endorsement process.
When you have faith in a process, sometimes it's hard to see the problem of an apparent conflict of interest. Everything that's been alleged is perfectly consistent with a somewhat inexperienced campaigner believing that a local chapter of PDA is a good thing, apart from her connection with the campaign. It's perfectly consistent with someone who believes in a grassroots process, in which she sees herself as a mere facilitator. If that's how it stands, that would be a problem, but maybe not a firing-level ethical problem.
The rhetoric here does not allow for that nuance, and thus does not merit the moral high ground that many of you are repeatedly claiming. There has not been an endorsement. From the outside, no harm, no foul. If PDA or the Novick campaign want to pursue it, that's fine, they've got a vested interest. But why pre-judge their determinations?
Still undecided in this race, but definitely leaning farther toward Frohnmayer in the last couple days.
12:36 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
As I pointed out up-thread:
1) Liz Kimmerly is a paid staffer for the Novick campaign
2) she has an inherent conflict of interest to be an organizer of local chapter of a national organization (PDA) whose endorsement her boss is seeking
3) she is the gatekeeper of organizing said local chapter
4) she called for and arranged for the initial meeting for the purposes of endorsement
5) she violated the rules of the endorsement process of the organization
6) she made no disclosure at this organizing meeting that she was a part of the campaign of one of the candidates to the group she was organizing for the purposes of endorsing a candidate in that race
7) has yet to clarify the myriad questions and issues her actions have raised about the ethical lines she has crossed, and the only public statements made by the Novick campaign is a single post by Jake Wiegler, which contained numerous inaccurate assertions which raised more questions than it answered
Given the above which are not in dispute I put to you the same questions I put to John Calhoun:
Don't you think it is problematic that when an endorsement solicitation is presented to him by a group his own staffer is the organizer of, didn't set off alarm bells at the obvious conflict of interest issues it would raise?
Don't you think it is problematic that he accepted the invitation to speak at this event to a group which his own staff member is the person in this group who arranged the entire thing as being not just odd, but an obvious ethical violation?
Let's put aside the scope of how this bodes for a candidate to take on an entrenched hugely well funded incumbent, and look at the end goal here and does this speak well about the skill-set of a candidate who hopes to be a United States Senator where the issues of ethics involve the most serious of issues imaginable?
12:56 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
1) the people above are either not political hacks, or at least are not indulging in that role here on BO, and...
Not true. My political hackery is extensive and well-documented:)
1:00 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
lestatdelc,
Yes, I think there's a problem with all of that. But it would appear that the Novick campaign does not see Blue Oregon as a good venue for resolving that problem, and from what I've seen, I'd say they're making the right call.
Indeed, let's put aside what you suggest we put aside, since this entire debate concerns ethics, not campaign strategies.
1:11 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
That last sentence was wack. What I mean to say is, yes of course, all of this will affect my opinions of Novick's and Merkley's ability to be effective general election candidates, and effective Senators. But that's not the subject of the present debate, and I'm not interested in getting into it.
1:21 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
I don't think that many of us care which venue Novick employs to address this mess.
If he doesn't think that Blue Oregon works for him, he could always get with Dave Steves or Jeff Mapes and clarify things. Or he could have the Krew put it up on the House Blog over at Loaded Orygun.
There are few BO regulars that would actually prefer that it be posted elsewhere.
<hr/>Not speaking for anyone else, but I'd just like to see something like:
What happened?
What is Novick's position on this issue?
What are the campaign's standards and guidelines for employees and for the candidate?
What changes have been implimented to avoid a recurrence?
(If any are called for)
<hr/>If the observers at the PDA meeting are giving us the facts, (and no one has contested them) the current tactic of the campaign and of Novick himself is to stonewall, obsfucate, and hope it all goes away.
This in not the message of the courageous fighter, standing for ethics, and taking on all comers. This is the old politics as usual (or worse) that has been Novick's exhibit #1 of what he needs to change.
Jan 21, '08
I would like to thank all for the banter and gnashing of teeth. Apparently Oregon dems have not come so far from Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall as they would like.
The truth hurts sometimes.
1:48 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
There is more over-blown rhetoric in this thread than usual. This is not the end of civilization or the democratic process as we know it. Yes, Steve or his campaign should comment. Until you hear his view of who said what to whom, give him the benefit of the doubt.
1:57 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Nobody has said anything close to this being the end of civilization or the democratic process, so can we be spared your over-blown rhetoric which studiously avoids the points I raised and which pointed out to you, as well as avoiding the questions I poised to you which you failed to address?
2:23 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
John,
That's exactly what I did when this story first broke. I more than gave him the benefit of the doubt, I openly expressed doubt that he would have condoned what Kurt Chapman insightfully, if a bit exageratedly, termed "Tammany Hall" tactics.
That changed when I watched both Steve and Liz willfully choose to continue the charade at the PDA meeting Saturday night. Not only did they continue the charade, but both lied by omission by choosing not to disclose the fact that Liz is employed by his campaign in a senior position. Had they chosen otherwise then we would all be having a very different discussion today.
He no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt, IMHO. What he absolutely does deserve is a chance to explain himself and his campaign. I don't see anything standing in the way of him doing just that except his own choice not to... thus far. He also absolutely deserves not to be put on a pedestal and forced to try to live up to the unrealistic expectation of perfection.
The longer he waits to address these serious questions, the less likely that those not already loyalists will be generous in the judgement. Nor does he have a right to expect anything else. Afterall, he (along with Merkley) are essentially asking Oregon progressives and Democrats to not give Gordon Smith the benefit of the doubt either.
2:44 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
For the record, I just sent the following email to Jake Weigler, the campaign manager for Novick for Senate:
"Charlie" is Charlie Burr - one of our three BlueOregon editors, who is an active Novick supporter.
Jan 21, '08
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 21, 2008 11:50:45 AM
...This mess is entirely of Novick's campaigns making, and Kari's association with the Merkley campaign in no way diminishes [it] ... The attempts to make this about Kari is subterfuge (at best) ...somehow this is all the problem because Kari posts on a blog his company runs and which he started?
Your numerous posts in multiple threads amount to nothing more than the Chewbacca defense done poorly.
lestat,
that is an interesting take on my comments, to which i will give you one miniscule piece of credit... when you say "The attempts to make this about Kari is subterfuge (at best)", to a certain extent you havea point. i was sort of hijacking this thread to to take up an issue i have with the feigned neutrality of BO in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. so, BO readers, sorry for leading the thread slightly off topic.
as for the rest of you post, and the whole "Chewbacca defense done poorly" nonsense, if you actually read what i have written here and on the other thread, i wasn't defending anything. i think my posts on the last thread, and on the Eugene RG site, made it clear that if the story holds up as alleged by kari (who is undeniably a paid merkley hack) and others, then i do have a problem with it. i also make it clear that i think there are some holes in the allegations, and i am still waiting for more information (from the PDA and Novick) before i make any further judgment.
thanks you for completely misconstruing what i have clearly written. you have basically put words in my mouth. i find that to be despicable. i am looking forward to your apology.
also, at least one of your so-called facts is untrue:
"3) she is the gatekeeper of organizing said local chapter"
no, there is no gatekeeper--the gates are open, anyone can join.
3:31 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Fair enough.
And who controls the email list from the National PDA here in Oregon?
Could it be the Oregon state chapter organizer of the PDA, one Liz Kimmerly?
Who has been the one organizing this barely week old Portland chapter of PDA?
Liz Kimmerly.
To claim I am in error in pointing out that Liz Kimmerly is indeed the gatekeeper of the formation of the Portland PDA Chapter is simply not credible a charge.
3:36 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Furthermore, if you go to the Oregon page on the PDA the only contact information is Liz's California phone number and her personal gmail account.
3:50 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Additonal follow-up fact to really drive the point home, when you join the PDA via their "join" form on hte Natioanl website, you recive the autoresponse email saying the following:
So who is our state coordinator here in Oregon for the PDA?
Liz Kimmerly!
Nope, no chance she is a gatekeeper in the Oregon local chapter formation, planning, coordinating, etc.
/snark
Jan 21, '08
Thanks, Kari! Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 21, 2008 2:44:08 PM
This afternoon I ran into a family friend who has been involved in politics for decades. Not being a blogger, she didn't know about this story but asked what happened. I said it was a story like others she and I had heard over the decades and explained the details, incl. that Liz K previously lived in California.
I said that I'd known Steve for years but maybe this was the first time he'd encountered a situation like this where he was the person in charge.
"If he doesn't say or do something by the end of the week, it becomes an issue about his moral backbone. If he is silent about all this, no rhetoric about the DSCC or Merkley's 2003 voting record will change the fact that a situation arose involving Steve's campaign and Steve was silent".
Before Stephanie or TJ or anyone else attacks that statement, remember that the primary is in May. Do you really want to go into June (win or lose) with your candidate's public perception being that no one has the right to question his wisdom?
We tried that here in Oregon--HOW DARE anyone who didn't vote for Bruggere in the primary as him an issue question. He won the primary therefore he was owed the support of every Oregon Democrat! Steve worked for Bruggere. If he wins the primary will he demand that sort of unquestioning support that in 1996 led some to say "OK if every Democrat is supposed to support him, I'll register NAV and then the "every Democrat" admonition will not apply to me", how will he prevent those who think they have a right to ask questions of candidates to see if Frohnmayer does a better job of discussing issues?
Oregonians are famously independent minded (a friend then living on the E. Coast in 1968 said had she been a betting person she could have gotten rich betting E. McCarthy would win the 1968 Oregon presidential primary because of that famous Oregon independence). It is time for there to be an explanation.
Whether it is that Steve knew about it from the beginning, Steve was blindsided by Liz, Steve didn't think it would be that big a deal, or whatever other explanation, it is time to break the silence.
It is time for an explanation.
5:16 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
TJ over on Loaded Orygun is trying out that very option right now, i.e it is so not a big deal that an email blast from the PDA, who Liz may be the author of, makes zero mention of the inherent conflict-of-interest issue (or the problems that have gone unaddressed by the Novick campaign so far in this mess) so it is 'nothing to see here, move along' from his most prolific blog supporter.
Of course we can't hold the Novick campaign directly accountable for TJ's line of defense (which is there is no issue at all and if there is is this is all Kari's fault because he has ties to the Merkley campaign) simply because he is a part of the "Web Wonks 4 Novick" volunteer group, but so far, aside form Jake Wiegler's singular post in the original BlueOreogn thread on this, a post which raised more questions than answered, the Novick campaign has been silent on this form the time it began to break last week, and nobody in the campaign made mention of Liz's role in the Novick campign at the Saturday evening PDA "endorsement meeting".
Jan 21, '08
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 21, 2008 3:31:49 PM
Who has been the one organizing this barely week old Portland chapter of PDA?
Liz Kimmerly.
To claim I am in error in pointing out that Liz Kimmerly is indeed the gatekeeper of the formation of the Portland PDA Chapter is simply not credible a charge.
you can call her the gatekeeper all you want, but i joined this week, and there was no "gate" to pass through, just a login and registration form. i started receiving PDA updates right away, and i joined with an email that is not associated with any novick list.
i repeat there is no gate. anyone can join.
if you have any evidence that people have been removed from the list, selectively removed from mass pda emails, prevented from joining please provide evidence, or had anything else occur that has gotten in their way of being a full PDA member, provide it and i will take this back. until then. no gate. no gatekeeper. more baseless attacks.
still awaiting that apology...
5:59 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Petrichor --
To respond to something you mentioned way the hell back up the string -- I rarely post because I'm 1) new to BlueOregon, 2) a full-time mother and 3) a full-time graduate student.
The lack of pro-Novick posts are not because Kari has kept me back as part of a conspiracy to keep BlueOregon Merkleyville. FYI.
6:25 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
This is a silly thing to argue about. It's bordering on parsing what the definition of "is" is.
The PDA website is pretty clear, as are the emails. If you want info on endorsements then you ask Moses Ross. If you want anything else you go through Liz Kimmerly.
You can call her the "gatekeeper", the "sultan of swing" or whatever else floats yer boat. Bottom line is that the national website clearly directs that everything except for endorsements goes to and through her.
7:38 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Well, so much for THAT scandal. All the weeping on behalf of PDA's lost honor, you can relax--PDA has no issue either with Kimmerly's dual role, or the endorsement process. You'd think if they thought there was a conflict of interest or misconduct, they might mention it--since it's THEIR ORGANIZATION.
Forgive me if I take their concerns as more indicative than the Merkley Concern Troll Unit.
10:15 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
I shall repeat since the point seems to escapes you.
When you join the PDA via their "join" form on hte Natioanl website, you recive the autoresponse email saying the following:
The person who is our state coordinator here in Oregon for the PDA is Liz Kimmerly, who is the paid campaign staffer in the Novick campaign. That fact that all new sign-ups that are in Oregon get auto forwarded to the Novick campaign staffer is right out of the gate a serious problem. There are a myriad things she could do to game the process at this point. The very fact that the Novick campaign has possible to the contact info for anyone signing up in the state of Oregon?
Which misses the point about what a gatekeeper in this context is. Liz has access to every PDA member in Oregon right now, and so potentially does the Novick campaign. Communication about only thing that can be sent out to PDA members in Oregon passes through Liz's hands and can be done separately since she has all the contacts of PDA members in Oregon, she can generate her own subset of Oregon PDA members to communicate separately after beating it against the Novick lists (and PDA requires not just email address, but first and last name as well as address. As I said there are myriad ways that abuse can take place to game the process because of the inherent conflict of interest her being involved holds. She may very well be the most pure of intention person on the planet who would never think of doing anything like gaming it, but because of the inherent conflict of interest, she hopelessly compromises any process.
That Liz has access to every PDA contact in Oregon, as I already indicated, can lead to any numerous permutations of subverting the process by having dual track paths of contact, that PDA email blasts can generate from her directly, separately, as original source through the PDA email blast, and so forth. So your bizarre demand I prove a negative when Liz has full access to all the Oregon PDA contacts is a non-starter.
Apology?
Thous to be fair you did appologize for calling me and others just attack bots by saying:
But then go on to say
So what part of those words was I misconstruing when I said that your posts in other threads was a Chewbacca Defense done poorly that I am suppose to apologize for?
10:17 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Well so much for that nonsensical statement.
Jan 21, '08
OK. So Liz tried to set up a process whereby a few insiders might have controlled the PDA endorsement process, while giving the appearance of an informed decision by the membership of that organization.
It is my informed understanding that most of the big Democratic leaning PACs work this way. Sometimes the outsider candidate is not even allowed to speak to the endorsing committee.
Perhaps Liz and Steve should have been more secretive and gotten somebody with no direct relationship with PDA. I suppose by not being secretive enough they showed poor judgment.
I am strongly supporting Merkley, and my name will show on his C and E's. There are many valid issues in this campaign. The PDA's endorsement process is not one of them. Nobody should quit or lose their job.
10:56 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
First of all, Harry, just because some people do bad things doesn't make 'em right.
Second, it's one thing to have a process that's restricted and to follow it. It's another entirely to have a democratic and open process, and then not follow it.
Third, this isn't a question about a sketchy endorsement from a long-term existing organization. Kimmerly tried to create a local chapter and issue an endorsement in the space of a week.
Perhaps I could create an East Benton County Democrats tomorrow... we could issue an endorsement by Saturday! Why not?
(p.s. Welcome to BlueOregon! It's great to have you around here... Please stick around!)
11:06 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
petrichor, i post here more than Kari -- and up front, under my own name. i post on national stuff & local. i've posted on Corvallis politics when i lived there. i post on frikkin' sports at times (go Ducks! Niners!!)
i support Steve and was one of the first people to do so for him here. i wrote for Pete Sorenson (Kari worked for Kulo). i write for Obama (Kari supports Edwards, and a fine choice that). the only issues in this regard are the ones folks make up for themselves. the only words i've gotten from Kari, after his initial "go for it" several years ago, was on formatting (and once he advised i put my most important point at the top and not the bottom, but dood, i'm an Artiste).
this PDA/Novick thing sucks bigtime because i support both. it sucks because i think Steve is too smart to let this kind of thing happens. it doesn't matter if Liz is trying to cheat or not; it's the appearance of impropriety that is so deadly in politics. it's what a politician or campaign appears to be doing that hurts. even if Steve honestly thought this was a minor tempest, it was pure dumb of Liz to put him in that position, and even dumber of them both to let it slide. it's not because PDA is a major organization; it's not, not around here. but it's fuel for Smith in the general. and it's just bad practice. if Steve wants to prove he's superior to Smith -- to the voters, not to me -- he can't have this kind of nonsense going on. shit, the bastards can take a man's honorable service in Vietnam and turn it into cowardice and treason. it don't take much, and this is too much.
11:28 p.m.
Jan 21, '08
Do you have an affirmative statement to that effect or are you just making assumptions?
Furthermore, your attempt to brush this embarrassing moment for the Novick Campaign under the rug fails to take into account that Kimmerly violated the rules by issuing the notice for an endorsement interview less than thirty days in advance as the bylaws stipulate. Only when outed by a reporter at the Eugene Register Guard (hardly a rival campaign) were the bylaws enforced.
Considering that to my knowledge no one from the national PDA was at the meeting where did they get their information for the post you are referring to? Could it be from their state coordinator Liz Kimmerly?
Jan 22, '08
"It is my informed understanding that most of the big Democratic leaning PACs work this way.leaning PACs work this way."
Harry, that is a valid statement if this endorsement comes with lots of money and volunteers (the way a union endorsement might---although I have known of 2 candidates endorsed by the same union in the same election cycle, but one got a lot more money and volunteers than the other).
But is that a fact? And of what value is an endorsement from an out of state group like this?
Would it, for instance, help fund (or create?) an ad with more substance than the To Tell The Truth ad? Would they be able to help deliver votes outside the Portland area, which after all is Steve's home area and where he shouldn't have trouble gaining supporters? Had this endorsement gone perfectly, would that help Steve in the upcoming Pendleton debate?
Do ordinary voters care about endorsements, or what the candidates are saying? Does this endorsement process help (or take away from) Steve going public, for instance, with his reaction to what House Ways and Means chair Rangel says about a potential stimulus package?
There was a relatively small number of people at that meeting apparently--didn't someone here say about 50? Suppose Steve and Liz had found someone not employed by their campaign to organize the endorsement meeting. Even if Steve got an endorsement from a room full of 50 people, how does that gain Steve votes from the general voting population?
What if the hours devoted to this PDA process had been spent meeting with ordinary voters on a college campus or somewhere else where there might be new voters who haven't been participating in Oregon politics since the 20th century?
My worry about this episode is not entirely the secretive nature of a Portland political drama. It is whether Steve who worked on the Bruggere campaign learned anything from it. Gordon Smith is a US Senator today because he found a way to relate to ordinary folks in a way Bruggere never did, to take advantage of unexpected opportunities, to be "quick on his feet". Did he do that because the American Conservative Union or some other organization which might be a Republican version of PDA endorsed him? Or (gasp) could it be that as someone who had previously won an election to lower office, Gordon had a feel for how to convince people to vote for him? The vote of a woman who observes Gordon Smith being polite to those who come to his restaurant table and interupt dinner with his family in order to speak to him face to face (yes, I know someone who voted for Gordon partly for that reason) counts just as much as the vote from a person who follows or participates in organizational endorsements.
If there are Democrats who don't understand that, then they don't understand why so many rank and file Democrats were thrilled when Jenny Greenleaf was elected DNC member and then helped elect Howard Dean as a very different DNC chair than Terry McAuliffe.
YOU HAVE THE POWER is about the power of ordinary Democrats---NOT the power to follow organizational endorsements dictated by in or out of state groups. It is the reason Howard Dean not only attracted young people but inspired burned out 20th century Democratic activists to return to politics. Does Steve agree with the approach of this book (which is more about volunteers than the value of political consultants)?
This is a deep philosophical debate among Democrats. It may not have reached the folks who do politics for a living, but it has been simmering among ordinary volunteers (who never earned a paycheck from a political campaign, and may have had to budget $25 contributions, but in some cases have contributed hundreds or thousands of hours of their spare time as Democratic volunteers of one sort of another). Do those ordinary volunteers matter, or is it all about paid staff, organizational endorsements, and voters just choosing candidates when they mark their ballots and not having much input otherwise?
Dave Steves is a reporter. Had someone other than Kari just posted a link to the Steves blog with a "read it and leave your comments" post, how would this story have been different?
Unintentionally, Liz created an opportunity to see what Steve is made of. Does he care more about town hall exchanges with ordinary voters, or pursuing endorsements? If someone who read the Steves blog but doesn't know Blue Oregon exists asks Steve about it when he is in Pendleton or some other area of the state far from Portland, how will he react?
Cong. Clyburn, member of the House leadership from S. Carolina, said on Nightline that whoever is attacking Obama in S. Carolina is doing him a favor. "If he wins after this (or comes close to winning but doesn't let the attacks bother him) then he is fit to run nationally and we have learned something about him. But if he doesn't win and can't handle the attacks, we have learned maybe he isn't ready for a national race" (or words to that effect).
I say the same is true for Steve Novick. Unexpected things happen during campaigns. Can a candidate handle the unexpected? "How do you deal with the unexpected" is a question asked in some job interviews. Aren't campaigns also job interviews for elective office?
Sure there are more important issues, starting with whether Steve will repeat Ron Wyden's pledge of a town hall meeting in every county every year. Can Steve handle the kind of general audience questions which come from people who aren't longtime Democratic activists? If someone thinks Steve Novick's approach to an issue is too theoretical, raises questions of implementation, or is just something they disagree with, how will Steve handle that?
Having an endorsement from the Portland chapter of an out of state group really doesn't answer those questions.
12:45 a.m.
Jan 22, '08
First of all, according to PDA there has been a chapter in Oregon since late 2007. Secondly, if you're referring to the rules posted for a US House local endorsement seeking national endorsement, I wonder why. Even in those, I don't see any rule about a 30 day interview notice. Also, I'm curious--is Merkley a PDA member in good standing? Because to receive the national endorsement he must be.
Use a little common sense here. If PDA sees conflict of interest, what is the opposite of what they should do? I'd say it's introducing that person as the rightful leader, and talking about what a great job they have done and are doing in Oregon so far--including the task of setting up local chapters and discussing the option of endorsements in an open meeting.
The only thing that's left of this sorry accusation is the idea that somehow Kari saved the PDA from a disastrous process. Well shit, if their aim was simply to delay the process and shut down any chance of being steamrolled, Isaacs and the Concern Unit could have showed up--as they did--and talked down the idea of even starting the process (so far no one has provided ANY evidence of ANY kind that a vote was planned for that night).
But if their aim was to trump up fears and speculation and piss on one of Steve Novick's good weeks instead of their own for a change, they'd probably do something like they've done.
11:19 a.m.
Jan 22, '08
You are right, it says 21 days, which is a far cry from 4 days notice that the Novick campign staffer tried to push through.
11:28 a.m.
Jan 22, '08
LT,
FWIW, my view of the value of the endorsement process of a group like what PDA hopes to become but is not yet in Oregon is that through a process that brings the candidates into contact with a group of active people, the campaign might get some workers out of it to do the other kind of thing you often point out -- phone and shoe leather and neighbor to neighbor work.
Also, while you are concerned about getting uninvolved people more involved, which is great, in terms a primary campaign strategy for someone like Steve who has less financial resources, and who is running left of Merkley at least on the point of less willingness to compromise on some things, he has to mobilize his hoped for base of left progressives for the primary.
The PDA's membership (not yet really a network even, I suppose) of 2300 left-progressives is a valuable resource for such mobilization, I would think.
In other words, I think the issue of people taking directives from outside endorsements, or not, is a red herring. I don't believe for a second that the Novick campaign thinks it means anything like that, or that endorsements work that way. Their interest lies in the access the organization may help them get to a not insubstantial chunk of an important potential primary constituency.
That of course detracts nothing from your more central points about what kinds of contacts Steve needs to be creating, ideally even during the primary, that will help in the general if he gets the nomination -- same for Merkley or Neville too. But there is a primary going on.
12:33 p.m.
Jan 22, '08