Forward Oregon

Steve Novick says that he doesn’t look like the typical Washington politician, and says he won’t act like one either. However, Novick’s campaign is starting to pile up a list of ethical problems that raise serious questions about this claim. First, it was attempting to use right wing talking points by distributing an article criticizing Jeff Merkley’s opposition to homophobic judicial nominee Leslie Southwick. Then it was Kimmergate in which a paid Novick staffer acted unethically in an attempt to endorse her boss. The Novick campaign refused to comment or speak out on the situation, tarring Novick himself.

Now, Henry Kraemer the Deputy Outreach Coordinator for Steve Novick was caught placing nefarious edits on Jeff Merkley’s Wikipedia page.

Ben at Witigonan, has the story:

Take a minute to look at Merkley’s Wikipedia edit history page; user HenryK2687 (his birthday is May 26, 1987) has been quite busy there. Indeed, his edits took the base, added in more text about Saddam and President Bush, and omitted reference to the praise of our troops in one broad stroke. These actions have been undone, called a “conflict of interest” and had to be cleaned up to reflect an “even keel.” If this is the same “Henry” who tried to out the author of Beaver Boundary in a BlueOregon thread, and if he’s working for Steve Novick’s campaign, then we have a big problem.

The edits that Henry made to Jeff Merkley’s Wikipedia page are outrageous and unethical. The fact that he changed the section in question and omitted major details leaves little question as to his agenda: he’s a Novick partisan, through and through. In that capacity, it’s straight-up shenanigans to do what he did. And, sadly, this has been done before.

In comments to Ben’s post, Kraemer confessed to being the source of the edits. He says that he acted on his own. Just as with the Kimmerly situation, the Novick campaign has failed to comment. It is obviously up to Novick how he manages his staff. But the history of this kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal for other campaigns. The blog Politics and Technologydiscussed the 2006 Wikipedia scandals saying:

Here’s the deal — while [Wikipedia]’s a tempting target, it really doesn’t matter. Do undecided voters visit the Wikipedia sites of candidates? No. All this “warfare” is akin to the lawn-sign wars engaged in by the interns. It’s certainly not a prize worth getting fired over. It’s not even worth the chance of a negative headline in your candidate’s race that makes a campaign manager look like an immature twit.

Daily Kos’ resident legal expert Adam B said this about Wikipedia editing at an ethics in blogging conference:

Given the traceability of IP addresses and the tenacity of online readers (and site owners), there is very little to separate the ethical from the effective in online politics. By that, I just mean this: you will get caught. Whether it’s concern trolls and shills getting outed or Wikipedia mischief traced back to its house.gov source, it’s actually a lot harder to get away with unethical behavior here than it is when a campaign floods a talk radio show or letters-to-the-editor page with the concerns of “ordinary citizens”.

This is another incident in what is becoming a trail of poor ethical decisions by the Novick campaign. It also displays an inability for them to address glaring weaknesses in their operation. We cannot afford to send a campaign with serious ethical problems and the inability to learn from their mistakes against Gordon Smith.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, Steve Novick, Henry Kraemer, Jeff Merkley, Wikipedia, Ethics

Tonight John Kroger, who is running for Attorney General, came to Willamette University to address the College Democrats. I used the opportunity to blog about his speech. Below are the PARAPHRASED remarks by John Kroger as recorded by yours truly.

I spend all of my time driving around the state giving the same speech over and over, because thats what politics has become. After a while the speech starts to loose its force for both the audience and for me, so tonight, I’m going to throw it out the window and try something different.

I’ll tell you why I’m running; its not about public policy. I care about public policy; I want to end the meth epidemic and our state to be pro-environment. But thats not why I am running, I’m running because this state and this country are a mess i find it unbelievably frustrating.

The war drives me nuts. Kids are on their 3rd and 4th tours of duty and we can find funding for that, but the kids at home, who are suffering from child abuse, we can’t find money for them. Child abuse is appalling in this state. We just got a horrible report card on dealing with child abuse. Oregon got a D we aren’t doing anything about it

We put laws on the books, like for protecting the environment, and then ignore them. We let people violate them and there are no consequences.

The other day, I went to drug treat center and there were 14, 15 year old kids and they are in there because they’re addicted to cocaine, meth, and heroin and it made me cry. Who gets addicted to hard drugs at 14? Kids that had hard drugs in the home. 90% girls there were sexually abused because of drugs in their home and their parents are on drugs or the people coming into their house to get hard drugs abuse them. For these kids the drug treatment center is first safe place they have ever been. The first place where they went to sleep at night safe, the first place they ever went to go to school. But these treatment centers have empty beds and turning away kids because there is no funding. We have all kinds of stuff we fund, but we don’t give the funds for the 14 year old sexually abused heroin addict.

It makes me sad and its symptomatic of a broken process.

Single parents are another situation that is just horrible. How many of you were raised by a single parents? Thats a lot and it’s even harder if money is a problem. In the State of Oregon 100,00 single parents don’t get child support. I was talking to a family at a neighborhood barbecue and they were telling me about how her daughter didn’t get her child support. Their daughter could barely make the rent and they had to buy groceries so that their daughter and grandkids could eat. That shouldn’t have to happen. We should make sure it doesn’t.

Politics is all about money today. My first campaign was in college as a sophomore and I have been doing it for 20 years. 85 percent of my time during this campaign is spent fundraising. Right now, talking to you, this is a break. The same thing happens with every politician. I want more than for you to help my campaign, i want to challenge you because we have to do something better for our the state for the country. It’s not going to work without you; we need your energy to elect candidates with vision to change the way things are done.

The baby boomer generation hasn’t done it for the us. I am 41 and my generation is just starting to get more influence, but it’s not clear we can do it any better. We need energize young people like you to make every level of government.

Part of that is so that an addicted kid can get help and so a single mom can get some help not from hand out but what she is legally entitled to.

I am asking for your help. Its what we need; I need your help to make change. Oregon has the potential to be a great lab of democracy, but we need people to go out and make it happen.

I absolutely loved Kroger’s speech. It was passionate, well delivered, articulate, and inspiring. Rather that lecturing us like a professor or many other candidates, Kroger sat down at the table in the conference room where we hold our Dems meetings and was deeply engaging while tapping into fundamental progressive values that are deeply at the core of my being. I have previously complained that this race was tepid and left me wanting for some inspiration. I believe I may have found that tonight.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: AG, Attorney General, John Kroger

Tonight I have the opportunity to live blog John Kroger’s speech at the Willamette University College Democrats.  The event will start at 8 as will coverage.  I hope you stop by then to check it out.

Senator Chris Dodd’s courageous stand against FISA legislation that would grant telecom companies immunity for violating our privacy and handing over millions of our phone records without a warrant. Senator Dodd’s quest to restore the rule of law reaches another crucial juncture today, as we must defeat a cloture vote by Roadblock Republican Senator Mitch McConnell.

The great thing is you can help! Senator Dodd said this while on the floor of the Senate on Friday:

For several months now, I’ve listened to the building frustration over this immunity and this administration’s campaign of lawlessness. I’ve seen it in person, in mail, online—the passion and eloquence of citizens who are just fed up. They’ve inspired me more than they know.

As someone who occasionally gets discouraged that my voice is only through working on elections, to hear Sen. Dodd talk about how the public encouraged him to stand up is inspiring and restores a lot of lost faith that those phone calls to my senators get heard.

Oregon Democratic Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley is also doing his part to step up the public pressure. Merkley has started a citizen petition in support of Senator Dodd’s impressive stand that will be delivered to Senator Ron Wyden, already one of the good guys, and Gordon Smith, who is definately not but might consider switching sides to save his electoral butt. The petition reads:

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of American citizens. These records were released with no warrants and no judicial oversight. Only President Bush, his closest advisors and the telecommunications companies know the extent of this warrant less surveillance.

Now, the Bush Administration and some members of Congress are pushing a new FISA bill that would provide legal amnesty for those companies that turned over records. This amnesty for telecom companies would shield them from any legal accountability for these actions.

Congress must stand up and protect the rights of American citizens. They must restore the balance of power by returning oversight to the judiciary. The courts, not Congress, should decide what is legal.

We call upon Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Gordon Smith to stand in support of Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and his filibuster of this amnesty. Senators Wyden and Smith should help Senator Dodd protect the Fourth Amendment and ensure that surveillance of Americans is no longer conducted without oversight.

Join the fight by signing the petition and by electing a US Senator like Jeff Merkley to the United States Senate, so that in the future we will have more senators who will stand with Dodd to protect the rule of law.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, Jeff Merkley, Chris Dodd, FISA, Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden, Mitch McConnell

A lot has happen in a week.  I scrapped my thesis topic for something that I can possibly do without moving to the Middle East, College Democrats started up again, and I got to spend a bunch of time up in Portland.  So here are your Sunday Quick Hits:

• Elections should be on Saturday.  It makes celebrating Obama victories easier!
• The Oregon Federation of College Democrats launched the Student 2 Student organizing plan yesterday at the OFCD, which was quite impressive.  Kudos go to Sara Bean Duncan, the OFCD President, and Andrea Cooper, the DPO Constituency Director, for a great job.  Student 2 Student augments the DNC Neighbor to Neighbor program to take into account the transient nature of the college student population in a way that the Neighbor to Neighbor plan alone neglected.  Especially, if Obama is at the top of the ticket this plan could be the force that pushes a tsunami of college students to the polls in November.
• Also at the OFCD meeting was Ben Unger, the former Measure 49 guru, who was very effectively making his case for John Kroger, who’s AG campaign he is running.
• This Caroline Kennedy’s Op-Ed in the New York Times endorsing Obama made me get all warm and fuzzy on the inside:

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

I look forward to this week when John Kroger is coming to the Willamette College Democrats, which I will be blogging about.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: QuickHits, OFCD, Student to Student, John Kroger

Lets start with the last question first.  Why bother having the first United States Senate debate between the Democratic candidates?  It wasn’t on the radio, it wasn’t on television, hell it wasn’t even on the internet until days after the debate occurred.  There were a small handful of newspaper stories giving wrap ups, universally saying that it was a pleasant, cordial debate which did not differentiate the candidates.  Now having been on the debate team for a third of my life, I am usually not one to rag on having debates, but in this case the debate had such limited access to people that aren’t already decided political hacks (like a TJ from Loaded Orygun or myself, partisans who regularly comment on the race).   I am going to vote for whoever comes out of the primary regardless and have long since chosen my horse.

So on to who won the debate. Well we have to look at all of the candidates performances.  Merkley, the established front runner, had to put on a good but not spectacular performance in the debate to win.  He needed to keep Novick from having a substantially better night than he did.  Novick, the second major contender but significantly trailing Merkley in funds, endorsements, and organization, needed to wow people.  The expectations for Novick were high because he needed to establish himself as the only legitimate contender for the nomination who is a true progressive, a difficult task due to Merkley’s excellent progressive credentials.  Furthermore, with the Novick supporting Loaded Orygun chorus painting Novick as a soaring orator he had to contend with.  Novick didn’t do anything to dissuade these expectations with his own words in an interview with the Oregonian:

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…

“This is a time for candor, not caution,” Novick said. “I see Jeff Merkley running a very cautious campaign.”

So these are the starting points. Where did it end? Did Merkley have a good enough night that no one else could pull away? Yes, according to Ridenbaugh Press:

There weren’t, in sum, a lot of policy differences here; nor breakthroughs, or any particular crash or burn. Nor were there any fireworks; the candidates all focused their fire on Smith and President George W. Bush. … Merkley’s and Novick’s supporters have been blasting each other of late, but the candidates themselves did not at Pendleton, even going out of their way to agree on various specifics.

The Oregonian similarly had this to say:

They called for an end to the Iraq war, lambasted federal education policies and told a few folksy stories about themselves. They did little, however, to separate their positions from one another.

So from those sources it would look as if Merkley accomplished his goal of having a good performance and playing a little defense.  In a Swing State Project diary, the Novick camp is trumpeting their success in the debate based off of a throw in quote in the middle of the Eastern Oregonians coverage:

With so little difference in substance, style may influence some voters. And the edge from the first debate seemed - let’s repeat that, seemed - to favor Novick. [emphasis mine]

Yup, thats right. Novick contend that he met his mandate and expectations with a hedged sentence in the middle of only one account.  I am sorry, but if he thinks that not even getting a headline is going to generate the free media attention Novick needs to propel his candidacy, he is sadly mistaken.  Furthermore, this statement by the Eastern Oregonian in the same article is completely ignored:

However, he did miss an opportunity to separate his candidacy from Merkley’s. Novick didn’t emphasize distinctions of different solutions to the problems facing Oregon and our great nation.

Seems like Steve Novick might be the one with the cautious campaign now.  Playing evenly is not something that Novick can afford now, its late in the second half and time is running out.  Kicking field goals and running the ball isn’t going to allow Novick to overcome the deficit his campaign faces against Merkley.  When viewed in that context it is easy to see who did what needed to be done in the debate.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, Steve Novick, Jeff Merkley, Pendleton Debate, 2008 Democratic Senate Primary

I have a problem. I don’t like being undecided. In my opinion it is generally is a state reserved for the uninformed and the uninvolved. Yet, my inability to embrace a Attorney General candidate continues to confound me, leaving me still undecided.

In an effort to break this gridlock, I went to a Greg Macpherson endorsement announcement/fundraiser on Tuesday. This is not the first time I have seen the candidates. A couple of weekends ago at the Rebooting Democracy Conference, I watched the two debate and reacted in a Winners and Losers post:

Losers: The AG candidates - Both support mandatory minimums and were boring as all get out, though Kroger was livelier and certainly won the debate. I still have yet to start caring at all about this race.

On an intellectual level, I know why I should care about this race. The Attorney General is a hugely important position as the state’s lawyer. But that has not translated to any passion or even deciding on a candidate on my part.

Macpherson has a long and impressive track record as a state representative. He was the one of the most significant authors of the Measure 49 land use fix, which definitely gives him an advantage in that area. It seems like he would be an good manager of the Department of Justice. John Kroger on the other hand, would be much more adept in a court room or on the stump rallying against Kevin Mannix. His record as a prosecutor is long and impressive suing Enron among others. I believe he would be very effective suing polluters to enforce environmental regulation.

One thing that is frustrating me with my choices is the “Oregon-ness” if you will of the candidates. Macpherson is running on a traditional Oregon political platform that I heartily disapprove of, which suggests that only if you were born here can you know Oregon well enough to represent its people. I am not a native Oregonian. I was born and raised in San Francisco, a city that I love very very dearly, but I chose to live in Oregon. I pay taxes here, I vote here, I work here, and I go to school here. Why that qualifies me for scorn in the rhetoric of so many candidates I don’t understand. Similarly, John Kroger chose to live here and teach at Lewis and Clarke School of Law. Arguments from Macpherson should ask whether Kroger’s experience as a federal prosecutor in New York would help him with Measure 49 claims rather than making hay over whether or not he is getting funding from lawyers without the last name Kroger from other states.

Finally, I disagree with both candidates on Measure 11 and mandatory minimums. During the Rebooting Democracy Conference Kroger acknowledged that his opinion on M11 differed from mine. However, Kroger made the argument that he was best for opposing Mannix’s upcoming ballot measure expanding Measure 11. Macpherson said he supported M11 at Rebooting Democracy, just like he did when speaking to the state’s district attorneys:

Greg Macpherson: Measure 11 is the law in Oregon, and I think the reason that it works as well as it does is because of the good work of the people in this room.

When I asked him about the quote during his fundraiser, he seemed to want it both ways. The inherent flaw in mandatory minimums is that the prosecutor gets to decide if you will be charged with a Measure 11 crime. If you are poor, a member of a minority community, or a non-English speaker, you are more likely to be charged with a M11 crime. Furthermore, especially with disadvantaged people using public defenders, the power is exclusively in the hands of the prosecutor, encouraging pleading out to a lesser crime because of the risk of being sent away not because of guilt. Macpherson didn’t even acknowledge this contradiction, which concerns me.

I have still yet to find a candidate I am supporting, and will probably wait until they both visit the Willamette College Democrats in the next three weeks. This race is such a conundrum.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: AttorneyGeneral, AG, John Kroger, Greg Macpherson, Measure 11, mandatory minimums

It was shortly before Jeff Merkley’s appearance at Willamette University.  The College Democrats, of whom I am the Political Director, picked an ambitious site to stage the event, ASWU Sound had not performed the sole purpose of its existence when it failed to deliver the reserved sound equipment, the podium facilities brought us looked a lot like a music stand, and I was freaking out.  Before every event disaster strikes, this one no different.  So when the huge crowd of nearly 80 materialized and the event was set up, I breathed a sign of relief as all I had left to do before the event was check for trackers.  We had decided that as this was an event for Willamette Students and invited members of the community that we were going to ask them to not record the event.

I saw one tracker who was not hard to spot.  He was sitting in the back setting up a tripod and camera.  I asked him if he was a student.  He said that he was not a student but rather an alumni and that the alumni office sent out an invitation, something that I was not aware of nor did I confirm afterward. I nicely asked him not to tape it and he went away.

Little did I know there was not just one but three people from the GOP camp. The other was a huge guy who stood way too close to the podium and pulled a small audio recorder out which I hadn’t previously seen. Before the event started I had asked a group of people he was sitting with who they were and one of them said that they were a law student. Since they were sitting so close I assumed that they were speaking for the group.

Then there was Tim Lussier. It would make sense that NRSC was using multiple trackers to capture Tim’s aggressive question on the War in Iraq. It would have been to no avail because Merkley did a great job of rejecting the false premise of the question, reframing it, and taking on the issue on Merkley’s turf, a quality which will serve him well on the campaign trail against Smith and in the Senate.  After the event I talked to him to find out what his deal was. He told us that he was president of the Clackamas CC College Democrats, said and asked if he could come to the WU meeting.  I didn’t think anything of it until the MSM picked up on it.

From David Steves of the Eugene Register Guard:

On Thursday, the Merkley campaign got an e-mail sent from an address with “Merkster2008.” The message said it was sent by Tim Lussier, who wrote that he was “a local activist and a big fan of Jeff. I’d love to find out when I can see him speak. …”

When the Merkley campaign did some research on Tim Lussier, it found a treasure trove on the Web.

Tim Lussier’s MySpace page features a photo of Lussier — he’s identical to the tracker “Tim” who Merkley’s campaign photographed — posing with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

The Merkley campaign also found out he was a 20-year-old West Linn man who’s been active in student government at Clackamas Community College and with Young Republican organizations.

The same day, Kelley said, the Merkley campaign got a phone call from someone who identified himself as “Tim Thompson,” asking about a fundraiser that night. He gave a phone number — which turned out to be the number of a landscape business owned by Tim Lussier’s dad: Bob Lussier.

It’s not that Lussier has been tracking Merkley around that’s upsetting, said Kelley, explaining that it was one of his own jobs when starting out as a campaign intern years ago…

“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,” Kelley said. “And you especially can’t do that and get caught.”…

So is there a code of conduct for these political campaign workers? Both of Oregon’s major political parties seem to think so.

“I think a good standard code of conduct would be honesty,” said Oregon Republican Party spokeswoman Brianne Hyder. “If somebody asks you, you don’t lie.”

One of my good friends is the DSCC tracker watching Gordon Smith.  Tracking isn’t a bad thing by any means but in this case a clear violation of the code of ethics occurred.  It wasn’t Smith’s campaign but it sure was someone (the National Republican Senatorial Committee) he throws his lot in with, and expects to receive substantial financial backing from.  Just like how Gordon Smith throws his lot in with the national Republican party, voting over 90% of the time with George Bush.  We need someone who will campaign ethically and will vote for Oregon’s best interests in the Senate.  That person is Jeff Merkley.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, Trackers, Tim Lussier, Gordon Smith, NRSC, Jeff Merkley, Willamette University,

Late Thursday night, David Steves broke a story about the sham endorsement process of a puppet organization run by a Steve Novick’s senior staffer.  Forward Oregon brought you the first blog coverage of the story that I am now deeming “Kimmergate”, after the ethically challenged staffer who is behind this mess.  Little did Forward Oregon know at the time, Steves’ piece was just the beginning.  Blue Oregon dug deeper revealing even more insidious details that were previously unknown, like that Kimmerly’s actions were not sanctioned by the national Progressive Democrats of America.

BlueO commenter Jack Murray did an excellent job of succinctly summing up what has come to light:

a) Liz Kimmerly is the Novick campaign online director
b) Liz Kimmerly set up the PDA-Oregon chapter and
c) Proceeded to move the endorsement process within 48 hours of forming the group for this Saturday (giving the campaigns involved only 4 days’ notice) and
d) Failed to contact or notify many of the 2300 members of the national PDA here in Oregon, which
e) Violated the rules of the national PDA endorsement process with require 30 days’ notice and a written questionnaire. What’s more,
f) Kimmerly should have known about these processes due to her ‘long involvement’ with the PDA, and would have followed them if her intentions were purely fair, but
g) Since she didn’t, this is clearly an attempt to game the endorsement process of a large national organization for the perceived benefit of her employer, Steve Novick.

The implications of that information are vast, and they beg significantly more questions. Did Steve Novick know about the unethical acts of his Online Director?  Did the Campaign Manager Jake Wiegler know? Did they put her up to it or just tacitly approve of these immoral tactics? If she is rouge (which I don’t think she is, considering Novick accepted the interview invitation), what actions will they take to hold her accountable for what is clearly an unethical conflict of interest? Why hasn’t Kimmerly been fired already?

Further, it is not just Forward Oregon asking these questions.  The Swing State Project, an influential national blog covering close federal races around the country, chimed in with similar questions and concerns about Novick’s ability to head a legitimate campaign.  Preemptive Karma, wonders how a progressive that lived thought the rampant use of unethical tactics of the Bush administration, would be able to engage in such shady dealings. Blue Oregon, as mentioned above, does the best job of adding more insight into how the dirty ploy was perpetrated.

Steve Novick entered the Senate race promising to be “a different kind of politician.”  Kimmerly’s unscrupulous tactics show that apparently, that promise was false.  Kimmergate brings into question whether Novick would seriously be able to take on Gordon Smith.  Despite popular belief, it is the campaign, not the candidates, that win or lose races and these events are even more evidence that those Novick surrounds him with are not able to take on Smith.  If this stunt was pulled during a general election, game over, Novick would be branded an unethical hack, pundits would demand Kimmerly’s head, Smith would win.  We can not afford to leave such an important race to those who are ethically challenged and lack the moral compass to see the potential disaster waiting and back away from these kind of underhanded tactics.  We cannot afford unethical amateur hour if we want to beat Gordon Smith.

I requested comment from the Novick Campaign but thus far they have refused to answer.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, 2008 Democratic Senate Primary, Steve Novick, Kimmergate, Swing State Project, Blue Oregon, Preempitve Karma, Liz Kimmerly

The old saying goes “You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.” For Oregon Democratic Senate candidate Steve Novick, the company he is keeping, in this case his Online Director Liz Kimmerly, brings into serious question Novick’s ethics and moral compass. David Steves at the Eugene Register Guard, broke a story about how Kimmerly created and heads a puppet organization barely a month old that is holding endorsement interviews (presumably to endorse her employer) this weekend:

A newly formed chapter of Progressive Democrats of America is interviewing three Senate candidates Saturday—including one who is the boss of the chapter’s coordinator.
Liz Kimmerly isn’t just the PDA state coordinator in Oregon, a position she accepted a little more than a month ago when the chapter formed. She also does online campaign work for Democratic Senate candidate Steve Novick.
Which could make the other invited Democratic candidates, Jeff Merkley and Candy Neville, a little skeptical about whether they’ll get a fair shot at the group’s endorsement.

I expect these kind of tactics from Karl Rove and the GOP but Steve Novick? I would expect that a truly progressive Democrat would have more respect for ethics and civil society than to go about creating puppet organizations run by staffers. I know Novick can’t compete in the money game and his former allies in organized labor have turned on him by supporting Merkley but are they really so hard up for support that they need to pull unethical stunts like this? If I were running I would rather quit the race than cross ethical lines in a poor attempt to fake organic grassroots support.

This action begs several questions

1. Why is the Online Director for Novick creating a group having an endorsements meeting for the candidate she works for? How can Jeff Merkley, Candy Neville or any candidate be guaranteed a fair process when the group is run by a paid staffer for Steve Novick?

2. How complicit is Steve Novick in this huge breech of ethics by his staff? Did Novick know? Did his campaign? Did they put her up to it or just tacitly approve of these immoral tactics? If she is rouge (which I don’t think she is, considering Novick accepted the interview invitation), what actions will they take to hold her accountable for what is clearly an unethical conflict of interest?

If she was acting alone, Novick needs to fire Kimmerly immediately, and if Novick was complicit voters should punish him for this unethical Rove-like behavior at the ballot box this May.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: OR-Sen, Steve Novick, 2008 Senate Democratic Primary, Jeff Merkley, Candy Neville, Ethics, Karl Rove