Looks like some unemployed young Republicans -- another argument for investing in jobs for young workers! Call it the tracker job development plan!

What a stinky job, I hope I never get stuck at the bottom rung of a campaign. No matter who you work for, working for a campaign is something you have to have a passion for, otherwise the hours, b.s., and constant being "on" would drive a person insane.

The one on the top right is Dr. Jack from Lost. I recognize the tongue-biting look from just before he yells at his dad across the OR, every other episode.

Trackers are perfectly legitimate, as long as they're honest about who they and don't try to disrupt things. Anyone can be a citizen journalist, even those who have an opposing agenda. Collins' attacks were delusional, and she was rightly called out on it at the time.

So, what is the fuss over exactly? You said that they were well behaved, a background a element if you will.

You've given these people the menacing name of "tracker" while all they are doing is seeing what the opponent is up to. I see no problem with running a race where you know what your opponent is doing. Nonetheless, this seems to be nothing more than a sleazy tactic to some people, which I think is a bit hyperbolic.

Looks like the guy on the right is or has been afiliated with the Oregon College Republicans. Go to the federation of oregon college republicans, our pictures, and then look at the fifth picture from the top. Of course, all the angry white guys look alike...

When I decided to run for political office, I accepted the fact that my life, my wife's, and my children's would all be placed under a microscope.

I accepted the fact that I would be Googled extensively, and that anything I ever said, wrote, or did would be examined, and if merited, displayed for the public to consume, (Including this comment). For some good people, on both sides of the political spectrum, this is the reason they don't seek to serve in our political offices.

I plead with you all to not extend this same "treatment" very far beyond candidates. I ask you this, because once we decide it is okay to politicize some people helping out with a campaign, technology will soon make it possible to do it to a lot more people, including volunteers.

And once Google indexes that information, it never lets it go.

People don't need to be fearful that a potential employer is going to hold their signature on an initiative petition as a strike against them.

People shouldn't be afraid to go door-knocking because they know that not only the candidate, but that the volunteers are going to digitally recorded, eventually identified, possibly investigated, and potentially used in a campaign hit piece.

Don't we want more people getting involved in campaigns rather than less? Especially, if people are afraid of getting involved in the first place.

This really seems to be getting close to a slippery slope. Let's back away from that Abyss.

Please?

Is tracking illegal? I am not blind to the fact that Jeff Merkley probably has zero chance in taking Senator Smith's seat in the Senate. SO that fact that Senator Smith has staffers tracking Merkley and doing their homework makes me happy. It lets me know that Senator Smith is working his hardest and doing his best to serve Oregon and not just his party.

Just to back up my previous point, check this out:

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2008_sen_ratings_jan17.pdf

Merkley obviously has a chance, and I wish him the best, I just don't think he is anywhere near a strong enough candidate to beat Smith.

OK, I've found them for real, now. They're two of the young groupies from Bob Roberts.

This is also a hypocrisy issue. James Webb is U.S. Senator from Virginia because of a college kid doing this with George Allen, & nobody was criticizing that kid around here as far as I know.

You suppose that could have been because we're focused on what's happening in OREGON?

Jeez, you want to hear from Virginians, go to a Promise Keepers' chastity rally or something...

Sheeple: A term of disparagement, a portmanteau created by combining the words "sheep" and "people"; a reference to herd mentality. It is often used to denote persons who acquiesce to authority, and thus undermine their own human individuality.

Kari: _

Blue Oregon: Baaah

Blue Oregon is full of sheeple. It would be OK if our shepherd was someone with integrity and the judgment to lead, someone like Barack Obama, but no, we got stuck with Kari Chrisholm.

The point of this post is not to identify trackers, it's to rile the troops. Kari writes two types of posts: (1) To rile the troops, (2) Hit pieces on Steve Novick. Posts filed under (1) are almost always about Gordon Smith nowadays.

Here are his last 4 posts: 1-GOP Senate staffer decries Gordon Smith's tactics 2-Even Novick's supporters are worried about the Kimmerly fake-endorsement debacle 3-On Saturday night, Liz Kimmerly continues to pretend she doesn't work for Novick 4-Fake endorsement backfires on Novick campaign operative

See a trend? I shouldn't have to tell you that Kari is a consultant with the Merkley campaign. You can see his first post on Jeff Merkley's website here. However, as in this post, he rarely identifies himself as such. He passes himself off to you as an unbiased observer while he's in Jeff Merkley's pocket!

Wake up sheeple!

Unfortunately I don't know who they are but I would LOVE to! They are HOT, especially that guy on the left, the Abercrombie wearing one. As a young single democrat I am always looking for eligible men, preferably ones who don’t smell of patchouli oil (which pretty much rules out most of the democrat party). If anyone is able to figure out who these sexy trackers are, please send them my way

The guy on the right may be someone I used to know. He wasn't very interested in politics when I knew him. I'd rather not mention his name in a public forum because I might be wrong. (Also, he might not appreciate being implicated with Gordon Smith. Who here would?) Kari, is there a way to contact you more discreetly?

T.A. Barnhart: I did a little research on you.

I found that you're a poet, that you support Barack Obama, and write on Blue Oregon. I also found that despite how learned you wish to make yourself appear by being 'polite,' you enjoy pointless minutia about the Oscars and writing an enthralling piece about your brother being on Hardball. Mostly, I found that you are a blind defender of Blue Oregon--and Kari.

You couldn't seem to handle Steve Duin calling Kari "the Democratic errand boy who runs the Blue Oregon Glee Club." Naturally, when I raised question about Kari and Blue Oregon, you responded fervently.

You said, "Kari makes it clear in posts & comments when he writes on a topic concerning a client." What's the threshold for 'concerning a client?' According to you, Kari's post about Gordon Smith's trackers following Merkley does not concern a client--even though Kari's client is Jeff Merkley.

Sorry to name-call, but that's how the English language works. There's Democrats, Republicans, and yes, there are sheeple. Your blind support for Kari and Blue Oregon make you a perfect example of one.

But you are also a hypocrite. Case in point, your 'A Chicken Comes Home to Roost' post. You called me a name caller; I wonder what some would call you for posting a picture of Gordon Smith looking in the mirror at O.J. Simpson?

What about for saying that child abuse gives Oregon GOP the 'giggles?' Where I might add, you deployed the word 'shit.' My audience may be in the sixth grade, but yours never graduated from it.

You have quotes on the top of your poetry site. I found this one fitting for you:

"The reward for conformity was that everyone liked you except yourself." -Rita Mae Brown, Venus Envy

Stop being a sheeple on Blue Oregon T.A.

My reply to T.A. Barnhart has been caught up in the Blue Oregon spam filter. Unfortunately, the manual approval seems to be selective.

I've posted it here.

As for Kari, it's simple. You're dragging the standards of Blue Oregon down. You come on here and do your dirty work. Nobody stands up to you and says that you're writing hit pieces on the guy who isn't paying you.

It's not that everyone is falling into line. It's that nobody questions your allegiances.

I don't want you to disclose 'all the time,' I want you to do it every time. Also, perhaps you could not write 3 anti-Steve Novick posts in a row? After a while it all becomes drivel. I get it, you don't want Novick to win.

I'm not a Novick supporter. I just don't appreciate you using Blue Oregon as a vehicle to, as Steve Duin says, be 'the Democratic errand boy.'

Just FYI people, the Democratic Party of Oregon also has a tracker dedicated to taping Gordon Smith at any opportunity that arises. So before you rag on the GOP too much, be aware it's a tactic both sides uses. (Not that I'm against ragging on the GOP, just in the interest of avoiding hypocrisy)

I know who those guys are, and they would be proud to tell you who they are. But why do YOU NEED TO KNOW who they are, what difference would it make? Would you tracker them down and beat them up? Would you go to where they live and leave harrassing notes on thier doors, etc.? Do you have knowledge that they have violated state or federal laws? Please let us know what they have done that is not out of Mr. Maccaccas playbook.

SO I'm a little confued. Somebody help me here.

Trackers for purist progressive anti-conservative candidates = good, apple pie and Chevrolet.

Trackers for reviled conservative anti progressive candidates= bad, devil worship, curve your spine and lose the war for the allies?

Hey Kari,

I have to disagree with you on this one. You state that "it's also worth noting who they are - if only for the simple reason that event attendees often think a tracker is media, or a campaign supporter."

For me, that is not reason enough to put their photos on the front of a political blog and ask for more information on who they are.

By pure coincidence I now know the guy on the top left. Though, I'm sure we disagree on many political and policy issues, as you pointed out, he hasn't been disruptive so why again do we need his personal info? Should aides to Democrat candidates that attend Republican events now be ready to have their pictures posted online?

Candidates know that what they say at forums (big and small) will make it out for broader public consumption. Frankly, Jeff Merkley comes off as smart and appealing (to both Democrats and moderate Republicans) at the events I've attended. If anything, we should joke with the trackers and ask them to distribute copies of their tapes to more Oregonians.

A lesson about effective and ineffective tactics.

Some people think the "macaca" crack may have cost George Allen his Senate seat. That was an outdoor event, wasn't it? Public or private, if events are outdoors and not invitation-only, that seems public to me. And all the tracker was doing, as I recall, was standing there filming.

Another thing altogether is to smuggle an concealed camera into a house party. Denny Smith supporters did that in 1990 (the year Denny lost). The sound quality was so lousy they had to have the words at the bottom of the screen. By the time it was on the air, events in the Middle East had changed. What Kopetski had said the day he said it was not that far from what Pres. GHW Bush had said in the same time frame, but was made to look like something scandalous by those who put the ad on. It was introduced by a local GOP legislator who assumed his audience would be as scandalized by the tape from the concealed camera as he apparently was.

Problem was, the concealed camera became the issue to many people and the ad looked amateurish.

Way back in 1976, Jimmy Carter was accused of saying different things to different audiences and responded along the lines of "Don't be silly. People with cassette tape recorders could follow me around and show that if I said different things to different audiences".

However, it is one thing to be quietly taping an event, and something else again to lie about one's identity in such a situation, disrupt a rally, steal trash, or something disruptive along those lines. When Sherrod Brown decided to run for US Senate, his wife tells a story about how they saw men in suits steal the garbage from their garbage can which had been put out for trash pickup day.

Brown won the Senate race anyway.

Thanks, Chris. Count me as a person who is a big fan of Jim Webb. Do I agree with him on everything? No, but then I don't agree with close friends on everything. Am I glad he is so outspoken (didn't he snub Bush at a White House gathering shortly after being elected) esp. about veterans. I can still tell you exactly where I was when I first heard Allen wouldn't contest the election and Webb had won. We can use all the authentic elected officials we can find, and say what you will about Webb, he is not a phony.

The point being made here is that there's nothing wrong with tracking if it's done honestly. Trying to deceive your way into getting video is well, deceptive.

Is that really the point? Seems to me that the post asks who these people are, not that they need to do things honestly....as a matter of fact, in the process of Kari asking for information on these guys, he POINTS OUT THEY DID NOTHING TO SUGGEST THEY HAVE BEEN DISHONEST.

And I agree, they should expect to be watched....but there is a big difference between having a campaign be conscious of who is at their events, and another altogether to have it posted on an "independent" political site by someone who "speaks only for himself."

As far as im concerned the posts by Kari over the course of the last few days would leave me pause as to whether I would want someone like that working for the person I want to vote for.

Alot of hub hub over the ethical standards of Liz Kimmerly (alot of it deservedly so), and plenty of people willing to question a candidate's ability to "be honest and fair," but do any of you really condone the type half-hazard stuff that has gone on by one Kari Chisholm? Really, this post is noteworthy? Fair? Appropriate?

Maybe we need to have the Merkley and Novick trackers photographed so people don't "confuse them for press."

If this isnt Kari's site, and he doesnt run it, how is it that the people who are supposed to run this site find this type of stuff appropriate.....seriously....what have these "trackers" done to deserve this? Seriously....what? they believed in something and are doing something about it? No different than the passion you have Keri....and if someone ridiculed you or did something to attempt to harm you and overcame it, good for you. These guys are not on the air looking for publicity (hmmm) and are not volunteering to be public figures (hmmm), for many, they get paid shit to do the dirty work because they have a passion and dont need/want to be noticed....too bad you just forced them into that role....classy.

The PDA rep he quoted for his original post has contradicted the context and implied motive, yet no clarification.....he uses the comments of others (out of context)in an attempt to give credence to his story....then a post showcasing 20-somethings who are doing something because they are passionate about it.

The saddest sap of all is Tim Lussier, who will always have this come up when someone googles him. I hope its not a prospective employer, because we all do make mistakes.

Good for Novick to not respond to all of it....in the end, as much as people wanted answers,im glad he didnt give in to this type of garbage....and I hope no one "outs" these kids.

The pictures in this post should be removed....and if the discussion is on the ethics of trackers, the story can be posted without pictures. I think sad that someone as clearly talented as you Kari, seems intent on going after the low-hanging fruit. I do believe you are better than that.

Until you see it though, Ill keep watching the train wreck.

juggle clown, juggle.

Completely agree with you Kevin...their photos should be taken...and if Merkley and Novick campaigns use those pictures so that their staff can be aware of who they are when public events take place, then so be it.

I think there is a HUGE difference in that and posting these pictures on an independent cite and "labeling" these guys.

What purpose does Kari posting these pictures serve? And if the discussion is truly to be about ethics, where are the pics of Novick trackers and Merkley trackers?

Its akin to Kari posting the full names of everyone who posts on this site. Just because you contribute to the posts on this site, and you comment openly doesn't give the right for someone to "out" you completely.

If there was a reason for the pics, ok. But as he said himself, he has never had problems with these guys....and, not to mention, Kari states these pictures were taken from the fall, so again, if these pics are old, whats the purpose....do we even know if these guys work for Smith anymore?

Again, in the context of ethics...Kari Chisholm asks who these people are, and posts their pictures...no particular news angle, no specific reason....I mean, if you are gonna make this newsworthy, post it when you find out about Lussier, and even then, he himself admits that they have not done anything malicious to him.

What exactly have they done? This isnt a Tim Lussier situation.

Again, is this ethical? Is this fair?

They are clearly far away, they are clearly attempting to be subtle. They are doing a job, and if their job is to hold a camera I dont believe that makes them automatically public figures....Let me put it another way....they are filming the public figure....if they filmed you, couldnt I argue that by you posting you gave up your own anonymity?

On a side note....is it ethical to be a member of the Merkley staff and take pictures of people who arent public figures and not disclose it? Someone argued that self disclosing is the right thing to do. Something tells me Kari didnt walk up to the trackers and say "im taking your pictures and will be posting them online, just be aware."

Bottom line, Kevin, I think we can agree on one thing....this type of action and post leaves alot of gray area to weed through...correct?

Better judgement should have been exercised by the "editors" of this site.

To put it in a different context... Do paparazzi have a right to take pictures and publish those as they see fit but nobody has an ethical right to take THEIR picture and publish them as they see fit?

Good point, and i think this is when ethics comes into place. These guys are at public events....they arent chasing Merkley into his house or following him to his workplace. I think comparing them to papparazzi is painting with a broad brush. For all intents and purposes, they are not instigating (unless someone can dispute that).

And again, how does using their images help the general public? They are doing a job...a crappy one at that...its irresponsible for Kari to post their images and ask "who are these guys?"

If they were being malicious, then ok...when you insert yourself CONSIOUSLY into an issue (as tim lussier did) then I think you offer yourself for ridicule, and even then, I think people in Kari's position need to use judgment...again, it is your choice to self disclose your views...would you want someone opining on you and making assumptions about you based on them figuring out who you are and reading your posts? I think in the end, that should be your call, Kevin....these kids didnt have that opportunity....and that's something Kari should think about.

By what ethical standard do they or anyone else expect that they can take (moving) pictures to be used as they see fit but nobody can take their picture and use it as they see fit?

And I think this comment by you answers not only the questions re: this post but the Liz Kimmerly issue. The issue for many was intent....what she did came off as malicious....because of the appeared intent and the actions she took. Had she handled things fairly and honestly, people wouldnt have complained. Tim Lussier tried to deceive and he deserved some level of ridicule, though how it would be best handled could be up to argument.

People question Kari's "intent" based on his connection to Merkley, so he attempts to be clear that he is separating himself when making posts, or at least does the best he can.

What was malicious in what these kids did...how were they unethical? Everyone admits that all campaigns now have trackers...so what exactly have they done wrong? A differing opinion? Believing in something different?

Now ask yourself this....is this posting by Kari (and subsequent posts prior to this), and the flippant nature by the way he has handled things (not being clear with the PDA source, not contacting Novick, even if they had told him three weeks ago that they would not comment)shown that he has tried to been ethical and fair? would you say he has been careful every step of the way in order to be fair to all parties?

Everyone expected Liz to cover all bases considering her conflict of interest, as they should (and she deserved some criticism), but can you say that Kari is and has been careful to make sure he doesnt cast doubt as to his true intentions....and wouldnt it be fair for me to argue that this post is a reflection of his carelesness?

Not saying im right, just saying, in my opinion, some of the actions here by him cast doubt, and while Liz set herself up (by her misteps)for ridicule. I dont know if these kids did anything to deserve this.

So if I decide to record Gordon or Merkely, then I am subject to be outed and assumptions made of me based on me having a camera?

I think assuming malicious intent, without any evidence of that malicious intent, is much worse than giving someone the benefit of the doubt until they prove you otherwise. Tim Lussier is a good example.....Liz Kimerly....if she had handled things properly, would she still be subject to ridicule? Maybe, would it be FAIR?

And again, if they are taking pictures or filming private citizens, then you have a point, but their right to post video of a public figure is no different than if I video taped (or any other private citizen filmed). What makes them different? Because we assume that they will use it maliciously?

And again, these guys are filming, not making the decision to the use of the film....but guess what, the first video that the Smith campaign puts out that paints Merkley in a negative light will enrage people, especially if used in a unethical way (edited inappropriately)....and guess what alot of people on this site will do...blame these two kids....you really think they are the ones making the decisions as to HOW to use the film...or how to post it or edit it? Of course not, thats what COS and Comm Dir and consulting firms do....

But who will now be the mascot for that...these two kids....is that fair? Is that appropriate?

Was it neccesary to use their images for the purpose of this post? Was it ethical? I dont think so, and I think you see my point....again, alot of gray....gray that can be avoided, in my opinion, with better judgement from the "editors" of BO.

Again, the pics need to be taken down.

Being exposed to the public isnt part of the job description, thats the whole point. Is it ethical to spotlight them for no other reason than being GOP. Isnt that a form of McCarthyism? (SIC)

They arent relevant to the campaign, thats why I think this is a cheap shot.

Its not a matter of being afraid...its the simple fact that it should be their choice to be outed and its unethical for Kari to take the liberty to post months-old pictures, for no reason (again, the post could have ran without the pics, they served no purpose)....if I choose to not disclose my name, or who I work for or personal information about myself, thats my choice....is it ethical for Kari or anyone to disclose that, based on their own discretion and access? And to do it as a mean to brow beat someone who is trying to work for something they believe in?

These kids work for the GOP candidate, that much we have gathered...but again, they are no different than you or I or anyone else...judge me based on what i say or my views or the things I express....these kids have done nothing but hold a camera....no different than trackers for Merkley or Novick.....and while Novick and Merkley backers differ, is it ethical to make light of a tracker or hang him or her out to dry based on party affiliation, even though they have done nothing to suggest that they have been nothing but be ethical themselves? (again, I will note that Kari has clearly stated these guys have been well behaved).

It was a cheap shot by Kari and irresponsible....shine the spotlight when they warrant it...they are just doing their jobs and their pictures served no purpose in respect to the post, other than to present them as "trouble makers."

That was weak.

PS- Good for Kevin and Kari....but just because they choose to be out in the open doesnt give Kari the right to be flippant in shining the light on others that havent explicitly chosen to want the light.

Again, pictures should be taken down.

Why would these gentlemen not want their identities or affiliations to be known.

Good question Andrew, would you like folks to post your picture from your face book account online, harass your parents at their home in Washington County or contact one of your Journalism professors at the U of O. Your walking a very fine line Andrew. Just because one has access to information does not give them the right to distribue it over the internet. And Kari take the pictures down already.

AMEN Kevin!

I recall giving an American flag pin to a very bright, very blond well dressed young man so he could "pass for Republican" and infiltrate Republican gatherings. But he was just there as an observer, not someone with a camera and a tripod. That young man didn't deserve to have his face or name published, but I think anyone with a camera at an opposition event should expect their identity to be known.

After the Macaca incident, didn't the whole country learn the name and face (and ethnicity/national orgin and home town) of the tracker the crack was aimed at---along with the inappropriateness of "Welcome to the US"?