Refusing to play a rigged game
[Editor's note: The following comment comes from Jake Weigler, campaign manager for the Steve Novick campaign.]
This is a difficult post to write … actually it’s not, but as it will be the last time the Novick campaign writes on this blog until the end of the primary, I decided to make it a good one.
The choice to give Mr. Kamberg, the latest online Merkley hatchet man, the keys to Blue Oregon should come as a surprise to no one who has been closely following this primary and its treatment on this site. Not content to let Kevin’s relentless stream of attacks and smears sit on his own site, Kari Chisholm, the Merkley campaign’s online consultant, has chosen to given Kamberg a bigger soapbox from which to launch a string of false attacks on Steve Novick. I will get to the “substance” of his charges below, but first this needs to be called out for what it is.
It is page one of the political establishment’s playbook to first ignore an outsider challenger and then, when he can’t be ignored, tear him or her down with a series of lies, fabrications, smears and innuendos. The Merkley campaign has clearly adopted that strategy in the last week. After dredging up a 1998 letter to the editor to mislead voters about Steve’s 1996 vote for Ralph Nader – a letter that appeared on Mr. Kamberg’s blog hours before the media reported the Merkley campaign was pushing it around. And then Merkley himself claimed on the radio that Steve had "recently" praised Nader.
When Speaker Merkley was called out on that lie in Friday’s debate, he chose to compound that falsehood by again lying about Steve’s record, claiming:
“When Nader said Democrats and Republicans are the same, you agreed and I disagreed. I disagree with your statements about being profoundly disappointed about the candidates in the democratic primary.”
Steve, of course, never said that he agreed there was no difference between the Republicans and Democrats or that he was “profoundly disappointed” by Senators Obama or Clinton. To claim his vote for Nader in 1996 suggests that he agrees with everything Nader has ever said is analogous to saying that because Jeff Merkley voted for Clinton in 1996, he must support NAFTA and the Defense of Marriage Act.
This is only a new chapter part of a repeated pattern on this site and elsewhere by Merkley’s surrogates to misrepresent Steve’s record and statements and attack his integrity. In the last few weeks, we’ve been falsely accused by the Merkley campaign of [illegally] selling beer. Meanwhile, Merkley’s spokesperson even went so far as to question “whether Steve Novick cares if Gordon Smith is reelected.”
Kari, of course, is a paid media consultant of the Merkley campaign – actively coordinating with message rollout as he has acknowledged on multiple occasions. Chisholm’s claim that he only speaks for himself, while he is receiving remuneration from the campaign is untenable. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, regardless of whether you pledge that your integrity means you can rise above it. And the idea that you can suddenly take off your Merkley campaign cap to offer independent analysis on the race is ridiculous. I have noted previously how that relationship seems to have affected balance in coverage of the race, but today I am specifically talking about the repeated pattern of using this ostensibly neutral community as a vehicle to extend and amplify the attacks by the Merkley campaign on Steve Novick (of which Mr. Kamburg is the latest example).
Kari started off this primary with a bang, calling Steve’s disagreement with Merkley’s vote on HR 2 - “swiftboating,” – a label that earned him Rogue of the Week in the WWeek.
Kari was also, of course, the source of the extended PDA smear that ran in January. I’ve avoided revisiting that subject out of interest of helping the PDA-Oregon chapter get off the ground. After being called on the carpet for “misrepresenting” his conversation with National PDA director Tim Carpenter, I though Kari would learn to be more careful in how he handled this race. As Liz has said, she should have handled this process more carefully. But as the kitchen sink strategy moves into full gear, I feel compelled to give a more complete picture.
First, Kari omitted from his extended hit job that the fact that the Merkley campaign had subsequent conversations with PDA-National where they indicated they were fine with the revised process moving forward – before he posted his breathless account.
Second, Kari wrote “The last time I called to confirm a source on something Steve had said, Jake Weigler said (and I'm paraphrasing here), ‘I'm not going to comment about this to a Merkley campaign consultant. If a real reporter calls me, I'll talk to them.’” That is a blatant misrepresentation of that conversation. I was asked the levels of proof we had whether Steve had opposed the Iraq war before it started. As I knew that the Merkley campaign was already engaged in a false whisper campaign that Jeff was the only one to publicly oppose the war before it began (a line they decided to make quite public at Friday’s debate), I was not enthused about helping a Merkley media consultant fine tune that attack.
Of course, this pattern is nothing new to the readers of Blue Oregon. In August, a then-anonymous blog published by a Mitch Greenlick staffer was immediately noted by Blue Oregon and then later used to promote an attack on Steve’s record on taxes. Greenlick himself, along with Rep. Nolan, also used the site in October to smear Steve by accusing him of being an “opportunist” running for a “selfish personal agenda.” The Merkley campaign later confirmed to the Oregonian that they had reviewed the statement before it ran.
Now Mr. Kamberg, who by my count has posted no less than 15 attacks on Steve Novick since January has been given posting privileges. It is hard not to see this as using this progressive community as window dressing to smear Steve Novick. I am sorry to have to say this, particularly to Jeff Alworth, Charlie Burr and the other contributors that have made this the centerpiece of Oregon’s progressive blogosphere, but I cannot allow this behavior to go unaddressed.
Now to Mr. Kamberg’s post.
LIE - Henry in no way “doctored” Wikipedia. As the history of the edits clearly shows, he changed the text surrounding the discussion of Merkley’s vote of 2003’s HR 2 to include the full resolution text – rather than simply the lines stating support for the troops. As it read at the time, you would think that Jeff Merkley voted to support the troops and Steve Novick was criticizing that decision. But, it was not appropriate for Henry – as someone receiving payment from the campaign – to go into a user-based forum and make changes. Which is why Kari’s dodge about “I only speak for myself” inappropriate, just as it was inappropriate for Henry, while he was receiving money from the campaign, to make those changes.
LIE - SB 124 did not “allow proposed charter schools” to “bypass[] “the district's rejection” “and appeal directly to the State Board of Education.” As Steve and his ODE associate’s testimony on that bill makes clear, that bypass option was already in the statute. This bill was a housekeeping measure to clarify that process. (Listen for yourself if you think that’s an unfair characterization).
And as for this whole “speak truth to power” dichotomy Kevin wants to create, it seems pretty silly. It is pretty common knowledge in Oregon political circles that Steve turned down a job in the Governor’s office after the 2002 campaign over political differences with the Governor. Part of the reason he went to work at ODE was that he would have the freedom there to continue his push against the dramatic overpayments to video lottery retailers. Now to criticize him for refusing to cut off his nose in spite of his face seems pretty disingenuous – particularly for someone trumpeting the importance of “prudence.” What was he supposed to do, fly off the handle against his boss at a committee meeting and announce his resignation? That would be a sign of authentic leadership in your mind?
More generally, sometimes the only way to win a rigged game is to refuse to play. I hope this post makes that clear and others will see the treatment of this race on Blue Oregon for what it is – an extension of the Merkley campaign’s attacks on Steve Novick’s integrity.
|
March 11, 2008
Posted in notable comment. |
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
Mar 11, '08
Well done Kari.
Mar 11, '08
I'm not a political consultant, nor am I being paid by anyone to write about politics, nor have I even decided for whom to vote in the Senate primary.
Conflicts of interest aside, Mr. Chisholm has frankly become more than a bit unhinged about Steve Novick's campaign. The clearest example of this is Chisholm's obsessive blogging about the Progressive Democrats "scandalous" endorsement of Novick. Chisholm's approach--combing through the public record looking for syntactic oddities that he could then attach--tells us a lot about his modus operandi, but little, if anything, about any substantive matters.
Mar 11, '08
As one who is still undecided on who to vote for in this race, the seemingly orchestrated and highly managed attempts to rip on Novick are getting really old.
Yes this is how politics has traditionally been "played." But is that really the direction we should continue? Shouldn't a candidate earn our votes by their own attributes, character, and positions on the issues rather than the cleverness of their attacks on their opponents?
12:48 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
I'm glad to see this show up on the front page.
It remains to be seen how rapidly it will be churned off the front page by new posts. But this is good for now.
Many of you won't care what I think because I am an avowed partisan of Steve Novick and John Kroger (opponents of Mandate Media clients), but I am also a supporter of Kate Brown, who is herself a Mandate Media client, and in my view, ascendancy (real or apparent) on BlueOregon has just become a part of the package deal that comes from hiring MM.
It's obvious, and it's not helping. For example: in my own case, while I am leaning toward supporting Sam Adams (also a MM client) for Mayor of Portland, I still haven't made up my mind. But I find the BlueO hairtrigger recitals of Sho Dozono's mistakes and shortcomings to be egregious, predictable, and tiresome, and Dozono has become a more sympathetic figure to me for that reason.
Even assuming that we can all get together behind our nominee after the primary in a goal-oriented way to win the general election, this community is damaged goods compared to what it was a year ago. Jake lays out some vivid and pointed examples of why that is.
Mar 11, '08
I think this is a good decision on the part of the Novick campaign. Kari has always said that as a paid consultant to the Merkley campaign, he is biased -- and frankly I agree with him that we shouldn't expect anything different. As Kari has said, if we don't like the bias we see on Blue Oregon, we should look elsewhere for our progressive news/info. That's fair.
It's also fair for the Novick campaign to call it what it is and decide that it's in their best interest to "refuse to play."
Instead of the attacks that we've seen so far from both sides, I still think a series of posts about the substantive policy differences would be informative. Let's talk about Novick's support for raising the cap on SS taxes versus Merkley's opposition, and Novick's call for equity between income and capital gains taxes versus Merkley's belief that they should be different. There's a lot to mine in both of those areas.
Mar 11, '08
Harry posting above is not Harry Wilson.
Mar 11, '08
I don't agree with all of Jake's quibbles, and I certainly don't think this is an intentional smear campaign directed by Kari (he could have easily let this comment rot longer and not drawn attention to it like he did).
But Kevin's post is way out of bounds. Kevin has admitted that he "misconstrued" Steve's testimony and the purpose and nature of the SB 124, but he still hasn't corrected the post to reflect this or issued a retraction. This is not responsible journalism, and shouldn't be tolerated by BlueOregon's editors.
12:52 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Well done Kari.
For the record, my only role was to suggest the idea to the other two editors, Charlie Burr and Jeff Alworth. Beyond that, I recused myself from the decision. Obviously, I can't be unbiased when someone is attacking me.
I'll have a response up shortly.
12:54 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Hubbird -- re: correcting Kevin's post. You're right. We'll get an editor's note in there. That's fair.
12:57 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Already done, Kari.
I stand by the rest of it.
12:57 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Actually, I just went in there to add an editor's note - and Kevin had already posted a note himself.
Mar 11, '08
Kari, thank you for drawing attention to Jake's important comment and suggesting it be front paged.
I want to say that I respect that you haven't put your name to any pieces on the Senate race since the Kimmerly affair. It's a good move for the credibility of BlueOregon, and probably a good move for the sake of your clients.
Does this:
Mean that you're similarly recusing yourself from editorial decisions regarding the Senate race? If so, bravo!
PS: thanks Kari and Kevin for correcting the OEA story!
Mar 11, '08
So why are we arguing such inside baseball? Suppose every blogger here agreed either a) one side is totally right and the other side is totally wrong, or b) the best way to get their guy elected would be to continue this battle (Jake's right! No Kevin's right! One of them has common sense and manners and the other doesn't! The great giant Mandate Media controls Oregon elections! )
how would that win over the votes of those who agree with Miles that
"Instead of the attacks that we've seen so far from both sides, I still think a series of posts about the substantive policy differences would be informative. "
Folks, just now on the Washington Post there was this item:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031101805.html?hpid=topnews
Fallon Resigns As Mideast Military Chief
By LOLITA C. BALDOR The Associated Press Tuesday, March 11, 2008; 3:59 PM
WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East resigned Tuesday amid speculation about a rift over U.S. policy in Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Adm. William J. Fallon had asked for permission to retire and that Gates agreed. Gates said the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do."
Fallon was the subject of an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
Fallon, who is traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon said.
"And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," Fallon added. <<
If either campaign thinks ordinary voters care more about these topics about who did what to whom on blogs than what Adm. Fallon's resignation says about US Iran policy, then why should I vote for them?
Jake, are you saying "Vote for Steve because he is not a Mandate Media client and people have insulted him on blogs"? If that is your message, then your campaign doesn't want my vote. I vote for people who discuss serious issues.
If either campaign can speak out publicly (not only online--is it that hard for Senate candidates to find a reporter to talk to?) on what Adm. Fallon's resignation says about US Middle East policy, that candidate would clearly rise in my estimation as someone wanting my vote.
But as someone who has been a teacher and seen my share of playground duty over the years, I've seen more mature behavior in students than in the supposed adults who use this blog and others for what basically sounds like a fight on a playground.
Mar 11, '08
Oh, how the cookie crumbles. If nobody were to call you guys on this publicaly, you presumably would not have added those notes and let Kevin's specious argument slide off into the achieves as fact. Since you were called on it, you acted, presumably to save your tails and project an aura of neutrality.
I believe from today until the primary Kari must recuse himself of all posts having to do with the senate campaign.
Mar 11, '08
i'll take this moment to reiterate that i think it would be a really good thing for blue oregon to adopt a more complete policy of transparency by ending the practice of anonymous articles. as kari himself has admitted:
"We post news items here all day long, that's true -- but they're certainly not original journalism (they're clips from other places) and they are often loaded with language that journalists wouldn't call neutral.
As our BlueOregon Fellow, Nick Wirth, likes to put it -- even our news posts come with some "mustard". "
yes even the "in the news", "elsewhere" and perhaps even the "notable comment" posts usually contain at least a minor amount of editorializing as kari admits above. the best solution would be to no longer post them anoymously.
as a novick supporter, it annoys me a little bit that this site has gone so far to push merkley, but that is just a personal annoyance. it doesn't personally annoy me so much when BO does the same for sam adams, for example. but in both cases it troubles me when the advocacy is done anonymously in a context that is proclaimed to be neutral. (though beyond the transparency issue, i disagree with some of those tactics in principle due to their dishonesty and sleaziness).
so please, do your readers and your blog a favor by completing the transparency of this site (which overall is decent).
1:40 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Interesting. The Jeff Merkley Wikipedia article got well over 3x a many hits in February as the Novick article, and yet it's the Novick campaign that appears desperate in this post.
I'll comment only on the alleged "ethical problems" regarding the Merkley Wikipedia article. The edits in question were made on January 30. Within half an hour (literally), an experienced and uninvolved Wikipedia editor had stepped in and addressed a number of issues with the article, and drew in help from other independent editors.
Wikipedia has a guideline regarding conflicts of interest, but it is exactly that -- a guideline. Not a policy, not a rule. It appears that the Novick staffer may have violated the guideline. But nearly every new Wikipedia editor violates something in their first few edits.
The strength of Wikipedia is in its resiliency, and its ability to redirect new contributors in ways that build a stronger encyclopedia. This is especially true in Oregon, where we have a particularly strong team of volunteer editors working on the encyclopedia every day. This is not mere theory: subsequent contributions from the Novick campaign have been productive and transparent.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Newcomers are encouraged to be bold, because the cost of mistakes and rule violations is extremely low; problems are quickly fixed, and editors are quickly welcomed and coached.
I'd encourage anyone who's interested to take a look at the Oregon Portal of Wikipedia, which was recently recognized as one of the 100 or so best portals on the site. If you see something you don't like, click the "edit" button and get to work!
Mar 11, '08
Will I get jumped on for providing this link?
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/03/novick_aide_apologizes_for_wik.html
The post ends with a hat tip to Blue Oregon.
1:45 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Well, it's a bit silly to suggest that I should recuse myself from every post dealing with every single client of mine.
My past and present clients include the Democratic Party of Oregon, the Oregon AFL-CIO, the Oregon House Democrats, the Oregon Senate Democrats, Ted Kulongoski, Ron Wyden, Earl Blumenauer, Darlene Hooley, Jeff Merkley, Kate Brown, Richard Devlin, Dave Hunt, Greg Macpherson, Bill Bradbury, Kurt Schrader, and a dozen or two legislative and local candidates and elected officials.
For some people, the Senate race is the most important thing in their world. For others, it's the AG or SOS or CD5 race. For still others, it's a legislative or local race.
If I recused myself from everything dealing with a past or present client, well, there wouldn't be a BlueOregon. Of course, I'd have a lot more time to hang out with my four-month-old son, Jake, and go make some more money for my business.
But I choose to spend some of my precious free time helping build a site for progressive political news and opinion in Oregon.
Remember, folks: It's a blog. It's not a newspaper. We are under no obligation, legal or ethical, to be fair or balanced or give equal time. Certainly, the blogosphere is chock-full of one-sided screeds. We've tried to rise above that, apparently only somewhat successfully.
Our approach has been three-fold. First, hire an intern. Nick Wirth does a good 80% of the in-the-news posting these days. Second, provide campaigns a pipeline to our news coverage that does not include me. (The Novick campaign can send news tips directly to Charlie Burr.) Third, disclose my affiliations.
I'll have a more complete response later.
For now, I'll close with my disclosure: My company built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.
Mar 11, '08
I like both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley. I have not decided for whom I will vote. I do think Steve Novick's campaign should be careful not to appear too paranoid.
At root, Blue Oregon readers are a tiny part of the electorate. And as much as I love Blue Oregon, I don't believe it has much of an impact on statewide primary elections. I'd hate to see the Novick campaign throw energy and goodwill away on what is basically a tempest in a teapot.
Further, if Steve wins the primary (which is not at all out of the question), he will need the volunteer energy and money of Blue Oregon readers to beat Smith. I hope his campaign won't burn any bridges over the relatively trivial issues they have with Kari and his editorial choices.
1:47 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
LT, please stop setting up strawmen. It's getting old.
Mar 11, '08
I don't suggest muzzling Kari or anyone else. It may be prudent for him to "recuse himself of all posts having to do with the senate campaign", but it can be argued it is prudent for those who wish for him to recuse himself to simply skip his postings. I have a choice to come to blueoregon, just as I have a choice to read posts and to respond. I would not want to force or limit someone else's choices, just as I would not my own choices limited.
Mar 11, '08
I don't suggest muzzling Kari or anyone else. It may be prudent for him to "recuse himself of all posts having to do with the senate campaign", but it can be argued it is prudent for those who wish for him to recuse himself to simply skip his postings. I have a choice to come to blueoregon, just as I have a choice to read posts and to respond. I would not want to force or limit someone else's choices, just as I would not my own choices limited.
Mar 11, '08
I don't suggest muzzling Kari or anyone else. It may be prudent for him to "recuse himself of all posts having to do with the senate campaign", but it can be argued it is prudent for those who wish for him to recuse himself to simply skip his postings. I have a choice to come to blueoregon, just as I have a choice to read posts and to respond. I would not want to force or limit someone else's choices, just as I would not want my own choices limited.
Mar 11, '08
"Well, it's a bit silly to suggest that I should recuse myself from every post dealing with every single client of mine."
That's not what I said, Kari, stop setting up straw men. I didn't request that you recuse yourself from posts dealing with everyone of your clients, just Jeff Merkley. Why? Because there are now a chorus of people who agree that you have the propensity to leverage your voice and edit power on BlueOregon against Steve Novick, a fellow Democrat.
I repeat:
I believe from today until the primary Kari must recuse himself of all posts having to do with the senate campaign.
2:12 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
I think Kari (AND the rest of the editors) have been more than fair in allowing people to share their voices on BlueOregon, and it's included a fair amount of pro-Novick material.
Some of the material, just like on all blogs, is not up to non-blog journalistic standards, but that's the nature of blogs (and the posts, by and large, are better than most of the comments).
I support Novick. And I suggest others who do submit guest posts making the case.
2:23 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
BCM
This blog, like it or not, was created, paid for, and continues to be hosted by Mandate Media.
I have told Kari in the past that I believe BlueOregon has the potential to be more than just a partisan blog, and can contribute to the political dialogue in Oregon. But if it is to make that step, they need to be more explicit about their standards of coverage and their objectivity. There have been "In the News" items that I have complained about because they were obviously planted for one of Mandate Media's clients.
That's my opinion, and Kari can do with it what he likes. But I don't kid myself that he's in any ethical dilemma here. Folks know who he works for--he makes that abundantly clear. If folks think the coverage is biased or the information unhelpful or misleading, then they are free to go elsewhere, and Kari will pay the financial price (few eyeballs = less ad revenue).
Beyond that, I have to agree with LT: this sort of inside baseball campaign sniping is tiresome. I'm much more interested in hearing substantive policy debates between these two fine candidates. I tuned out the screeds long ago.
Mar 11, '08
Everyone here is just too uptight here. Who gives a rip of who lied to whom, who's doing what, who saud what, ect...ect...ect. All I care about is who can do the job best and without bickering or stabbing or being uptight.
It's very clear now - All the candidates, for both parties, are nothing more than uptight pieces of ubiquitous and overzealous milquetoast. No wonder normal, sane, and human people don't want to vote or have no interest in politics - unless they are uptight and overzealous themselves.
You all are dissapointing...
Mar 11, '08
Here's the way I see it, Kari: either the "In The News", "Notable Comment" and "Elswhere" items are supposed to be free from bias (in which case you really should recuse yourself from editorial decisions involving your clients) or they are not held to and standards of objectivity as part of the opinion coverage at BlueOregon (in which case it would be great if you were as thorough with disclosure on those items as on any other comment or article you write here).
Or, of course, you can go the "fuck you, it's my blog" route. Which is fine too -- I'll still read.
2:31 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
BCM,
What level of objectivity vis-a-vis Novick/Merkley do you honestly believe that the overhwhelming majority of Blue Oregon readers would ascribe to the bulk of your "chorus"?
The Pot calling the Kettle black doesn't increase the Pot's credibility.
2:40 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
BCM.... you may someone who cares desperately about the Senate race, but rest assured, it's come in the threads about other races I'm involved in too.
Don't like it, don't read it. Don't trust it, don't believe it. Simple as that.
2:43 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Sorry, people. There is only once instance I remember in which there was an actual honest to goodness abuse of editorial discretion by Kari. And that was so incredibly minor, I can easily see how he could have simply not been aware of his inner bias.
So let me say once again that Kari does not shill. In fact, it's clear he goes way out of his way to disclose, and keeps his three hats - site administrator, editor, and contributor - properly separate.
In fact, the reason why BlueOregon is popular and trusted, unlike, say, loadedorygun, is because here you see things like ActBlue donation links for ALL the candidates, not just the one the site administrator happens to favor. That's why this site matters, and LO doesn't.
So why there are all these constant accusations? There's a much simpler explanation. Barak Obama has already summed it up in two words: "Silly season".
Yes, this is the time in the primaries when things are tight and everything that isn't a full fledged, open throated, blessing of your candidate must be, perforce, the result of an evil conspiracy to keep them down. Publishing an interesting political story suddenly becomes an underhanded way of pushing yesterday's news off the front page, because you liked yesterday's news. Political disagreements aren't mere disagreements, no. It is a veritable fight against eeeeeevil. Progressive Democrats you disagree with are bought and paid for - like Republicans, except for pennies on the dollar.
Worse, dumb attacks that even Republicans would be embarrassed to use, start cropping up. People whose personalities are built around purity trolling go into hyperdrive, usually with absolutely no sense of irony or self-awareness. Any other time of the year, people know enough to discount their blathering, but right now things are too tense. Up in the air.
This is how Jake Weigler can get so emotionally tied up with his candidate he honestly can draw offense over the reporting done when his campaign got caught trying to rig an endorsement. I'm pretty sure, after a few years perspective, his attitude will change. As all of ours will.
Mar 11, '08
In the news...
OEA issues endorsements in state and federal races today
Posted by: Hawthorne | Mar 8, 2008 8:06:41 PM
"OEA issues endorsements in state and federal races today"
With a headline like that, why would I even bother reading more? Certainly nothing interesting could have happened.
Posted by: BCM | Mar 8, 2008 8:23:49 PM
Hawthorne, I suspect you're on to something. It's almost as if the editor buried the lead. Mapes' second blog post linked in this column, 'covers the news,' is titled 'Novick stuns Merkley by winning Oregon Education Association endorsement.' That seems to be the headline everyone else is going with, why not BO?
I would almost have to say someone who works for The Merkley posted this column in a subtle attempt to obscure the beating he received today. Good thing the keys to Blue Oregon are tucked tight under a pillow of neutrality so that isn't possible.
Mar 11, '08
either the "In The News", "Notable Comment" and "Elswhere" items are supposed to be free from bias or they are not held to and standards of objectivity as part of the opinion coverage at BlueOregon
hubbird,
kari has already acknowledged that they are not free from bias*, so the next step is to either attribute authorship with full disclosures, or relinquish claims of openness and neutrality.
*see above comment: As our BlueOregon Fellow, Nick Wirth, likes to put it -- even our news posts come with some "mustard"
Mar 11, '08
quote: "In fact, the reason why BlueOregon is popular and trusted... "
Steve Maurer,
that's the whole point with these threads. obviously BO is not trusted by a significant number of people, else these discussion would not keep popping up.
loadedorygon my or may not be trustworthy, but it is completely open with its biases.
2:56 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
BCM,
I invite you to use those able skills at ferreting out comments and compare how long it took you and your fellow Novick supporters to start crying "foul" about how long it took to get the OEA endorsement in a post of it's own here to how long it took for Merkley supporters to cry "foul" over the SEIU endorsement.
We both know that you won't find any from Merkley supporters because we aren't paranoid. Further, we both know that it took a LOT longer to get the SEIU endorsement of Merkley up than to get the OEA endorsement of Novick up.
Mar 11, '08
"We both know that you won't find any from Merkley supporters because we aren't paranoid."
You don't suffer from an institutional bias.
3:11 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
I think a salient point is being missed by some--not everyone who comes to Blueo is a longtime or regular reader. Blueo's reputation nationally is somewhat as the "blog of record" for Oregon. Simply saying "everyone knows my bias" isn't necessarily true, particularly when Kari fails to admit being an official representative or spokesperson for the campaign on multiple occasions. Further, it's the belief of some that Kamberg was installed as a contributor precisely for his once-removed (or half-removed$ status with the campaign. Also, one not only has I stand behind what they publish, but what they do NOT publish. The absence of critics reporting on Merkley is just as much an issue as negative coverage of Novick. So when outsiders come, they should know up front that Blueo is largely a Merkley blog.
Mar 11, '08
Jake, If you don't play, you don't get your say. 2 years ago Loaded Orygun endorsed someone other than me for what I thought were not particularly valid reasons. I stayed and played, not that I was successful in the election, but it did keep my points out there and did garner me some support.
As has been noted, these are pissant blogs appealing to a narrow band of voters. The biggest thing about Blogs is that sometimes they reach the most activated voters, the ones who will get out.
Now my particularly pissant blog still hasn't made an endorsement other than to say help both you guys. But it still doesn't matter if the venue is friendly or not (Lars?); you make your point. No venue will be more friendly than this one in November...
3:21 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Steve M, of COURSE you don't trust LO; how would you handle the cognitive dissonance? You still want to beleive Novick is using a talking point from the GOP, despite that being obviously factually incorrect (if you believe otherwise, kindly produce he statement from Novick indicating Merkley was for the war), and that there was something wrong happening with PDA, despite PDA contradicting Kari's case completely. If facts aren't popular with you, no wonder you don't like LO. But don't graft your antiintellectual bias onto the hundreds of members of the LO community. They wouldn't like it.
Mar 11, '08
No venue will be more friendly than this one in November...
Right, but the problem is that we're gearing towards May now. We're all biased towards Democrats, but should we allow bia$ed editors to use their power in favor of one Democrat and at the expense of another? That's the question at hand here today.
3:27 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
chuck, the differences are that we gave you a fair shot, were open about our support--and perhaps most importantly you didn't act dishonestly in the campaign, that I saw. We believed Carol had the broadest appeal, and she did indeed become the nominee.
To reiterate, you know what you get at LO. The problem here is that BlueO is almost every bit as biased on this race as LO--they just pretend otherwise.
Mar 11, '08
To reiterate, you know what you get at LO. The problem here is that BlueO is almost every bit as biased on this race as LO--they just pretend otherwise.
"We don't endorse candidates." 'But, we allow employees of candidates to post news stories and control content...'
4:12 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
torridjoe: [D]on't graft your antiintellectual bias onto the hundreds of members of the LO community
Oh please, Mark. Give it up. This constant sophistry of your is really tiresome. I was at the Oregon summit. And it was very clear in the room what Steve meant.
Now you can play all the games you want, pretending that Steve has to spell everything out explicitly or else he gets a free pass. But if I'm going to accept that argument, I'm going to have to accept all the pro-Hillary sophistry out there too, pretending that she didn't mean what she clearly meant.
Oh, and loadedorygun community? Please.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm now going to have to go over and call some minor BS on Kari.
Mar 11, '08
I have been leaning towards Novick in the primary, but Jesus Christ this fucking whining by his campaign about this blog is really annoying. Take your ball and go home!!! If you don't want to play - don't play, or maybe you should provide content to contrast the "pro - Merkley" bias.
Whatever......
Mar 11, '08
Oh, and loadedorygun community? Please.
Way to discount a group of progressive voters! Because none of us can be as perfect as you, right....
please.
Mar 11, '08
classy post, Kari.
4:49 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
of course it's clear what he meant, you just don't accept it. It's literally a logical impossibility for you to be right, because the GOP would never criticize Merkley for being a dupe of the GOP. That makes no sense for them to argue that Merkly got rooked.
Show me one time, anywhere, that Novick made the argument Jeff was for the war.
Mar 11, '08
Whoops, my previous post was meant for the other thread.
I can't see that BlueOregon had much choice but to post Jake's response if it wanted to hang onto the last remaining shreds of its credibility.
Now kari's disingenuous response posted abbove, that was just not-so classy.
5:26 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
Not "above", rather "after". And it came 2.5 hours later because of all the whining about "pushing posts down" as if our readers are too stupid to scroll.
If I'm going to get personally attacked, I'm going to respond. Duh.
Mar 11, '08
You could have responded honestly. Doh!
6:31 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
stick it in your ear, Jake. i was possibly the first person to endorse Steve on BlueOregon -- no doubt leading to the DSCC's mad rush to find someone to counter my influence -- and i have never once encountered anything but freedom to publish what i want. there are no editorial standards based on candidate preference -- none. if i was more involved with Steve's campaign, i'd probably post more about him here. but my #1 concern is getting Barack Obama elected. that's why i post about these days. after Steve's secured the nomination i doubt i'll write a lot about him here because the need won't be to convince Dems & progressives but to convince those who lean left but somehow drink Gordo's koolaid.
this is a fair blog. to call it rigged is to call into question the judgment and ethics of Novick supporters as well as Kari Chisholm. and it sounds a lot like whining.
Mar 11, '08
but as it will be the last time the Novick campaign writes on this blog until the end of the primary
Promise?
While you're at it, you can take the nasty Novick commentors with you.
10:01 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
i had another read of Jake's post, and i'm failing to see what he has to complain about. this is not a science journal; it's a friggin' blog. we bloviate about what we think is right & wrong, and we are under no obligation to make the case for the "other" side. as a Novick supporter, i've written several times this is one election i won't mind losing too much -- i still think Merkley would be an excellent Senator. i just happen to think Novick would be better.
but jeez, i'm completely in the dark about how BlueOregon is promoting the hell out of Merkley & pulling down Novick. tell you what Jake: set me up with an interview with Steve, let me talk to him a while about some good relevant issue -- like why he's for Obama, how Oregon vote-by-mail may held FL Dems, whatever -- and i'll post it to BO like i would anything else. and Kari won't say boo -- cuz he never does. i don't abuse my rights to post, which means i don't fabricate lies, i don't promote hate speech, i'm not (usually) boring (to most readers) and i try to promote progressive values & politics.
if i was paying any attention to what Steve's doing these days, i'd probably just post something to spite you. but i'm too busy with other stuff, like Obama and the MultCo Dems, so i've not been paying attention (although when i last saw him and we talked about my son's deployment to Iraq next year, i truly appreciated how genuine his concern was -- that's something i don't recall reading about a lot).
Jake, you've just made this campaign, in a small way, about you and the campaign. it's supposed to be about electing Steve Novick our next US Senator. this won't help.
Mar 11, '08
Thank you TA!
As I said on the "Senate Race Heats Up" topic, some of what we read here seems less about defeating Gordon than about internal fights.
Thank you for saying what some of us have been feeling. Jake, you've just made this campaign, in a small way, about you and the campaign. it's supposed to be about electing Steve Novick our next US Senator. this won't help.
Long before there were blogs, there was word of mouth. And the conversations along the lines that Steve functions better behind the scenes, is very bright but the campaign is not living up to expectations, or someone talking to a friend of Novick saying "can you get a message to him that he needs to speak out more on current events and why he should be elected rather than his supporters saying how bad Merkley people are?" are going to go on in face to face conversations (or over the phone) no matter what happens on blogs.
10:32 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
TA, with all due respect,
pretty much sums it up.
There has been a pattern of lies, fabrications, and innuendo directed at Steve Novick from this blog, and when Kari handed the keys to Kevin, and Kevin responded with that astonishingly lame but vicious cheap shot, well, I don't blame Jake for feeling that that was the last straw.
LT,
If the campaigns were living up to expectations, Jeff Merkley would long since have put Steve Novick away completely -- left him in the dust without so much as a look back in the rear view mirror. If there is an underachieving campaign between the two of them, it's the one that started out with two Governors, the DSCC, every Democrat in the Oregon House, and a raft of other establishment endorsements, and still can't shake this upstart outsider who didn't wait to have the red carpet (do Ds use blue carpet? just wondering) laid out for him to make sure someone brought the fight to Gordon Smith's doorstep. Whatever else anyone can say about the Novick campaign, it is not even remotely accurate to say that it is "not living up to expectations."
10:34 p.m.
Mar 11, '08
I think Jake was right to offer his comment. I'm glad he did it. Having said that, I'd like to encourage supporters on both sides of the primary divide to tone it down a notch.
Kevin was out of line. Some of the state reps who set the tone of this race on this blog were out of line. Novick's campaign was right to respond -- albeit belatedly.
Now it's time to focus on why you've got the best candidate in the race rather than tearing down the other guy.
Just sayin'
Kudo's to Kari and the other editors for airing this dirty laundry. Better to lance this boil now, before it gets even bigger.
Mar 11, '08
Sal is right about toning it down.
Also, according to the website, Charlie Rose has part of his show tonight about Adm. Fallon's resignation. If you can't catch the show, the video will be on the website--maybe next day or the day after.
http://www.charlierose.com/
Steph, you misunderstand me. The "strong left hook" candidate ought to be outspoken about current events like the Adm. Fallon resignation. Don't say he has no venue to comment: His own website This or any other blog and to quote that great scene in West Wing -- President Bartlett says to Leo, "But I have spoken out...".
Leo responds, "Mr. President, I don't see an absence of cameras and microphones around here!".
Someone with the proverbial strong left hook ---the Steve I have known who can be very outspoken--should have already issued a comment, if only "Why on earth is Adm. Fallon resigning? Does Gordon Smith even know?"
Stephanie, did you notice I didn't mention Merkley? I fail to see how mentioning Merkley wins Steve any votes.
But then I'm only the person who got so fed up with the 1984 US Senate nominee mentioning her opponent more often than talking about reasons to elect the Democrat, that when a friend came back to Oregon to work on the campaign, he asked for my support. I said, "Only if your candidate talks more about why we should vote for the Dem. than what is wrong with the opponent".
My friend must have done something, because suddenly it was "Vote Dem. for US Senate because..." rather than what was wrong with the incumbent. And I voted Dem. although I had been disgusted enough before to leave the ballot line blank.
If Steve can't make a public statement on the Fallon resignation, all the talk about Merkley isn't going to win Steve the nomination. We need a candidate who can speak about current events, hopefully in the same news cycle.
Mar 12, '08
Kevin's post was not at all out of line. The state reps who posted weren't out of line. Jake wasn't out of line. It's a blog. It's free speech. Stop whining, please.
You might not like what Kevin wrote but he made relevant statements and asked questions (and linked to evidence).
Since when are we not allowed to question our candidates?
If there's nothing to what Kevin posted, then this sure is a lot of hubub over "nothing".
This is not the first time that someone has questioned the Novick campaign, only to have them refuse to answer while their blog commenters rush in to cry "foul!"
The Merkley campaign has had its problems, too. And they've been ripped on this blog and others. But I don't see their campaign wasting time at Blue Oregon writing long-winded comments about bias on a blog.
9:43 a.m.
Mar 12, '08
It was "free speech" for Bush and Cheney to talk about all of the WMD Iraq had.
But it was still lies.
Basing your "opinion" on lies and giving the weight of Blue Oregon to lies is really no better than publishing unsourced crap in the New York Times.