« Something's rotten in Oregon | Main | He's not Black - He's Pure Gold! »

January 20, 2008

A "shiny" moment with the Novick campaign

One of the modern slang terms my two daughters use is: shiny, which denotes something that is great, really cool, amazing, remarkable, etc. But most of the time they seem to use it sarcastically.

The imagery of the sarcastic use of the term is pretty colorful really. Loyal Simpsons viewers will instantly recognize it in how Homer constantly falls for something "shiny" such as a tasty looking morsel only to later wish he hadn't indulged his gluttony. That's a perfect description of the sarcastic use of the slang term "shiny" - a simple-minded idiot unable to think beyond whatever shiny bauble has captured his or her attention.

A person proffering a rhetorical shiny bauble to someone like Homer is known as a demagogue. As H.L. Mencken put it,

"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

What does any of this have to do with the Steve Novick campaign? Read on.

Last night I attended the initial meeting of what purports to be the new Oregon chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) after having learned that it was originally intended to be a sham endorsement meeting run by a paid staffer of the Steve Novick for Senate campaign. All the sordid, ugly details of the backstory can be found at Blue Oregon, Swing State Project, Senate 2008 Guru, Foreward Oregon and probably others that I'm not aware of.

Ben of Witigonen attended the meeting last night with me and offers a much more comprehensive report on the meeting over at his blog: Fake Endorsement Charade Continues; Threatens Legitimacy of New PDA Chapter.

Bottom line: This chapter of the PDA was formed by a paid senior member of the Novick campaign - Liz Kimmerly. The very first meeting (last night's) was originally intended to be an endorsement meeting for the Oregon Senate race which her boss just happens to be running in. Had it not been for the Eugene Register Guard newspaper's David Steves' exposing Ms. Kimmerly's attempt to game the system by publishing the details, last night very likely would have been a sham endorsement meeting.

All of which begs the question of why do political candidates and their paid staffers even care about receiving endorsements?

Aside from the potential compaign contributions that frequently come with an endorsement, and the "turn out the vote" help that members of the endorsing entity typically offer on the candidate's behalf... an endorsement is a feather in the cap of that political candidate. A "shiny bauble" if you will.

Potential voters can look at the choices facing them and assess both viability and ideological common cause by the endorsements each candidate has acquired. And these endorsements carry very real weight because the endorsing entities normally have very strict criteria that a candidate has to meet before receiving an endorsement. That criteria normally includes both the potential viability of the candidates as well as ideological common cause. Which is precisely why endorsements carry weight with voters.

Liz Kimmerly's nefarious scheme having been exposed, I attended the PDA meeting last night fully expecting it to be yanked back within the realm of ethical propriety, if for no other reason than to avoid damaging the national PDA's reputation since she had already trampled on numerous of the PDA's guidelines. But there was Liz Kimmerly, her boss Steve Novick and another staffer, all acting as if there was nothing wrong with one of his senior staffers running the meeting of an organizatin he hoped to get the endorsement of. Not once did any of them point out that "oh, by the way, Liz Kimmerly here is a paid staffer on my campaign and I just want to be upfront about that."

It was clear that the room was stacked with active supporters of Steve Novick and for them no disclosure was needed. But several members of the audience spoke up during a Q & A session and expressed bewilderment at the veiled talk of the process having been politicized - clearly they didn't know anything about it and very likely had no clue that the woman running the meeting works for one of the candidates vying for it's endorsement. Neither Steve Novick nor Liz Kimmerly enlightened those folk with the truth.

Steve Novick formally addressed the meeting, as did several others. Every single one of them practiced full disclosure by stating their full name (first and last) and their affiliations, both recently past and present.

Not once did Liz practice anything close to full disclosure. In fact, near the end of the meeting Liz got up and was addressing the meeting via the microphone at the front and an old man in attendance interrupted her with the question, "who are you?" Liz responded, "my name is Liz" and proceeded to describe herself as the state coordinator of the Oregon chapter of PDA. Nor did Steve at any point aknowledge that Ms. Kimmerly is a paid senior member of his campaign staff.

Effectively what happened last night was Steve Novick still glibly plowing forward trying to gain the endorsement of this group which his senior staffer had started, was running and is in charge of. Clearly he remains intent on garnering the endorsement of this sham chapter of the PDA so that he can add it as a shiny bauble for Oregon voters to consider.

Which brings me back to H.L. Mencken:

"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

Do my fellow Oregonians really want a politician who treats us as if we were Homer Simpson?

Do my fellow progressives really want a politician who would throw the reputation of the Progressive Democrats of America under the proverbial bus for personal gain premised upon our gullibility?

CAVEAT EMPTOR - BUYER BEWARE

Posted by Kevin at January 20, 2008 11:47 AM