FeedsNovick Ethics Follow-Up: The Big Picture.
Almost immediately after posting about the latest Steve Novick campaign staff ethics problem, the incident's focal point came forward and offered an apology of sorts. Here's what Henry Kraemer, Novick campaign Deputy Outreach Coordinator, had to say for himself about his clandestine Wikipedia edits:
This is Henry Kraemer. I want to take full responsibility for the edits done to the Wikipedia page in question. I was acting on my own and have been strongly reprimanded by the campaign for my actions. While I intended in no way to misrepresent Speaker Merkley's record (the rest of the resolution had already been posted on the site), it was inappropriate for me add that to the entry. Assuredly, it will not happen in the future.
That he quickly came forward is good. I applaud his willingness to take responsibility. I'm a bit dismayed that he doesn't directly apologize to either the Merkley campaign or Jeff, but his words do not ring hollow.
But that's the problem: they are his words, and his alone. We've not heard anything from the Novick campaign. We can only trust Kraemer's words that he was "strongly reprimanded." This is the second incident where a staffer clandestinely operated to the detriment of the campaign. Where's the oversight here? Does anyone have control of this staff? For me, that's the big picture: why hasn't the Novick campaign done more to let its staff know that this sort of behavior is irresponsible and a big no-no, especially in light of what happened with the PDA and Liz Kimmerly? This is the second time this has happened, and all we get is a paragraph from Kraemer on Witigonen?
Senate2008Guru, in a blog over at Loaded Orygun, says it well: "The point is that these actions are beneath the politics of the Democratic Party because they are disingenuous and (while not illegal) certainly inappropriate." That the Novick campaign is not addressing these concerns is disconcerting. Although the Guru asserts that the staffer always represents the candidate, in this case it's appropriate to have comments from someone besides the guilty party.
Sadly, there's a history of this sort of problem in politics. In Georgia, for example, a campaign manager had to resign when he was caught editing the Wikipedia entry of his candidate's Democratic primary opponent (here's the original story). While I don't believe Kraemer needs to be let go by the Novick campaign, I believe they must address these ongoing ethical troubles and lay down the law, both internally and externally. Someone with authority in the campaign must step up and let everyone know that this sort of behavior won't stand, both now and in the future.
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.I have a somewhat different take on this. I don't believe that Henry Kraemer owes an apology to Jeff Merkley or his campaign - he owes an apology to the registered voters of Oregon! Likewise, the Novick campaign owes an explanation to the registered voters of Oregon. If he wants us to place our trust in him then he needs to give us a better reason than his ability to open a beer bottle with his hook.
Creative parlor tricks are no substitute for integrity.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
But you must concede, that beer bottle commercial was pretty cool.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
However, it reveals ignorance of Oregon law. If you're drinking in a bar, the server is required to open the bottle for you.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Why the concern? This is the norm for Republicans and Clintons. Sneak around, have surrogates sling innuendo, do stealth attacks on your opponent and their supporters, and never ever leave your fingerprints on the latest hatchet job.
Also, admission of problems=weakness, so they just can't go there.
At least we're beginning to get a picture of the ethical contraints that Novick and his staff might apply to governance.
It's all very educational.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.