Thursday, June 10, 2010

On the dirty tricks dept.

“The tipster told us that he was someone “who helps journalists do their jobs,” but it was pretty plain that the opposite was in fact the case: He wanted journalists to help him do his.”

The Town Dandy

If a candidate has something to say about his/her opponent, they need to say it themselves. Presumably it is one of the reasons they are running against that person, and one of the things they want to say to the electorate to convince those voters that they are the better candidate.

34 comments:

  1. The question is: can you recognize the dirty tricks that are perpetrated by the candidate you support?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 3:22 get over it. No dirty tricks. What about gallegos' dirty tricks on HAgen as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Salzman's dirty tricks are known by everyone in this election. Any candidate he's aligned with is either desperate or stupid. As a fourth district voter I know he is with Neely. Cleary should have steered clear of the dude but had bad advice. We all know Gags was so lame that he brought that slimebag out of the closet. His picture in the TS spoke loads.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not as if Sundberg didn't have ample opportunity to divulge this arrest to voters. You can blame "dirty tricks" all you want, but why didn't I hear it from the candidate?

    He seems like a nice guy, but he cannot be trusted.

    Jackson, on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. She'll send Gallegos packin'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I often have issues with Hank as he gets half the story before anyone else, then makes up the rest. But this time, he's spot on. If the event happened months ago, why was it dumped anonomously on the doorsteps of the local press on the weekend prior to the election. It reeks of Salzman style tactics; To be clear, I don't support driving under the influence, but the whole story stinks. Let's hear the explanation, as that may be more damaging if he tries to claim it was ok, or we could find certain facts are not what they appear to be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again, Sundberg could have told us himself, but he didn't. He showed shamefully bad judgement. He doesn't trust the public, and I do not trust him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hank has lost a lot of respect from me on this one. He is clearly trying to rationalize his choice. The fact is Sundberg drove drunk, and he was REALLY drunk. Calling it a calculated "smear" is a pretty big spin. Was it calculated? Yes. Most likely. Was it a smear? Now that's where it gets stretched quite a bit. To me a smear is when you make something up, or tell a half truth and stretch it. He drove drunk. Really drunk. I don't think anyone is disputing it.

    Hank however is engaging in something close to a smear here himself. He is implicating people in this when he has zero evidence to prove they were involved. He has gone beyond reporting facts to actual advocacy in a belief.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And let me add that Hanks advocacy in this belief manifests itself in the censoring of what is (or should be) public information.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is about the sleazman dirty tricks. It has nothing to do with anyone else. Thanks fot the TS photo who brought this asshole out for everyone to see. He is trash and anyone who relies on that crap is trash too

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hank is just in denial that his paper means nothing. The story got out. Who did Hank shield from this story? Maybe a couple old ladies in southern Humboldt who only read the journal because its free and they don't have a computer? Why didn't he post the story, and add his two cents "I think this is a smear job"? Why do we even need Hank to tell us its a smear job? The ego on this guy!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love how the Journal has become over the years more about an introspective journey into Hank Sims personal thoughts and feelings on certain topics. Not. A DUI isn't that big of a deal though imho.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know the scene in Fried Green Tomatoes?

    Hank is older and he has more insurance.

    In other words, he has seen this crap before, knows it for what it is, and isn't a greenhorn who allows himself to be buffaloed anymore.

    Because this quote should be on every journalists wall: “The tipster told us that he was someone “who helps journalists do their jobs,” but it was pretty plain that the opposite was in fact the case: He wanted journalists to help him do his.”

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm wioth hank on this one. Its principal. Ever seen gags stumble and hit the asphalt after leaving the brewery. Its illuminating.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who started the rumor that Betty Chinn was harassed into asking her name to be removed from Jackson's supporters list?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Ever seen gags stumble and hit the asphalt after leaving the brewery. Its illuminating."

    It's probably more illuminating to you that he may have had the intelligence to call a cab or grab a ride with someone less inebriated than him,if what you witnessed is indeed true.
    I am amazed at the justification for drinking under the influence that I have read on this blog.It's incredibly sad.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No one is condoning drinking under the influence. Or driving under the influence.

    What is sad is your condoning the last minute dirty tricks. If Patrick Cleary, or Patrick Higgins had something to say about this THEY should have said it. They could have raised it during the debates, and they could have held a press conference, even on that last day.

    Humboldt County is a small town, and to pretend that this was some kind of secret is wrong.

    The last time the dirty tricks dept. was employed to such advantage was against Eric Hedlund, and it cost him the seat. Since then, MOST news outlets have guarded against those kinds of tactics.

    Both Cleary and Higgins have ample personal skills, name recognition and experience to bring to the table. The sad thing here, mresquan, is that they did not need this done on their behalf, whichever one it was should condemn it, and condemn the person who did it. The one who wants to "help reporters do their jobs."

    Should all candidates who feel that way start playing the game, mresquan, you who care about clean elections? Should they all start dropping off anonymous packets and then stand with their hands behind their backs whistling as if they know nothing? Because ALL candidates feel that way. Where should they stop? Should they pony up $1,000 checks to "help the reporters do their jobs"?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can you imagine Rose's response if Paul had been caught driving while tanked? If Hank or anyone else hadn't ran with that story, Rose would have donkey punched them in the nether region.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rose,I don't condone the tactic of turning in info at the last minute at 3:45pm on a Friday evening just before an election the upcoming Tuesday.
    And you can place all the blame you want on either Pat,but it doesn't escape the fact that Sundberg didn't address it either.And who knows Rose,perhaps the individual who dropped the info off was willing to give Sundberg the most ample and sufficient amount of time to address the arrest,which he never did.
    That being said,if the last minute dropoff did come from one of the competing campaigns,and they knew about it all well in advance,then shame on them for the tactic.
    But most of all shame on Sundberg for doing it,and for hoping it would all be swept under a rug,with nobody noticing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rose, I thought that you were for tough prosecutions, but Sundberg's reckless blood alcohol level requires jail time and he pleaded. What's wrong with you?

    He would have been forgiven for the crime had he owned up to it, but as in so many cases, the coverup is worse than the crime. Sundberg handed this one to the anonymous tipster. It shows poor judgement and a lack of trust in the voters. He's not qualified for the job.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now your the judge and jury anon. The telling evidence that most of slimmers do not live in 5th is that they did not know about the DUI. An the fact that they keep coming on the blogs with same lame yada yada.

    Mark you are on another planet, what if what if, what if your are a moron.

    There was no cover-up, lots of folks knew about it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Go have a nice weekend, Mark. It is over and done with.

    At least now we know where you stand.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous 2:39 calls someone else a "moron" after writing, "The telling evidence that most of slimmers [?] do not live in 5th is that they did not know about the DUI." Sad. If you aren't connected to the grapevine you're an outsider?

    Sundberg is an ostrich, and he shows very poor judgment. We deserve better on the Board.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yet Ted Kennedy was not only fit to serve, we are to be condemned for remembering that he killed a girl.

    Still no word from either HIggins' camp or Cleary's. Do the reporters know who the "anonymous" donor is?

    ReplyDelete
  24. And if Ted Kennedy were a Republican, Rose would still be blaming the media for the death in Chappaquiddick.

    ReplyDelete
  25. With your same selling points go back to H blog. Same story line over and over. I think by Nov. we will be seeing all these folks clogging up the blogs with this stupidity. What do you say Richard.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why isn't your comment dialog box recognizing my Blogger account? I had to sign in as anonymous.

    Rose, you've gotta get over your hatred of Ted Kennedy. He's more than paid his dues for his mistake in youth by decades of faithful service to Americans. You just don't like his politics, his standing up for healthcare and liberal concerns so you won't forgive him. Yet in the grand scheme of things Ted's error in judgment pales in comparison to your Republicans like George Bush. Kennedy never cost thousands of lives like the mistaken errors of Bush who you will praise even though the guy was a proven liar and responsible for starting the whole Iraqi and Afghanistan mess that' bankrupting our country.

    ReplyDelete
  27. First, must be a blogger glitch.

    Second, hate? No, more like disgust, and no it has to do with the character of a man who walks away and leaves a girl to die, does everything in his even then prodigious power to cover it up, using his family's stature to do so, and THEN being called righteous by the likes of you. Nothing he does erases that he is the kind of man who did that. Took her out in the car for a quick fuck, never caring a whit about her as a human being, then further solidifying that by leaving her in the car and pretending he was never there. There's no excuse for that. And it's not like he cleaned up his behavior afterwards, oh all you so sanctimonious this week because it suits you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wow Rose, I've never seen you so worked up. Must be PG's victory really getting to you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gotta let go of your very morally near-sighted opinion, Rose. He was young. He paid the price of losing a sure shot to the presidency. And he has been the strongest voice of the Democratic concern for the well-being of Americans while you are probably still fond of a proven liar and killer of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis. When you come out so extreme in your political prejudices it reflects negatively on all your political opinions. Who wants to listen to someone who can't see the difference between killing thousands of people by cynical premeditated design vs. not saving the life of one person due to circumstances neither you or I really know the extent of.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Like his brothers, like FDR, Ted Kennedy seemed to be a magnet for hatred as today's news about the death threats he received throughout his career show. Time to let the man rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It's the hypocrisy, Stephen. Kennedy is merely the point.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you want to see a hypocrite, look no further than Humboldt's very own Eric Vang Kirk.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.