Friday, March 28, 2014

"A vote against the politics of personal attack"

That was the TIMES-STANDARD headline the LAST TIME Chris Kerrigan used Richard Salzman's sleazy dirty tricks and lies in his campaign.

Chris was called upon to denounce Salzman at the time. He refused.

Who remembers?

And why does it matter?

Because Kerrigan is back to the same old sleazy shit.

"But this editorial is not about supporting Rex Bohn or Chris Kerrigan, or even about Richard Salzman, who appears to have gotten a little carried away in his campaign enthusiasm.

It's about how we choose our elected leaders, and if we're willing to support the politics of personal attack as the nasty new standard in local elections.

We don't believe Eurekans want that kind of politicking in their town, whether they support Bohn or Kerrigan."

Said the Times-Standard then. What say ye today?

There was an interesting little tidbit, selectively edited, in ◼ Eric's post this morning.

What could have been a positive press release from the Kerrigan campaign touting the opening of his Campaign HQ is just more of the WEB OF LIES


I'm giving Chris Kerrigan until tomorrow morning to retract the lies in Salzman's latest.

The question for the Times-Standard is this - do you stand by your words? Every editorial in recent memory - the ones relating to campaigns - has called for being nice. Are you still going to say "Richard Salzman, who appears to have gotten a little carried away in his campaign enthusiasm."? Or are you finally going to admit there is a serious problem here?

I remind you that in 2004, Hum CPR did not exist. The hate and lies... you support this? or you don't.


  1. Rose I'm not going to get in a shouting match with you about Richard Salzman. I've tried to stay away from the whole you v Gallegos thing and I'm not about to start now.

    I'm going to comment on civics, politics, but not interpersonal drama.

    One of my two crusades is about the politics of the Humboldt County Dems, and as much as there are personalities involved including Matthew Owen, Richard Marks and Supervisor Bass I do like all of these people personally. I'm not going to ascribe "dirty tricks" and "lies". I may come close, but I think there is a big difference.

    What I will try to do is describe what is going on using the most precise language I am capable of. There is conflict in politics, naturally, we don't need to turn up the volume. I commented earlier when Arnie used words like "evil" and I'm commenting again when you are bringing your crusade against two individuals into what could be a new era of local politics. One that does not need to be divested of passion or point of views, but we could start trying to focus our passion on policies instead of people.

    There is a big difference. It's the difference of, say Rush Limbaugh vs Michael Medved (ish). Unfortunately conservatives couldn't win with Michael Medved alone. They need Rush.

    "lies" x 3
    "attack" x 2
    "sleazy" x 2
    "shit" x 1
    "hate" x 1

    These are the number of times you used these loaded words interspersed with "Kerrigan" and "Salzman". Do you not think that is a type of trick too? If not dirty, is it maybe a bit uncouth?

    I know you have a long history with Richard Salzman through Paul Gallegos. Salzman is intelligent and is a seasoned and successful politician. Let's try to focus on issues, political issues, partisan issues and not make this a shouting match.

    When we do make it a shouting match, people stop paying attention and attack both sides for being too partisan. Maybe that is to your advantage, and quite possibly you know this.

    I don't think so. I just think you really don't like the other side's politics and you can't see when your side does the same thing.

    Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, we are all like the yin and yang symbol. We may wear opposite colors, but we ultimately are more similar than different and each have a little of one another in each other.

    Again, Rose, I ask, are you not partisan too? Or is this really about right and wrong, you being right, us being wrong. It would be so much simpler that way.

  2. Oh, for gawd sakes Rose. Richard, if you happen to read this post, please pay a visit to Rose today. Just let her blow you one time so she can end this redicilous obsession. I hope that one quick session would do the trick. Then she can move on with her pathetic life.

  3. if i'm going to call out Rose as uncouth. I'd be remiss to not point out this is wrong on so many levels. I don't know what you are up to, but it's not helping your implied cause.

  4. I think that pointing out the lies and the sleazy tactics is a very different thing than actually engaging in them. And the question in the quoted TS opinion remains - whether some of the people in Humboldt County are once again going to be fooled by those tactics through which Mr. Salzman has been "seasoned and successful" in the past. He may be intelligent, but he seems to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the Humboldt voters.
    And one of his favorite tactics is to launch a personal attack on anyone who questions or disagrees with his propaganda, and then to say that the opposing candidate is linked to this now-demonized person. This of course plays very well to the conspiracy theorists.
    Salzman also seems to have some copy-cats now who use this technique.
    On the other hand, it's interesting to read the conversations between Rose and Jon. They may get frustrated with each other but still keep talking things through.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.