Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Wow. Hank. You should have made him pay for that space.

Just wow.

Do ALL of the other candidates get to write a hit piece/column, too? In the interests of equal time and all?

Do they have to have it written by a campaign surrogate? What are the rules?


  1. It seems "Matt in the Middle" had a forum there for as long as he wanted.

    I don't remember anyone complaining about it (at least, not here).

  2. WRONG. What I have said, and say again, is that once the campaign filing period closed NEITHER of them should have a column, as BOTH of them are intensely involved in the political campaign.

    After June, in theory one or both would be free to opine once again. (Depends on whether or not Salzman is still working a campaign through November.)

    Since Hank has decided to let them BOTH continue, and Salzman just used his as a hit piece, every single campaign should be given equal space. FREE of charge.

    It's disgraceful.

  3. Why not Rose? I'm pretty sure LoCO would be happy to allow candidates a column or two. Have you asked Hank or Kym?

    What is disgraceful about it? Seriously. It's free speech at it's best. The LoCO scroll is bottomless and it costs close to nothing. I sincerely don't understand your concern.

    The concern should be if there is an open forum to discuss ideas, eventually the smoke screens and shiney objects like calling out Chris Kerrigan for BIG LIES #1 and #2 may have even less influence as people begin to really understand what is at stake here.

    Both sides (yes two, and yes sides) get a chance to articulate their ideas of ethics. Richard had a great article on the ethics of personal and vested interests and how Commissioners making decisions may not be unbiased.

    You use your platform to discuss what you consider candidate Kerrigan's ethics in regards to perhaps misusing the term "brag" in a campaign letter.

    I think I'm being fair.

    Yep, I get why you'd be upset at the free flow of information. It costs nothing and both sides have a chance to pontificate.

    Thing is, one side has something to say regarding policy that the voters want and need to hear, the other side really doesn't other than protecting private property rights. Truth is, we are doing a pretty good job of the latter, we are not doing a good job of planning for the future right now. We need to do both.

  4. In 2007, Mr. Ulansey submitted a request to the county to re-zone his property so that it could be split into parcels as small as 2.5 acres with a house on each one. That sure sounds profitable! The board has yet to vote on that request and of course since then he’s been seated on the Planning Commission.

    Is this true Rose, or is Salzman making shit up again?

  5. I have to agree with LJ: The LoCO is open to letting all sides have their say and LoCO is now the premier media of this area to get your views across.

    What's wrong with that? I want to hear what folks have to say, even if they say stuff which I (GASP!) don't agree.

    I did not catch the blog entry of yours where you took Matt in the Middle to task for posting on LoCO past the deadline you have imposed. I admit I don't keep up with your blog as closely as I do others.

    My apologies if I were mistaken.

  6. This whole thing is wrong. As opposed to splitting into 4, 40 acre parcels...Ulanseywas encouraged to "Cluster" 4 2.5-5 acre parcels along Greenwood Heights road. That is what was proposed in 07. Then the market crashed and made it infeasible. So again ...more Lies!

  7. Nothing wrong with diametrically opposed positions, and both sides of a story. That's healthy.

    Giving a political operative a free space to lay out his talking points without expressly saying that's what it is - in the middle of a campaign - is wrong.

    No way around it.

    Nor should the husband of the candidate be given that same space. WHILE the campaign is in swing.

    Otherwise, why not just open up the slime pit?

  8. Well, I guess one person's slime pit is another person's exchange of views and information.

    Perhaps you are right that LoCO should clearly label the columnists in question as partisans in the upcoming election. But that's LoCO's call.

    I think their partisanship becomes obvious once you read their articles and see the resulting comments.

  9. The thing is, MOLA - you could offer other candidates the chance to slime their opponents or opponents's backers, and they would not do it.

    You need to read that piece carefully. It is no Op-Ed. That is a campaign piece.

  10. I think Hank Sims should pay Richard Salzman.

    He is the only read right now for LOCO buffs and the other posts are a lame effort to keep the output churning out.

  11. "That brilliant Richard Salzman" - yeah, yeah, yeah, "R. Trent" Anonymous.



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