Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Shame on Hank Sims.

You're allowing campaign operatives to run hit pieces disguised as opinion? Richard Salzman, no less.

Kerrigan campaign piece disguised as a column


Unbelievable. I thought you were better than that.

The last time you pulled something like this you thought better of it - after the piece ran - and ripped up the check.

Once again, even if you take this down, as you should - it's too late, and the damage is done.

A hit piece. Nothing less.

No excuses.


  1. Lol! Are you peeing on my leg and telling me its rain? Or are those just tears from your whining?

  2. Glad that he took time off from the DA's race.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Rose you got guts!

  5. Atleast Rose has Richard to obsess over once Paul exits the DA office

  6. Bite me Richard. Your obsession with rose is legendary. She called bullshit on hank and you and you're just butt hurt. Just don't kick the dog over it you mean ass sob.

  7. 7:42 don't ask Richard to bite unless you had a rabies shot!

  8. Ha ha! Good point. He is a rabid pos.

  9. What exactly is the ethic that disallows political speech during campaign season?

    Are certain people disallowed from speaking or having a platform?

    How far out before the election should folks be restricted from speaking?

    If you were editor, would it be a one person ban on RS because of how nefarious and politically connected he is (trying to see it from your perspective) or does this go for any person working for a campaign? Would it be allowed if their interests in the campaign were out in the open?

    Does any of this in conflict against the first amendment?

    My answer in case you don't...I think in a perfect conservative world who got to speak had the means to speak (ie wealth). The media would be guided by ethics that served to shut out opinions that might rile up the electorate. Then finally there would be a strong, loud and completely one sided conservative media that would shout down those on the other side defining them as innately wrong-headed.

    The latter of course is your job locally Rose. No one can have extreme opinions except me, and my opinions are not extreme, they are fair minded and right. And this is true as long as you dismiss, ignore and find contemptible those you disagree with.

    There is absolutely no problem with LoCO having Salzman write - unless they are saying Salzman can and Owen can't write - and even that would be alright (and the reverse) as long as they clearly stated what they were doing.

    Would I argue and comment against censoring any opinion? You bet. But it would be their right and I'd have to find another blog - like WatchPaul to frequent.

  10. After reading the article now intrigued by the chastising calls of "shame" "you are better than that" and "the damage is done". I don't get it. It's just true. What do you find offensive, this?

    " McKenny was of course appointed by Supervisor Virginia Bass in what was the most blatant pay back to those who financed Ms. Bass’s political career since her nomination of HumCPR founder Lee Ulansey to the Planning Commission a few months previous."

    It's true Rose and Supervisor Bass will say so at the right function - like her campaign announcement. But she won't say so at HCDCC and apparently you'd like it if the media was mum on these concerns - especially when people have to make the decision who to vote for. Odd.

    This is not the DA's race. The Board of Supervisors are elected officials that will be making decisions - implementing policy based on many other things their political beliefs - ie what they think is best for our future and why.

    The Planning Commission is a fraud right now. It is loaded with people who believe the most important planning should not be done by the public at large, but should be guided by those with the most invested capital in the process. This is setting us up for bad decisions which will last decades.

    Of course this conversation is not one you are willing to have or try to understand. Better to shout down those you disagree with and if that doesn't work, shout at people who give them a platform especially during political season.

  11. Like salzman, to you jon any thing is a fraud thmaagree with. Hanks faux pas is that salzman is running Kerrigan and as such should be buying ads not free bees. It's one thing to get a statement and publish it as such. As for hank, he lost my Attention years ago with the lady hanging from meat hooks

  12. That is disagree not thmaagree

  13. I didn't like the extreme piercing cover either.

    And I think there needs to be a deeper discussion about political ads in the media age. That is a fair point.

    I don't think LoCO would offer one side (RS) a platform and take away the other side's platform (MO). I think it's a decision - like the Republicans btw - to be mute on elections because they all know by being public with their opinions more damage can be done than not. It's why Supervisor Bass and Sundberg don't answer LoCO's questions, but Chris did - even Rose's! :)

  14. If it is a legitimate story, Hank should have done it.

    To allow Kerrigans's campaign operative the opportunity to do it makes it a hit-piece on the level we haven't seen since the last minute mailer Anna Spark's people sent out against Eric Hedlund. Haven't seen since Hank took the $1,000 bribe to write the hit-piece on Roger Rodoni. He regretted that one, and ripped the check up and mailed it to Roger, but not until after the piece ran.

    If LiberalJon can't understand that a campaign operative being allowed to mount an attack like that in the middle of campaign, bolstered by the gravitas that having a column provides, then there is no hope for LiberalJon.

    Hank did not even require disclosure in the bio at the end of the piece, admitting to Salzman's obvious bias and intimate involvement in Kerrigan's campaign.

    This is disgusting beyond comprehension, as Hank is one of the few that was trusted to keep things on the up and up.

    (And, for the record, neither Salzman NOR MATTHEW OWEN, who is ALSO intimately involved in the campaign, should be allowed political op-eds in the middle of the campaign.)

  15. OK, LiberalJon, you think calling this out as wrong is tantamount to saying "Better to shout down those you disagree with and if that doesn't work, shout at people who give them a platform especially during political season."

    How about this, Jon, we do it your way - Hank gives EVERY campaign FREE space to run a hit-piece. Let's start with Kerrigan's back-alley blowjob. I think voters have the right to know about his character, don't you, and it's OH, SO important that we have that discussion isn't it?

    You know the funny thing, Jon - the other candidates would DECLINE the offer.

    Your defense of this is reprehensible. But predictable.

  16. LJ will never understand anything. He lacks the ability to any critical thinking. Funny part is he is guilty of almost everything that he accuses Rose of doing. He is a perfect little progressive.

  17. Columns are by and large opinion pieces, not journalism.

  18. It's painful, isn't it, Eric?

    Admit it. This is NOT a normal columnist situation. You KNOW it.

  19. Just repeating the word "hit piece" doesn't make it one. You understand this right Rose?

    I'd ask people to read the piece. Sometimes the truth hurts and this is an example of that.

    Rose word count..."hit piece or hit-piece".... 5 times so far. Wow, that most be some hit-piece.

  20. Rose, you still haven't explained why support of having opinions is reprehensible. I honestly don't understand the ethics that would want you to keep people from speaking their mind.

    We are not talking about taudry stuff here, we are speaking about actions that are directly related to the Commissioner's perview and looking at why certain people are picked over others.

    This isn't a hit piece, it's describing Virginia's appointment to the PC. If you see it as a hit piece, you might be conceeding that perhaps nominating McKenny to the PC was not in the best interest of HumCo.

  21. I don't know what a "normal columnist situation" is. I've read many a "hit piece" in columns for years. HL Mencken was famous for them, and during the monkey trial William Jennings Bryan wanted to kill him for it. At least by today's standards, it doesn't go to print as a front page article.

    It's not the kind of thing I would write, but I'm no HL Mencken or Richard Salzman.

  22. "Funny part is he is guilty of almost everything that he accuses Rose of doing" True(ish).

    anon 10:02. The difference between Rose and I in the way we approach politics is this. I believe in the thrust of the book that can be understood in the title. It's by Jonathan Haidt. "The Righteous Mind. Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."

    With very few exceptions we are all good people. I think Rose thinks the same as long as you are on her side of the chasm.

    If not, it may be because you are of insufficient character to get "it". One's beliefs it seems can be understood because those on the left are basically lacking in character. I think that general argument stands for an estimated 70% of the right's argument. Check it out, 70% may be low.

  23. LJ, you are wrong, ignorant, and a fool. You wantt to be. A bully like your hero RS. You are just to dumb to to make the grade. Rose has high standards and especially for herself. Go the the bathroon with your stupid book and jack off in private. We simply don't want to know.

  24. 9:10 anon "Wrong, ignorant, fool, bully, dumb, jack-off"

    Rose= "high standards"

    See what is going on? Can you not see the essential difference I'm trying to break through with that book. It's not about the essential goodness or badness of one side or another - let's start with the premise we are both good, both sides, yes sides, two, want the best for our community's future and work from there. Because it's true, none of us are fighting for a worse world for our children.

    So when anon 10:02 says this "Funny part is he is guilty of almost everything that he accuses Rose of doing" - it's just not true. There is definitely overlap - we are both political but there are great differences too.

    One of them being I'm fighting not only for my progressive values but a caps lock CIVIL discussion.

    The reason why liberals are more interested in a civil discussion (not all, most) is it is inclusive. Divisiveness turns the electorate off and they go back to the escapism where the national and local advertisers are happy to have them back.

  25. Ok. Then why does the prog elite use the divide and conquer play book. Jon you crack me up. What a hypocrite! Or you could just have a slow learning curve and not see that your play book contradicts what you say.

  26. "the prog elite use the divide and conquer play book"

    Not sure who you are referring too, but their are professional politicians in both camps. That's not who I am, but I will support a winning campaign and I will, not excuse, but accept winning results while hoping we could have won more honestly going forward.

    But just a quick description of what you are talking about and what I think about it and why.

    Wedge politics is when a campaign tries to push an issue that will divide an otherwise united opposition. The right did this with guns, God and gays to great effect from the Reagan years to the Bush years, but those days seem to be over. You'd have to tell me the wedge issues the left uses, I can't think of any off the top of my head.

    Now what I'm trying to do is also create a wedge, but for the exact opposite reasons. I'm trying to separate the hanger's on in the Democratic Party. The Basses and Owens and Driscolls and Bergs and Albins and Bradys and even Markses that in today's political climate affiliate more closely with the most conservative politicians on the issues of importance at the local level.

    So while it's great that Richard Marks is progressive on, what, labor? Let's say conservative labor, that doesn't help the cause of the most significant issue the county has agency over, land use.

    So yes, I do use wedge issues, but unlike the right, it isn't to disingenuously win elections by waving shiny objects that rile the populace up, but instead to try to reclaim a political system dangerously close to losing any touch with reality in debate.

    But you know what, that is a great and important point and I think about it quite a bit. Thanks for the opportunity to write a tiny bit about it.

    Also - calls of hypocrite falls into this category I tried to describe above. "One's beliefs it seems can be understood because those on the left are basically lacking in character."

    I don't believe being a hypocrite is a good thing, quite the contrary I try not to be. I also realize as humans, we all are to some degree, in my own life I am aware of hypocrisy and try to minimize it. Maybe we share this ethic even if you think I fail at it.

  27. You're the dictator, Jon?

    For your information, voter preference is a box you check on a voter form. ANYONE can decide what they want to check. What choice THEY make, NOT YOU.

    It's not up to you to select who gets to be what. You don't get to impose a litmus test and throw out heretics, but it weren't for the thin veneer of civil society that we have, you would, and likely execute them as well, for heresy.

    For God's sake, you need to grow up, buddy. You can't admit right and wrong if it gets in the way of your little dictatorship. So you excuse lies and dirty tricks, and you cozy up to the worst of the worst and even more, you help them, spouting rhetoric without even knowing what's behind it. You're an ends justifies the means guy, and that's all there is to it.

  28. LJ, let's make this a bit more simple for you. After you quit jacking off and put down your book, stand up and lookk in the mirror. Take a good long look . Put in in your memory. Next time you hear the phrase anti-liberty prog fool you will know who is being talked about..

  29. And that's conservative politics in a nut shell.

    That's why the Republicans can't endorse local candidates and why conservatives are desperate to be Democrats. Everyone realizes there are two viable political parties, or to put it another way, two world views. Right now, and even during the Tea Party years, you can't afford to call yourself a conservative or even a Republican.

    What we are left with is no political dialog of substance, only back room dealings and film-flam public hearings precisely gauged to squeak by the next election.

    Here is hoping people wake up.

  30. Rose, you are absolutely correct Chet Albin and others get to decide what box to check. And talk of dictators etc. is so much hog wash, I have no interests and this is an example of you trying to impose your vision of a liberal on me. Please, it has no basis in reality.

    So, what do we do when a self described conservative who likes Sarah Palin and the Tea Party re-registers as a Democrat?

    What do we do? What do we do when people intentionally fool the public about their intentions?

    My answer, we do everything we can to makes things as transparent as possible, then, as always let the people decide.

    In the mean time the local parties, especially the Republicans have a responsibility to the public to get their act in order. To find a public to represent, because right now the parties are not doing their job. And in a period where there is no business model for a strong public interest media, we need effective political parties to help the voter understand the issues.

    And no Rose, endorsing Matt Heath and Ron Nerring is not cutting it as a party of the people. Republicans have to do better than that.


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