Steve Duin hates our little glee club. Boo hoo.
Years ago, Steve Duin was a sports writer for The Oregonian. Like Dwight Jaynes, he apparently felt no compunction about calling an athlete "dogmeat" and other denigrating terms; not for moral flaws but for athletic failings. As much as I used to love to read the paper back in those pre-web days (I miss Sunday mornings with the ads culled, the coffee brewed, a toasted Portland Bagel Company bagel slathered with Nancy's cream cheese, and an entire Sunday paper ready to enjoy; it's not worth the money anymore), Duin's writing was too ugly, too often, for me to enjoy. (I don't bother much with Canzano for the same reason, plus the dude is so incredibly full of himself.)
Then Duin left sports and became a "columnist." He was freed to write about whatever captured his fancy, and guess what? He became a very good writer! Sports must have brought out the worst in him, like driving does with me. As a generalist, he was thoughtful, funny, persuasive, and his anger, when it came out, was usually well-directed. Not every column was Pulitzer-caliber, of course, but I enjoyed reading him much more after he left sports. As a bonus, he has, over the years, been one of the better and more thoughtful political writers in the state.
Then there's his blog. I've not read it much, so I don't know the general direction it takes. When I have read the blog, it's usually when he's writing about books, comics/graphic novels and such. I keep meaning to keep in touch with it for that reason, so I don't know how many entries like this I've missed over time:
Kulongoski is a Liar and the Oregon State Bar Couldn't Care Less
Ok, wow, that's not merely strong, isn't it close to libel? He can prove Kulo is a liar? Golly, call the Attorney General! Or does he (and the Big O) think that writing in a "blog" means you can say what you damn well please? Anyway, that aside, I'm aware of what he's talking about, the allegations that Ted's known about Neil for years and not only has done nothing about it, he's lied about his knowledge when questioned. Beyond that, like most Oregonians, I simply don't know enough to know if the accusations against Kulo are true. Steve, however, is in no doubt, that's for sure; and, as he attacks those who defend the Gov, he has this little tidbit:
That is unbelievable. That's the laughable Kari Chisholm defense, named in honor of the Democratic errand boy who runs the Blue Oregon Glee Club.
The Blue Oregon Glee Club? Holy crap, Batman. Now there are a couple of things about Kari and Blue Oregon that are undeniable. Kari is a true-blue Democrat. He defends Democrats frequently, and I know he at times has taken up arms against Lars Larsson regarding the whole Kulo-Goldschmidt affair. But hell. It's Lars! Jesus, should not any decent Democrat, Republican, indie or otherwise sentient human being be ready to stand against any damn thing Lars says? It's Lars, Steve. He opens his mouth and demons barf.
It could be, regarding this whole nasty affair, that Kulo is a liar, that Lars has accidentally gotten on the right side of the story, and that Kari is spinning and dancing. I don't know, and I don't really care. Kari's a big boy, I mean a grown-up, and he can take care of himself. But — Blue Oregon Glee Club? Steverino has gone too damn far.
The Duiner must do a lot of selective reading of BO, if he reads us at all. Yes, Kari is listed as an editor, along with Charlie Burr and Jeff Alworth. And here's how much Kari edits me, one of the more frequent contributors: Zip. Zero. Not at all. He has suggested to me a few times that I need to get to the point (I have a tendency to bury my main point under an extravagant introduction). Charlie, writing to me not as an editor but as a friend, once told me to play nice (and I told him I'd write as I saw fit). That's it, kids. I know one person who thinks Kari bans commenters he doesn't like, but given all the trolls and such that appear regularly, including people who criticize Kari for how he runs this operation, I'm not convinced.
As far as glee club goes, anyone reading this site regularly knows that's a crock of horse doody. We're anything but harmonious. I seem to recall getting bitch-slapped for suggesting not too long ago that impeachment was a bad idea — less than a year after getting bitch-slapped for suggesting that impeachment was necessary (it was a timing thing; I still want to see Bush & Cheney before the World Court). There is no editorial board to pass through here, I promise. If I want to write about Obama, or how I think Cindy Sheehan is wrong, or two quarterbacks from rural Oregon, or anything else I want — I just write it. I have never been told to change a word, to not approach a single subject. And no one has ever hesitated to tell me I'm an idiot, a right-/left-wing tool, a socialist, a complete idiot or just plain wrong.
This is anything but a glee club. Ok, we're all kind of on the same team. That's a terrible thing, I know, Steve: a bunch of Dems and other lefties getting together on a website to discuss and promote the politics we share in common. But glee club? Hell, boy, that's an insult to real glee clubs. Here at Blue Oregon, we make a less pleasant sound. We tend to squawk more than harmonize. We fight about Merkley and Novick, about the governor's race last year, about taxes, about PERS (hi mrfearless) and about any other damn thing on which we disagree. If we're a glee club, we suck.
But we're not a glee club, and we don't suck. Some of our pieces suck, and I've submitted more than a few of those. But this site is a place where anyone wanting to add positively to the dialogue about how to make Oregon better by promoting progressive (and generally, Democratic) politics, is welcome here (as are those who wish to conduct productive, civil disagreements and debates). And that may be the problem Steve Duin has with us.
We're trying to promote something positive here. He seems to be satisfied with being his own troll.
|
December 29, 2007 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (125 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Stephanie V | Dec 29, 2007 10:46:37 PM
>it seemed to me that his objectivity was AWOL
Hey, I'm no apologist for the excesses of Steve Duin or any other columnist, but the last time I checked, "columnists" weren't supposed to be objective. That's kind of the point, isn't it?
Posted by: LT | Dec 29, 2007 11:11:27 PM
TA, thanks for the comment about making Oregon better. If the Bar had talked to Leonhardt for a whole day and Kulongoski for a whole day, why should we believe the result wouldn't have been something other than,
"Mr. Leonhardt and Gov. Kulongoski have differing recollections of events that occurred more than a decade ago," Mullmann wrote. "I find that both Mr. Leonhardt and Gov. Kulongoski are credible in their recollections."
Mullmann said the conflicting testimony by two equally credible witnesses "does not constitute sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred warranting further investigation by the bar."
This is about a 1994 conversation at a social event discussing rumors about a crime 20 years previously. Even if every legal authority in Oregon were to come out and say "Lars and Leonhardt are right, Kulongoski deserves punishment for what he did or didn't do after hearing what Leonhardt told him", how would that make Oregon better?
Would there be some sort of regulation in the future that any rumor of child abuse heard in a social situation had to be reported in writing to a specified agency?
But what really bothers me about Duin and the others is that Leonhardt thought telling someone at a social event constituted telling the authorities. Seems to me the Bar would have written standards about hearsay and about "Attorneys are mandatory reporters. According to Bar guidelines, they "must report any 'reasonable suspicion' of child abuse according to Oregon law."
Is a conversation at a Christmas party alone enough to trigger "reasonable suspicion", or must there be more evidence than that?
Stephanie, are you a lawyer or do you know any lawyers? Maybe you or someone could inform us about the Bar definition of "reasonable suspicion".
Posted by: Not a regular | Dec 29, 2007 11:31:03 PM
I tend to agree with Duin's "Glee Club" comment. And T.A. helps explain why here: "But this site is a place where anyone wanting to add positively to the dialogue about how to make Oregon better by promoting progressive (and generally, Democratic) politics..."
There's the issue for me: T.A. says that "progressive generally = Democratic". I guess that may be the case when you're making comparisons to Huckabee and Bush, but this site is generally extremely light on the truly progressive politics, and pretty heavy on the Democratic party ones, especially when the two are contradictary.
Posted by: dyspeptic | Dec 29, 2007 11:36:05 PM
Duin is welcome to his crustiness. BlueOregon should buy him lunch for the mention.
On the whole, though, the Oregonian went off the crypto-Christian ya-ya deep end years ago. Duin sometimes proves he's got a pulse by offering up PITA positions, but nobody who writes for the O has any right to get huffy about another media outlet sounding like a glee club.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 29, 2007 11:44:15 PM
not a regular, jeez, that's pathetic. adding the equal sign totally changes my words, and you know it. and just because your version of progressive isn't posted daily, we're somehow lacking? i'll match my progresivism to anyone's (it's really really big), and that doesn't always mean the Democratic Party gets it right. perhaps if you'd both hang around regularly, and not hide behind a nick, you'd get a better idea of the progressivism that is here — and you'd see it covers quite a spectrum of beliefs and attitudes.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 29, 2007 11:47:28 PM
Stephanie, columnists should at least attempt to be reasonable (not to mention avoid libel). otherwise they're just kooks. you don't have dialogues with kooks; you have chaos. you heard anyone have a dialogue with Lars? Rush? we don't have to agree with one another, but if we can't talk reasonably, we don't have much of anything.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 12:11:49 AM
Hot damn. I didn't even know Steve Duin had his own blog. Oops! Welcome to the blogosphere, Steve!
(TA, I've edited your post to include a link to the post in question. Took me forever find it. Someday, the O will figure out how to make a navigable website. Google still hasn't found his post.)
Steve is the same guy who wrote that "BlueOregon is an endless lap dance for the Democratic Party." Personally, I thought it was hilarious.
I'll leave most of the meta-analysis to others. Frankly, I'm bored by it. But I have two thoughts:
#1. The notion that we're a "glee club", as T.A. so aptly points out, is ridiculous. Clearly, Steve hasn't been paying attention much around here. We've had a raging brawl-among-friends going for quite a few months around here.
#2. I don't run BlueOregon. I'm an active editor, along with Jeff and Charlie. There was a time when I did probably 75% of the content and checked in every few hours. It's been months since that's been true. These days, I do about 10% and I check in about once a day. (I really wish people would stop giving me all the credit. This is a labor of love from a large number of people.)
Personally, I've always enjoyed Duin's work. I've got much in common with his kids. I went to USC. I grew up in L.O. In elementary school, I even had the teacher who inspired the annual reading challenge. (She was Miss McBee then... don't know her married name now. She was easily my favorite.)
As to the substance? Remember: the Oregonian knew about the Goldschmidt story all the way back in 1986. That was 21 years ago.
Sure, as the Astorian noted, Steve Duin is the "moral force" of the paper - but he should turn his attention to the people who really covered this up: The Oregonian.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 12:29:10 AM
Duin is welcome to his crustiness. BlueOregon should buy him lunch for the mention.
Gladly! Steve, give me a call. Lunch is on me. We'll even do it at Higgins. (And maybe bring along Miss McBee!)
Posted by: LT | Dec 30, 2007 12:53:26 AM
Kari, thanks to the WW link.
WW has learned that the paper's first solid information about Goldschmidt's secret came 18 years ago, in 1986. At that time, Jack Ohman, the paper's nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist, heard a tip from a friend.
For those of you who don't recall 1986 politics, Portland's own Neil barely defeated Salem's own Norma (Paulus). Didn't the Statesman Journal endorse Neil over Norma? Would they have done that if they had known? Would Neil have been Transportation Secretary under Carter or even a candidate for statewide office if anyone had known? (Anyone remember who Neil's 1986 primary opponent was and what ended that person's political career?)
The whole Leonhardt et al "I told you Ted, at that Christmas party 10 years ago" thing strikes me as juvenile or naive, or gotcha (or some combination).
As if some people need to grow up and realize there are folks just barely scraping by, folks with no health insurance just hoping they don't get sick or in an accident, folks thrilled to land a job which pays $10 an hour. And then a columnist, a speech writer, and a talk show host want them to believe nothing is more important than something talked about privately at a Portland Christmas party for the well connected? Enough to make some hard working people want to scream "go out and get a real job"---Duin and Leonhardt and Lars probably wouldn't last a day in retail, or in physically or emotionally demanding jobs which are more essential but less glamorous than politics or news.
Why doesn't Duin or anyone else mention that had it been public knowledge, Norma would have become Oregon's first woman Governor instead of Barbara Roberts?
Which is why this whole story smacks of "let's get Ted and Bernie" and all about Portland social and political circles, rather than about the rest of the state.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Dec 30, 2007 2:37:20 AM
Kari said:
We've had a raging brawl-among-friends going for quite a few months around here.
No way. I thought we were all in 100% agreement around here.
; )
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 9:21:53 AM
A glee club...o.k....one usually off key, forgets the words, the melody and even to sing. Sheesh.
Read Jeff Mape's blog at the big "O".
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 30, 2007 10:07:00 AM
Well, to be fair, TA's photoshop job does make the Karis look fairly choral.
Duin comes off, as he has more and more often, like a man desperately trying to reassert his authority. Yet his overheated rhetoric is cringe-producing even on a blog. Duin has done a lot of interesting, important work. Throwing a hissy fit about the governor cannot be considered either.
Come on, Steve, pick up your game.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 10:20:26 AM
Glee Club? If by glee club we mean everyone singing from the same sheet of music, then the charge appears to be partly true and partly not.
The lead articles essentially follow the same basic "Democratic" score without allowing discordant notes. But the comments that follow from the audience more often than not show a strong competition between opinions and opinionated people. On the first point, I submitted a piece in support of Ralph Nader. No way, apparently, is anyone with anything good to say about Ralph Nader to be allowed to take the lead on a "Democratic" site. I will, however, concede that is the editors' privilege and accept their judgment without hostility.
I suppose I could copy my article from my file and paste it here, but that would change the subject and thus be a violation of unspoken etiquette. Also, I wouldn't have time to respond to the diatribes that would follow, and I'm still imbued with the Christmas spirit and have all those sales ads in today's (Sunday's) paper to work through.
As for Steve Duin, he was my favorite columnist in the Oregonian, not that I agreed with him 100%, when I used to subscribe to the "O" and I'm indebted to him and the chance encounter with his column that introduced me to Steve Novick.
And, I agree with Stephanie's comment above about opinion columnists not being objective.
As for Kulongoski I'm more prepared to accept Steve Duin's opinion and word than Kulongoski's. On anything!!
Posted by: admiralnaismith | Dec 30, 2007 10:28:42 AM
Heh. Whenever I thought about Gov. Ted during over the last five years, it was along the lines of "weaker than Pendleton clam chowder".
I might have to rethink that. If the Republicans are willing to go into full character assassination mode on him, maybe he's doing things right after all.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 11:10:54 AM
"Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, hasn't he?"
Actually, that's not true at all.
He's had very little to say publicly about the primary. The most I've heard him say was that he was "uncomfortable" with how quickly the Novick campaign was dismissed by the party establishment.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 11:23:10 AM
Heh. Whenever I thought about Gov. Ted during over the last five years, it was along the lines of "weaker than Pendleton clam chowder".
I might have to rethink that. If the Republicans are willing to go into full character assassination mode on him, maybe he's doing things right after all.
Admiral: I like your metaphor - "weaker than Pendleton clam chowder".
As for the Republicans going after Kulongoski, however, I think two gangs or Mafia families fighting over turf might be more appropriate comparisons.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 11:26:07 AM
Actually it is true, Pat. But I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 11:27:39 AM
Ditto, Bill. "Weaker than Pendleton clam chowder" tickeled my funny bone.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 11:35:04 AM
"Actually it is true, Pat. But I'm not going to do your homework for you."
No, you'd be doing your own homework by actually backing up your as-yet-unproven assertion that "Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley."
I simply called your bluff. Since you won't show your cards, I'll consider it a fold.
Once again, Kev, you're a day late and dollar short with your argument. I figured a self-proclaimed well-known blogger such as yourself could cover his bases with an actual fact. But you know what they say about assuming things.
Posted by: torridjoe | Dec 30, 2007 11:45:43 AM
" 'BlueOregon is an endless lap dance for the Democratic Party.' Personally, I thought it was hilarious."
It's funny cause it's true! Seriously, there IS a fairly strong editorial pattern of Democratic (big d) backing IMO, staying fairly tightly within the relatively narrow ideological bounds of "what's safe" and not too out there. The connections are strong, and one sees fairly quickly what happens when you don't follow the line--even among the supposedly unherded cats of the Party.
That said, Duin's kind of in left field here, I agree. It's not libel, however, unless Duin actually believes Kulongoski is NOT lying, but is saying he is. That's why libel cases are so hard to prove; the defendant has to be shown to be deliberately printing a falsehood.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 12:03:40 PM
tj, "editorial pattern" is kind of overstating things. that implies that some effort is being made to create a pattern, or direct writings. the guest columns are the only ones that need approval; contributors don't ask for permission to post. we post. i can write to my heart's delight on Novick or Obama, both of whom Kari opposes (or supports another candidate, might be a better way to put it).
if there is any pattern, it's the kind of unintentional pattern describe by Steve Johnson in his terrific book Emergence. this is a great look into how seemingly unconnected organisms or processes end up working together. it's actually a bit more simple here — most of us are active in the Democratic Party, so duh, we write about helping out the Democratic Party — but it's a book anyone interesetd in both natural and social processes should read.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 12:16:08 PM
Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, while betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of how the GOP traps work. All of which debunks Pat's claim upthread.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 12:37:42 PM
Kevin: Thanks for the links above where I found this - The question we should be asking of the primary candidates, Walker said, is this: Which one of you has ever taken a personal risk and gone to the mat for people? "In a close race, I'm going to look for someone who puts themselves out there, in front of God and everyone, for truth and justice," Walker said. "That may sound like a fairy tale. I didn't get elected to have a title but to sometimes put myself out there to get run over for the right things."
In a way, it sums up why I'm for Steve Novick and others willing to fight for something worthwhile instead of selling their souls or integrity to get elected.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 12:38:03 PM
From Kevin's links above:
"Given the support of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the hasty endorsements by Kulongoski and former Gov. Barbara Roberts, Merkley clearly is the establishment candidate."
"...the DSCC's decision to spend $93,000 on Jeff Merkley's fledgling U.S. Senate campaign is further evidence that the party's chief fundraising committee wants to pick the Democrat candidate before Oregon voters do."
"...Novick would never have voted for that 2003 resolution; that Merkley did suggests he brings a different level of anger and activism to this campaign."
"...Yet the candidates' campaigns, Blumenauer said, "will only be 10-12 percent of the media activity. All the rest will be everybody defining you and beating you up, and doing the same to your opponent. Once this race gets up onto the radar screen, you'll see swift-boating like you've never seen before. It's going to be a wild time."
That's what you call "rather harsh," Kevin? I fear for your genteel sensibilities when Gordon Smith fires up his arsenal for the general election. You better go hide in a cave next summer and fall, lest you risk a severe case of the vapors.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 12:45:00 PM
"staying fairly tightly within the relatively narrow ideological bounds of "what's safe" and not too out there. The connections are strong, and one sees fairly quickly what happens when you don't follow the line--even among the supposedly unherded cats of the Party."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 12:52:34 PM
Please.... can we stay a little close to on-topic? Yeah, this was a meta-post on the nature of BlueOregon, but it was originally about Governor Kulongoski, the Goldschmidt Scandal, etc. It was not supposed to be another chapter in the ongoing pissing match between Merkley and Novick supporters. We have plenty of opportunities for that.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 1:03:17 PM
and you see how this works? Kari tries to exercise editorial influence (conduct the glee club) and i reply:
no, this was not about Kulo, it was about Steve Duin thinking we all sing the same tune. the comments prove that we're anything but a glee club. this is a typical set of comments, very illustrative of how things tend to work at BO. and ignoring the editor's pleas, also typical.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 30, 2007 1:06:43 PM
Fair enough, TA! I'm just saying that the ongoing pissing match with rehashed arguments is BOOOOOOORING. Find something new to say, people.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 1:10:02 PM
Have A Happy New Year!
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Dec 30, 2007 1:16:00 PM
One way to tell extremists from people who merely have strongly held views is to examine their perception of censorship. Those that interpret criticism of their poorly reasoned screeds as a form of censorship ("editorial direction", "without allowing discordant notes", "glee club") refuse to accept that any belief system other than their own is legitimate. (Therefore, in the twisted logic of the ever more deranged radical, all opposition must be motivated by evil - greed, self-interest, hatred, what have you. It's the first step on the long road to dehumanizing your political opponents, which thankfully only a few violent extremists ever reach.)
BlueOregon is a website that puts few limits on what people write. Emotional reasoners are welcome to contribute. But so are those who ridicule the ridiculous, including myself. So if your bottom is hurting from the spankings you get here, don't blame the forum. Blame yourself.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 30, 2007 1:38:03 PM
T.A., I think the question is not whether you can write about Novick or Obama, but whether if you decided to back Frohnmeyer for senate and whomever the Greens nominate for president next year, and wrote about those frequently and insistently but politely, maybe with a few periodic arguments about why Ralph Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000, that would have any consequences.
The blog is called BlueOregon. The "blue" vs. "red" methaphor goes back ultimately to representations of Dems vs. Repubs in t.v. electoral college maps for presidential elections. The focus here is mostly on partisan politics and public policy. Of the 45 regular columnists, 3 editors and 1 intern listed, 25 have had at least one post since Sept. 1. Of those, 15 have posted since Dec. 1 and few of the other 10 had more than one or two posts in Sept. & Oct.; one still-listed columnist actually was removed in November.
A pretty substantial majority of those listed and an even greater proportion of the recent posters are current or former Democratic elected officials, current or former Democratic party officials, professional or volunteer activists for the Democratic party, or professional policy or issue activists working mainly in the DP milieu.
It seems pretty bootless to deny that this is mostly a DP-oriented talk shop. I think it's only because Duin turns that into an attack and a smear that there's even an inclination to try.
There are other kinds of progressive politics in Oregon; mostly they are ignored here or are actively disdained (admittedly of course the favor is returned often enough with respect to views of the DP). That doesn't bother me terribly because I don't expect it to be much different, though at times it limits both what we discuss and how we talk about it in ways I wish it didn't.
Even when broad issues are discussed, it's usually with reference to candidate, official or party positions or electoral and government policy debates (sometimes including criticism like Lenny Dee's on DP "free trade" politics). The main exceptions that stick out in my mind recently are Leslie Carlson's posts, Karol Collymore's New Orleans reports, and further back, some posts by Jenson Hagen about schools and education.
Posted by: BHamm | Dec 30, 2007 1:46:17 PM
I couldn't agree more, Kari.
However, I've been noticing how Kamberg is always the first comment on every post here, and it's always a way to fit the Novick-Merkley square peg into a variety of round holes. Give it a rest, brother. Are you being paid by the Merkley campaign to bring up the primary in every thread?
Duin's a cad. And a liar. And that's okay to say, because this is a blog, which is opinion, in the eyes of IP law. Plus, he's a public figure, so it's "newsworthy."
Posted by: Steve Duin | Dec 30, 2007 2:03:52 PM
A couple thoughts:
(1) T.A. is, once again, as careless with his use of quote marks as he is in the reading of my blog post. As I left The Oregonian sports staff 19 years ago, I am sincerely grateful that T.A. or anyone else remembers anything I wrote between 1980 and 1988, but I challenge T.A. to quote any piece in which I called an athlete "dogmeat" for his "athletic failings" or any other reason. I've challenged T.A. on this issue before and he's ignored me.
(2) There are several instances in which I believe the governor is lying, and I documented one of them in a November column. I provide a link in the blog post. T.A. ignored that, too.
(3) Jeff Alworth suggests in comments on my blog that my argument comes across as "unhinged." It's never helpful when the tone of a column or post overwhelms the point I'm trying to make, so Jeff, I appreciate the criticism. But I'm angry. I'm angry that the Bar didn't even bother to interview the governor or Fred Leonhardt before reaching conclusions about their credibility. I have long maintained that it is almost impossible not to be persuaded by Leonhardt's story if you take the time to listen to him. I wonder how many people who dismiss his allegations on BlueOregon have taken the time to do that.
(4) The Glee Club metaphor was not meant to suggest everyone on Blue Oregon sings in harmony, but that the blog is, all too often, a chorus of apologists for the Democratic Party. The blog and its commentators are at their best when they passionately challenge progressives and liberals to great work, not when they listlessly shrug off the party's ongoing tradition of mediocrity in Oregon.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 2:04:06 PM
Chris,
I agree with the thrust of your comment above. I made a very similar criticism of Loaded Orygun earlier this year, back when Carla was still writing there and it was much less partisan. Both of them can confirm that for you if you doubt me.
The thing is... taking just TJ, Carla and myself as examples, we're all three NAVs and all three long-time frequent commenters here at Blue Oregon. That the conversations here revolve around DPO-centric issues reflects, in my view, common cause rather than any kind of party loyalty. That a number of non-Democrats routinely comment here underscores that characterization, IMO.
One thing that I've long noticed here at Blue Oregon is that the "alliances" are every shifting. It's not at all uncommon for Bill Bodden and I, for example, to be in firm agreement on one thread and at polar opposites of an issue on another thread, with both threads being current. Ditto for me and Kari, me and T.A., etc. All of which underscores what T.A. said a few comments up about how we (in the collective sense) are anything but a "glee club."
Posted by: anon | Dec 30, 2007 2:08:29 PM
Will someone please address the following obvious questions which Steve Duin neglected to ask:
1) Why did Leonhardt later seek employment as Kulongoski's speechwriter if he was so outraged by their alleged conversation at a cocktail party eight years prior?
2) Why did Duin not report on the well-known attempt by Leonhardt in October of 2006 to publish at the Oregonian (and other Oregon publications) an op-ed recycling his oft-published accustations against Kulongodki? Leonhardt's op-ed was rejected throughout Oregon because it was recognized as 1) old news and 2) the culmination of Leonhardt's personal vendetta against Kulongoski. The piece in question was finally "printed" by a far-left website in the waning days of the campaign.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 3:08:27 PM
To Steve Duin
I believe it was N. Bonaparte who said,
"When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity."
Even by my low standards, your attempts to depict the BlueOregon blog as a glee club and paint the Democratic Party as a party of mediocrity is a thin disguise for arrogance, not unlike the columnist David Brooks.
Like all tales told around campfires over the years, there comes a time when some story tellers will doctor and shade a story to exploit their listener's with a rendition far from the original story. Like a spiraling infection, the tales told about our sitting Governor will heal or result in a slow death.
Usually your's is a distintive voice. This time it is shrill.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Dec 30, 2007 3:13:52 PM
golly, Steve does look in.
i admit, Steve Duin may never have used the term "dogment" but he, like Jaynes, was harsh on athletes for not being good athletes; and since this included college athletes, i had a lot of trouble with that kind of writing. Jaynes was far worse, but i know how glad i was when Steve stopped doing sports. as far as ignoring him, i don't even recall being challenged. i don't track relentlessly every time i comment; i try to keep involved in conversations, but life is pretty full so i do lose track. i guess one day i'll head over the library, pop in the microfiche and search. but until i can do that, i'll amend my comments to admit that my recollections of Steve's days as a sportswriter....
i didn't ignore Steve's other links; i never bothered to get involved in the comments. since i have no waying of knowing if Leonhardt is telling the truth or not — and i am not going to take Lars' word for it — this becomes one of those things i let slide. i have too much else to deal with that i can actually do something about. i got a kid scheduled to go to Afghanistan in a year, so i get a bit myopic at times. if there is real proof Ted lied, i hope it comes out. if you can bring that out without the vitriol, i'll be glad to read it.
i'm not sure what mediocrity is in Oregon, in your mind. i see the Dems making headway on repairing the damage done by the GOP's years of attack, by a near-permanent statewide recession that owes much to Bush's policies, and i see a crop of Dems rising around the state to take control of thing and work to make this a better state. people like Sara Gelser, my former rep, and Jefferson Smith, who'll be in the Leg soon, and grassroots activists all over the state (Matt Sutton in Ashland, Leah Bolger in Corvallis, Jenni Greenleaf here in Pdx, to name three) — Dems who support the party but demand we do better, who refuse to accept that the old way of doing things is going to work any more. i hope Steve and others can start seeing that the Democratic Party in Oregon is more than the Gov and a few others but thousands of activists who are responsible for taking back the House, for pushing the state to the left and who are not going to settle for anything less than real democracy.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Dec 30, 2007 3:30:40 PM
I hope everyone read Chris Lowe's comment above.
It's a realistic critique because it puts the proper amount of emphasis on the issues and perspectives found on the front-page posts rather than on the level of freedom in the far-less-prominent comment sections:
"It seems pretty bootless to deny that this is mostly a DP-oriented talk shop...That doesn't bother me terribly because I don't expect it to be much different, though at times it limits both what we discuss and how we talk about it ..."
As to the specific of this post, I think it's part and parcel with T.A.'s attempts to tear down anyone who disagrees with his sacred cows.
Well-known liberal Paul Krugman challenges Obama's health care talking points, and suddenly "progressive" T.A. is challenging Krugman and indeed all of liberalism with the tired old GOP culture-of-victimhood talking point.
Now Duin ribs BlueOregon, another of Barnrat's sacred Cows, and suddenly he's to be thrown under the bus with a few personal attacks thrown in for good measure.
Nice! I don't see a whole lot of "progress" there, just the same old dismissive, partisan tactics of search and destroy.
Posted by: AnonMe | Dec 30, 2007 3:52:59 PM
Didn't the Oregonian also know about the Karen Minnis story (her brother-in-law who harassed/attacked a teenage waitress who worked at the Minnis' restaurant, and Karen played some role in getting the waitress to keep quiet after the fact)?
Where was Steve Duin's moral outrage then?
Where was the Oregonian then? A careful search of public records revealed that story. Are we to believe that the well-connected O did not know anything about it until it was broken in a campaign ad last year?
Please. Don't look now Steve - your partisanship guised as moral indignation is showing. How stupid do you think we are?
Has Steve Duin ever written even one word about the Minnis waitress scandal? Did Lars Larsen ever speak of it? No? Shocker.
Sickening.
Posted by: Grant Schott | Dec 30, 2007 4:08:10 PM
I'm sure many people knew of the rumor (although I'm guessing more knew of the rumor than specifics), including Goldschmidt's clients, but continued to do business with him. I'm more upset that, Goldschmidt, Oregon's Ken Ley who would do anything to help a corporation who paid him $$$$, continued to have such influence over Democrats. His dealings with Aaron Jones, the Texas firm bidding on PGE,etc... wasn’t just rumor, it was well know.
I would add that The Oregonian apparently had heard the rumors (or details) of the statutory rape twenty years ago, but didn't pursue it and allowed Neil to retreat to confess to an "affair" before the WW abuse story broke, so why is The O. now giving Ted K. such grief?
Posted by: LT | Dec 30, 2007 4:17:53 PM
A couple of things.
As a former fan of Duin (his "When you try to nail down Bob Packwood, you will find he is greasing the handle of your hammer " is a classic), I find this episode somehow sad. He seems to believe that if only people actually listened to Leonhardt, read the affadavit, (and read Steve Duin's blog?) they would come away saying "You're right, Leonhardt should be believed without question. Kulongoski is scum."
Oregonians have been known over the years for their independence. But all of a sudden we are all supposed to be robots proclaiming Leonhardt is truthful and Kulongoski is scum because a few people tell us that is what we are supposed to say? Sounds like people who have the soul of a dictator or an ayatollah and are uncomfortable with independent thought and tough questions.
In the 40 years I have been voting (and before that watching politics as a political grandchild), I have been skeptical of anyone who says "You heard that person, therefore you believe everything that person said".
Actually, I have been known to fact check close friends---but on this we should believe Duin and Leonhardt and never ask any questions??
I like Paulie's comment and anon's questions. Does that make me some kind of subversive Kulongoski booster because I dare to think for myself?
With regard to Duin's posting here, if I knew Leonhardt's total employment history I might give him some credibility. Why didn't he report to the proper authorities during regular business hours---was politics more important than reporting what he says he knew about a crime?
The affadavit seems a bit thin to me having read it twice. And I would really like someone to inform us all if conversation at a social event meets the Bar standards for the need to report suspected abuse. It would seem to me the Bar would have specific regulations and procedures for that, and either conversation at a social event meets their criteria or it doesn't.
It sounds like Duin is saying we should believe him because he tells us to.
I'm writing as one person who has argued to (or almost to) the point of no longer speaking to close friends over a political issue. Tough when that happens, but a decision needs to be made about the friendship vs. the political point. At that point it is an individual decision. Is Duin saying that in this instance there should not be individual thought because Duin believes Leonhardt therefore we are all obligated to do the same?
Duin is not someone I know, but he is asking to be believed because he believes Leonhardt.
Sorry Steve, but unless there is more information than has been provided so far, I will not swear Leonhardt is a hero and Kulongoski is scum. Seems like a tip of the iceberg, more than meets the eye situation.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 4:36:35 PM
In this discussion a point that has been overlooked but is worthy of comment is the title: "Steve Duin hates our little glee club. Boo hoo." That strikes me as an exaggeration that has put a flame under some people's bucket of bile. Duin may have negative regards for Blue Oregon, but I'm confident that "hate" in this case is hyperbole.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 4:38:56 PM
Hey Pat,
Even the tax code is partisan - look who pays the majority of taxes. Once upon a time I too went looking for the fairy godmother of bipartisonship. Instead I found paid signature gatherers.
Believe it or not, I have found several serious folks who are in the party to which I belong. Many are centrists with a desire to improve; not smash the other party with unhinged statements or actions. It is exquisite irony that you may be searching for a magical third party to fix everything or a level of bipartanship on BlueOregon.
Back to the Duin cloumn which generated all the posts. Apparently his delicate sensibilities don't allow him to preserve even the the basic premise of journalist standards. Watch for another one of his stunning backflips that contradict his earlier writings.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Dec 30, 2007 5:06:36 PM
It is exquisite irony that you may be searching for a magical third party to fix everything...
You can't blame someone for hoping for a "magical third party" when the two major parties have proved themselves to be so abysmal. The Bush Administration and the Republicans got us into this disastrous war and half of the Democratic Party worked as enablers. The people gave the Democrats a majority in the House to bring the war to an end, but Nancy Pelosi is dominated by the pro-war faction among the House Democrats on this issue. Civil rights are being eroded and many Democrats have been complicit. The Patriot Act was voted on without anyone reading it, and in the Senate only Russ Feingold voted against it. Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman knew about CIA waterboarding and did nothing. Who said there is no bi-partisanship in Congress? If the Republicans are calling the shots and the Democrats are enabling them, is that not bi-partisanship?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Dec 30, 2007 5:21:07 PM
Kevin,
Actually I don't disagree with anything you say. Don't know why you think I'd doubt you about L.O. either. My point was just that the agenda around here is mainly DP oriented and that's not surprising given how it's constructed. Common cause, yes, but within the framework of actions that can be taken in particular ways.
What's a little interesting to me is to wonder if a broader progressive blog could actually exist in Portland now. How many BO participants wouldn't be interested because it wouldn't be "real politics"? How many less DP-oriented progressives would be willing to do more than vent frustrations against a generic DP label, and to avoid driving others away with personal motives attacks? And conversely with DP-oriented folks regarding the motives and choices of those who do other kinds of politics?
My tendency is to think it would be hard to make something broader fly, that people would get sucked into just attacking one another. Which is a pity, and also increasingly a practical problem, with respect to the occupation war in Iraq in particular.
Around here anti-war folks are frustrated by the inability to get traction within the party for more aggressive action, but tend look down on protest politics as ineffective and unrealistic, or at any rate don't talk about them. When I go to an organizing meeting for an anti-occupation war day on March 15 (commemorating 5 years of aggression, useless carnage, and failure to really support vets and military families) including but not restricted to a rally and march, people there are frustrated about the inability to get traction with protest politics, but tend to look down on working in or with the DP as ineffective and unrealistic.
On another thread someone mentioned a MultCo Dem GLBTQ caucus and suggested other caucuses might be valuable. Maybe an peace/anti-war caucus would have utility? Though I guess that doesn't speak to NAV folks with mainly electoral orientations.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 5:34:59 PM
The list of third party candidates is a long one from Strom Thurmond, Douglas McArthur, George Wallace, Eldgrige Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Some hold Ralph Nader responsible for giving the election to George W. Bush by tilting voters in Florida and New Hampshire away from Al Gore.
Third parties can bring about change, some for the good and some for the not so good. In the end all politics is partisan, thats why they call it politics.
Posted by: paulie | Dec 30, 2007 5:39:29 PM
Before this thread get's high jacked away from the orignal post about Duin's column (I'm guilty) there is a peace caucus recently formed by the DPO. Back to Duin.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 5:51:09 PM
Nice! I don't see a whole lot of "progress" there, just the same old dismissive, partisan tactics of search and destroy.
I see some of that too, Pat. In fact I've seen you do it here and elsewhere. I also see shades of it in Duin's diatribe. Which is why I made the initial comment that I did.
Guess what? Nobody likes to be lectured by a hypocrit.
That said, it would be a mistake for the casual reader to assume that I see every single Novick supporter in that light. Nothing could be further from the truth. Charlie Burr and Bill Bodden have both held to a much higher standard than I, in my own admittedly biased opinion, have. I had a very nice, very friendly email exchange a while back with another Novick supporter whose name escapes me at the moment. Undoubtedly there are untold others who have likewise taken the high road at every turn.
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 30, 2007 5:57:29 PM
On another thread someone mentioned a MultCo Dem GLBTQ caucus and suggested other caucuses might be valuable. Maybe an peace/anti-war caucus would have utility? Though I guess that doesn't speak to NAV folks with mainly electoral orientations.
In Oregon, no. But it seems to me that if the DPO were to be more open to NAVs like the Dems in California are, then perhaps NAVs could more effectively work with Dems in such caucuses to effect meaningful change in Oregon. Maybe not... I dunno. I don't see why not but I could be overlooking something too.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kevin | Dec 29, 2007 10:15:43 PM
Sounds not entirely dissimilar to the frequent charges of manipulative bias from certain staunchly pro-Novick bloggers and commenters, no?
Duin has written quite glowingly of Novick and rather harshly of Merkley, hasn't he?
For what it's worth, T.A., I too used to really enjoy reading Duin's columns. I quit a while back when it seemed to me that his objectivity was AWOL. The Kulongoski thing is a perfect example, as you showed. Objectivity in no way requires that he give Kulongoski the benefit of the doubt. But there is a vast chasm between not giving the benefit of the doubt and the kind of slanderous assertions you quoted.
The question is: Has Duin become unhinged? Or has he become so jaded that he's settled for the lowest common denominator ala tabloid ethics? The later seems the more likely. It's what Lars Larson seems to have chosen to do too. He too once was a respected journalist.