Pat McCormick dodges The Mercury
Carla Axtman
In what I can only discern is either overt cowardice or fundamental disregard, anti-tax-fairness guru/corporate lobbying shill Pat McCormick is dodging the Portland Mercury's M66/67 endorsement interview.
From Blogtown:
Meanwhile, we're struggling to convince Pat McCormick from the "no" side that it's worth his time coming in for an endorsement interview later this week. "It seems like you've already made up your mind," he said on the phone yesterday. I told him I'd be surprised if he could get us to side with him, but asked, "isn't it your job to change our minds?"We've told McCormick's people we're willing to tolerate verbal, and if necessary physical, abuse, in exchange for an endorsement interview. Yet he's still on the fence. We're hoping to get a call back tomorrow. What do you think, readers? Is he chicken?
"It seems like you've already made up your mind?" Really? That's what you're going with, Pat?
If that's McCormick's true motivation, then this is an entirely chickenshit move. It's not like the Bend Bulletin's editorial board isn't notoriously conservative and widely known to be hand in glove with big development and business lobbyists. Yet somehow, the Yes For Oregon folks managed to haul their bones to Bend for the endorsement interview knowing full well that they'd probably get a crap sandwich.
I spoke with Matt Davis of The Merc this morning, to see if McCormick had changed his mind. Davis confirmed that he hadn't and added: "If he doesn't show up we will buy a frozen chicken from Fred Meyer up the street. We'll put McCormick's face on it and photograph it for the paper. And then we'll quote it and use it for the article." And then on a serious note, Davis expressed frustration with McCormick's seeming lack of spine. "I think people use this idea that The Mercury is biased to undermine us. This idea of objectivity is a sham. And its used by the rich and powerful."
Davis went on to say that they "try to be fair and accurate in our reporting."
Davis also encouraged me to watch the Willamette Week endorsement interview, which I have tried to get to several times, but I haven't managed to carve out a full hour of my day to sit through it. See what you think. Is this an unbiased interview that seeks to fully suss out the situation? Is WW being tough on a corporate lobbyist who might also be a juicy source? Or did they already have their mind made up before McCormick and Novick sat down?
And why is Pat McCormick REALLY so stupefied by The Mercury?
Measures 66 and 67 with Steve Novick and Pat McCormick from Willamette Week on Vimeo.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 7, '10
This post totally undermines Kari's subsequent post in which he congratulates Jack Roberts for moving past the process complaints and getting to the issue. Ad hominem attacks against McCormick don't help me decide on the issues.
Jan 7, '10
My, my, what strong words we have for Mr. McCormick. "Overt cowardice," "corporate lobbying shill" and "entirely chickenshit move."
Carla, you're not taking your medication today.
12:53 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Well...now that the shills for McCormick have stopped by, maybe we can move along and get to an actual substantive discussion about why he won't talk to The Merc.
Jan 7, '10
Yes, Ma'am! How about this-- the Mercury isn't serious journalism, it's an off-beat fringe publication. Check out this "Burning Questionland Question" of the day-- Where can I find a good psychic? http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/01/07/todays-burning-questionland-question
Perhaps if you if you consulted a psychic you would know why McCormick is dodging the Mercury.
1:21 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Perhaps if you if you consulted a psychic you would know why McCormick is dodging the Mercury.
Then is McCormick lying about why he's not doing the interview? And honestly--if he'll do WW, then the excuse that The Merc isn't "serious journalism" doesn't fly very well. The stuff they do on Portland city politics is often the best (and sometimes only) serious reporting.
If you'll do a WW interview, it's not a stretch at all to do The Merc.
Jan 7, '10
That's way too much playing coy all at once. The Merc knows that all McCormick does as a Republican lobbyist is a song and dance to rally the corporate base at meetings and to hand checks to politicians. That's all they do. They don't convince people anymore, they don't debate, they just serve in a role as an emissary for groups that have in their best interests to keep their hands as clean as possible. And McCormick knows that Mike Davis from The Mercury would go on KPOJ's morning show after such an interview and will probably throw the dirt if McCormick doesn't have an intelligent reason to push for "No on 66/67". He doesn't, aside from the usual "anti-tax crusader" talking points, which aren't exactly what anyone would call "fresh" or "reasonably viable" ideas anymore. Which would be generally worth a laugh and McCormick knows it. As long as he sticks with his bag of tricks and controls his game, he can trick enough moderates who aren't paying attention into voting against their best interests by slogging the "bad for jobs" line over and over.
1:28 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Zull:
Those are all interesting and legitimate points..except I can't figure out why that wouldn't also be the same for Willy Week.
Unless McCormick knows for sure that Stern or Zusman won't go on the radio (cuz they're on KPOJ every week, too) and trash his position, why do their endorsement interview?
It just doesn't add up.
1:30 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Sarah's off to buy that chicken, now...
1:51 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
To Noah and the anonymous coward "littlevoice":
Ad hominem attacks against McCormick, though, are useful to any reader wanting to ascertain who is (and who isn't) worth listening to in this debate. He's earned such attacks, and then some. He's done nothing to advance the public debate, and much to undermine it (not to mention the image of his firm.)
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, the links on this post from Chuck Sheketoff tell a pretty compelling story.
Jan 7, '10
Pete - Thanks for sharing your courage. It is mindblowing and really moves me. Your logic, on the other hand, leaves me wanting more. If McCormick isn't worth listening to in the debate, then there's no loss if he's not talking to the Merc. Attack him all you want...just don't be surprised when people like myself (and other authors at Blue Oregon apparently) see a need to move beyond the attacks and get to the substance, which was my only point.
Carla (and Pete), thanks for responding to my comment about ad hominem attacks by calling me names. Classic. I'll vote yes on 66 and 67 because I've been swayed to do so by smart people, but I still credit folks like you for my growing distaste of the political discourse in this state.
2:16 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
littlevoice: Seriously..that's your response?
You've so far managed to completely blow off the post itself and shill for McCormick. You could even be paid to do it, for all we know.
You're obviously not interested in addressing the reasons McCormick won't talk with The Merc. That's fine--but at least attempt to be honest about it instead of coming here and carrying his water.
2:18 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Littlevoice, I'm all for talking about the substance, I just don't see it as an "instead of" as you seem to. Getting to know influential people is in the public interest. Pat McCormick has made himself a significant player in Oregon politics, and it's in the public interest to expose his deceitful tactics (beyond the question of any specific ballot measures).
However, I certainly wouldn't expect this specific post to sway you (or anyone else) in how they vote on M66 or M67. I doubt Carla would either. There's certainly a need for a substantive debate, but not every blog post has to be a part of it.
2:20 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
As to calling you names…I'm sorry if I offended. On Slashdot (one of the first major Internet communities I was part of) its commonplace to refer to anonymous posters as "cowards." I see it more as chiding than name-calling. But my apologies if it came off more serious than intended.
2:22 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
However, I certainly wouldn't expect this specific post to sway you (or anyone else) in how they vote on M66 or M67. I doubt Carla would either. There's certainly a need for a substantive debate, but not every blog post has to be a part of it.
There are any number of threads on this blog where people have debated the merits of 66 and 67. This isn't that thread.
This is to discern why Pat McCormick is either too afraid or too disdainful of The Mercury to manage showing up for an endorsement interview. It's weird that he's turned it into such a big deal.
Jan 7, '10
McCormick should do it. When I ran for council in 2006 I was identified as the "conservative" in the race yet I was well received by the Mercury. I didn't get their endorsement, but the most positive press I received was actually from the Mercury.
Jan 7, '10
I will vote for 66 and 67 and McCormick is right not to engage with the Mercury. And I do not work for McCormick or any other interest involved in the campaign. Here is why McCormick should never talk to the Mercury.
Matt Davis is no more a reporter than Carla, Steve Novick, or any other blogger on BlueOregon. He is an advocate, and as such, he reaches his conclusions and then seeks copy to support that conclusion. That is his right and a perfectly acceptable way to earn a living. But were McComick to submit to an interview, Davis would not only use his words against him online, in print and on KPOJ, Carla, Novick, Our Oregon, and many others would reprint and repeat the Davis story ad infinitum. The more copy you give Davis, the bigger and more interesting his story - a story which McCormick understands can only be horrible for his clients. Nobody should talk to Davis who is going to get slammed by him.
As for equating Willi Week with the Merc, that's patently ridiculous. Willi Week does straight reporting, and while it also engages in a fair amount of advocacy, it takes pains to tell both sides of a story. Davis gets his nut by kicking the hell out of his victims. It can make for fun reading, but it often bears no relationship to objective journalism. Also, Willi Week no longer profits from prostitution and the subjugation of young men and women. The Mercury receives hundreds of thousands in revenues from the pimps who sell these young men and women.
You asked, Carla, and there is the answer.
As for Dave Lister, you wrote the second stupidest article to appear in the Oregonian this month. Wu is going to have his toughest race? Coming in third in a city council race apparently qualifies you to be a Republican columnist for the O, but it didn't make you any better at politics. Wu will walk.
Jan 7, '10
p.s. - The stupidest article of the month was the O's editorial in opposition to 66 and 67.
4:30 p.m.
Jan 7, '10
Somebody above said:
"Willi Week does straight reporting, and while it also engages in a fair amount of advocacy, it takes pains to tell both sides of a story."
Not from what I've seen. Seems to me that the Willy Week is pretty OK with making lame excuses for ignoring fundamental tenets of journalism ethics when it suits them. They do it year after year for their series "The Good, The Bad, and The Awful."
Jan 7, '10
They are both free papers, have A&E sections and ads for hookers in the back. Other than that you can't really compare the news coverage between the two, can you?
WWeek is a Pulitzer-prize winning publication and regularly breaks stories before the O, the Merc endorsed a Sizemore measure (!) and embroiled itself in the Adams scandal with Ms. Ruiz' transfer to a city job that she was allegedly not qualified for in the midst of their coverage.
Just pull up each of their "News" sections side by side in a browser. The difference is obvious. I wouldn't think twice before giving an interview to WWeek, but the Merc or the Stranger?! Pass.
The Matt Davis feature on KPOJ is the only time when I switch it off on my drive into work. It's very obvious that he is a tabloid journalist who loves creating conflict for the sake of feeding his breathless reporting style. (That said he does come up with some good street-level reporting on homeless issues and a few other local topics like Leonard's secret list, Chasse, etc)
Jan 7, '10
Agree on all points except the hookers, Lothar. Willi Week decided a few years back that it was difficult to reconcile Pulitzers with aiding prostitution. The Merc gleefully stepped in to fill the void and it is an enormous percentage of their revenue today.
Jan 7, '10
Funny, I get the BO RSS feed and it doesn't list the author. Just by the tone of the first paragraph, I knew who wrote it. Low and behold, I was right.
Jan 7, '10
If these measures pass, will businesses and "the rich" finally be paying their "fair share?" If not, can you please state specifically what amount as a percentage of either sales(income) or taxable income that might be.
As a business owner who would like to try and make some plans for the future, any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Jan 7, '10
Descriptive adjectives aside, I agree with Carla. McCormick should engage the Merc on what he believes his merits are. The Yes camp certainly came to Bend even though they were fairly certain of the outcome w/the Bulletin.
Reasonable people should be able to disagree and remain reasonable.
Jan 7, '10
"If these measures pass, will businesses and "the rich" finally be paying their "fair share?" If not, can you please state specifically what amount as a percentage of either sales(income) or taxable income that might be.
As a business owner who would like to try and make some plans for the future, any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you."
Oh, I hope not. If I had my druthers, anyone making over--let's play nice here--two million dollars would start at 2 million and 1 cent forking over 90 percent, just like during Eisenhower. Corporations would have something similar in place, and as well could be more easily given the death penalty.
Good enough? I'm not sure it is fair, but I really don't care. It's called class warfare.
Jan 7, '10
Jim
At least your honest. Thanks
Jan 8, '10
hey "why give the merc"... pretty easy to throw crap at people anonymously...
I admire the courage of your convictions.
Jan 8, '10
Mr. Lister, the topic of anonymity has been discussed to death here, but I will point out that it is very easy for you to post using your actual name. You are nice enough, not slick, thoughtful, and completely non-threatening because you will never, ever win an election in Portland. Ever. It makes it rather easy for the Merc and other lefty outposts to be rather nice to you. If they thought you might actually win, Davis and the Merc would rip your nuts off.
Jan 9, '10