RAW Chicken: The Mercury endorsement interview with Novick and McCormick
Carla Axtman
Following up on yesterday's post noting anti-tax-fairness guru Pat McCormick's puzzling unwillingness to meet with the Portland Mercury, a preview of yesterday's endorsement interview at the paper for M66 and 67 is now available:
Gotta hand it to Novick, the guy is a good sport.
Matt Davis sent this along to me this morning, noting that McCormick is really indeed a "chicken" for not showing up to their interview.
Davis said that he spoke with Erica Hagedorn, a lobbyist who works for Mark Nelson. Hagedorn told Davis that The Mercury had already made up their mind, because the paper called out the Oregonian's inexplicable thumb's down on the Measures, when they were all hot for the beer tax just a few short months ago.
Davis said he told Hagedorn that calling out the O for hypocrisy was one thing, but that we hadn't made up our mind yet. That's what an endorsement interview is for. Later, McCormick himself spoke with Davis, citing the same reasoning for bailing out as Hagedorn. According to Davis, McCormick called the potential interview "an hour of my time that I won't get back."
Davis said, "McCormick left off, saying he would 'see what he could do,' and that he would give me a call yesterday, Thursday, if any slots opened up in his schedule. We never heard from him."
So here's Novick and a chicken with McCormick's head on it, battling it out over M66 and 67. Davis says it's "only fair that he (Novick) should face competition of some sort."
According to Davis, Novick told The Mercury that this wasn't the first time McCormick was a no-show at a newspaper's endorsement interview. "I think they might have concluded that they had some sort of shot with Willamette Week. Any paper they have a shot with, they'll show up. I think it's laziness.", Davis--quoting Novick.
Novick and the McCorchicken will be represented in next week's Mercury endorsement, according to Davis. "I can report that Pat McCormick's thighs, in particular, were delicious, when my wife and I ate him for dinner last night. Bok bok...bok", he said.
 |
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
11:39 a.m.
Jan 8, '10
McCormick and friends shouldn't be so shortsighted. The Mercury is open-minded and can listen - remember they endorsed Jim Francesconi for mayor "We can't believe we're doing this" after bashing him for years
Over the past three years, the Mercury has unabashedly bashed Francesconi. That "love affair" began with his perplexing vote against the proposed anti-war resolution. He said that while he was personally against the war--and marched against it--he didn't think council had a place in federal affairs. Francesconi also cast an unpopular vote against re-zoning the lot where Dignity Village currently resides so they could stay put. He believes Dignity Village isn't the solution for homelessness.
11:46 a.m.
Jan 8, '10
Thanks, Evan. We also endorsed a Sizemore measure last year, on merit-based pay for teachers, and took a lot of heat for it:
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2008/10/20/teachers_should_be_paid_on_per
Jan 8, '10
Blue Oregon could certainly learn something about objectivity from the Merc. I was just thinking yesterday, that either my memory is getting really bad, or the Merc is beginning to approach the Village Voice, a la 1980, in overall quality.
(Surely it must be anti-tax fairness, or anti tax-fairness? Actually, I like would have entitled it "Antitaxfairness Meets Socialestablishmentarianism".)
12:06 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Blue Oregon could certainly learn something about objectivity from the Merc.
You do understand that this is a blog and not a newspaper, right?
The differences, including objectivity, are fundamental. We don't seek objectivity here (as general rule) on purpose. If that's your pony, you're riding in the wrong part of town.
Jan 8, '10
I shouldn't have to say this again...but McCormick isn't a chicken. I wouldn't put him that high up on the evolutionary scale. He's a tool. An object, being used by special interest groups, to front a message so the members of those groups don't get their hands dirty. Focusing on him accomplishes that task, because if those interests lose out on 66/67, their hands are still clean, and if 66/67 didn't pass, McCormick would gain favor and their hands...would still be clean (and would have more dollars clutched in their hands). You could probably have a far better chance of hosting McCormick on a local Fox affiliate, because he's only going to debate on what his handlers perceive as "friendly territory". They wouldn't want someone like Matt to ask any questions about, I don't know...a couple of large corporations in the area that have the most to lose. They certainly don't want to risk losing the integrity of their current ad slogans as a result of pointed questions, because they don't have a whole lot of fact behind them to back them up.
12:55 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Blue Oregon could certainly learn something about objectivity from the Merc.
BlueOregon's goals are many, but "objectivity" isn't one of them.
2:21 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
I've got to defend Pat McCormick on this one. Candidates or advocates for ballot measures have no obligation to go to endorsement interviews (provided they don't intend to complain about not getting the endorsement after the fact).
By the same token, newspapers have no obligation to conduct interviews before doing their endorsements and frequently don't.
And as for Pat McCormick being a chicken, I think he's faced Steve Novick enough times in this campaign to demonstrate he's not afraid to go head-to-head with him. Nor do I think, at this late date, it is likely that the Mercury or anyone else was going to ask some earth-shattering question that would cause Pat to break down and confess like the guilty party on an old Perry Mason rerun.
Isn't there enough substance to debate on these measures without resorting to this?
Jan 8, '10
I didn't mean objectivity as in not taking a stance. I meant being data oriented in support of those stances. Take a stance, process the facts, let the chips fall where they may. Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?
2:29 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
I've got to defend Pat McCormick on this one. Candidates or advocates for ballot measures have no obligation to go to endorsement interviews (provided they don't intend to complain about not getting the endorsement after the fact).
Whether its an "obligation" or not isn't in question. But if you're cherry picking endorsement interviews (which it would seem McCormick is doing), then you deserve to be called on it.
The "chicken" business has nothing to do with being afraid of Novick. It's about The Merc, frankly. And I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why McCormick would bother to show up at WW and not The Mercury.
2:30 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
I didn't mean objectivity as in not taking a stance. I meant being data oriented in support of those stances. Take a stance, process the facts, let the chips fall where they may. Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?
Yes. I'm saying you've got that wrong as well.
Jan 8, '10
That was lame, childish, and downright sophomoric. While I agree that Pat should've gone despite his belief of Mercury's incredibly liberal bent (which is true), he's under no obligation to do so.
I'm guessing he had better things to do than waste his time with newspaper that has no real interest in hearing his side of the story.
Jan 8, '10
That was supposed to have been obvious was it? I must be pretty thick to miss that for 5 years.
Oh, well then, I'll bugger off!
3:16 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
I'm guessing he had better things to do than waste his time with newspaper that has no real interest in hearing his side of the story.
Undoubtedly that's what some thought viz Sizemore's ballot measures.... until the Merc endorsed one of 'em.
3:53 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Undoubtedly that's what some thought viz Sizemore's ballot measures.... until the Merc endorsed one of 'em.
And it still lost.
Jan 8, '10
It was from Sizemore, of course it lost!
Jan 8, '10
Zara asked, "Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?"
And Carla answered honestly.
I must say that her admission of the lack of minimal integrity by DP strategists was unexpected (the admission, not the existence of it).
So thanks, Carla, for saying straight out what we progressives have been saying for some time.
It's a new, honest beginning for the DP brand, i.e., "We're less evil, less insane, and we admit that we lack basic intellectual honesty (unlike our opponents, who won't admit it). Elect us."
I have hope that this change will continue into the next election cycle and beyond.
4:47 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
And it still lost.
Yes, and the Oregonian endorsed Gordon Smith and he still lost. Your point?
4:56 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Objectivist:
When you decided to take that excerpt out of context, did the whole "intellectual honesty" thing not come close at all to smacking of irony to you?
What Zara had wrong..which I responded to...was the part you (of course) didn't include in the part you excerpted.
Ah well.
Jan 8, '10
Yes, Novick would have fried, roasted, and fricasseed McCormick yet again if he had sat through the Merc endorsement interview. But let's be clear about what this is about.
Davis makes nice with Blue Oregon bloggers to attempt to increase readership of the Merc and broaden his name recognition. Carla and others, who are fighting a great fight on behalf of 66 and 67, worked closely with Davis behind the scenes to publicize the "outrage" over McCormick's refusal. They also collaborated on the "chicken" theme, I'm guessing. This gives Carla more fodder for her arguments, and Davis a little more notice.
In other words, this is manufactured controversy by yet another mutual back-scratching society, just like Kari and his frequent and breathless coverage of his "faux Democrat" clients.
When Davis stops making his living profiting from the enslavement and abuse of young men and women forced into prostitution, maybe I will get upset about people skipping the Merc's "endorsement" process. Until then, this is a made-for-blogosphere controversy.
5:57 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
"Why..." I'd just like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your comment. It's conspiracy theories such as that which you've proffered above that provide necessary context.
6:44 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out how the chicken crossed the road into the Mercury offices.
Jan 8, '10
Funny, Dan, glad you have a sense of humor.
Did anyone hear the City Club debate?
When trying to avoid the "what would you cut?" question, Pat McCormick sure sounded like he said, "Well, if only the legislature had passed the proposal of the business lobby instead of the legislative proposal it passed, we would not be having this ballot measure debate now".
Hmmmmm---you legislators should forget the voters who elected you and just take orders from the business lobby.
THAT attitude is going to win no votes for 67?
Pat used to work at the legislature. Surely he understands that the Constitution says, "The legislative power of the state, except for the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people, is vested in a Legislative Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives".
The lobby speaks for each of their clients, not for voters at large. Are they so full of themselves they have forgotten that?
Jan 8, '10
Objectivist:
If you think voters unquestionly follow "DP strategists" and don't think for themselves, you need to get out more.
Unless, of course, you are an out of state blogger who doesn't realize how many Oregonians are independent in either registration or philosophy.
Jan 8, '10
Jason read my mind
"That was lame, childish, and downright sophomoric".
I'd add, and routine blue.
The identical type of behavior which ushered California along their path to ruin. And all by silly people with the same self image of intellectual superiority.
9:37 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Mr. McCormick has an integrity award in communications? Come on, that was hilarious! I hope somewhere in that compassion-less political mercenary perspective that it would take to accept the No on 66 & 67 folks as clients Mr. McCormick could find the humanity to laugh at himself.
I think his pants are on fire. How's that for childish?
9:52 p.m.
Jan 8, '10
Lighten up:
In other words, Mr. McCormick is practicing the oldest profession in the world? Wait, isn't that a whore?
Jan 8, '10
I didn't mean objectivity as in not taking a stance. I meant being data oriented in support of those stances. Take a stance, process the facts, let the chips fall where they may. Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?
Yes. I'm saying you've got that wrong as well.
What was taken out of context Carla? What part does Zara have wrong then?
You already said you take a stance. Do you not process the facts? Or do you predetermine where the "chips fall" no matter the facts? I don't get it. I don't understand what Zara - and obviously a few others of us - have "got wrong" there.
Jan 9, '10
@jason
Well, it is a little bit immature, but was intended to be humorous. Although I do not find anything humorous in the upcoming special election. It's too serious an issue to make light of.
I hope the chicken didn't go to waste. There are hungry families out there on food stamps who would love to have roasted it. The number of people on food stamps in Oregon has increased 36% since 2008. A rubber chicken should have been used.
650,000 Oregonians are on food stamps. These people need jobs.
Jan 9, '10
Bartender et al., the best I can figure is that it is like a pep rally. "Blue and gold will conquer all!" You don't dissect a cheer and say, now, "is it accurate to say you conquer all"? The sad thing is that taking that approach will immediately alienate 5% of the US population .
What seems surprisingly cliquish, though, is that submissions for original articles get the same filter...even by association. Not aware I've pissed anyone off particularly, but, it seems my latest contribution will be ignored again, simply because I sleep with Z.
What I don't get is that the comment he was responding to was Posted by: Evan Manvel | Jan 8, 2010 11:39:23 AM
McCormick and friends shouldn't be so shortsighted. The Mercury is open-minded and can listen - remember they endorsed Jim Francesconi for mayor "We can't believe we're doing this" after bashing him for years
That's not about facts. A choice of editorial endorsement is a parochial opinion. His comment seems to go toward the fact that they demonstrated intellectual integrity in their "we'll be your friend". What I'm missing is how intellectual integrity has a different meaning for papers and blogs.
Oh, well, I'll get my IP banned for this, but I'm going to say it anyway. I say, it's a simple case of envy. And just to rub salt in the wound, he's getting a back rub. Happy 420.
9:03 a.m.
Jan 9, '10
Bartender:
Yeah, you do. But I'm not a futility kind of gal. So there's really no point.
10:04 a.m.
Jan 9, '10
"A rubber chicken should have been used."
Hilarious. I'm going to categorize this in my "most self-righteous OPB-listener comment of the year" folder.
Although it may not win: the folder is already bulging at the seams.
WE ATE PAT MCCORMICK FOR DINNER.
Jan 9, '10
While you are celebrating, Mr. Davis, care to weigh in on why such a large percentage of your paycheck comes from pimps who prostitute young men and women?
I suppose I appreciate your interest in the ballot measures and often agree with your stances, but how you make your money sickens me. How do you sleep at night?
10:26 a.m.
Jan 9, '10
A choice of editorial endorsement is a parochial opinion.
Obviously. Ditto for political blog posts.
I don't understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth over blog posts being what blog posts are.
It's like my late vegan, cat-lover grandmother who used to complain bitterly while watching wildlife documentaries when a wild cat would kill it's dinner. That's what wild cats do. Complaining about it is a disconnect with reality motivated, IMHO, by an irrational desire to impose one's will upon reality. Ditto for the bitching and moaning about blog posts being what blog posts are.
To the extent that political blogs are analogous to "journalism," they are analogous to the OpEd page, not to the front page or the Metro section. They may contain investigative, objective "journalism" but not necessarily as a matter of course. The point of OpEd commentaries is the disseminating of opinion, not of objective "news".
But journalism isn't the most best analogy, IMO.
Oregon blogger Ron Beasely (now with Newshogger) had it right on his now-defunct Middle Earth Journal blog - political bloggers are "online pamphleteers" most analogous to revolutionary agitators cranking out sharply-worded, inherently subjective political pamphlets in colonial basements, barns and backrooms 200+ years ago.
4:14 p.m.
Jan 9, '10
Zara:
Take a stance, process the facts, let the chips fall where they may. Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?.
Carla:
Yes. I'm saying you've got that wrong as well.
What was taken out of context Carla? What part does Zara have wrong then?
Just reading the comments directly, it looks like Zarathustra is hoping that Carla is not actually stating that: She does not give a damn about intellectual honesty if it gets in the way of a point she's trying to make.
Carla seems to be giving the back of her hand to Zara's pitfully idealistic hopes for Blue Oregon poster integrity even in the heat of battle.
At least that's how I read it......
Jan 10, '10
Davis is obviously reading each and every one of these comments, yet he has declined to respond to my invitation to explain his ad revenue from Portland's pimps. If you don't understand what I am talking about, get a Merc from the rack and assess for yourself the volume of prostitution ads they run.
Mr. Davis is a chicken for not responding to my invitation to discuss his brand of commerce, but worse than being a chicken is being in league with some of the most vile people in our society.
He is a chicken who refuses to defend making a living from the ads of pimps who have trapped young women in a very violent and tragic world of sexual exploitation. Many of these girls are literally human slaves. Some are underage. Portland is well-known for having a very large number of women who are enslaved and trafficked for sexual commerce, and Davis and the Merc help connect pimps to their market.
Shame on you, Matt Davis. You are a chicken and a sorry excuse for a human being. McCormick, if successful on 66 and 67, will hurt the education of a great many children in this state, but at least he isn't destroying the lives of innumerable girls caught up in the human trafficking trade.
Jan 10, '10
@Matt Davis
Hilarious. I'm going to categorize this in my "most self-righteous OPB-listener comment of the year" folder.
Glad you enjoyed the rubber chicken comment and saw the humor in it.
Perhaps there is some room on the Mercury's staff for me in some way? I can forward you a resume and samples. :)
Hope eating Pat didn't make you sick.
Jan 10, '10
Carla seems to be giving the back of her hand to Zara's pitfully idealistic hopes for Blue Oregon poster integrity even in the heat of battle.
Right.
What a petty little clique to take your hatred of me out on Peri's article .
We want a diversity of voices 'round the water cooler
Wrong. You want diverse ways to say the same thing. Maybe you left off the "to do battle" bit that Pat mentions.
BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler
Wrong. Progressives demonstrate intellectual integrity.
Be original. Stuff that's been recently covered on BlueOregon won't likely get published. Of course, if you bring a fresh perspective, well, that may grab our attention.
Wrong. Already up to 37? posts on Measure 66. So you're waiting on a "no" on 66 opine? As if.
though we'll usually let you know if we're going to pass on something
I know of five instance, 4 people that have submitted excellant work in the last year and none have received any notification either way.
As for statements by Kari that "most stuff gets serious consideration", which I have stupidly repeated to people, leading to their wasting time submitting material to BO, I was stupid to even consider it. No, we need to remember the calibre of thinking here. Make a patently absurd claim about your team, sneer at potential allies, then say nothing when you're 180 degress off the mark.
By picking Bob Gates as SecDef, Obama can move his progressive agenda faster and further - Kari Chisholm
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Dec 1, 2008 4:26:26 PM
"I was hoping that Barack would create a new cabinate level office by appointing Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Peace and authorize him to immediately withdraw US troops from Iraq..."
And unicorns and puppy dogs might fly out of my ass. Puh-leeze.
It's your karma.
8:34 a.m.
Jan 10, '10
Zar, you're clearly unhappy with Blue Oregon.
Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read here?
For that matter, what is preventing you from starting your own blog and posting whatever you wish on it?
8:47 a.m.
Jan 10, '10
Just reading the comments directly, it looks like Zarathustra is hoping that Carla is not actually stating that: She does not give a damn about intellectual honesty if it gets in the way of a point she's trying to make.
Its this sort of deep consideration and thought that allows Schrader to do what he wants without fear of blowback. Go Blue Dogs!
Carla seems to be giving the back of her hand to Zara's pitfully idealistic hopes for Blue Oregon poster integrity even in the heat of battle.
Maybe you and Zara and the rest of Zara's sock puppets can have a meeting about it and decide for sure.
At least that's how I read it......
I sincerely doubt that. But carry on.
Jan 10, '10
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 10, 2010 8:34:05 AM
Zar, you're clearly unhappy with Blue Oregon.
Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read here?
For that matter, what is preventing you from starting your own blog and posting whatever you wish on it?
Why doesn't BO just ignore the Oregonian?
Think I'll start one, called "Preemptive Carma", promoting climate denier myths. Shouldn't upset you. You can simply not read it, and you have your own blog!
8:53 a.m.
Jan 10, '10
Peri/Zara:
Go for it. It couldn't be any more tedious that your current efforts.
9:14 a.m.
Jan 10, '10
Think I'll start one, called "Preemptive Carma", promoting climate denier myths. Shouldn't upset you. You can simply not read it, and you have your own blog!
What an adolescent reaction...
Jan 10, '10
Peri and Zara - I too misinterpreted BO's statement regarding "diversity around the water cooler". Apprently, like to pilgrims of the 17th century, BO staff and founders only want "their" version of limited diversity.
Oh well, welcome to the dark side of BO. You can, and should, stick around if only to understand the pysche that makes up the majority who slap each other on the back and congratulate each other for being BO "pure".
10:52 a.m.
Jan 10, '10
As for statements by Kari that "most stuff gets serious consideration", which I have stupidly repeated to people, leading to their wasting time submitting material to BO, I was stupid to even consider it.
Dear Peri Brown - and all your dozens of sockpuppet identities: Yes, I do read every guest column submitted. Press releases and marketing spam get trashed. If there's no Oregon angle, it almost always gets ignored. (This is BlueOregon, and there's plenty of other places to self-publish non-Oregon stuff.)
But here's another guideline: If you're a troll (left or right) that insists on using multiple identities to engage in sockpuppetry, you're going to get ignored.
Use your real name, and use it every time, and you'll find a much more receptive audience here.
12:33 p.m.
Jan 10, '10
Kurt: Yes..we're all so pure that when I pushed on Kurt Schrader for being a waffle on the robust public option--at least two BlueO contributors pushed back on hard on me. So did a couple of commenters.
I've given David Wu and Ron Wyden deserved rations of shit as well.
I've done posts on other issues like that--lots of times. I suspect you know this already.
This is why the "intellectual honesty" thing is such bullshit upthread. The definition among some of the commenting crowd at this blog is so elastic as to be ridiculous. "Integrity" and "facts" aren't far behind.
Jan 10, '10
Carla, you're a blogger, and a very biased one at that. Your writing skills are generally excellent. I don't expect you to be impartial at all. I would appreciate a little more understanding and acknowledgement that both parties in politics are rabid dogs at times. You seem incapable of that admission when in the moment. I can handle it.
What you seem incapable of handling is various folks, myself included, calling you out when you go overboard. There are at least 3 times I'm aware of in the past several months where Kari, Kevin and other BO leaders have felt the need to defend your writing here. Again that is "OK" with me. This is an admitted left of left-center blog.
I have a very good understanding of your skills as well as your blind spots. I still read you, if only to see what else I can learn about you and the extremes of some other people's thought processes.
Have a nice Sunday.
1:29 p.m.
Jan 10, '10
...where Kari, Kevin and other BO leaders...
I'm a BO leader??? LOL
I haven't written a post here in like a year or more, comment infrequently and am not even the dominant writer on my own blog. I don't know how one credibly gets "leader" out of that...
I've not defended anyone here. What I write in comments reflects my own POV. Reading into that some sort of defense of a post's author would also require the opposite ass-u-mption that not commenting favorably (or at all) on a post implies that I disagree with it's author. Which of course would be a ludicrous ass-u-mption to make. I don't even read BO every day, much less read every post, much less comment on every post.
Jan 10, '10
Carla, about Kurt being a "waffle" you are right---there was pushback.
What a radical concept--that an elected official must announce a vote by a blogger's timetable rather than using all the time one has (he said at the town hall meeting he decided the day before the vote).
Carla, some friends and I were speculating how you would have liked being at that town hall meeting. Maybe a third of the audience tried to shout down every word he said.
Like it or not, such people (usually with better manners) have often come to 5th Dist. town hall meetings. Just because you wanted Kurt to say "we must have a public option, nothing is more important", he was doing his job--listening to people who actually live in the 5th District.
On the topic at hand, it will be interesting to see the ballot measure results. More and more, McCormick and Nelson remind me of something an old friend has said,
"when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".
The anti-taxers made 2 gambles: 1) they could paint the business lobby as sympathetic characters the legislature should have listened to 2) there will be a job drain in this state if the measures pass.
The result the anti-taxers want is another Measure 30 election.
There should be job creation statistics out there for all those glorious private sector jobs created after Russ Walker, Kim Thatcher, et al won the Measure 30 election.
The fact that the NO camp hasn't made those job creation numbers the focus of their campaign makes me wonder if that grand and glorious promised job creation actually happened.
If the measures pass, AOI et al will have been proven not to be in touch with the views of voters.
If the measures pass and there are jobs created after January (given the predicted loss) then the original strategy of naming the no campaign OAJKT will look like folly.
Jan 10, '10
Re: "Objectivist:
If you think voters unquestionly follow 'DP strategists' and don't think for themselves, you need to get out more."
What relationship this has to what I wrote is beyond me, although I think you should read this:
The practice of our politics is so broken today, but what pains me worse is that we have gone a long ways toward no longer even possessing the capability of imagining better alternatives. Good Americans - of generous intentions, thoughtful analysis and progressive dispositions - are losing the capacity to imagine genuine alternatives to an American politics which offers the choice between right, far right and hysterical right, all of them differing only in the shading of the patina they spray over their common oligarchical core.
No presidents could possibly better serve the interests of the plutocracy than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (indeed, finding any sort of meaningful dividing line between the White House and Wall Street is an increasingly difficult task). And yet those on the right in America foam at the mouth in their rage at these communist infiltrators, while some progressives foolishly believe that Obama is trying his darndest to be a good lad, against a tough situation he's inherited.
This condition represents an utter failure of the imagination, and therefore the startling ‘success' of the regressive framing effort. This limitation of what is conceivable and the concomitant diminishing of expectations is the greatest triumph of right-wing marketing, and it's Orwellian to its core.
The Implosion of the American Political Consciousness)
3:43 p.m.
Jan 10, '10
No presidents could possibly better serve the interests of the plutocracy than Bill Clinton and Barack Obama...
Better than Dubya did?
Is your contempt for the intellect of average progressives really that high?
4:14 p.m.
Jan 10, '10
Carla, you're a blogger, and a very biased one at that. Your writing skills are generally excellent. I don't expect you to be impartial at all. I would appreciate a little more understanding and acknowledgement that both parties in politics are rabid dogs at times. You seem incapable of that admission when in the moment. I can handle it.
Both parties are rabid dogs at times. Sometimes independents are rabid dogs, too. But your perspective on what constitutes "rabid" and mine are not the same, I suspect. Just like your favorite color might not be the same as mine. These are subjective terms we're tossing about here.
I agree that one of my traits is to dig my heels in on an issue I've written about if there's disagreement in comments. I very rarely write about a topic that I haven't spent a good deal of time reading and researching--and formed the post(s) based on this. (I can't even begin to tell you how many hours I spent over the summer researching, reading and sourcing on the Metolius, for example. The weeds in my garden completely took over because I neglected the garden in favor of studying).
I've neither required or asked for defense of my work here. Nor will I. I'm confident it stands on its own, despite detractors. In fact, based on what I hear outside the confines of these comment threads, it stands on it's own in addition because so many of the comments are seen as way outside much mainstream thought.
And LT: On Schrader, you can rest assured that I will continue to watch him and push him as I think its appropriate. I hope you continue to push back when you think it isn't.
Jan 11, '10
Oh, well, I'll get my IP banned for this,
Unbelievable! Got something right!!!
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 10, 2010 8:34:05 AM
Zar, you're clearly unhappy with Blue Oregon.
Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read here?
For that matter, what is preventing you from starting your own blog and posting whatever you wish on it?
Thank you, thank you, "Kevin"! This is what I have been trying to tell my queer brother, living in Boston for 25 years!!! Fine, be gay and proud. But why, oh why, do you have to march in the Mic's St. Paddy's Day Parade? Why can't people learn just to associate with their own kind? "Halloween, the Castro", I always tell him. Why identify a political issue and then insist on trumpeting it where it will only irritate people? That cannot be good for anybody!
Let the Mics have their fun. Let the Dems have their fun. There's plenty of airy fairy idealistic blogs that you'll enjoy more...and you won't friggin' be irritating us! Just because you live someplace doesn't make you a part of the community. The community has a say on that. Look at RyanLeo. Classic BO'er and he doesn't even live in Oregon. It's a virtual community, not a physical one. The "Oregon" in Blue Oregon is a hit magnet, not a literal description. But then, Z probably thinks that those calls for "community groups" to participate in the St. Paddy's Day Parade means what they say literally, too!
Sorry, Steve, not to respond back in the "Silesky" thread, but I got my IP banned too.
Jan 11, '10
I think I get it. The Merc is serious journalism. BlueOregon is a place for "progressive" "Oregonians" to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, porn, cheap prescription drugs, commentary, gossip, wage battle, and gag opponents.
Jan 11, '10
Re: "Is your contempt for the intellect of average progressives really that high?"
My contempt for the intellects of faux progressives who "debate" with hysterically far-right nutjobs but not with real progressives is really that high.
There's a literature out there that people like you haven't dreamed of. It's called "the left".
6:30 p.m.
Jan 11, '10
My contempt for the intellects of faux progressives who "debate" with hysterically far-right nutjobs but not with real progressives is really that high.
So high that you'd promulgate the ludicrous notion that George W. Bush was a friend of the plutocracy than Clinton or Obama.
If recognizing unadulterated BS when I see it makes me a "faux progressive" then I'll happily accept the label.
There's a literature out there that people like you haven't dreamed of. It's called "the left".
Presumably we can find it in the Presidential library of that great leftist, George W. Bush...
Jan 17, '10
This is being posted for Peri, who has been banned:
What a lying sack of shit!
Some basic facts:
I have always provided you with accurate email addresses. That is the primary key on a blog. It is up to you to provide for valid IDs. You don't do that, so don't whine.
I sent you my phone number, email address and alias (included in the bio for all to see). You never attempted to contact me.
I am nobodies fucking sock puppet.
Nearly every great writer has published with aliases.
You are contemptuous of your readers. On the same day that your screaming brat Carla had to demonstrate her complete mindlessness, you promote her to editor.
I have had an email account since 1983, and it has never been hacked until 4 hours after I sent you my submission. Law enforcement is issues the relevant ISPs with subpoenas to determine if you were involved.
The DPA is completely uninterested in poopulation control.
I am reviewing whether or not BO constitutes an unregistered PAC.
So basically, fuck you and your little dog Carla, too!
Jan 17, '10
This is being posted for Peri, who has been banned: (you seem to love spam aliases)
What a lying sack of shit!
Some basic facts:
I have always provided you with accurate email addresses. That is the primary key on a blog. It is up to you to provide for valid IDs. You don't do that, so don't whine.
I sent you my phone number, email address and alias (included in the bio for all to see). You never attempted to contact me.
I am nobodies fucking sock puppet.
Nearly every great writer has published with aliases.
You are contemptuous of your readers. On the same day that your screaming brat Carla had to demonstrate her complete mindlessness, you promote her to editor.
I have had an email account since 1983, and it has never been hacked until 4 hours after I sent you my submission. Law enforcement is issues the relevant ISPs with subpoenas to determine if you were involved.
The DPA is completely uninterested in poopulation control.
I am reviewing whether or not BO constitutes an unregistered PAC.
So basically, fuck you and your little dog Carla, too!
<hr/>