The Hillsboro Argus blasts the Oregonian's David Reinhard on Curry/Edwards Race

Earlier this week, BlueOregon contributor Kari Chisholm wondered out loud, "Did Everett Curry Lie to the Oregonian?"

At the Hillsboro Argus, their answer is yes. From the often-conservative columnist and Argus publisher Clark Gallagher:

Somebody lit a fire under Oregonian columnist David Reinhard, whose opinion I usually respect. He did some research and started the ball rolling with a pointed piece on the early campaign in Sunday's Oregonian. Reinhard was looking for something, and he found it.

He quotes Curry: "I have not made religion an issue in any way - until now. I by no means want to hide my relationship to my church. David Edwards has stepped over the line in this campaign and is attempting to use my religion to scare voters."

It gets going now. Reinhard calls Edwards, who clearly feels blindsided, and starts asking questions. Edwards denies any religious wrangling. But the die is cast. Buzzwords laid are buzzwords played. The game is on. ...

So to our brethren at The Oregonian, do you think the "R" folks could have lobbed some "Karl Rovian" type bombs your way? Frankly we think you've been hoodwinked - had and played. But then again, you see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear. We're just marching to a different drum.

Read the rest. Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    The reading public should take what ever Reinhard writes with an XL grain of salt..whom ever razzle-dazzled Reinhard was not a credible source for him to rely upon. Then again, Rienhard typically writes from a narrow ideological view spreading Republican propaganda from their prepared scripts. Rienhard owes the reading public an apology because he painted a very distorted and untruthful picture of candidate Edwards. I'm amazed he can't fathom the Republicans heavy handed overtones of religion in their messages in every campaign. Republicans of all stripes have allowed themselves to be typecast as conservative evangelical Christians. Reinhard needs to recall the wise words of the comedian Groucho Marx, "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

  • james caird (unverified)

    What I find amazing is that Clark Gallagher, a died-in-the-wool conservative Kool-Aid drinker on 99.9 percent of issues, thinks Reinhard is participating (consciously or not on Dave's part) in a machievellian Republican smear campaign.

    I've always thought Reinhard was more idiot than evil. And, judging from the column, I guess Gallagher does, too.

    Reinhard is a lazy ideologue. He is a partisan political hack. A propgandist. He's certainly no journalist whose only obligation is to the truth.

    It's frightening to think that Reinhard managed to suck in the entire Oregonian editorial board on this one. I wonder if anyone on the editorial board decided to independently investigate any of Reinhard's accusations against Edwards before they yanked the endorsement?

    Enquiring minds want to know!

  • Carol D. (unverified)

    I have no doubt whatsoever that Reinhard knew he was running with bogus info in his column. I had several email exchanges with him yesterday and asked him to provide some shred of information that confirmed that Edwards had paid for the push polling he mentioned in his column. Nothing. He merely counter-attacked by asking why I would assume it was the Republicans. I explained to him that I had been a part of that push poll and that the language could only have been intended to turn people against Edwards, which pretty much precludes the Democrats from having sponsored it. (Having been a recipient of TWO push polls in the last week or two that involved the Edwards-Curry race... one of which asked very specific and inflammatory questions about Curry and religion and Edwards supposedly using Curry's religion as a wedge issue... the wording was so blatantly aimed at turning people against Edwards I actually laughed and told the pollster what he was doing was immoral.) Reinhard's response to me was that as far as he was concerned Edwards had done it and he thought it was "strange" that I would think this was the work of Curry and a Karl Rovian figure! I, of course, wrote back that I thought it was odd that he could assume the push poll was Edwards' work with no proof and that if he really couldn't figure out why I would think this was the work of a disciple of Karl Rove he must not be much of a journalist.

    In any case, last night I got a recorded phone call from someone informing me that the Argus had stepped up on this issue. I assume it was from the Edwards campaign, and I just have to say, "GOOD FOR THEM!" Everytime a campaign lets the Republicans get away with slurs like this and doesn't fight back aggressively, an angel loses their wings.

  • prk (unverified)

    Let's get one thing straight that is muddying this whole issue. Just because a poll contains negative arguments toward one or another of the candidates does not -- I repeat, DOES NOT -- make it a "push poll."

    Candidates and professional pollsters include negative arguments in their benchmark polls to test whether certain messages are effective, either against their opponents or against themselves. If you are responding to a poll and the questioner is reading what sounds like an attack script, they may actually be testing new messages.

    A "push poll" makes no attempt to gather information, but rather is used to spread negative information about a candidate. It's purpose is to sway opinion, not track it.

    Now, it's a little late in the season for benchmark polling, as nearly every poll in the field right now is a tracking poll, and so less likely to be testing message. But it isn't out of the realm of possibility that an extreme partisan Republican got a call for a legitimate poll that was testing the effectiveness of the "radical religious right" message for EITHER side, and totally misinterpreted it. In any event, it doesn't appear Reinhardt and the O ed board looked into it very hard.

    That is, of course, IF IT EVEN HAPPENED AT ALL! Gallagher is right, the O got hoodwinked on this one.

  • (Show?)

    PRK is absolutely correct. Here's the other thing about push polls and real polls.... A real poll includes a small, but statistically valid sample - maybe 300 or 400 folks. A push poll, designed to move the electorate, would include several thousand calls. A push poll will be obvious -- candidates will get dozens of reports, not just one or two.

    <h2>Moreover, it has become quite fashionable to allege a push poll - which the media will eat up - even where there is none. It's a way of accusing your opponent of nefarious activity, and they can't disprove it.</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon