Why is this news? So what if a a private person makes a donation to a politician and then asked for a favor. It is only news if the pol acts on it. Hell, I donated money to Obama and asked to be named Ambassador to Sweden. Is that news as well?

Hey Kev -

"If" "ands" and "buts" don't mean jack. Give me some solid info Smith did anything other that get an e mail from yet another desperate business going under. Isn't that what people ask politicians to do, help them?

Personally, I would rather be ambassador somewhere sunny like the Virgin Islands or Jamacia.

Dibs on Poland!

I wanna be ambassador to Indian Country.

I can do the Frybread Summits, happily.

At least next time the rig breaks down [do Ambassadorial motorcades break down?] I won't be rummaging my working class pockets for a way to get it paid for, eh.

This is funny. How many of these Merkley supporters were bashing Slovic's reporting during the contested primary?

Creeps.

This is a BIG DEAL because of the way Sunwest is financing its operations. They knew they were in deep financial trouble last year and kept luring investors in without disclosing their problems.

They run assisted living facilities and are under close scrutiny by regulators for not taking care of the residents and facilities. The following is from the Oregonian from today.

"Since July, Oregon regulators have substantiated 30 cases of unacceptable conditions in retirement centers operated by Sunwest, the Salem-based company that is struggling to survive a financial meltdown."

These are not the kind of people that I want my government bailing out and giving a free 'stay out of jail' card.

Again from the Oregonian "But the company is up to its neck in red ink. It can't pay many of its bills and faces multiple lawsuits and foreclosure actions filed by lenders, vendors, contractors and investors, who are owed at least $1.8 billion.

Sunwest is desperately trying to fend off its creditors and state and federal securities regulators, who want to know more about Sunwest's dealings with investors who plugged about $400 million into various Sunwest affiliate companies. At the same time, it is trying to operate its enormous network of retirement homes under increasing financial constraints."

This is a big thing to the residents of the facilities that Sunwest manages. They put their trust, money and lives into the safe-keeping of these people and they are not getting what they pay for in their senior years when they are the most vulnerable.

If the good Senator is as moderate and caring as his ads depict him with BO and Ted Kennedy he would direct his staff to return the money and make a big deal out of it. Sorry but that ain't whats going to happen because the Senator is an empty suit.

No, Carla, the primary comments were very general criticisms about her journalist skills and her ethics.

But obviously, like most hacks, you have the amazing ability to remember whatever you need to make your case in the current situation.

Creeps.

A VERY quick and cursory review dug up these nuggets.

"Beth Slovic really has been shameless in going after Jeff Merkley."

"Beth Slovic has been a lousy journalist since well before this story was published."

So, Carla, let's review:

Write a story that reflects negatively on a BlueOregon favorite, and the journalist in question is an unethical hack who is obviously biased and maybe even excepting payment from pols. The same journalist writes negatively about the opponent of a BlueOregon favorite and every precious word is Pulitzer worthy.

Childlike creeps.

Well, I think I've given you enough. You're a moderately smart person, you can do the rest if you're actually interested in the truth.

I will say that most of those comments are in regards to the story Slovic wrote about the Merkleys filling out an application for a charter school for one of their children.

First folks questioned the accuracy of her reporting. Then when she produced a hard copy of the application, they questioned her integrity. In fact, Kevin (from upthread) was one of the loudest. He even wrote an entire post about it.

It seems the REAL bias of the episode came from among the unwilling partisan consumers of the news, rather than from the reporter presenting it.

Are you really so stubbornly insistent on being correct all of the time that you're actually gonna argue the point.

Good luck with that. I'm out.

CONCENTRATE! CONCENTRATE! "The larger the turnout, the harder the theft"... and BE THERE to WATCH the vote if you REALLY want to ensure your vote counts.

Listen to Democracy Now today -- listen very hard to the

DEMOCRACY NOW INTERVIEWS TODAY: http://www.democracynow.org/

SOURCE on MAN IN THE MIDDLE: http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/

commentary and discussion, AGAIN, of the "man in the middle" setups and the fact that the cyber vote thief who worked with Rove last time is now on McCain's payroll.

Carla - not aimed at you. It is comedic for someone to be starting a scuffle in the sandbox just right now - do we not have more important things to keep our eyes on? Agh! We are SO close to the finish of this, just two more days minimum.

And there is SO much more left to go through here. Democracy NOW is really bringing forward insistently all of the issues that now pertain to vote counting, disenfranchisement, frauding, narratives... for me, with a Constitutional nose to me, it's intensifying now. THIS is the part that kinks MY hinges, and I feel a little bit alone as the discussion seems not to be turning in that direction/preparation in any way.

"So I'm supposed to provide links to prove your point for you? I may only be "moderately" smart, but I'm smarter than THAT."

Apparently not, since you seem content on complaining and throwing a faux tantrum rather than simply performing the cursory search that I did. Do you really lack the skills to pull that off, or is it that you simply prefer to flop down and whine?

"So I'll ask again Dordecht, which parts of this story by Slovic are inaccurate or incorrect?"

That completley misses the point, Carla.

Apparently I over-estimated your intelligence again.

Why is it that Slovic's piece about Merkley (which ultimately proved to be 100% accurate) was ravaged by kevin, et al, while her ethics, competence and motivations were questioned, etc, etc.?

Yet this piece on Gordon (which I have no reason to doubt) is accepted by all those same folks without a hint of skepticism about that same reporter, who they had previously labeled as unethical, incompetent, etc. etc.

Could it be because the bias never was in the reporting, but was within those people like Kevin, et al, who were consuming the report.

That was my point. Itl;s really simple, but I'll try and simplify for you even more, Carla.

100% accurate facts about Merkley = reporter is accused of being an incompetent, unethical minion of the opponent's campaign.

Negative story by the same journalist about Merkley's opponent = right on! Journalism is great and ALL stories are news.

Spin away Carla, (stubborn self-righteousness is very unattractive by the way), but if you cannot grasp the simplicity of that, you're a dishonest or delusional douchenozzle.

Consider it a "teaching moment."

Next time I'll send my fee schedule.

"I prefer that if you're going to make accusations, that you bother to back them up with proof."

I backed my "accusations" with quotes. If you think I made them up, well, you've got trust issues. I'll bet you have a tough time bonding.

Look, if you don't believe me, look them up for yourself. The search was really easy. I'm sure you're capable. But stop throwing yourself on the floor and demanding I provide a link for you. It's not going to happen, and if you keep this up you're going to go your room without dinner.

Why is it that you can't post ALL of the evidence..including the legitimate questions about the story you're citing?

Uhh, because as discussed earlier, there were no legitimate issues raised about Slovic's piece on Merkley. There was however a lot of kool-aid driven accusations about her skill and character that nothing more than attempts to discredit her.

"If there is reason to doubt Beth's story (about Smith)..then let's see it. Everything else is simply whining."

Oh My God you still don't get it.

I'm not doubting this story about Smith at all. Never have and never said I did. That stubbornness is really annoying.

"So your problem is that some people questioned some of the parts of the story on Merkley, because they know and support Jeff. But they didn't question the story on Smith because they don't support him..so therefore...they're stupid hacks? That's really what you're going with?"

Well, That's ridiculous. (You didn't do to well on the reading-comprehension part of the SAT, did you?)

For the fourth time, I'm simply noting that when a reporter posted a legitimate and accurate story about Merkley, she was called incompetent, unethical and biased.

When that same reporter printed a legitimate and accurate story about Smith, some of those same people who had recently called her incompetent, unethical and biased accepted the report as gospel.

As indicated in the original post, I found that funny and thought it was revealing of that fact that the obvious bias in these circumstances belonged to the consumers of the news and not the person presenting it.

It's really as simple as that. The rest of this conversation is just you flailing around batting at distractions and misunderstandings in an ever-more stupidly comical attempt to defend your BFF Kevin's raving hypocrisy.

Open your mind, Carla, it won't hurt that much. I promise.