All the Atkinson bloggers are posting their updates on Dorchester, and one of them, run by a guy I don't know (or at least I don't know if I know him) has posted a bald-faced lie about me.
I added a comment to false post on his blog, challenging his blatantly false assertion, and apparently he has blocked it from appearing. It's been more than a half day since I posted it. When I did it, there was a message that said the post would appear after the blogger approved it.
Interesting, I thought. Most every other blog I've posted to immediately displays the comments. I wonder if he will censor it?
Well, it hasn't appeared.
Background: I asked all the Governor candidates to come on my radio show that I was broadcasting from the Dorchester Conference Sunday morning. While on a break from the show, I asked Jason to come on, and he told me he wasn't at all happy with KXL and he didn't think he'd come on.
I said "What have I ever said that was negative about you? He said he didn't know.
When I got back on the air, I mentioned to my co-host that we'd be having all the governor candidates but wasn't sure if Jason was coming on. Marc Abrams, my co-host, said something like "He's passing up the chance to reach our audience for free?"
A few minutes later, Jason came to the booth, sat down, and we had our interview. It was perfectly cordial. Marc did most of the interviewing, as is our practice - we usually let the liberal ask the conservative guests questions and vice versa.
That was that.
Here's how the blogger Max Redline characterized the interview:
Atkinson takes another hit on KXL
The Kremer&Abrhams show is on, and Kevin's about to put in an appearance. Atkinson was asked as well, and apparently said that he might appear - this was greeted with derision by Kremer, who cracked that that attitude pretty well tells him all he needs to know about the Atkinson campaign.
This is blatantly false, and I told him so. I said no such thing. I was not derisive in my tone with Jason in the interview and I did not say anything like what the blogger said.
In the comment he apparently censored, I pointed this out.
It is one thing for a guy to get it wrong - people can make mistakes, hear what they want to hear, misinterpret, or attribute a comment to the wrong person. That can be done in good faith.
But to have the falsehood pointed out and then block the correction from his blog - well, that speaks to the integrity of the blogger.
So, I know not who this guy is, but there's no reason to take anything he says seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Blogs are holding up comments?
I've watched Atkinson speak three times in the last year. I'm fairly impressed, but I have to say that his blogger circle is hurting him more than helping him.
There is a commitment to him that is borderline disturbing. They are so exasperated that the rest of us aren't catching Jason-fever that they resort to incessantly attacking Ron Saxton (as if that makes Jason look stronger).
It's like these generally astute conservatives no longer see his shortcomings.
They act like his sh@t doesn't stink.
The truth is that Jason is a politician just like the other two. He hasn't been in it long enough to sell out as many times as Mannix, but give him time.
He's in this because he likes the idea of being in power and he's willing to make compromises to get there.
I think his supporters will be happier in the long run if he loses, because then he won't disappoint them terribly. (e.g., think of how hard you worked to get Bush re-elected and the way you feel about him now).
I'm leaning toward Saxton, but I don't have any illusions that he is anything other than a politician embracing a limited government agenda because it is the best message to help him win.
I think Saxton has the best chance of winning, and I imagine that if he wants to win again in 2010, he'll try to keep most of his limited government promises.
> There is a commitment to him that is borderline disturbing.
This is why Jason is going to win this primary and the general election. People who get to know him are willing to go the extra mile for him, to promote him, to support him. That is commitment, yes. It is also enthusiasm and respect.
If these are not the qualities you want in your campaign, then perhaps you need to rethink.
As for whatever miscommunication is going on between Rob and MAX Redline, well here is the power of the blogs:
MAX said his piece. Rob said his. Readers can read them both. No one is suppressed. Everyone can make up their own minds. That's what makes this election interesting: we aren't dependent on a handful of newspapers and radio talk hosts to make up our minds...
Yeah right Gully....
Max "said his piece" which was an outright lie. And when Kramer corrected him on Max's blog, he supressed it.
That isn't a "miscommunication."
It is one blogger lying about what happened in order to further some imaginary narrative about KXL being anti-Atkinson.
And when his lie is pointed out to him, he refuses to let it post to his blog.
Which goes to Max's integrity (or lack thereof). Great guy to have shilling for Jason.
You are right in one respect... the power of the blogs is that Kramer can let us know that Max lied because his he has his own blog.
And we WILL decide. I'm sure most everyone will decide that Max is irresponsible and shouldn't be considered to be credible.
Let's see, do we believe Max, who nobody knows, doesn't put his own name forward, and publishes semi-coherent ramblings on a low traffic blog, or Rob, who's been in the political arena for years, run for office, had a radio show, and written extensively?
Hmmm.
Max just found how easy it is to blow yourself up when you presume your views are interesting enough to comment publicly on politics and people.
Hello,
Thanks for the informative comments.
I have not in any way censored nor removed any comments whatsoever from the MAX Redline blog., I was recently informed (yesterday) by an Atkinson person that her comments went nowhere, and continue to look into the situation. I have not yet determined the source of the problem.
I did, however, report what I heard, and noted that while the attribution may be wrong, the gist was there. The line immediately following the crack about giving up free airtime, coming in succession, struck me as odd.
One of the problems with trying to blog in material as it comes from a broadcast stream is that it isn't always easy to determine which co-host says what, and the problem is compounded when working out of a motel room without access to recording devices.
Rest assurred that Rob's rebuttal will be posted in its entirety on MAX Redline. I am continuing to try to track the reason(s) underlying inability by some to post comments to the blog, but there is no nefarious intent, nor any censorship of any kind, at work.
I, too, have been a long-time listener, and am pleased to see that they were able to return to the air.
Regards.
Max:
I'm glad you aren't intentionally censoring my rebuttal, but I'm telling you that I said nothing of the sort as you suggest.
I've got nothing against Jason Atkinson and certainly wouldn't say something like that on the air about him.
...and now the world waits breathlessly in anticipation of a retraction from JimmyZ...
Seriously now, I can't believe that bloggers are dissing other bloggers for using the power of blogs! Why not just go back to newspapers and Dan Rather, for goodness sake!
Pancho,
A more blind and ludicris post could not have been made.
Jason is in this "because he likes the idea of being in power?" Ok, back that one up.
Want to talk about blind commitment to a candidate why don't you try Lars Larson and his TRULEY disturbing support of Ron Saxton. I KNOW that is hurting your boy Ron.
I can only assume that you are referring to "me" when you mention "incessantly attacking Ron Saxton." (If I am wrong I apologize ahead of time) Could it be that I know that I get new readers all the time so I feel I need to bring them up to speed on things like Saxton's opposition to the Constitutional Kicker?
Would you, Pancho, say the same thing about Lars Larson "incessantly" attacking Jason Atkinson? Do you think that is helping HIS candidate? Ya... didn't think so.
Finally you make the statement that the blogger network "is" hurting him more than helping. "Is?" And you base that on?.... Yah I thought so.
Now let me say that there is more evidence to the contrary than you can come up with to back your untoward political perspective.
That is that Atkinson has shown increasingly well in any kind of polling mechanism and without any advertising. Atkinson was beat by one (1) percentage point in the Portland Business Journal poll and finished ahead of everyone else.
Atkinson has polled better against all the Democratic challengers than any of the Republicans. By both Zogby and Rasmussen(I would venture to guess that the poll that is now in the field will show some significant gains by Atkinson as well).
There those are just a few. Now if you would be so kind as to provide something to back up your statment that the bloggers are hurting Atkinson that would be nice.
In the mean time we must assume that you are merely applying the same tactics used by Dan Rather and John Kerry when they tried to dismiss the bloggers. But that is ok, because Rather did not figure it out before it was too late.
Rob,
Now as for you young man.... Well... I tried to find something in your original post to go nuclear on.
But alas... you are fine.
You may pass.... hehe...
Oh Rob? Can you ask Lars why he continually broadcasts falshoods? (c'mon, you better give me a touche' there.)
yip yip
Rob, I don't mean to come to your home court and smack your guy in the head but there is a clear reason why Saxton is getting slammed on NW Republican.
I would like to point out as well that four years ago Lars was the first to throw the RINO bomb at the Saxton campaign.
I had recently moved back to Oregon (been here a little over two years at that point) and Lars really disappointed me with his attack. I for one find it suspect that Lars magically endroses Saxton now.
Also, Saxton has a track record inside Portland. In this track record are some key endorsements of ultra-liberal candidates who ran against republicans. Saxton also was nowhere to be found on many tax and expenditure issues as well. He has a career of being a little to cozy with various players on the other side. Raising questions about his political history is not smearing - its weighing his worthiness.
I have also never personally attacked the Ron Saxton (though his record is fair game) and if he wins the primary will fall right in line behind our party's candidate.
Ah Coyote,
"A more blind and ludicris [sic] post could not have been made."
Do you have something against vision-impaired rappers in the blogosphere?
I wasn't singling you out, but as I posted on your blog (before you censored it): "if the knee-jerk fits, wear it."
I'm not a fan of Lars's recent attacks on Atkinson either. For whatever reason, Lars turned on Jason in a violent and shrill manner over a mostly semantic issue. Lars is trying too hard to control the outcome, it's disturbing now just like it was disturbing in 2002 when he used his weight to throw the primary to Mannix.
Saxton is not "my boy". I may end up supporting Atkinson in the primary, however, it would be in spite of your attacks on Saxton rather than because of them. My reaction is anecdotal, but I've heard it in many casual conversations from others.
(Please, help me to help you).
I'm automatically suspicious of anyone that wants to assume a position of power over his neighbors. Whether someone is running for the most powerful position in the country or the most powerful position in the state, I try to keep my BS-ometer running at all times and I try to point it at all three candidates.
Saxton says he isn't a career politician, well that's true...so far. If he's running for re-election in 2010 that line will be dumped in favor of "an experienced public leader" (or some such line).
But I'm just as suspicious of bloggers who constantly put words in the mouths of others.
Case in point: You mention "Saxton's opposition to the Constitutional Kicker."
Yet just a week ago when I attended the Executive Club debate, Saxton was asked what should happen to the current kicker surplus, he said unequivocally that it should be returned to taxpayers.
There are a lot of reasons to question Saxton, unfortunately some of the questions coming from the Atkinson-bloggers sound a lot like: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Pancho,
OK I just new kyou would catch that ludicris thing as I hit the enter button... But that is of course cheap and easy.
If you are not singling me out then my apology stands.
I don't remember the knee jerk comment that well, but it was probably couched in a comment that contained another issue. However if it came down I know there was a good reason.
One of the things that I just do not let stand anymore is if something is an out and out lie. You know like when Lars or the Saxton gang tries to say that Atkinson is for amnesty for illegals. One need only go to the candidate website to get his position. Just don't try to sell it on my website because Lars is doing enough of that on his.
I understand your anecdotal reaction. That was the same anecdotal reaction that Dan Rather had when the bloggers were incessantly bringing up the forged documents.
Well it was anecdotal until reality slowly merged into his anecdotal world.
As for Saxton's kicker positions? Thanks for clearing that up. I had not heard that he had changed his position on that issue also. That is nice to hear.
Of course they could have easily dropped me an email and straightend me out on that. I know they have my email address as they have used it a time or two.
However I will take your word for it and have quickly pointed out my error and notified my readers that Ron Saxton has decided to support the kicker law, after opposing it.
We are all cleared up on that now.
yip yip
Rob,
"Max:
I'm glad you aren't intentionally censoring my rebuttal, but I'm telling you that I said nothing of the sort as you suggest.
I've got nothing against Jason Atkinson and certainly wouldn't say something like that on the air about him."
Thanks for understanding that this was neither a personal nor political issue. Your radio transmission dropped off the air for around 15 seconds, and I just assummed that it was my laptop stream acting up again.
As it happened, there were issues relating to commentary on my blog as well. While unrelated, I think that they point up the fact that no matter how well-intentioned, things can happen that impact perception.
I believe in freedom of speech, and do not censor comments to the blog. I suppose that if people started referring to others as sub-human or whatever then there might be a need to re-think the policy, but but that's never cropped up as yet.
This turned out to be a real exercise in heatburn after I noted that changes had been made to my blogscript. Those problems have been fixed after much caffeine and should not recur. So comment away, and it should appear momentarily.
The inconvenience affected many, and so I really appreciated having it drawn to my attention.
That's all fine, Max, but what I DON'T appreciate is you misleading people about what I said on my show.
I do think that is both a personal and political issue.
Rob,
If you return to the post that aroused your ire, you must note that I specifically stated that I might have the attribution wrong, but the gist was there.
It was hard to determine, given the technology available at the moment, exactly who was speaking from where.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, by noting the attribution may be WRONG. So what the hell else do you want?
The fact is that SOMEBODY on your program made a derisive crack about Atkinson turning down free air time, then commented that it tells him all he needs to know.
I'm not inclined to further defend the post after having noted both within the post itself and several times now here that attribution may be wrong, but the gist was clear.
There was zero misleading, either in the original post, nor in subsequent comments here. I have made my position clear in all cases, and I stand by what I said.
You're free to rant and holler all you want, but I reported what I heard - with the caveat that attribution may have been wrong.
So, don't come back at me with some weak thing like "my co-host said something like"...which you apparently aren't even sure of.
Gee, I don't even have access to the transcripts, because I'm not a professional guy like you. I was just blogging from a wifi setup in a hotel room on a laptop with cheap speakers.
Unlike you, I wasn't getting paid. I didn't have the comfy headphones. Nobody paid to put me up in a hotel.
You know, I really used to like you and your show, but I'm thinking it's about time you get a life.
You have all that going for you, yet you still have the utter audacity to run around and holler about a post from a blogger who specifically took the time to note that the attribution for the comments heard may have been in error?
Sorry, Rob - you have a problem that I can't do anything about.
""""""You know, I really used to like you and your show, but I'm thinking it's about time you get a life."""""
I have been following this and don't really have much to say about it ,,,,,
but I laughed when I read that
Whoa nellie. Who's ranting and hollering?
Rob, bro, you are just a teeny, weeny bit over sensitive.
Chill my brother.
Wait a second, whos being sensitive here? Atkinson had to be coaxed onto the radio show. What is he a wimp or a prima dona, or more likely is he both?
Post a Comment