Saturday, May 06, 2006

Pelosi on ethics

Well, Nancy Pelosi has finally OK'd filing an ethics complaint This time, it is against a Democrat, William Jefferson of LA. Like California's Duke Cunningham, this is a bribery case and it looks as if Jefferson is about to go down; at least one of his aides has plead guilty on related charges.

Pelosi is where she is because she is a power broker and makes a lot of backroom deals. If she is taking ethics action against a Democrat, has she cut a deal for Hastert to OK action against a Repulican? If so, which one? Ney (Ohio), Doolittle (CA) and Pombo (CA) all would be good targets. We can only hope. She wrote Hastert asking for investigations of Doolittle and Pombo back in January.

33 Comments:

Blogger VPO said...

Would that be the same Dennis Hastert who just appeared with Pombo at a $150-head fundraiser in Acampo Friday night? That does not sound like someone about to ask for an ethics investigation of Pombo.

7:37 PM, May 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo Delta,

Rocky Balboa here - Adrian jist ran off to church so I gotta few minutes.

Pelosi's only doin' dis to look good fer Chrissake. She's got about as much ethics as my friend Rickey here. All she's doin is posturing so she can say, "See, I'm going after corrupt Dems of my own party, woo woo woo." Its what's called "Since I ain't done nuttin about ethics for years now, and even conspired with Delay and other Repugnants to block ethics, I'd better do sumtin now to make myself look good."

Woo woo woo. If there is still any doubt, why do you suppose she's backing the ethically-challenged Stevey Boy and his loser of a campaign manager Kellar, who may be one and duh same wid dis guy Rickey but ain't no one seems to know for sure.

Rocky, putting in $.03 this morning. (Still more den dat other cheapskate)

10:50 AM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Max said...

It's amazing to me how indignant some people on this blog get about Filson supporters discussing issues where they think he is strong but there is a constant barrage of unsupported, slanderous, unethical allegations coming from them. Nothing has been posted that would support the charge that Filson is ethically-challenged. But there is no question but that it is ethically-challenged to throw around the kind of innuendo that too many on this blog are happy to engage in.
It says a lot that when Filson supporters post comments that may help people decide who wuld be the stronger candidate in the general election, they are deleted. When McNerney supporters post slander, they stay.

12:59 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

Max,

Fuck you for suggesting that the person who posted that BS comment about Filson is a McNerney supporter. You have no fucking evidence that it was. And in fact every single person on this blog, McNerney supporter or Filson supporter, has roundly condemned the comment about Filson.

And Max, I want to point out that I will not detail the unethical things I believe Steve Filson has engaged in because I don't believe such things ought to be aired. But we do know that Filson's campaign manager spread around a smear of Jerry McNerney (a smear you were very happy to help perpetuate) and we do know that his finance director, while blogging on Daily Kos under a pseudonym, lied about his relation to the campaign. So get a fucking life.

1:34 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bgibb said...

Thank you, Max, for pointing out what should be obvious—and, Matt, I think he was referring merely to the ethically challenged statement rather than the sexual harassment charge. I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that this Rocky guy is not a McNerney supporter. Regardless, merely a quick perusal of the “King Emanuel” thread provides enough anti-moderate Democrat vitriol and Filson bashing to prove Max’s point. I don’t understand this Rocky shtick, but I can certainly see through a transparent assault on a candidate based solely on support for the opposition. If calling Filson ethically challenged with no grounds other than dislike of his campaign staff (which apparently derives from them attempting to spread the word about their candidate) is appropriate while examining McNerney’s stances is not, perhaps the name of this blog should be changed. People such as Rocky have wheedled into the closed inner-circle of this blog despite, or perhaps because of, their willingness to post acerbic blather. And let me ask you this, Matt: is it truly a display of restraint to claim numerous unethical acts on the part of Filson’s campaign while refusing to detail them? Give me a break. I have a hard time believing you even fall for your disingenuous claptrap. Is it not within the realm of this blog’s dominion to discuss issues? On the off-chance that it is, perhaps a few people could try that.

1:52 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Max said...

It would have been harder for me to make clear my point about unfounded innuendo if I had written your comment myself, Matt.

2:14 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

Regardless, merely a quick perusal of the “King Emanuel” thread provides enough anti-moderate Democrat vitriol and Filson bashing to prove Max’s point.

This is how I know you are full of shit. There is no "anti-moderate Democrat vitriol" in the King Emanuel thread.

If calling Filson ethically challenged with no grounds other than dislike of his campaign staff (which apparently derives from them attempting to spread the word about their candidate) is appropriate while examining McNerney’s stances is not, perhaps the name of this blog should be changed.

1) If you don't understand why anyone would question the ethical nature of a campaign that has people on staff who lie and who spread bullshit smears about their political opponents, then there's no helping you.

2) People are free to discuss where McNerney stands on the issues, provided that they're not just making shit up. The issue with how people discussed the Tallitsch book wasn't that people were concerned that IF McNerney agreed with it, THEN there would be bad political consequences.

The problem was that people disregarded that fact that McNerney clearly DID NOT agree with the substance of the book (no one EVER OFFERED ANY PROOF THAT MCNERNEY EVEN KNEW THAT THE BOOK EXISTED BEFORE KELLAR'S SMEAR CAME OUT). Furthermore, all sorts of faux anger about McNerney resulted from a willful ignorance of this basic fact.

Kellar's "argument" was that since McNerney signed some ten-point plan by Tallitsch, and since Tallitsch subsequently (and without McNerney's knowledge or consent) wrote something completely nuts based on that (by itself perfectly acceptable) ten-point plan, that McNerney must (must you see) support the crazy things Tallitsch said.

If someone offered Steve Filson a candy bar that (unbeknownst to him) was laced with LSD, and if Steve Filson then ate the tainted candy bar, nobody would argue that Steve Filson supported taking LSD.

That's the level of argument Kellar was making. Without any evidence that McNerney knew the book existed (and in fact in the presence of evidence that McNerney was wholly unaware of the book's existence) Kellar was arguing that McNerney endorsed the book. And others came onto this blog to create an echo-chamber for this bullshit (and transparently so) argument.

And the fact that he is not contrite at all about spreading something that is complete bullshit tells us all about Kellar's character, or lack thereof.

2:29 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Max said...

Matt wrote: "And Max, I want to point out that I will not detail the unethical things I believe Steve Filson has engaged in because I don't believe such things ought to be aired."

We are drawing some pretty fine lines between the unfounded "smears" by Kellar and the upstanding discussion in evidence above.

2:46 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bgibb said...

Matt,

Are you being serious? As soon as someone disagrees with you, you say that they should go fuck themselves and get a life and that you know they’re full of shit. If you go through the Emanuel thread, you will find the following, mixed in among the Filson bashing:

It’s good to remember that the Democratic leaders are just people, like the rest of us. They might have all sorts of political skills that most of us lack, but they also have their own personal agendas and they are also subject to institutional pressures that don’t reach down to the grassroots.

Question for Rick: If Space had so much going for him as DEMOCRAT, then why did the DCCC support Sulzer?
Same question could be posed about McNerney and Filson.
Hmmm, could it be because Space wasn't a "Yes" man to the D-trip and Beltway Dems? Just might be.

Putting a "boy" for Emmanuel, Tauscher and the like (the DLC essentially), into Congress is not one I think I could put much energy into. It would be better than Pombo, for sure, but only slightly.

The problem with Emanuel is that he's an old school Chicago boss, right out of the (1960s) Mayor Daley Machine. And if you think these people are any-- and I mean any-- better than corrupt Republicans just because they're Democrats, you are too innocent to be involved with politics. Rahm Emanuel is the mirror image of Tom DeLay. He doesn't belong in a leadership position in the Democratic Party.

Look at allies Pelosi and Emanuel. He generally votes in a pro-corporate right-of-center (among Democrats) way. She's much more progressive. But their actual votes mean little to either.

And do you want a bunch of rubber-stamp Democrats to replace the rubber-stamp Republicans? I don't. Which is why I'm supporting Jerry McNerney, an independent-minded progressive, and not Steve Filson, already a stranger to the people he hopes to be the congressman for.

How can you deny that Rahmbo aspires to be Tom DeLay and impose "party loyalty" on obedient servile Dems like Filson? You can't with any credibility.

Now, I have no doubt you could explain away each of these as merely a criticism of Emanuel, Pelosi, or the Beltway Democrats and not on moderates in general. That seems to be your specialty: disingenuous explanations. It is undeniable that McNerney supporters like yourself have launched an attack on Democrats who hold power, Democrats that are not as far left as McNerney. There’s no substantive discussion about why you have a problem with them, of course, just merely cheap shots (Emanuel is an old school Chicago boss and the mirror image of Tom DeLay? Wow). The word “moderate,” I acknowledge, was not used. It does not take a genius to figure out that moderate is implied here, which is symptomatic of the current tendency among left-leaning Democrats to assume that those further to the middle have sold out, that they believe in the principles of the far left but are unwilling to articulate them for fear of losing power.

As far as your accusations against Filson’s staff, I have little to say. I don’t know much about their tactics, although you haven’t convinced me. Perhaps someday you’ll look back and wonder how you could have been so caustic and nasty to people who merely backed a different horse than you did.

Finally, as to Tallitsch’s book, what, pray tell, is the evidence that McNerney was wholly unaware of the book's existence? I haven’t seen any. And your analogy to the candy bar is patently ridiculous. When you sign your name to something that will be published in a book (and you will be referenced, not by name granted, as far as I know, in the book) it is incumbent upon you to do a little background research. Or at least to cry foul after you blunder. Ahh, but drawing any attention to it might alienate those who lap up such tripe. I am willing to accept that McNerney made a mistake. But first he must admit it was a mistake. There is no question that Filson would admit he made a mistake were he to eat an LSD candy bar.

3:46 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bgibb said...

I'm sorry, I read that wrong. You actually just said "fuck you." No reference was made to anyone fucking themself.

3:48 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bgibb said...

Well, another addendum: now I see that McNerney has begged out from supporting the repugnant views in the book. I'm not sure how Keller's spreading of his apparent endorsement of those views qualifies as spreading bullshit smears, but kudos to McNerney for attempting to distance himself. Really foolish to associate himself with a book without knowing its contents, though.

4:03 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger JLou said...

I've seen the finance director-lying-on-Daily Kos issue come up several times on this blog and I suppose, since it won't go away, I might as well address it. Colin was still living in Chicago and had not been hired by the campaign in any official capacity when he posted the Daily Kos diary. When he claimed he wasn't being paid by the Filson campaign it was, to be sure, disingenuous and misleading, since at the very least there were probably talks under way at that point.

However, the diary was taken down immediately after Colin was hired, which nobody seems to have bothered to take into account. It wasn't put up with any imprimatur of the campaign and didn't stay up for more than a week or two. At best, it was written out of "irrational exuberance." Colin made a mistake in saying he wasn't affiliated with the campaign but it was a mistake that was personal to him and one that was rectified when the diary was deleted. Furthermore, I know Colin personally and, while it may not mean much to anyone in this forum coming from me, I can tell you that he is an upstanding, ethical human being. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to repeatedly use this as evidence that the Filson campaign is ethically bankrupt.

- Janelle (Steve's daughter)

4:45 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

bgibb:

1) Now, I have no doubt you could explain away each of these as merely a criticism of Emanuel, Pelosi, or the Beltway Democrats and not on moderates in general. That seems to be your specialty: disingenuous explanations. It is undeniable that McNerney supporters like yourself have launched an attack on Democrats who hold power, Democrats that are not as far left as McNerney.

Are you kidding me? Pelosi is not as far to the left as McNerney? In what world do you live in? This isn't about being on the left or being in the center. The fact that you want to view everything through an ideological prism (one that I don't recognize since it places McNerney to the left of Nancy Pelosi) says more about you than me. And you can call me "disingenuous" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that not everyone is looking at this through the same warped ideological prism as yourself.

2) There’s no substantive discussion about why you have a problem with them, of course, just merely cheap shots (Emanuel is an old school Chicago boss and the mirror image of Tom DeLay? Wow).

First of all, there has been tons of discussion about what's wrong with the DC Democrats on this blog.

Second of all, how the hell am I supposed to be responsible for what Down With Tyranny writes?

Third of all, if you want to know why Down With Tyranny doesn't like Emanuel, he has ample essays on the topic on his blog.

But the bottom line is that your contention that I haven't discussed substantively why I have a problem with the Democratic Party establishment in DC is laughable on its face.

3) The word “moderate,” I acknowledge, was not used. It does not take a genius to figure out that moderate is implied here, which is symptomatic of the current tendency among left-leaning Democrats to assume that those further to the middle have sold out, that they believe in the principles of the far left but are unwilling to articulate them for fear of losing power.

So notwithstanding the fact that you have no evidence to back up your contention, you feel justified in resting your argument on such a contention? I mean, notwithstanding your completely hand-wavy characterization of what "left-leaning Democrats" think (I know, we're all a borg so we must think alike), what evidence do you offer that I actually think any of the things you think "left-leaning Democrats" think?

Furthermore, your whole argument is beginning to looks suspiciously circular. I know, I can't point this out because I'm being disingenuous. It can't be the case that you're misunderstanding what has been written. No, you must have a bead on us "left-leaning Democrats." So anything we write must obviously imply an attack on moderates, because that's just what "left-leaning Democrats" think.

It must be really nice to be able to divine the secret meaning of what I've written. You're actually pretty lucky. The secret meaning of this comment is actually the lotto numbers for next week. Too bad everyone else will only have access to the plain meaning of the words on the page. Poor sods.

4)Finally, as to Tallitsch’s book, what, pray tell, is the evidence that McNerney was wholly unaware of the book's existence? I haven’t seen any.

Umm, there is no evidence that he knew about the book's existence. I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But there is also the concept of the burden of proof. I don't think that McNerney has to prove that he didn't know about the book's existence when there is no evidence that he did know about the book.

Furthermore, as to proof that McNerney did not know about the book, I can tell you that both McNerney and his staff reacted with complete bafflement when they heard this smear. I know because when I contacted them about this, they were patently confused about what the hell Kellar was talking about. And furthermore, McNerney has said that he didn't know anything about the book, which is pretty credible because the book comports neither to McNerney's style nor his ideology.

This is the central crux of the problem. McNerney never did endorse a book. He was never presented with a request to endorse a book. He was asked, and he apparently did, endorse a platitudinous ten-point statement. That is all.

5) And your analogy to the candy bar is patently ridiculous. When you sign your name to something that will be published in a book (and you will be referenced, not by name granted, as far as I know, in the book) it is incumbent upon you to do a little background research.

Again, what evidence do you have that McNerney knew anything about this being published in a book? Pray tell, what research was he supposed to do when he didn't know anything about this book? You seem to be assuming facts not in evidence, namely that Tallitsch told McNerney that this had anything to do with a book.

6) Or at least to cry foul after you blunder. Ahh, but drawing any attention to it might alienate those who lap up such tripe. I am willing to accept that McNerney made a mistake. But first he must admit it was a mistake. There is no question that Filson would admit he made a mistake were he to eat an LSD candy bar.

No, this is wrong. Filson would not be mistaken to eat an LSD-laced candy bar when he had every reason to believe it was a normal one. That's my point. People cannot be expected to respond to a situation based on facts that they neither know nor are in a position to know. I mean, I'll grant that McNerney ought to have been more careful about putting his name to anything because of the possibility of a situation like this. But in broad strokes he still was justified in doing what he did.

7) Really foolish to associate himself with a book without knowing its contents, though.

Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that McNerney knew that the concept "book" was at all involved in what he was signing. Hell, I could publish this comment thread in a book. I could publish it in a book about how Democrats are secretly alien monsters intent on destroying humankind so that Earth can be colonized by scaly demon-like creatures from the 17th dimension. It doesn't mean any of you assent to those absurd ideas. And if I went around telling people that because you posted in the thread then you must agree with my "aliens from the 17th dimension" theory of Democrats, you'd be right to tell people that it's bullshit.

5:35 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous sogdt said...

And the fact that he is not contrite at all about spreading something that is complete bullshit tells us all about Kellar's character, or lack thereof.

I think Kellar's lack of character, experience and intelligence is becoming more and more evident. This is the guy that is going to head the team that might go up against Pombo? My vote is going to Filson but I sure hope they get themselves a new campaign manager for the general.

What about Pombo and his ethics? Let's start talking about those. McNerney peeps and Filson peeps beating up on each other isn't getting anyone anywhere. (But if everyone here is determined to go that route, I've heard about some pretty unethical stuff on McNerney's end.)

5:47 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

1) Colin was still living in Chicago and had not been hired by the campaign in any official capacity when he posted the Daily Kos diary. When he claimed he wasn't being paid by the Filson campaign it was, to be sure, disingenuous and misleading, since at the very least there were probably talks under way at that point.

We know that Colin was given a check (as an advance on his salary) four days after the diary went up. Furthermore, my personal conversations with Colin have led me to conclude that "at the very least there were probably talks under way" is an under-statement. But you seem to grant that it was disingenuous and out of line.


2) But you do say: However, the diary was taken down immediately after Colin was hired, which nobody seems to have bothered to take into account. It wasn't put up with any imprimatur of the campaign and didn't stay up for more than a week or two. At best, it was written out of "irrational exuberance." Colin made a mistake in saying he wasn't affiliated with the campaign but it was a mistake that was personal to him and one that was rectified when the diary was deleted.

Ok, I'll grant you that what Colin did does not necessarily reflect upon the campaign per se. However, I have seen a lot of stuff that crosses the line since the campaign began. Colin's diary is just part of a larger pattern. Now maybe some of the problems I see rest in a reified "Filson Campaign" as opposed to the person of Steve Filson. By that I mean, it's possible (and indeed it's my hope) that Steve Filson himself did not make decisions that crossed the ethical line even as his campaign did things that did cross that line. Still, as far as I'm concerned, Filson has not taken responsibility for things done in his name by his employees. Clearly, Rob Kellar feels free to start a whisper campaign against McNerney, and he did so without Filson saying "Boo" about it. And Filson has never to my knowledge either privately or publicly acknowledged that the diary by Colin Bishopp was problematic. At some point you have to say that the buck must stop somewhere. At some point the question about whether Filson authorized certain activities pales beside the conclusion that he has a responsibility to set certain boundaries for his campaign staff. And I guess I'd be willing to cut him more slack if I ever got the sense that he understood and appreciated these types of concerns.

5:55 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

What about Pombo and his ethics? Let's start talking about those. McNerney peeps and Filson peeps beating up on each other isn't getting anyone anywhere. (But if everyone here is determined to go that route, I've heard about some pretty unethical stuff on McNerney's end.)

I would prefer if we started talking more about Pombo. I acknowledge that I have not exactly set the groundwork for such a discussion with the last couple of threads. But I think it's a good idea for us to pull back a bit and start re-focusing on Pombo. To that end I'm going to try to limit my responses in the Filson/McNerney threads. I'll try to give you guys the last word. That said, I'm not inclined to ignore personal attacks on my character. But I hope we can reach some sort of detente for the time being.

6:01 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bgibb said...

We’re on different planes here, Matt. If you insist on contending that the attacks against Emanuel and the Democratic Party leadership (focusing primarily on their lack of support for the further left “grassroots” candidates in primaries) is not a jab at moderates, then I’m not sure there’s much we can agree on, besides defeating Pombo. Oh, maybe also that Pelosi is pretty far left. However, it is her “alliance” with Emanuel that draws the scorn and (coincidentally?) is what is then used to prove she has sold out. Here again for you is the quote I reposted:

Look at allies Pelosi and Emanuel. He generally votes in a pro-corporate right-of-center (among Democrats) way. She's much more progressive. But their actual votes mean little to either.

Her votes mean little to her. So despite the fact that she votes progressively, we can apparently delve into her mind and determine that she does not care about these votes. Why? Might it be that she compromises with those who do not share precisely her political views?

In response to your other points:

2) You of course are not responsible for what other people write—you, though, were the one who insisted that there was no anti-moderate vitriol in the Emanuel thread, which is why I posted the Emanuel Chicago boss quote.

Also, I frankly have not seen a whole lot of substantive discussion outside of your criticisms of who the Democratic party establishment supports and who they judge electable—a fine point, I suppose, certainly one worth exploring, but not one having to do with actual issues.

3) That’s why I said “implied.” Feel free to visit my sixth grade class sometime, because we work on making inferences from text all the time. It’s a fairly basic skill. And this one was not difficult.

I don’t think far left people all think alike, however generalizations are often necessary—I don’t have the time to list the nuances of every person’s position, so I pick out some common threads.

4) Ahhh, perceived bafflement, the best type of “proof.” I still want to know why you think it’s normal for candidates to go around endorsing bland statements by fellow candidates around the country without looking at all into the individual’s agenda.

5) It is possible that McNerney knew nothing about the forthcoming book when he agreed to sign Tallitsch’s statement. Commonsense would say otherwise—in fact, if that is true, then McNerney has an incredible beef with Tallitsch that should be settled in a darkened alley. From the e-mail quoted in the Contra Costa Times that was sent to Filson, one might predict that McNerney desired the publicity Tallitsch guaranteed. But perhaps not. You’re right, I don’t know.

6) Perhaps we have different definitions of mistake. I think if someone does something that they “ought to have been more careful about” and it backfires, they made a mistake.

7) Sure, you could publish the thread, but nowhere would it appear that I was endorsing your alien views. That is the polar opposite of Tallitsch’s book, in which McNerney is listed early on as a signatory and later Tallitsch promises that all signatories pledge to act on his points once in congress. That would not be the case with me and your alien hypothesis.

6:31 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bubba said...

i just read up on this and i must say that there is no proof that mcnerney endorsed the book, only that he was a signatory to a 10-point collection of progressive platitudes --- platitudes that even steve filson would agree with.

so when bgibb said...

That is the polar opposite of Tallitsch’s book, in which McNerney is listed early on as a signatory and later Tallitsch promises that all signatories pledge to act on his points once in congress.

... that's exactly right. they intend to act on his PLATITUDES --- tenets many democrats would share.

after all, who would disagree with the "War should be a last resort" platitude, etc?

there is NO CONNECTION between these 10 platitudes and the objectionable ideas that tallitsch holds.

i'm sure david duke agrees with george w. bush on 10 conservative platititudes. does that mean george w. bush supports david duke's racism?

of course not.

this smear campaign is beneath filson supporters (or so I thought). i hope they stop it.

8:21 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heh.

From reading this thread it appears very little is beneath Filson supporters. This entire line of commentary reads like "We just figured out that everybody in DC read the Roll Call articl and realized that we're sucking wind in this race. We better do whatever we can to screw McNerney." I guess Matt qualifies for the full treatment because he doesn't genuflect for Stevie-boy.

8:52 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous sogdt said...

this smear campaign is beneath filson supporters (or so I thought). i hope they stop it.

Wait -- How is this now a "smear campaign" on the part of Filson supporters? As far as I know it is only the Filson campaign manager that has had any part of it. It's not the Filson supporters spreading this shit around.

9:02 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

Wait -- How is this now a "smear campaign" on the part of Filson supporters? As far as I know it is only the Filson campaign manager that has had any part of it. It's not the Filson supporters spreading this shit around.


So are you conceding that the pro-Filson voices on this blog who have been pushing this story are pseudonyms for Rob Kellar or are you just not taking them into account? I don't mean to be snarky, but I think that some of the impetus behind talking about "the Filson supporters" comes from the multiple voices on this blog who've been pimping this story. But outside the context of this blog, I guess you're right that there's no evidence that anyone but Kellar has been pushing this.

9:11 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger JLou said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:17 PM, May 07, 2006  
Blogger JLou said...

"Heh.

From reading this thread it appears very little is beneath Filson supporters. This entire line of commentary reads like "We just figured out that everybody in DC read the Roll Call articl and realized that we're sucking wind in this race. We better do whatever we can to screw McNerney." I guess Matt qualifies for the full treatment because he doesn't genuflect for Stevie-boy."

I'm starting to think (or hope) that comments like that -- gratuitously insulting non-sequiturs -- are left by bored Pombo staffers trying to generate ill-will for their own amusement.

- Janelle

9:31 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For an objective take on this flap, read Lisa V's article in today's Contra Costa Times:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/14522678.htm

Here's a tidbit:

"But McNerney says he never read, endorsed or even knew about the book.

What he did do -- this is where the dumb part comes in -- is endorse via e-mail Tallitsch's seemingly innocuous 10-point pledge. He did it months ago, he says, before he hired a campaign manager who would have stopped him."

Seriously. Does this sound like a guy who should be a Congressman?

10:10 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The link:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/
mld/cctimes/email/news/14522678.htm

10:12 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recalled Filson equating Pombo supporters to rednecks and I googled "redneck" on SNTP and it brought me to the posting of the South County Democratic Club. What was the dumbest thing wasn't the comment (in poor taste) but the posting of an audio file for all to hear on his site. Not smart. So Rick/Anon get back to the race at hand so someone here can defeat the real enemy... POMBO.

http://saynotopombo.blogspot.com/2006/02/steve-filson-speaks.html

10:54 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read Lisa V's article. She said "In an April e-mail to Filson, the Louisiana candidate says his book could help send them both to Washington. "I want to go to Congress and I want you to go to Congress, too, Steve," he wrote."

So I guess the news here is that this Tallitsch character is endorsing Filson for Congress. Sounds pretty damning to me.

11:21 PM, May 07, 2006  
Anonymous bgibb said...

Bubba, come on, man, you must be smarter than that: G.W. wouldn’t sign on to a platform written by David Duke no matter how innocuous it was. And if he did, you all (and me) would be up in arms about it. Somehow I doubt that the similar explanation that you have provided for McNerney would fly with you—I know it wouldn’t with me.

Why is it that this is continually referred to as a smear? It isn’t exactly akin to LBJ’s accusations against his pig farming opponent. McNerney’s name is right there in the book for everyone to see. What world do you live in? You really don’t think we deserve an explanation for that? Even if the explanation is faultless, even if it becomes one hundred percent clear that McNerney was merely duped, we at least should hear that. If you associate yourself, even if just through carelessness, with someone who spouts repellent views, you should be required to then address that association. I don’t understand how Keller has become your whipping boy here, other than the fact that he is employed by Steve Filson.

6:10 AM, May 08, 2006  
Anonymous Rocky Balboa said...

Yo all youse morons,

Rocky here. I jist finished an entire cup of Joe while reading dis here commentary, and I gotta say: Lighten up! What are you a bunch of Repugnicans?

And to duh buttwipe who said I'm a McNerney supporter - you're wrong. I ain't never said nuttin like that. All I said wuz that the ButtaWipeO who calls himself "Rickey" ought to say sumtin nice about Jerry cuz all he ever does is hurl shit at duh two guys doing duh most to take Pombo down: McNerney and McClosky. And I said dese tings because if Pretty Boy Steve wins, he's gonna need everyone of dese guys to help him win in November. In udder woids, it's in his best self-interest.

But no - Rickey ButtawipeO is too friggin dumb to realize dis basic truth - instead he becomes a peeping Rick and takes my pic and puts it up on dis here blog so everyone can see I ain't in the same shape I wuz when I punched out Apollo Creed's lights. Dirty tricks with McNerney; dirty tricks with me; dirty tricks=dirty ricks=dirty pricks is duh way I see it. If you Filson guys really wanna win, you'd shit can dis jagoff as he has come to symbolize yer campaign whether you realize it or not.

Fact is, I'm a loyal Dem who found dis here "blog" and I ain't decided yet who to vote for. But dis nonsense from all youse, esp Rickey, is gonna make me vote for Steve Thomas. Paulie too - he said Rickey is a pompous ass, and I said no, its jist his underwear is in a bind, and well nevermind.

Now I ain't got no ideas how I ended up in the "inner circle" of this blog as one of you other morons said - all I did was find dis here site, thought it looked interesting, and ocassionally made a few posts over the last two weeks (usually while Adrian went off somewhere). The only guy I thought I might know was Vinnie P. Ollavechio (VPO), but it toined out not to be him. Jeez - if that puts me in the inner circle, OK. But Rocky want to be in the WINNER'S CIRCLE. Where he belong - heh heh! Rickey on duh other hand is in duh LOSER'S CIRCLE, wid Apollo Creed. Cuz he ain't yet showed ANY class, either on dis here blog or in real life. We can disagree on many points as loyal Dems, but on the point that Rickey is a LOSER it seems like even Filson's people are agreeing. Dat's good - dat tells me dere's hope for Filson.

Like I said - youse guys all need to lighten up. And like I said many times, I tink the sexual charges against Pretty Boy ought to come down - cuz it ain't right. Duz dat make me a Filson supporter? No. It make Rocky fair-minded.

Rocky Out - I'm gonna give Steve Thomas a $1.00, cuz I'm feeling generous today. I dunno how you expect dese guys to do much wid $.02 or even .04 - a campaign takes money.

And remember Rocky is in duh "WINNER'S CIRCLE!"

9:46 AM, May 08, 2006  
Blogger Matt said...

Why is it that this is continually referred to as a smear? It isn’t exactly akin to LBJ’s accusations against his pig farming opponent. McNerney’s name is right there in the book for everyone to see. What world do you live in? You really don’t think we deserve an explanation for that? Even if the explanation is faultless, even if it becomes one hundred percent clear that McNerney was merely duped, we at least should hear that. If you associate yourself, even if just through carelessness, with someone who spouts repellent views, you should be required to then address that association. I don’t understand how Keller has become your whipping boy here, other than the fact that he is employed by Steve Filson.

The reason that it was called, and was in fact, a smear is because Kellar didn't just point out that McNerney was apparently associated with this guy Tallitsch and ask for an explanation, Kellar also asserted that McNerney endorsed the repellent views of the Tallitsch book.

I mean think about it this way. Kellar had no evidence that McNerney really was associated with the book despite McNerney's name appearing in the PDF of the manuscript (let's remember that the book hasn't even been published yet). I could write anything and put it on the internet claiming any number of people supported what I wrote. It doesn't mean that they did.

And it's not like we have any independent reason to think Tallitsch is especially credible. In fact, his screed gives us reason to doubt that he's the most careful and responsible writer.

So the charge doesn't even work on a prima facie level for anyone interested in responsibly discussing this issue.

Furthermore, any such investigation in this case would have revealed that McNerney did not sign up to be associated with any book and importantly, that McNerney does not agree with the substance of the book. So the whole kerfuffle would have collapsed into "I read something about Jerry McNerney on the internet that turned out not be true."

1:39 PM, May 08, 2006  
Anonymous Rocky Balboa said...

Yo Mr Gibb,

Rocky here. Here's what you said about me:

"People such as Rocky have wheedled into the closed inner-circle of this blog despite, or perhaps because of, their willingness to post acerbic blather."

Now OK - I admit I had to look up a few of dose woids, especially acerbic. I thought it meant Vitamin C, but no, Adrian sez it means "caustic." So if I get the meaning of dis, yer saying "post caustic lather" which translates to "after I soap up" which means "rinse." So I "wheedled my way ino some friggin inner circle cuz I rinse?"

Whaddya a moron or sumtin? Dis don't make no friggin sense! And why the hell don't you speak in friggin English, fer Chrissake? You and yer buddy dere, Ricky ButtaWipeO, are two peas in a pod.

Plus, I ain't hoid nuttin from that Rickey ButtaWipeO guy since the big city newspaper endorsed McNerney. Yo ButtaWipeO! You out dere? Now would be a classy time to say a few kinds woids about McNerney and change the tone here. You got it in you as a man, or are you the useless toid I tink you are?

Your man Pretty Boy been wronged by leaving dat post up - I'm saying dat cuz I'm a man and stand up fer what's right. Dat's why people respect Rocky. That's why he in duh Inner Circle now, and why when he was in better shape, he wuz in the Winner's Circle. Now how about you and Gibby Boy showing a little respect? You don't have to be a buttwipe all your life. Believe me, I was a useless punk at one time too, but I'm a winner and a inner dese days!

And one final ting Gibby Boy - I'm not sure you intended dat comment to me wid respect. You better be careful. I'm gonna pay more attention to what you write.

Rocky Out

6:14 PM, May 08, 2006  
Anonymous Rick said...

SCORE! Yessss....

This Stacey Tallitsch book endorsement flap has hit the broadsheets. The money excerpt:

"What he did do -- this is where the dumb part comes in -- is endorse via e-mail Tallitsch's seemingly innocuous 10-point pledge. He did it months ago, he says, before he hired a campaign manager who would have stopped him."

DOOOHHHHH!!!

Let me just say this: If I was Robert Kellar, I would have identified myself as the source of this tidbit. Think Bob Mulholland exposing Bruce Hershenson during the 1992 U.S. Senate race for frequenting strip bars.

I sense a change in the winds...

9:20 PM, May 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. 2% of a buck again (and nice try, Rick, er, Robert Kellar)

1) The next sentences in that "hot, hot, hot" story are:

"They were inoffensive pledges, such as "War is a last option, not a first choice," and "Healthcare for Americans, not just Iraqis."

As it turned out, they were chapter titles to the book.

McNerney campaign chief A.J. Carrillo blasted his counterpart for planting these scurrilous rumors in the ear of a leading San Joaquin Valley Democratic activist.

"It was a desperate act," Carrillo says. "He even told Stella not to tell anyone that it came from him."


2) Even the Filson crowd (e.g., Kellar) knew that they were doomed to fail at this smear attempt:

"Candidate Jerry McNerney's guy says candidate Steve Filson's guy waged a sleazy attack in an effort to derail a California Democratic Party endorsement at last weekend's convention. (McNerney prevailed.)"

3) The correct way to post a hyperlink, dear Rick, er, Kellar, is this way, you FM!

4) In the future, know what Michael Jordan used to say to those who tempted to knock him off his perch...

It's NOT boasting...IF you can back it up. (Which you, Kellar, apparently CAN'T.)

Scooooooooooooooore! (As they say in Brazil.)

$.02 out.

10:17 PM, May 08, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home