In the course of praising Democratic CD3 candidate Tessa Hafen at Saturday's party unity rally in Las Vegas, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said, "Her personal life is impeccable, her opponent's is not." Asked afterward by a lowly blogger (but not, apparently, by the local grown-up press) to elaborate on just what it is about GOP Rep. Jon Porter's personal life that Reid views as less than impeccable, Reid refused. If we were a Republican, then in addition to having a very long beard due to an inability to look into the mirror to shave, we'd suggest Harry should put up or shut up. But we're not a Republican, so instead we'll idly speculate as to what Harry thinks he's talking about. Hafen's opponent, Jon Porter, is reportedly separated from his second wife, and he divorced his first during the Reagan administration. But if divorce and /or separation was a disqualifier for Republicans, there would have been no Reagan administration. Nor Gingrich's Contract on America, for that matter. Beltway newspaper investigators have of course confirmed that Porter's band has groupies. But that's pretty much the point of being in a band. Pretty much the point of being a congressman, too, for that matter. Oh well, here's hoping the race gets really, really icky. Because if there's one thing this town needs, its a political scandal involving less than "impeccable" behavior.
Porter, who may or may not turn out to be the Election '06 answer to Gene Simmons in his prime, isn't allowed to talk to the press. Instead, those duties fall to Porter's trainer, Darth Slanker. "She's a joke," Slanker says of Hafen (LVRJ). Nice to see the Porter campaign's women voter outreach program is in full swing.
After -- and only after -- Ralston reported it in his newsletter, Squirmin' Sherman Frederick directs his paper to publish a little item (with no byline) disclosing that the Stephens family, which owns Sherm's newspaper, is bankrolling the Club for Growth and, ergo, Sharron Angle's never-say-die congressional campaign. And in his Sunday column, after doing all in his (considerable) power to assure that no one reads through to the end of the piece, Sherm grudgingly tucks in a correction to his earlier completely wrong assertion that the Sun never reported that Ralston got popped for drunk driving. All of this is on the heels of a (thankfully) rare Friday column from Sherm, which included the aforementioned Ralston-related error but was mostly devoted to unloading on the Sun for not disclosing the Greenspun contributions to the anti-TASC campaign. Oh, and Brian Greenspun weighed in, too. Not clear how much, if any, of this actually matters -- newspaper owners are just the same as any other industrialist profiteer, which is to say their primary mission is the bottom line, so neither the Stephens nor Greenspun families are to believed or trusted, and Gleaner readers, being judicious and all, already know that. But we would like to point out, just in case it is lost on anyone, exactly what has happened here: Ralston delivered Frederick a first rate ass-kicking and Sherm cried "uncle."
Meantime, Scandalmonger gets exclusive glimpse of R-J's new banner.
VGO also has the photographic record demonstrating how nothing can boost turnout at a political event like a news story saying there will be no turnout at a political event.
Exclusive coverage of the Gibbons-Titus debate. Nevada Today
Comments
Actually Hugh if you were a Republican, you'ld use your next big-media appearance on Catatonic State in Nevada to mention the "controversy surrounding Congressman Porter's private life, that he still has not come clean on" and wonder "if it will be an issue for him in the race" that his campaign handlers "apparently won't let him speak about it publicly."
Boy, the Sun's Brian Greenspun sure can write a fun column, that is when he's not being obtuse with his predictable, tedious, and so-what musings about Israel.
As for Sherm, he again got tangled in his own absent-minded hubris, and once again, embarrasses himself, with every column he writes.
Sherm, why no mention in your mea copla column item at the bottom, re. Ralston's arrest, about Stephens' contributions to the Club for Growth and Angle campaign? You had another chance to do the "ethical" thing you're proud of the R-J doing, and well within the two-week drop-dead deadline you pledged not to violate.
Both papers are ethically challenged -- the Sun has made itself famous for pro-Greenspun interest/friend, anti-Greenspun interest/friend stories for years -- but this time Sherm went out on a very, very long limb and embarrassed his newspaper big time, not only on Club for Growth, but the tiny Ralston flap (the subject of his inaccurate, self-righteous rant coming from something he read about a publisher in Santa Barbara).
As has been known for years and years now, the Stephens Media people tolerate Frederick's inane behavior and keep him in there as publisher because he's dumber than they are. Easier to control, don't you know.
Damn, this is what we get here in newspaper-poor Vegas, a couple of spolied rich publishers engaging in petty tirades. Does this kind of thing happen with any other newspapers in the country?
Why don't they just blog or e-mail each other and save valuable print space for real things to write about? Probably because they truly don't have anything to write about beyond the childish.
But, I have to admit, it's fun reading -- for the unintended comedy.
I finally agree with the Shermanator. I think it would be redundant to disclose Stephans/Angle/Review Journal/Club For Growth/TASC or (SARJ CuFoGRoTASC). Anyone who reads the R-J or its loony editorials knows or should have known that is one whacky, biased bunch. To disclose they choose to give millions of U.S. dollars to fund another whacky political group while enjoying a sales tax exemption on not only newspapers but all the components of newspaper (paper, ink, machines, loony editorials, etc.) while still assailing any attempt to properly fund government’s necessary missions, would be verbose and redundant (like this sentence!) It would be like having a warning about nudity on the cover of Playboy. I really believe it would not matter if the local T.V. news didn’t just read the R.J. on the air. I am going to continue to get my news where I know there may be some truth: gossip. And if I want some insightful and thoughtful commentary about the issues of the day that may inspire positive change, I will continue to go where I can count on something real: MySpace.
Actually Hugh if you were a Republican, you'ld use your next big-media appearance on Catatonic State in Nevada to mention the "controversy surrounding Congressman Porter's private life, that he still has not come clean on" and wonder "if it will be an issue for him in the race" that his campaign handlers "apparently won't let him speak about it publicly."
Posted by: Not Bob | 08/28/2006 at 09:27 AM
Boy, the Sun's Brian Greenspun sure can write a fun column, that is when he's not being obtuse with his predictable, tedious, and so-what musings about Israel.
As for Sherm, he again got tangled in his own absent-minded hubris, and once again, embarrasses himself, with every column he writes.
Sherm, why no mention in your mea copla column item at the bottom, re. Ralston's arrest, about Stephens' contributions to the Club for Growth and Angle campaign? You had another chance to do the "ethical" thing you're proud of the R-J doing, and well within the two-week drop-dead deadline you pledged not to violate.
Both papers are ethically challenged -- the Sun has made itself famous for pro-Greenspun interest/friend, anti-Greenspun interest/friend stories for years -- but this time Sherm went out on a very, very long limb and embarrassed his newspaper big time, not only on Club for Growth, but the tiny Ralston flap (the subject of his inaccurate, self-righteous rant coming from something he read about a publisher in Santa Barbara).
As has been known for years and years now, the Stephens Media people tolerate Frederick's inane behavior and keep him in there as publisher because he's dumber than they are. Easier to control, don't you know.
Damn, this is what we get here in newspaper-poor Vegas, a couple of spolied rich publishers engaging in petty tirades. Does this kind of thing happen with any other newspapers in the country?
Why don't they just blog or e-mail each other and save valuable print space for real things to write about? Probably because they truly don't have anything to write about beyond the childish.
But, I have to admit, it's fun reading -- for the unintended comedy.
Posted by: Macana | 08/28/2006 at 01:02 PM
I finally agree with the Shermanator. I think it would be redundant to disclose Stephans/Angle/Review Journal/Club For Growth/TASC or (SARJ CuFoGRoTASC). Anyone who reads the R-J or its loony editorials knows or should have known that is one whacky, biased bunch. To disclose they choose to give millions of U.S. dollars to fund another whacky political group while enjoying a sales tax exemption on not only newspapers but all the components of newspaper (paper, ink, machines, loony editorials, etc.) while still assailing any attempt to properly fund government’s necessary missions, would be verbose and redundant (like this sentence!) It would be like having a warning about nudity on the cover of Playboy. I really believe it would not matter if the local T.V. news didn’t just read the R.J. on the air. I am going to continue to get my news where I know there may be some truth: gossip. And if I want some insightful and thoughtful commentary about the issues of the day that may inspire positive change, I will continue to go where I can count on something real: MySpace.
Posted by: Goldy | 08/28/2006 at 02:14 PM