This was week two for "Drinking Liberally" at their new digs upstairs at Madison's Bar and Grill. They sport enough brews on tap to please most PDX armchair politicians and the service was top notch.
<<
A Merkley staffer close to the campaign was asked, "Will Merkley ever debate Novick?" And the reply?
"Um, yeah. They'll be having a joint appearance this weekend."
Ok, so this isn't breaking news. It seems whenever the Merkley Machine is asked (or even the man himself), the response is to point to (even accidental) "joint appearances." Is this a winning strategy or just politicians as usual? I'd say "You decide," but it appears the Party in DC has already chosen for us.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Drinking Liberally
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
There are very few "debates" in politics anymore. Even most of the "debates" in the presidential race are mostly joint appearances, or joint press conferences -- candidates answering questions in parallel, but not engaging each other.
I don't like it much myself, as I'd like to see more combative engagement. Then again, I also agree with the debate critics - like Mark Hatfield - who note that successful civic leadership very rarely draws on successful debate skills (quick wit, facile tongue, incisive or biting commentary).
So, let's put ourselves in fantasy camp here, Thom: What sort of debate format do you think would be most effective at drawing out information and insight about which man would make a better Senator?
Is it a Lincoln-Douglas debate, with no time limits and no moderator, just head-to-head argument and debate?
Is it a Hatfield-style debate, in which each candidate gets four hours to prepare a one-hour presentation on a complex and difficult policy challenge?
Or is it the typical media-centered affair, with a moderator or panel of moderators that ask the typical hot-button questions, get headline answers, and zero depth?
A "joint appearance"? Are Merk;ley and Novick going to join NORML?
Kari,
my fantasy is a political process that's not rigged by the Party and the media (including Mandate).
Now, would you mind printing a retraction over at Blue0 where you accused my of using the "N-word"?
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Kari, that's the type of obfuscation i'd expect from a professional political spinner.
Your "answer" (however weak) for why you would try to give your readers the impression that i used the word "nigger" ought to be in the form of a retraction on Blue0 ("the biggest blog in Oregon" according to you), as opposed to buried on this little labor of love.
Anything else would be dishonest...
The "Merkley staffer" in question is me--and the answer posted here was in response to being asked if they would appear together. When asked if they would debate, my answer was that it was my understanding that the campaigns had been in discussions about it.
Thom: in the future if you are going to characterize something I said, please be more careful in quoting me. And from now on, I'll consider every conversation we have, even at Drinking Liberally (which has historically been a place where liberals could come together--unfortunately "Thom" seems to think otherwise).
oops..forgot the last part of that sentence:
And from now on, I'll consider every conversation we have, even at Drinking Liberally (which has historically been a place where liberals could come together--unfortunately "Thom" seems to think otherwise) on the record.
I'll consider every conversation we have on the record.
Why? Do you tell a different truth when you're not speaking on the record?
be more careful in quoting me
For the record, you didn't need to wrack your brain trying to remember what you actually said. I posted the exact quote.
[Looks like you have the same problem your boss has remembering what he actually said...]
Listen, "Carla." When i quoted you as the unnamed staffer, i didn't think i was betraying any confidences. To do otherwise would be more the style of your "friend" at Mandate.
Except for your temper online (and your failure to adequately disclose your paid relationship with Senate candidate, Jeff Merkley), you've come across as a nice person. Now's no time to blow it. If you're going to be snooty, at least be accurate.
[Disclaimer: Carla Axtman jumped camps from Novick to Merkley after the latter hired her as his "Netroots Organizer."]
Why? Do you tell a different truth when you're not speaking on the record?
Do you?
Anyone who writes journalistic pieces and does sourcing knows that some conversations are for attribution in writing and some are not. DL has consistently been a place for liberals to come together, relax and have fun with each other. Clearly you insist that all conversations are for attribution. We both should keep that in mind.
[Looks like you have the same problem your boss has remembering what he actually said...]
Listen, "Carla." When i quoted you as the unnamed staffer, i didn't think i was betraying any confidences. To do otherwise would be more the style of your "friend" at Mandate
Then I guess you should have asked, eh? Especially since you mischaracterized the conversation and didn't bother to talk to me about whether or not it was for attribution.
If you're going to take on the responsiblity of blogging people's words, the least you can do is make a good faith effort to get them correct.
Except for your temper online (and your failure to adequately disclose your paid relationship with Senate candidate, Jeff Merkley), you've come across as a nice person. Now's no time to blow it. If you're going to be snooty, at least be accurate.
I'm a very nice person. I happen to get my back up when people don't quote me accurately. It's worse when they do it within the context of a social event among friends. If that comes across as "snooty" or as having a "temper", then so be it. I find your irresponsibility in this matter to be over the line.
And you don't have to "disclaim" for me. I've spoken at length about why I decided to go to work for Jeff Merkley instead of Steve Novick, who both offered me a job.
i didn't think i was betraying any confidences. To do otherwise would be more the style of your "friend" at Mandate.
Now I'm really baffled. Exactly what "confidence" have I betrayed?
I happen to get my back up when people don't quote me accurately.
The first time you claimed this, i pointed out you were mistake as these were exact quotes. This time around, you're just plain lying.
Did Speaker Merkley hire you to be fast and unfriendly with the truth online? Wait... don't answer that. I won't be able to believe you anyway anymore. Sad.
Post a Comment