Move along, folks, nothing to see here
Today The Oregonian lives up to its title as official publication of the Portland old boy network. They run a front-page story to play catch-up on the Salem Statesman-Journal's excellent series on the undue influence ex-Gov. Neil Goldschmidt and his business associates and clients have had on present Gov. Ted Kulongoski and his staff. The Oregonian, though, decides the story is about Golsdchmidt's partner, Tom Imeson, rather than the disgraced ex-governor himself. And when the reader turns to the "jump," The O plays its own spin for almost the whole page: no one's proven that any laws or ethics rules were broken.
So everything must be o.k. "A longtime professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University in New Jersey" says so. It's just the usual mix of politics and business. The governor can still be objective.
They go on to admit that, well, Ted did appoint Goldschmidt partner Imeson to the Port of Portland knowing full well that Imeson's clients include Bechtel, which has lots of business before the Port. But hey, it's all legal, so don't worry, folks, Ted's doing fine.
And if you believe that one, they've got another one for you: They're "the Great Newspaper of the West."
| Posted at 9:12 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (9)
Adding to the cheesiness, Kulongoski's insisting that the Salem paper pay the state more than $2,000 to process its public records request in connection with its Goldschmidt story. The cheapskate -- it's not as though he has to pay The O for the free p.r.
Posted by Jack Bogdanski | January 14, 2005 9:21 AM
Have you noticed how the Oregonian has been picking up the baton every time Nigel Jaquiss breaks another muckraker in willy week?
Posted by Dave Lister | January 14, 2005 9:32 AM
The Big O failed to mention that Neil G's wife, Diana, is also a PacifiCorp person.
Posted by pankleb | January 14, 2005 10:31 AM
I wonder who gets to play the part of Raymond Burr where one the mere witnesses is cajoled into confessing. It won't be Hardy Myers . . . this much is certain.
Posted by Ron Ledbury | January 14, 2005 4:15 PM
Though the number of crimes and the order of magnitude may be different, does The Oregonian treat Goldschmidt any differently than it does others of its chosen, sanctioned ruling government class -- for example, Erik Sten, from the time he was up & coming (which the paper actively helped preserve)? Even when they sanctioned Diane Linn, it carried a tone of pupil to principal's office, a regretfully and marginally duty-bound principal. I suggest the paper's reasons and motivations are essentially identical, in those and other cases. Which I expect they feel to be their right and duty, and I find a journalistic abomination.
Posted by Sally | January 14, 2005 5:56 PM
Get over yourself Jack. How in the hell do you think lobbyists make their money if it isn't through connections and knowing people? Now that the full DOJ report has come out on Diana Goldschmidt, are you finally going to admit that you were wrong and that she didn't know anything? You and all your cronies are conspiracy theorists. What incentive would she have to participate in that vote when it was unanimous and would have passed without her UNLESS she didn't know?
Posted by John | January 21, 2005 2:36 PM
are you finally going to admit that you were wrong and that she didn't know anything? You and all your cronies are conspiracy theorists.
As Party Hardy has announced, nobody's proved that she did. And you know what? Nobody's proved that she didn't. I guess no one will be indicted, but I'm not sure the court of public opinion has ruled yet. Not everyone will buy the "miraculous mystery" story.
And as for me and my "cronies," that's pretty rich. A Goldschmidt boy calling someone else a "crony." You should apply for a position in the Bush cabinet, or maybe Fox News.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 22, 2005 1:59 AM
Wrong again Jack. In fact, if you had bothered to actually READ the DOJ report you would see that it clearly proves that Diana Goldschmidt didn't know. They've interviewed 23 people and tracked every email and phone call between Neil, Diana and all the other involved TPG parties. Conclusion: Diana Goldschimdt told the truth when she orginally explained the timeline of events. I notice you didn't bother to address my final question.
Posted by John | January 22, 2005 12:01 PM
Sorry, "John," they say they found no evidence. That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen; it means it can't be proven. And even if there's no illegality, there may be plenty of good old wrongdoing. I wouldn't trust Mr. Goldschmidt as far as I could throw him. And having his old chum Hardy (or Ted K.) tell me he's done nothing illegal just doesn't impress me.
As for this couple's motivations in doing what they do, I'll admit, I have no clue.
Finally, if you're going to leave snotty comments, how about a real e-mail address to go with them?
Posted by Jack Bog | January 22, 2005 1:41 PM