I can't help but wonder when the CJ will actually someday get back to being a reputable paper. With the latest article by Joe Gerth it appears not anytime soon. Take this for example: Gerth : Clarence Yancey a political throwback to earlier days The Courier-Journal courier-journal.com.
Joe Gerth apparently decided to do a fluff piece on longtime Democratic hack Clarence Yancey for getting the Crimmins award on behalf of the Democratic Party who apparently have no trouble rewarding felons.
You see Dear readers I did an article yesterday laughing at the appointments by Jim King to redraw the old County Commission districts and Yancey was one of them. Of course since Joe Gerth decided to such a fluff piece without allowing all the facts of Yancey's troubled career in Democratic politics I feel obligated to out a bit of it.
To continue down the path of rewarding illegal folks for working illegally on behalf of the party is well getting real old real quick. From convicted felon John Flood being in charge of the IPL division of Planning and Zoning, until forced to retire, to now Clarence Yancey being rewarded with BS for being a Democratic hack.
We can no longer stomach this type of attitude from the elected leaders of any party period.
As I outlined previously Yancey is a Democratic insider who has been rumored to be, and in my opinion there is some fact to these rumors, to be one of those who receive cash from candidates and then spread that cash around to buy votes.
Folks that is not Democracy.
Yancey openly bragged about his dealings in 2008 in an interview by election journal stating: "9 out of 10 people will vote the way I tell them to. Street Politics – “Kentucky Style” Election Journal An interesting statement to say the least. Additionally, according to the Election Journal:
If candidates are looking to pay workers on election day, then they come to Clarence. A big election like this primary typically runs for about $100 per person. With 500 people working for Clarence this election, our math says $50,000 deployed in the 43rd.
You can bet Clarence made out like a bandit. So how did he get the appointment from the Council? Perhaps because of his donation to Katie King last year. Time will tell. Of course Michael Mercer and Rebecca Lamb contribute to the King's as well. But that is a story on another day.
I would also like to ask Governor Steve Beshear how he justified appointing Yancey to the Kentucky State Board of Auctioneers considering that this appointment seems to go against KRS 330 the Kentucky Auctioneer Law.
Yep good ole boy politics and as usual concerning highly questionable individuals such as Clarence Yancey and previously Councilwoman MaDonna Flood husband John.
Trust me there is plenty more to come but it is time to rid ourselves of this thuggery machine in the Democratic Party here in Louisville.......
Sunday, May 15, 2011
3 comments:
Thank you for reading LNP. Open and honest discussions of local politics and relevant issues is important to voter understanding. Please listen to the "Ed Springston Show". We broadcast Monday through Thursday evenings at 7 PM on local media outlets. Please check for the links.
Yours truly,
Ed Springston
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
You read that right. Welcome to today's liberal utopia where anarchy reigns supreme. There has been an orchestrated, well funded, well o...
-
Rick Redding over at thevillevoice has been following the Southern Belles occassionally this season and posted his last (according to him) p... -
Constable David Whitlock shoots unarmed woman Jefferson County Constable David Whitlock shot an alleged shoplifter at Wal Mart in River...
So how can you say "who has been rumored to be, and in my opinion there is some fact to these rumors"? Your opinion isn't fact, regardless of how much you wish it to be. Keep in mind that just because you say "in my opinion", it doesn't preclude you from being guilty of libel- unless of course you have the facts to back it up. So until you actually have facts in hand, please reconsider how you write something.
ReplyDeleteWOW! What a comment from ANON.
ReplyDeleteCritisizing you for not using "facts" to back up what you say by using the VERY SAME RHETORIC POSITION ("... it doesn't preclude you from being guilty of libel- unless of course you have the facts to back it up.")
What a smuck! A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
BTW, where is ol' Mr. Anon's "facts" to back up what he asserts?
Smuck!
Apparently "A long-time reader" needs to learn to actually read.
ReplyDeleteIf he could, he would notice that in no way did I challenge what was written as accurate or inaccurate.
Mr. Springston clearly states that he heard Yancy "has been rumored to be, and IN MY OPINION there is some FACT to these RUMORS."
My issue is that too often, people write rumor and opinion as fact, and misrepresenting facts opens any reporter to slander/libel. That is a simple fact of law, not a rhetoric position.
Again, I'm not defending or questioning the subject of the article, only how the article was written.
When Mr. Springston injected that it was HIS OPINION that rumors were true doesn't make it actually true. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. If Mr. Springston has facts, then he needs to cite the source like any other person would be required to.
My request was that Mr. Springston take better care of what and how he writes, and I even said please.
Also, "A long-time reader" and his classless remark of calling me a "smuck" is disgusting at best, and is being used as a distraction to move the discussion from the actual comment...most likely because he cannot refute or defend his own position. (now that is MY OPINION, notice how I didn't actually say it was a FACT or TRUE- THAT is the difference)