Posted by Below is follow-up to the post, “Planned Troy King Press Conference Now Off,” that I would have included there if I had been able to follow up in time with a source for clarification and for explicit permission to use some comments.
A source close to King, in adamantly denying the allegations about King in rumors that are circulating, called the rumors “atrocious” and “as bad a smear attempt as Windom faced in 1998.” (Steve Windom was a Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. in 1998 when he was confronted with accusations that he assaulted and raped a prostitute. The accusations where shown to be false, and Windom won the election.)
Why would King not address the rumors publicly?
“Listen, people accuse Troy King of being so political, but the first and only consideration he has had in all this has been for his wife and kids. He could have been ahead of it and addressed it on Tuesday [of last week]. He could have been pro-active and had a press conference on Wednesday. But he kept saying no, he didn’t want his child to go to school and be confronted with these lies, including having other children call daddy names.”
The source believes the story is on the wane and does not believe it will have another news cycle. “It peaked when the story hit on DailyKos. I knew it might get wider, but it wouldn’t get bigger after that.”
We may know soon enough if that represents wishful thinking.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Sorry for all the “certainly’s”!
Mr. Certainly and the rest of the dems and gay lobby.,
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
We all understand that you hate Troy King. You hate him so much that all of your waking hours are spent trying to further a rumor your ilk hatched in an attempt to destroy him. The bad news for you is that you gave it your best shot and you failed. You did not get one single legitimate source to take your bait. No one purchased the big lie.
You can repeat it as often as you want, it’s not true and Alabamians aren’t believing it. They may be curious the first time they hear it, but when they look around and see that no legitimate sources found it credible, they see it for what it is, a gutter-politics smear campaign. Your own sister saw through it. Your best shot failed. Troy King is still married to the mother of his three children, he is still the Attorney General, and he is still the front runner for Governor in 2010. Sorry your sleaze tactics didn’t work.
#100 – I went to You Tube and typed in “Troy King” and did indeed find videos about his “gay sex life”. However, what you failed to mention is that all of these videos are linked in one way or another to our friend Loretta Nall, who by no means can be considered an unbiased observer of this whole alleged affair. I think this little fact that you failed to mention kind of blows your argument that King is finished right out of the water. Nice try, though.
And thank YOU for showing your true colors and flat out LYING.
“you are repeating baseless slander”
Why don’t you do me a favor? Go on over to my blog and show me ONE instance where I’ve even mentioned the King situation. Perhaps if you weren’t so busy spitting out the GOP talking points, you’d take the time to pay attention to the fact that I wasn’t defending a lack of evidence but rather harshly pointing our a double standard that certain people seem to have when it comes to such things. We don’t care so much for evidence when it’s someone’s freedom or someone’s life that we’re talking about, and we believe the Swift Boat Veterans, but if you dare assert that Troy King is gay, then well you’d better have some pictures or a video because anything less is not good enough.
And just what is this “source” you are asking to consider? Are you referring to the informant, or are you referring to the blogs who have gotten the scoop on multiple stories, including various Langford (a Democrat, I might add) mishaps and (lest we forget) Memogate? You might want to be careful of who you label a “dem” or “gay lobby.” I happen to be an independent voter, and I’m a stay-at-home mom. A Democrat wouldn’t have gone after the Birmingham mayor and city council repeatedly. A Democrat wouldn’t have gone after Joe Reed. A Democrat wouldn’t have endorsed John McCain.
Angry Dem, all due respect, but there actually is some substance to the story. I know it seems like a lot is just being mindlessly repeated, but they’re just protecting a source. If they were going to create a gay rumor out of thin air, they’d have gone after someone else less touchable. There’s just no need to make something like this up about Troy King. He’s done enough PUBLICLY to feed the MSM and the blogosphere for the next 10 years. There’s no motive.
As to this:
“Troy King is still married to the mother of his three children”
That’s not unusual in political couples. Why does everyone assume that if the husband had an affair that there will be a divorce? Bill and Hillary Clinton are not divorced, so therefore must we assume that he never cheated on her? Catherine of Aragon stayed married to Henry VIII for years even though he was cheating on her, and she refused to leave him willingly. Did Diana leave Charles when she first discovered he was cheating? John and Jackie Kennedy stayed married, so can we assume that he never cheated on her? Political marriages are just different from other marriages. Career Politicians are not every day average people like you and me, unfortunately. They are quite often groomed from birth to be what they are. Marriage (and even children) is a political strategy for them.
As to this:
“You can repeat it as often as you want, it’s not true and Alabamians aren’t believing it.”
Let me say that it wasn’t the initial rumor that convinced me. It was the reaction from the Right. Notice that my very first comment on this situation wasn’t on my own blog. I haven’t blogged in months. In fact, it’s been weeks since I commented on anyone’s blog. I haven’t commented anywhere else but here, and it was after about 58 comments of mostly Republicans who were livid about Loretta Nall pointing out that school was out for the summer. THAT is what got my attention.
If it didn’t have some substance to the story, and if it wasn’t any more than a silly rumor, then you wouldn’t see these people so riled up. So then, I’m led to believe that there must be something to this. I mean, we’ve got a GOP political consultant from AU responding to a blog post about this. Do you honestly believe that the PR guys would be out in full force if they didn’t feel like there was something to defend?
About school being out: I don’t know about King’s children, but my niece’s public school is IN now, it’s year round.
Also, schools around here start up pretty soon.
Most public schools are out at the moment and won’t start back for a few weeks. Now, imagine if King had come out, laughed, and said, “That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Of course, it’s not true!” Do you honestly thing that would have resulted in better or worse things being said by children than letting blogs go ahead and run with it?
These things are being said, either way. But by King NOT holding a press conference, that adds fuel to the fire by saying, “Well, he’s not denying it!” If he’d come out and said something, it’s quite possible that this would have been old news by the time school started back for most Alabama children. Instead, he’s prelonging the media attention by not denying it.
Hey, I think I just found a motive for the lack of a press conference.
Danny, Bessie Smith’s “Inside Alabama Politics” has an interesting take on this whole thing. Obviously this is gradually bleeding into media other than blogs.
#107 Can I have a link to the Bessie Smith article?
Don’t have a link – reasd the hard-copy newsletter
Here is the first appearance of this story in MSM Alabama media, with a lot of background. Also – for Susan – note the description of how print jornalists decide whether or not to publish stories – even stories where hard evidence DOES exist. You’ll find that stories can get killed even when there is a good deal of evidence to support the story.
http://www.lagniappemobile.com/article/1587
“That’s how things roll now. If enough people start chatting and blogging about something, it can practically become a major news item even without a shred of what any journalism professor would consider “fact.” Welcome to the new journalism.”
Is that what you were referring to?
Or was it this?
“In some ways it is frightening, as one can easily imagine a situation in which a false story could go viral and smear an innocent person. Even as I write this, that still may be the case with this story about King. Certainly as of July 11, there isn’t a shred of “fact” out there suggesting the story is real. There are plenty of knowledgeable people who insist it is fact, but sans photos, admissions, love notes or court filings, the old pieces that would have made up a standard news story are missing.”
And this is not a story about Troy King–it is a story about the gossip about Troy. Big Difference.
I love all these posters who claim to know the inner workings of The News, what stories it has written and ready, and why Langford stories were held. The fact is, Langford stories weren’t written until the documentation was gathered, and it had nothing to do with any “deals” hanging over heads. You all are so caught up in your own mystery and hype.
Second, The News has no story written and ready, and Danny’s source on that was also dead wrong. Now, a reporter may try to bluff King and others to get a comment to base a story on, but there was no story ready to run. And mostly, because Susan is right … the only supporting material right now on this story are Montgomery hacks who claim to know things about King and say they know certain events happened. But when you ask them — and yes, Glynn, that’s you — to prove it, they have nothing to prove this. That’s why this rumor hasn’t risen above the irresponsible level of the blogosphere.
As we speak today, that’s the status. I just love, though, how you all seem to know everything about why the “story” isn’t running. Come up with everything you can, except this one — how about because no one can offer anything at this time to back up their big mouths.
Siegelman’s friends continue to confuse evidence in a courtroom with comments in blogs. A jury heard testimony from six — not five — witnesses who documented the impropriety of and nature of the campaign payment as a bribe. One of those witnesses was Nick Bailey, and whether you like it or not, the jury believed him. So let’s not fool ourselves with a cheap rewriting of history to claim there was no evidence in the Siegelman case. Clearly, that’s wishful thinking.
I did see one thing in Susan’s post above that caught my eye – something she quoted and I will repeat here: “There are plenty of knowledgeable people who insist it is fact.”
Note the term “knowledgeable.” Equate that with Montgomery insiders who hve been reliable news sources before.
I also know some people very knowledgeable about Montgomery politics who also swear this story is true – people not given to making false statements. And I also know some reliable people who swear there is nothing to this rumor.
There very well may be truth to this story. It isn’t just bloggers making things up. I think there is a strong possibility that somewhere in here is a hard nut of truth.
Anonymous in 112,
Good comments. Thanks.
I hope I did not misrepresent the source that you say was “dead wrong” in a way that was not clear. My understanding was that the source believed a Birmingham News story was coming on Sunday, which is not quite the same as saying that they knew. I actually said that they “anticipated” a story. Not meaning to split hairs, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it is “dead wrong” that they anticipated a story.
ALMod in 104,
You got my attention when you said “the PR guys” were “out in full force.” I know he has defenders in blog comments, but I think I have missed any organized effort by PR guys. Can you elaborate? I know I initiated a couple of calls trying to confirm or not the rumors of his resignation and of the press conference I heard about, but other than that, I’d not heard much from his side. I’d hate to miss PR guys out in full force if I’m overlooking it, and feel like that would be a story. I would be glad to hear more about that.
Thanks.
Danny
Anonymous #112, something you said caught my eye.
You said:
Second, The News has no story written and ready, and Danny’s source on that was also dead wrong. Now, a reporter may try to bluff King and others to get a comment to base a story on, but there was no story ready to run.
And you know this how?
Anon #112, you also said this which caught my eye:
The fact is, Langford stories weren’t written until the documentation was gathered, and it had nothing to do with any “deals” hanging over heads.
Are you saying documentation was gathered for Langford but none is being gathered for King? If not, why not?
Thanks,
116 No documentation is being gathered, b/c none exists. The rumors you manufactured to hurt King were demonstrably false and have been proven so. The rumors being posted on all the gay websites were that Troy King’s wife was divorcing him and he was going to resign over an illicit affair. How hard is it to walk to the court house, request a copy of King v. King and make a copy of the divorce pleadings? How hard is it to walk into the office of the Attorney General and ask the receptionist for a copy of the letterhead and check the name of the AG that replaced King after his purported resignation that the gay blogs said was coming a week ago. There is no documentation because the stories are lies. A political hit job aimed at the frontrunner for 2010. Most of the people I talk with now realize this was trumped up and have told me they support him now more than they did before. Admittedly, I am not talking to many democrats or gays.
A rock for my rock.
Setting aside the rumors of sexual impropriety, other issues have come to light that the main stream media should investigate. Specifically, how does someone who is one year removed from college with a broadcast journalism major and no law degree suddenly rise to such a high level in the attorney general office? How does someone with presumably no managerial or personnel experience become integrally involved in the decision making of the attorney general office? Did the aide receive use of one of the largest offices in the attorney general’s complex after less than a year of employment? Is it true that the aide received a five figure raise in salary during a year in which other state agencies are facing layoffs due to budgetary constraints?
These are issues the main stream media can and should investigate.
what the heck are you talking about? the guy is an executive assistant. a glorified gofer. every politician has one, they are usually political appointments and they are always over paid.
Oh, but there was a deal that was very much hung over the News by Langford, as The Birmingham Weekly so eagerly pointed out. And the Birmingham News even covered it after Weekly blew the whistle. If you’d like a history of that, feel free to take a gander over at my blog archives, as I’m really not in the mood to dig up old links.
Documentation had absolutely nothing to do with it, and that’s proven by the fact that the News was able to publish the details of Langford’s “confidential” tax increase before they had the documentation. The News did file for the release of the information, but the details were leaked to them before they got it. Documentation wasn’t needed in the case of Langford’s office renovations. All you had to do was walk into City Hall to see it. Duh! If documentation was needed for everything, they’d never get any stories out on time.
You do realize, by the way, that many of us do have friends and contacts who work in these newsrooms, right? I personally am proud to call one News columnist a friend. And I have several contacts that range from state legislators to MSM journalists. I’m no dummy when it comes to the inner workings of a newsroom.
So to answer homeboy’s question, there was little documentation (if any) that was gathered on some Langford stories because little was needed. Almost all of it was public knowledge. It doesn’t take more than a day to get some pictures and interviews, which is why the whole “gathering documentation” claim as to why the News took WEEKS to report the office renovation is completely absurd.
Now, why on earth would we believe that there’s enough out there to print a story? Because Troy King believes it, or at least he did. Troy King believed that there was enough of a story– enough out there for them to get their hands on– that he planned a press conference that he later canceled. THAT gives more credibility than anything.
And the fact remains… There is no need to make anything up about the AG. He’s screwed up enough as it is.
“One of those witnesses was Nick Bailey, and whether you like it or not, the jury believed him.”
So if I tell a lie, and you believe it, is it true, then? Your sense of right and wrong is astonishing.
Danny… The answer to your question should be obvious, but you do have my email.
Your misguided focus on office renovations for Langford notwithstanding, you miss the point of the earlier post. It regarded far more significant stories about Langford, as opposed to the less signficant reference you’re making. You also prove my point about publication of the “confidential tax increase,” which was something published after documentation was leaked to the paper. And your claim to have “inside” information at The News is also not impressive. The material on Langford was gathered before stories were done and the issues properly documented, and The Weekly’s claims or your own about Langford’s “deals” hung over The News are equally absurd. But it fits a fantasy you have about how real media operates, which allows bloggers to rationalize their own irresponsible actions.
Interesting, too, that you focus on Bailey’s testimony to cling to your belief that everyone has lied against Siegelman – the media, the grand jury, the prosecutors, the judge, the jury, some fellow defense lawyers, the White House — everyone has lied, but Siegelman. Also funny how Siegelman’s defense lawyers didn’t create a liar out of Bailey. But of course, the jury was in on all of it too, so the fix was already in. You also miss the significant point that five other witnesses corroborated Bailey’s characterizations. But again, your myth is more interesting than the truth.
It’s amusing how good your “sources” at The News are. I can assure you, mine are far better.
to 119; they can investigate, but they can’t write a story. The minute they publish a story (or even a reference) on an employee of the AG’s office who is NOT a public figure, linking him to all this trash on the internet (at least by inference), they will be subjecting themselves to tremendous liability. Therefore, they couldn’t write the story unless they could prove that the trash in the rumors was true, which has already been proven to be false. There is a cloak of protection they enjoy when writing about public figures. Other employees of the office are not public figures, thus the standard for defamation is much lower. The named employee would not have to show actual malice.
“Already proven to be false”???
#123 that’s an unsupportable statement. True or false on this one has definitely NOT been established.
I did hear something yesterday personally from a source very close to the AG himself that seemed to confirm the marital separation story. That may be a total coincidence and that also could be a misinterpretation of facts, but this story keeps on keeping on and will until it either dies from lack of info or it hits mainstream media.
Wow! You really ARE grasping at straws! Let’s see… Where to begin…
“Your misguided focus on office renovations for Langford notwithstanding, you miss the point of the earlier post. It regarded far more significant stories about Langford, as opposed to the less significant reference you’re making.”
No, it was stated that they would NEVER sit on any story about a politician unless there wasn’t enough proof to back the story. I proved very easily that they so and that they did. Just because it’s not the exact little story you wanted doesn’t mean that it’s not an example. Tax money was being used (and is being used) to make expensive cosmetic changes, and the people had a right to know. I wasn’t the only one who commented at the time that they were going easy on Langford, as you can see here:
http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/12/14/birminghams-mayor-and-the-press/
The office changes were just one example. It’s an easy one to use because it was the most noticeable, but there were more:
http://almoderate.com/2007/12/07/god-bless-birmingham-weekly/
The first blog link talks about the deal that Langford had hanging over the News, and it quotes the Weekly article. Unfortunately, The Weekly takes down its articles from the web after a certain period of time. Absurd or not, the deals hung over the News were even reported by the News themselves– but not until after the Weekly article was printed. So why would the News report false information about itself? Also, if the News failed to report it earlier, is it because it lacked the proper documentation about itself? You know, like VIDEO COVERAGE of the COUNCIL MEETING just a few weeks prior where Langford announced that he’d be seeking other sources to release city announcements? Give me a break!
“And your claim to have “inside” information at The News is also not impressive.”
I was pointing out how little you know and the fact that some of us actually DO know how newspapers work– despite your claims otherwise. I could care less how little you are impressed by your own ignorance.
“The material on Langford was gathered before stories were done and the issues properly documented.”
Yes, it was… WEEKS before some stories ran. The Weekly is not held to any lower standard, and they STILL published before the News. You’d be surprised just how quickly you can gather the information and documentation to back up a story.
So that means that this…
“It’s amusing how good your “sources” at The News are. I can assure you, mine are far better.”
…is complete and utter b.s. The News itself published articles about the situation, albeit later than other publications.
“But it fits a fantasy you have about how real media operates, which allows bloggers to rationalize their own irresponsible actions.”
I suppose it’s a fantasy of mine that “real” media decided to show false documents regarding the president’s service record. I suppose it’s a fantasy of mine about how the “real” media has to post corrections and clarifications on a near daily basis. I suppose it’s a fantasy of mine that the “real” media “accidentally” leaked the name of a CIA operative. I suppose it’s a fantasy of mine that “real” media in 24-hour news fashion has incorrectly reported the death of more than one person. And I suppose it’s a fantasy of mine that the “real” media has:
http://www.regrettheerror.com/
Oh well, you get the point. Methinks they doth protest too much. Our identities aren’t exactly secret, and we are held to the same legal standards and can be sued, AND we aren’t backed by corporate law firms.
Even Troy King has given the rumors some small amount of clout. No matter how much you don’t want to believe it, he originally had scheduled a press conference. That means that he believed that there was enough out there for him to be required to say something in his defense. So he was preparing for the story only to cancel the event later.
“they can investigate, but they can’t write a story. The minute they publish a story (or even a reference) on an employee of the AG’s office who is NOT a public figure, linking him to all this trash on the internet (at least by inference), they will be subjecting themselves to tremendous liability.”
That would be why they (and we) sometimes leave names out of articles. The same thing goes for names of crime victims, but that doesn’t keep them from publishing the stories.
Regarding Bailey… If you’ll go back to some of my previous blog postings you’ll see that I believe that our former governor was 100% guilty. The same for Richard Scrushy. My point in bringing up the story at all was to point out the double standard from the GOP in requiring “evidence” for everything. That’s why I also brought up the DNA evidence. The stance seems to be that hard evidence is necessary when you claim someone is gay, but if an innocent person could potentially die, we care not for running a simple test that could make sure we got the right guy.
I might also point out that a jury believed that O. J. Simpson was not guilty, Richard Scrushy was not guilty, and Congress did not find sufficient evidence during the Clinton impeachment to remove him from office. Does that mean that these people were all innocent? Rather, your standard on what is truth and what is not seems to be focused around what you can make a small pool of people believe– not actual truth. If that’s the true basis for the GOP to determine what is true, then I’m afraid the AG is (excuse the pun) screwed.
UPDATE:
It appears that Weekly DID NOT take down the article. They just moved it:
http://www.bhamweekly.com/archive_article.php?article_id=572&issue_id=91&vol=11#article
Also, here’s the Birmingham News coverage of their own debacle, in case anyone else wants to claim that it’s all a part of my imagination:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2007/10/news_publisher_editor_meet_wit.html
http://search.al.com/sp?aff=100&keywords=%22legal+advertising%22&x=0&y=0
(al.com no longer has the article freely available, but it is available in the archives. This is the search results, and you can read SOME of the article in the description.)
He’s also pulled the same stunts with broadcast media:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/04/langford_pulls_advertising_fro.html
I’m glad I hit a nerve with ALmod, who sounds just about as psychotic as the boy at Locust. And interesting that your bizarre fascination with the Langford “deal” hanging over The News seems to crumble under its own weight. How then do you explain how that paper produced article after article after article noting problems Langford faces, not only in a potential court setting, but with the council? Is it because he hangs a “deal” over their head? How is it that The News produced stories about his non-profits, charities, private business deals and other issues? Is it because he hangs a “deal” over their head?
Let me get this right. You post links to issues relating to Langford’s use of city classifieds. And you believe that supports your point that The News was afraid to publish because of this “deal.” And it occurs to me you have no idea what publication today actually publishes those classifieds. Because if you did, you’d realize how dumb your argument looks. And your entire theory on The News not publishing stories about Langford, and by extension not publishing stories about King, is because its afraid to lose the city classifieds? That’s your “deal” hanging over their heads?
And interesting how you take as fact that a press conference was scheduled by King. Really? And your proof is? … Careful to believe those who claim to know things, but don’t put names or documentation on the table. Obviously you’ve never played poker. Or better, join our Tuesday night game because it’s clear to me you’re a sucker. “You wanna fold because of these three Aces in my hand.” And after you fold, guess what, you don’t see my hand.
I’d say you’re an idiot, but your own rantings pretty much show that. So I’ll let you speak for yourself.
It is hard to keep up with all the BS on here posted by the various anonymous posters, but I do note that anonymous # 127 is critical of sources that do not include names, yet refuses to attach his or her own name to their opinions.
“Joe” on the other hand, really puts his money where his mouth is. Way to take a stand “Joe”. Nobody can accuse you of not signing your name “Joe”.
Right. And click on “Joe” and go to Bessemer Opinions and see where I stand on the Troy King issue. I fully believe he is hiding (or trying to) in a deep closet filled with young guys. I’ve seen it too many times when the virulent homophobes are the closet gays. On Bessemer Opinions search Troy King and read all about it.
Hey, Joe –
I went to your Bessemer Opinions page and read the latest post (it took me a couple of times to sort out the Part A’s and Part B’s). If I’m reading it right, the point you’re making is the only reason he’s clamming up is because he’s guilty, right?
If that’s the case, it makes perfect sense to me. If somebody accused me of what King’s being accused of, and I was innocent, I would stop at nothing to clear my name (politics be damned in this case). And you know what, I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t do the same thing.
Anyway, if that’s what you’re saying, I agree with you. Even if you won’t post your name. :-)
Sandman,
Yeah that is exactly the point I am making.
Oh and right, since every post on Bessemer Opinions says “Posted by Joe Openshaw.” I am not embarrased or ashamed of my opinions and writings. I am suspicious of commentors on my blog (and this one too) who post anonymously. What is their real agenda? It’s easy to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, easier than hiding in, say, a closet. Gee, maybe those anonymous posters actually are in a closet!
Sorry Mr. Openshaw, but the gays are the ones driving this rumor. Just look at the sights shilling it.
as for 131, maybe you would stop at nothing to clear your name, but you are not an elected official. The only way for King to clear his name is to keep quiet. The fact that not one legitimate source has printed this smear proves the lie. The minute King steps to the microphone and denies a gutter politic smear campaign he makes it a national news story. Every paper runs the story under the headline, AG denies he’s gay. King has 3 small children to worry about. As of now, only sleazy disgusting websites like Locust fork have published the name of these children in connection with these baseless rumors. Maybe you would do something different, maybe not. I guess we’ll never know, until you get elected AG and smeared by gay websites attacking you because of your political agenda.
Anonymous… You seem to be missing the point. I never said that the News never wrote an article. I said that they failed to write any critical articles pointing out Langford’s problems until weeks after he’d been elected– AFTER they’d been outed as being bullied by the mayor. Are you really that desperate to prove me wrong after I’ve shown you where even the News reported on this deal, or are you just not even reading my posts at this point?
You obviously have no idea what the difference is between classifieds and city legal advertisements. (Those are still publised by the News, by the way, so yes I do know which publication still carries them. If you had done any reading at all of the links I gave you, you’d see that the council went ahead and voted to renew their contract with the News.) There’s a HUGE difference in definition as well as the amount of money involved. The fact that you don’t know that shows about how much you know about how a publication operates. No, I’m not saying that King is holding something similar over their heads. I’m poining out that there are reasons why a paper would hold back a story.
“Obviously you’ve never played poker.”
Actually, I have. Usually when a guy is jumping up and down and ranting about how good his hand is, it’s a classic tell of a bad hand. Now if one player has actually calmly turned over two of their cards and has an Ace of Hearts and a King of Hearts, and there’s a 10 and a Queen on the table, and the other is still jumping up and down saying that he’s got the Jack but hasn’t shown it yet… Guess which one of us seems to behave the most threatened.
You’re sounding more and more desperate by the minute. Keep it up. You just can’t argue with the fact that the Langford threat to pull Birmingham’s contract with the News actually existed. And the Birmingham News refrained from criticizing the new mayor until after that was reported on by the Birmingham Weekly. In fact, they even published an editorial asking Patrick Cooper to drop it and move on. It’s proven, it happened, and closing your eyes and wishing it wasn’t true, clicking your heels, and throwing pixie dust doesn’t make it any less real. I’ve proven that the News can and will hold a story. And if they can hold it in one case, they can hold it in another.
“I’d say you’re an idiot, but your own rantings pretty much show that. So I’ll let you speak for yourself.”
Yeah, I read news articles and pay attention to what’s going on, and I don’t ignore them and tell people who do read them that it all happened in their imagination. I must be the idiot. You’re a rather classy fellow, I should say. Please tell me more, because I really value the opinion of the type of person who ignores very solidly proven fact and calls people idiots when they refuse to ignore it as well. Ignorance is bliss, after all. You should be a philosopher.
By the way, I’d love to confirm your suspicion. There is in fact a “gay lobby” that sits behind the scenes and plans these things out. They have a master plan which includes secretly turning every heterosexual married man gay and the killing of cute little kittens. (They’ll let the mangy ones and those ugly hairless things live just so that they can taunt you.) Be afraid, and be sure to spray down your home with Lysol, or the gay will get you. Lock your doors and don’t leave your home. I hear it’s airborne.
Now, let’s see… Apparently you didn’t catch one of the many interviews with Barack Obama (who does have a small child) where he had to address various ridiculous and rather venomous rumors about himself. He went on television, laughed about them and shrugged them off and said “not true.” End of story. THAT is how a true politician handles these things. It doesn’t stop with politicians, either. Celebrities, even those with small children, will go public to address rumors– even the ridiculous ones. Why? Because it’s a tried and true method that actually is more likely to work than ignoring the rumors. Now, I know that Marie Antoinette is an exception to the rule. She ignored the rumors about her, and she had small children. I’m sure she fared well.
It’s no wonder nobody reads your site.
That would probably be because, as I stated before, I’m not blogging anymore.
On the other hand, back when I was blogging, I got some fairly comparable readership. Nice try, though. :)
THAT is how a true politician handles these things. It doesn’t stop with politicians, either. Celebrities, even those with small children, will go public to address rumors– even the ridiculous ones. Why? Because it’s a tried and true method that actually is more likely to work than ignoring the rumors.
134 – That is exactly the point I was trying to make.
133 – I stand by my original comment. Generally the only people who don’t go public to defend themselves are the guilty ones. Any argument to suggest otherwise is pure BS in my book. And don’t give me the doing it for the kids argument. I have six kids, and if I knew I was innocent of a charge and kept my mouth shut just hoping it would go away, they would lose all respect for me and probably wouldn’t believe I was telling the truth.