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.

On the other hand, back when I was blogging, I got some fairly comparable readership. Nice try, though. :)

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.

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.

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!

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. :-)

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 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

“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.

#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.