You're right...but you forgot to mention that that was probably the most scr*wed up election in state history. There were certain counties that had information about just one or two SPI candidates - or no candidates at all - on their websites. The Secretary of State posted a link to my website that led to a different website (not one of mine).I can sympathize with a Ron Paul type who is "scr*wd" by the established media just because of his outsider-ness. I have a much harder time sympathizing with a petulant rabble-rouser whose message is drowned out by his antics. (Media blackout, eh?)
As usual, the corporate media scarcely mentioned any candidates aside from their favorites. In that particular campaign, they focused on the three women candidates, scarcely mentioning any of the male candidates. I was invited to just ONE forum.
So, yes, I fared rather poorly against candidates with far more money and corrupt endorsements, in the midst of a virtual media blackout and a political election that was nearly wrecked by the folks in charge.
To put it another way, the last election was just another free ride for Terror Bergeson. Which isn't to say the current election will be any less corrupt. Ultimately, the ball is in the public's court. Will teachers, parents and taxpayers care enough to get involved this time around?
Will people ask questions about Bergeson's bizarre relationship with Seattle attorney Judith Lonnquist and right-wing education assassin Don Nielson? Will people finally recognize the fact that public education is being privatized and take a stand?
Oops, sorry to bore you with ISSUES, something Terry Bergeson likes to ignore. You sound like one of the clowns who like to vote for establishment candidates with no issues but lots of money (and corrupt endorsements).
P.S. You might want to do a little research on the candidates I ran against last time around. What were their issues? How about their track records? Are they still fighting the good fight?
You might find the results illuminating.
Playing the educational village atheist might earn Blomstrom 6th place just by pulling out the protest vote, but it sure doesn't make him Bergeson's "chief opponent," unless we're using froth as a metric. Even Ron Paul is smart enough to know that publicly calling his opponents "whores" would doom his chances.
So complain away, Mr. Blomstrom, about "corporate media" (which you mostly ignored or avoided in the school board election, so no more whining about "media blackouts"), make up more clever nicknames for your opponents ("Tricky Dick" Semler? Richard "Dissembler?"), and by all means keep churning out amusing websites. If you somehow manage to reach the general election, I'll personally contribute $100 to your campaign.
Now, excuse me while I go strap on my clown shoes.
Sidebar:
If it weren't for the internet, David Blomstrom might win friends and influence people. Blomstrom, if you didn't know--and chances are you didn't--is running against Terry Bergeson. Sadly, his positions on the issues--the WASL sucks, education is being privatized and corrupted--get obscured by his rancor. At least, when he's sitting at the keyboard.
It doesn't have to be this way:
His appearance on the program — by phone — was absent any of the name-calling and ranting that characterize his Web site (he refers to his opponent as "Whorium") and he gave thoughtful answers to questions from the host and callers.If the medium is the message, maybe Blomstrom just needs a better medium.
7 comments:
Jim Anderson wrote, "I can sympathize with a Ron Paul type who is "scr*wd" by the established media just because of his outsider-ness."
No, it isn't just my "outsider-ness." I speak the truth and champion accountability, and that makes some people very uncomfortable.
"I have a much harder time sympathizing with a petulant rabble-rouser whose message is drowned out by his antics. (Media blackout, eh?)"
Sheez, could you get any more juvenile? You post a link to a page on a Seattle newspaper's website that - *gasp* - actually mentions my name, in a childish attempt to debunk my claim that the media largely ignore candidates they don't like.
I invite anyone who wants to know the truth to visit the websites of the Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Weekly and type the names of each of the candidates into their search/archives functions (one at a time, of course). The difference in coverage was breathtaking.
"Playing the educational village atheist might earn Blomstrom 6th place just by pulling out the protest vote, but it sure doesn't make him Bergeson's "chief opponent," unless we're using froth as a metric. Even Ron Paul is smart enough to know that publicly calling his opponents "whores" would doom his chances."
Your obsession with Ron Paul is duly noted. Do you two have a date?
"So complain away, Mr. Blomstrom, about "corporate media" (which you mostly ignored or avoided in the school board election..."
Why, thank you. It would be rather foolish to crawl in bed with the very corrupt media I criticize, now wouldn't it? As far as I know, I'm the ONLY candidate for public office in Seattle history who has made media corruption a campaign issue and boycotted media endorsement interviews.
To morons who would deride my stance as foolish, I ask a simple question: Do you think the major media are NOT corrupt? Anyone who's politically astute has to be aware of media corruption; the term "media wh*re" is hardly uncommon. Are are you suggesting that the media are corrupt everywhere except corporate Seattle?
Reality Check: The Seattle media are corrupt, and I care enough to make it a campaign issue. It's called common sense.
"...so no more whining about "media blackouts"."
On the contrary, I'll continue to speak the truth. Take your cheap little propaganda somewhere else.
"Now, excuse me while I go strap on my clown shoes."
Huh? I thought you were already wearing them.
"Blomstrom, if you didn't know--and chances are you didn't [Can you spell MEDIA BLACKOUT?]--is running against Terry Bergeson. Sadly, his positions on the issues--the WASL sucks, education is being privatized and corrupted--get obscured by his rancor."
Baloney. It's true that many people can't handle my "rancor," any more than they can handle the truth. So what should I do - start emulating other candidates by LYING or talking about no issues at all?
No, I will continue to speak my mind. In a nation of morons who continue to elect such disasters as George W. Bush, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and Terry Bergeson, I may not get elected, but I'll put up a fight - and I won't let Terror Bergeson steal office yet again unscathed.
Now go back to admiring your clown shoes.
Blomstrom, Blomstrom, Blomstrom. You can't complain about a "media blackout" and simultaneously refuse interviews. If talking to a reporter means "crawling into bed" with the "corporate media," then call yourself a "wh*re" for your one-night stand at the P-I. Or is the P-I the lone beacon of truth and freedom in the King County metropolis?
No one is saying you should stop telling the truth. But you make the truth so unpalatable that you do your own message a disservice--your chili's all hot sauce. Or, to switch metaphors, an ounce of propriety is worth a ton of half-clever nicknames and tawdry insults.
By the way, the reason no one knows you're running for SPI is that no one knows anyone is running, as Emmett O'Connell has pointed out time and again.
Mr. Clown wrote, "Blomstrom, Blomstrom, Blomstrom. You can't complain about a "media blackout" and simultaneously refuse interviews."
Of course I can. I refuse interviews in part because of their shoddy coverage of the candidates.
Moreover, not all publicity stems from interviews. The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently published articles about what-his-name's candidacy - but they didn't mention me. The moral is obvious.
"If talking to a reporter means "crawling into bed" with the "corporate media," then call yourself a "wh*re" for your one-night stand at the P-I."
I never said talking to a reporter makes one a whore. I've simply imposed a general media boycott that I'm free to modify at my pleasure. For example, I decided to participate in the Seattle P-I's blog scam, largely because they at least allowed me to say my piece. I call the shots.
"No one is saying you should stop telling the truth. But you make the truth so unpalatable that you do your own message a disservice--your chili's all hot sauce. Or, to switch metaphors, an ounce of propriety is worth a ton of half-clever nicknames and tawdry insults."
You're just another civility freak. You can't handle the truth, nor do you have any interest in the issues. Let's face it, you're a media wh*re yourself.
You're right: I care so little about the issues. I write about them. Teach about them. Pester my School Board members and my legislators about them. Talk to my friends and family about them. Spend precious square inches of my stomach lining fretting about them. Why does my apathy feel so much like heartburn?
Win an election, Mr. Blomstrom--or, for that matter, even a primary--and you can come back and lecture me on the issues. Until then, I'll be quite justified in my belief that your style is trumping your substance, and that your ranting and raving only drives voters into the arms of Bergeson, who comes off looking like Gandhi in comparison.
That's the saddest irony of all.
Mr. Clown wrote, "You're right: I care so little about the issues."
Don't feel all alone. There are many apathists in our society.
"I write about them. Teach about them. Pester my School Board members and my legislators about them. Talk to (snip)"
Yeah, I'll bet.
"Win an election, Mr. Blomstrom--or, for that matter, even a primary--and you can come back and lecture me on the issues."
One doesn't have to win an election to understand the issues, fool. As a matter of fact, it's becoming ever harder for people who care about the issues to win elections. How do you think George W. Dumb*ss "won" two terms as pResident? How do you think Gary Locke and Chris Gregoire got selected as Governor? Check out Seattle's gangster Mayor, Greg Nickels. Or we might even take a closer look at Terry Bergeson.
But you're too hung up on civility to find any time to discuss the issues. Like I suggested earlier, you're just another media wh*re pretending to dislike Bergeson, though no challenger could possibly meet your approval unless s/he is just as insipid as yourself.
THAT's the saddest irony of all.
I invite you to read all throughout this blog before making blanket assertions about my efforts and motivation. I know that's not your usual style--you like to shoot before aiming, which is obvious given your immediate response when I initially called your political viability into question--but at least this once, give it a go.
That'd show me that your "Yeah, I'll bet" isn't just a flippant dismissal, every bit as insincere as you'd make me out to be.
Well, I checked out your blog -- and confirmed my suspicions. You're a clown.
Since there appears to be some sort of blog conspiracy preventing me from linking to my campaign website, I invite viewers to access my campaign site via www.invisible-republic.org/.
I'll have some major surprises online on June 1, 2008
Of course, if you just want to vote for another one-issue (e.g. anti-WASL) candidate, Rich Semler is your man.
Post a Comment