Stefan Sharkansky has come right out and called us a "serial liar" in a headline on his vastly influential right-wing Sound Politics blog. Here's a public letter defending our honor and expressing hope for a reconciliation:
Oct. 9, 2006
Dear Stefan: ouch, ouch, ouch! That hurts my feelings. We're friends, now and I thought we were past the ad hominem stage in a burgeoning relationship.
It's what stopped me from always good-naturedly referring to you as a transvestite or misconstruing your name as Schmuckansky. By sharing that coffee, having eye-contact, and meeting each other's SO's, I thought we had transcended all that stuff, and that our relationship had grown a little, albeit with baby steps.
Or so I hoped and prayed... (no really, I prayed about it) But then instead of criticizing or commenting on the sad, sad (and factual) Reichert story I posted, you called me a liar... in a headline!
Sorry I have to explain it, but here's the deal about Blatherwatch. We're the Page Six of the Seattle talk radio and somewhat in politics. That is, we report rumors. The rules are: we must identify them as rumors; hear them from two or more people; never make them up; never repeat anything slanderous, really hurtful, or libelous. We pass along only the rumors that suit us- like the old biddies we are.
It's fun! and readers keep coming back for more. (Here's one for you- David Goldstein is bald, divorced and, smarter than you!)
1) I Gotta tell you, Stef, as long as I've been aware of you and your formidable blog, rumors among media people as well as liberal politicos, have flown around that you get substantial help from somebody who agrees with your politics. The party? A sugar daddy?
You don't? So thou sayest. What we said is: people say that you, (not unlike a hooker) have no visible means of support- and that with the GOP party water carried daily on your fine blog- people wonder.
Me saying that people are saying things about you is quite different than me saying things about you. (Is that too nuanced? we liberals are big on the nuance).
2) When you got into Ron Dotzauer's improperly unsealed raw divorce records, it sure seemed to many that it was true to the Rovian model of the candidate who's above opposition research and negative ads who relegates it to surrogates in order to keep his hands clean.
McGavick did not put you up to getting into private divorce papers and publishing old personal dirt irrelevant to anything in this campaign? Good. That makes me feel better about him.
3) Then there's the print journalists who told me that into the 2004 post-election scam, they'd gotten enough erroneous information from you that they stopped listening to you or trusting what you'd written. There were two, and they will not go on the record, and wouldn't tell me which stories you'd allegedly burned them on because you'd figure out who was talking to me. I told you that to your face; I even went back and talked to a couple of them to no avail. They still swear it's true...
4) At the time that I claimed you'd repeatedly refused to be on the radio at the same time as Goldstein, that was the case. A producer told me he had couldn't get you to agree to it; and Goldy said he'd never been on the same show with you, though he'd challenged you to it through 3rd parties many times. That may have changed over time, but it was true when I said it. As far as I know, "repeatedly" means "again and again." I stand by that.
5) I certainly stand by my BlatherWatch reporting on how you got fired from The Stranger. I got the proforma bitchslapping from Dan Savage probably because that kind of inside baseball wasn't supposed to be out, and newsers like to control the news just like everyone else. I was so close to the horse's mouth on that one, the horse got bitch-slapped too. It's still a good story- here's how that came down:
According to our source, Sharkansky attended the Republicans' press conference first, where he was hailed as a hero; invited to stand up in front, got the "googly eyes from Kathy Lambert" (not that hard to get, actually, if you're male) and perhaps even spoke to them. Then shoving his Republican political operative hat back in his pocket, he donned his journalist hat, (made with duct tape and Superglue on PhotoShop, no doubt) and as a Stranger reporter, went to the Elections Department presser, where he presumably asked searing questions ala Mike Wallace.
That a reporter would stand as a party operative, and then be a reporter on the same afternoon would embarrass any news organization. Feit was not amused to say the least, according to our source. He decided then and there to kick him off paper after the election.
IT(Being bitchslapped by Dan Savage, btw, is what dreams are made of for many, many people. We son't tell you if we enjoyed it, Just let us say, rich, submissive Republicans have paid 10's of thousands of dollars at auction for a private bitchslapping by Dan; a service, we understand, he's more than happy to perform).
Here's to another cuppa at Herkimer's, Stefan. Maybe now that we've got this out in the open, maybe we can have a new start.
The interesting thing in Mr. Sharansky's post is that he does credit you for running retractions. Something he has never done himself to the best of my knowledge. I'll gladly post a few examples this evening when I have more time.
But face it O' Blathering one, the main reason that the minnow is upset with you is that you have a sense of humor, and he clearly does not.
Posted by: JDB | October 09, 2006 at 05:18 PM
So, you have no proof of financial dealings between Stefan and anyone in the GOP, but you stand by your fiction, and none of your print reporters will tell you errors that Stefan gave them. Pretty convenient for you. Good thing you aren't a real reporter, none of this would be printed.
For the record, a Senator making substantial loans to a lobbyist with whom she has had sexual relations both in and out of his marriage is a legitimate story. It calls into question her ethics and judgement. Also makes one wonder who owns her vote. Dotzauer owns Maria Cantwell, and demands money from her. This isn't a story to you?
Posted by: Janet S | October 09, 2006 at 06:08 PM
LOL This is truly funny..... Stefan actually links to documents that actually prove his points.
I have never heard of Blather before today, and I find it hilarious.
Kinda like bubbles (rhymes with lather) you pop em and they disappear.
How about Maria Cantspeakwell. We cant find her, do you know where she is? I would like to know if I would lean to voting for the "Silent Senator" that sleeps around a bit. Or loans money to "Friends " that she seems to have an affection for, that also represent clients that recieve a ton of money for said connection (sleeping with best friend one week prior to friend wedding to another)....Lets talk about ethics, she is one tool short of the full tool chest thats for sure.
Posted by: Chris | October 09, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Bla'M..look what you gone and done now....
Posted by: sparky | October 09, 2006 at 08:35 PM
...lots of new friends to play with!
Posted by: sparky | October 09, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Janet S:
I'm sure if the minnow is telling the truth (hey, it could happen), he will be more than happy enough to turn the financial records of U(sp) over to a neutral observer to this fight, like Goldy, who could verify that. Heck, he could just publish them himself. Why not? What does he have to hide?
Posted by: JDB | October 09, 2006 at 09:24 PM
Speaking of the minnow and his failures with the truth, Here is a good example of where the minnow was factually wrong and refused to run a correction:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005756.html#005756
In short: Mr. Sharansky claimed that the Supreme Court had re-written the constitution by deferring to the legislature’s determination of public use. In reality, the issue on what defines public use was not before the court. See my post at 36.
And, really, how can the minnow complain when he has run threads like this:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006014.html
Where he accused Darcy Burner of Reckless driving because she got a ticket for speed to fast for conditions. Based on a tip from Richard Pope, which is interesting because they now have problems with this sort of thing:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/007043.html
In fact, I would like to see one post where Mr. Sharansky posted a correction. Just one. Come on you U(sp) readers, surely you can come up with one?
Posted by: JDB | October 09, 2006 at 10:54 PM
No one, including Stefan peeking into Ron Dotzauer's underwear drawer for hours, has found anything untoward or illegal about Maria's loan to him. Maybe Stefan is holding back information, or maybe he'll keep trying to get traction by making Maria's alleged sexual behavior a titillating underground issue. There's good reason why divorce papers are sealed- they contain lots of allegations made in the heat of adivorce, that have never met any standards of proof- no one's sworn in- it's just the rawest emotional striking out of two people fighting over stuff or kids. To expose that to the public or to use it in a political campaign is immoral- legal, but immoral.
Posted by: blathering michael | October 09, 2006 at 11:37 PM
Janet S: CAN YOU READ? I said there have always been rumors that Stefan gets paid, I never said that he is getting paid.
People say you can stretch it over a stump, but I have no reason to believe it, you twit.
Jesus, conservatives read what they wanna and read hear what they wanna hear.
This is all the nattering of Republicans who must be so desolate they must strike out anyway they can, in this dark partisan winter.
Posted by: blathering michael | October 09, 2006 at 11:55 PM
Why doesn't Mr. Sharkansky complain about Fox News' policy of saying that "some people say" this or that when they want to introduce their conservative talking points?
Posted by: David Williams | October 10, 2006 at 08:03 AM
The Daily Show did a good bit on Fox use of "some people say." Sadly, I can't find it on youtube, but here is their take on Fox's use of punctuation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_62ic9HJi8
Posted by: JDB | October 10, 2006 at 10:53 AM
You know what they mean when they say "dripping venom?" I think i know now . . . and probably well deserved. :)
And Janet, I doubt Dotzauer could own Maria considering the now public nature of their relationship. But if one wants a tutorial on owning a congress, one need only dial up the Republican Party.
Posted by: joanie | October 10, 2006 at 09:24 PM
Just a couple of corrections.... Stefan did appear with me a number of times on the John Carlson Show during the gubernatorial election contest trial. But my understanding is that prior to that, Stefan had declined to go on air with me.
And... I'm "balding". Not "bald."
Get our facts straight, Michael.
Posted by: Goldy | October 11, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Bald (or balding) men can sexy...just look at Captain Picard.
Of course we would have to eliminate Dr. Phil from that list...
Posted by: sparky | October 11, 2006 at 01:19 PM
David Goldstein is NOT bald, unless he's wearing a Sam Donaldson knock-off....
Posted by: Fremont | October 11, 2006 at 01:33 PM
Thanks for the correction, David...better to think you had a balding senior moment than that you are a liar...
Posted by: Fremont | October 11, 2006 at 01:36 PM
Hey, are they the same sources that Jason Leopold used in saying Rove was about to get indicted,
Posted by: Steve | October 12, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Shark/Orbi hypocrisy UNHINGED:
"Suppression of dissent in Maria Kantwell's Amerikkka"
Hold up, let me get this straight. These are conservatives complaining about "Suppression of Dissent"?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
waiting for the punchline....
Wait, they're serious then?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
Where the hell were they when:
A.) The Federal Commie Creeps (FCC) decided to violate FOS and played Ayatollah morality police with radio/TV?
B.) The Bush/Cheney '00/'04 campaigns supressed dissent by tossing out DNC folks or making them sign a "loyalty oath" EN MASSE from rally after rally (and they're still doing this)
C.) Cindy Sheehan invited to the 06 SOTU address, but ILLEGALLY ejected/arrested (ie Dissent Suppressed) for wearing a T-shirt.
Where the hell were they? Oh thats right - They were at home conveniently forgeting about FOS, and defending the sovereign right of the Chief Executive to do whatever the hell he wants to.
Funny how people remember FOS only when it effects them.
Posted by: mercifurious | October 31, 2006 at 11:17 PM