Looks like another great one might disappear from the corner newsstands in Portland and go digital, just like the Seattle P.I.
From Willamette Week:
The Oregonian as a daily newspaper is facing a final deadline.
The 162-year-old newspaper—once considered one of the nation’s best—is losing readers and advertisers in a state where it dominated the media landscape for decades.
Soon, the newspaper may no longer be publishing every day of the week.
The newspaper’s New Jersey-based owner, Advance Publications Inc., has declared it is moving to a Web-based model and publishing schedules are likely to change at many of its newspapers.
Advance—controlled by heirs of press magnate S.I. Newhouse—has already announced the end of daily publishing at eight newspapers in Michigan, Alabama and Louisiana.
The most stunning act of this emerging strategy came in May, when The New York Times broke the news that Advance would publish New Orleans’ storied Times-Picayune only three days a week, fire nearly half the staff and leave the remaining reporters and editors to focus on publishing news on its website.
For years, editors and executives at The Oregonian denied Portland’s newspaper would ever be less than a daily. But in the newsroom, the announcement in New Orleans shattered any illusions.
Staffers here say Oregonian editors now indicate the paper is likely to follow suit, although no one is saying when that will happen or how many days the newspaper will drop from its publishing schedule.
“There’s just not enough advertising,” says Ken Doctor, a news industry analyst for Harvard University’s Nieman Journalism Lab. “Newhouse is acknowledging that daily print has ended its lifespan. They definitely are looking at doing it in Portland and other places, but I don’t think a decision has been made about whether or when.”
In many ways, the change would allow The Oregonian to adapt into a more nimble and relevant news organization. The paper says its website, OregonLive.com, got more than 4.9 million unique visitors in June.
The change would also allow the paper to get out from under the high costs of printing and its large newsroom staff. One longtime Oregonian employee says the paper’s staffers are dreading imminent cuts and layoffs—and senior editors don’t have any information to calm them.
“The managers are just as blind as the rest of us,” the employee says. “We are living with the reality that any day might be the day when the people from Jersey walk in.”
Jack Hart was an Oregonian editor for 26 years, serving as lead editor on two series that won Pulitzer Prizes before he retired in 2007. Now the interim director of the Turnbull Center, the University of Oregon’s Portland campus for journalism, Hart says resignations, buyouts and layoffs have already weakened the newspaper.
“It’s still a big, highly skilled, powerful newsroom,” Hart says. “But I don’t think anybody at the paper would argue that there hasn’t been a loss of reporting power.”
Hart says the crucial barometer is not how many print editions The Oregonian publishes in a week, but how much of the newsroom is preserved.
“It’s not that my Monday morning would be ruined by not having a thin newspaper dropped on my doorstep,” Hart says. “It’s that it would suggest more serious cutbacks in the offing.”
This new reality was hard to imagine in the newspaper’s Southwest Broadway offices a decade ago. Led by publisher Fred Stickel and editor Sandra Mims Rowe, The Oregonian reached its zenith in quality: five Pulitzers, and eight finalists for journalism’s top award, in the 16 years Rowe ran the newsroom.
The Oregonian’s circulation numbers—like those of many large dailies—have spiraled, falling by a third since 2002. These declines, and abandonment by advertisers, have already triggered big changes.
The newspaper offered buyouts, cut pay and—violating its longtime pledge to full-time employees—laid off 37 people, mostly from the newsroom, in 2010. Other layoffs throughout the company have followed.
The Oregonian’s current publisher, N. Christian Anderson III, tells WW the newspaper has no plans to change its publishing schedule. Anderson says he’s talked to employees about what changes in New Orleans might mean for The Oregonian, but has told no one at the newspaper that such a change is coming here.
“I have not told people that we’re changing our publishing schedule,” Anderson tells WW in an email. “Nor have I hinted at that. Any characterization to the contrary is simply incorrect.”
Several sources tell WW that The Oregonian newsroom is being restructured to make its affiliated website, OregonLive.com, the first priority, with staffers evaluated primarily on their online productivity. A recent memo from editor Peter Bhatia said six new positions would be created to feed the Web—a move away “from our traditional devotion to print deadline work at night.”
Some Oregonian editors have begun sending daily emails to congratulate reporters whose posts get the most traffic.
But the loudest hints that change is coming in Portland come from one of Advance’s top executives.
Advance’s media holdings include Condé Nast publications, The New Yorker, American City Business Journals and newspapers in 34 cities. Forbes pegged the privately held company’s revenues last year at more than $6 billion.
Steve Newhouse—chairman of Advance.net, the company’s digital division—has defended the Web-first strategy after howls of protest in New Orleans about losing a daily Times-Picayune.
“The rapid rise in digital adoption by consumers and advertisers is irreversible,” Newhouse wrote in an Aug. 3 editorial for the Poynter Institute, a journalism school. “We are in the midst of a digital revolution and instead of constantly being disrupted by our numerous online competitors, we decided to re-invent ourselves.”
When a Poynter reporter asked him about plans for the company’s other newspapers, Newhouse replied: “We’re facing the same conditions everywhere. We’re looking at every market and trying to figure out what the right model is.”
This is an Open Thread.
Rumors are circulating that Paul Ryan is Mitten's choice for VP.
Posted by: sparky | August 10, 2012 at 09:44 PM
1. Screw Romney and his latest sycophant.
2. The problem with newspapers today is that they are owned by people that think they should, like other corporate blood suckers, have a contently rising profit. The are simply that: a profit source, and it it isn't constantly growing at an aggressive rate, they'll kill it.
But that's just not a sustainable model for newspapers, and news media in general. I some corporate holding company thinks that local newspapers can be a source of huge an contently growing profits, they haven't done their homework and thought it through.
The idea that nobody buys newspapers anymore is simply bunk. It's just that many people NEVER bought newspapers, and at a certain point, readership simply isn't going to grow much and will level out.
Newspapers *ARE* sustainable, they just will never be as profitable as ripping people off with cheap Chinese made junk.
Posted by: Arty Ziff | August 10, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Oh, and if the Oregonian passes into history (print to web never works out well, eventually it simply dies as the PI almost certainly will), it simply means a young nimble LOCAL paper will take its place.
When the Oregonian goes Tits Up, I give it a year - max - before another print paper debuts. Also I predict that the Portland Tribune will start printing (it's currently web) and tak the Oregonian's place.
Posted by: Arty Ziff | August 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM
The newspaper cemetary already has the Oregon Journal and the Spokane Cronicle.
Posted by: Mike Barer | August 11, 2012 at 08:11 AM
He went with Paul "Throw Granny off the cliff" Ryan hahaha. Obama/Biden are the ones who project themselves and are really going to throw granny over the cliff.
A pretty sound choice. Here come the scare tactics and the smoke and mirrors from the radical and corrupt scaremeisters themselves. Bring it on...
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 09:03 AM
Release the name 12hrs in advance?
Can the Mittwitt cabal be this incompetent?
Posted by: nameless | August 11, 2012 at 09:46 AM
hahaha ..best ya gto nameless???...hhahahahaha Ryan choice was smart....he weill energize and bring fully into the camp the conservative base.......very early pick in major party nomination history... this morning R and R are already up and running with the campaign bus tour well before the convention starts........watch and learn libbers....
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Well it's over.If you are under 55 years old today, the decision of who to vote for is obvious.
Scraping Obama-care and replacing Medicare with a coupon isn't gonna fly. Privatization of Social Security is a another lead balloon too.Most people trust the government more than the banksters.
Wonder how many years of Taxes we get to see for Ryan!
Posted by: ExPattBrit | August 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Romney's the guy who fires you. Ryan's the guy who denies you unemployment insurance or health coverage.
Well let's see..Ryan wants to ban all abortion even in the case of incest or rape or the health of the mother, wants to end the existing programs for foodstamps, WIC, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Yes, yes, I can see why America will go for this.
I think I will buy stock in Alpo.
Posted by: sparky | August 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM
"The most important thing to know about Mitt Romney’s running-mate choice is this: It’s not the move he would have made if the campaign was going the way he hoped it would.
Until now, the Romney strategy has been relentlessly single-minded. He’s had no interest in articulating or embracing specific policy proposals and has generally shied away from saying or doing anything that anyone might find at all unsettling. More than any other candidate in recent history, he has strained to be generic, someone positioned to serve as a protest vehicle for swing voters who are inclined to vote President Obama out. The toxicity of the Ryan budget has been tested (on a small-scale, granted) before, and the results weren’t good for the GOP. Which is why, more than anything else, this is a huge risk for Romney – a risk he wouldn’t be taking if this summer hadn’t gone so poorly for him."
Posted by: sparky | August 11, 2012 at 01:07 PM
The difference between 2008 and now? Most didn't know Palin was a hypocrite yet - we already know that about Paul Ryan.
Posted by: Rocky | August 11, 2012 at 01:27 PM
nothe diffeence McCain thought he was energizing the conervative base with a righty, instead he got a buffoon who drained votes away from the ARepubs in droves. Sory guys. Despite the chorus of cackling crows here yukking it up over the Ryan picjk, this time it's the real deal, the conservative base is already jacked, energized and ready to go vote . Even the Wahington Post said thst this pick has a lot of pros going for it, as well as the obvious risks.
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 02:03 PM
"Romney's the guy who fires you. Ryan's the guy who denies you unemployment insurance or health coverage."
Posted by: sparky | August 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM
You've tapped right into the Obamazombie talking points. So, you approve of continuing with $570 billion gutted out of Medicare by Obamacare in an entitlement that is unsustainable. Real smart ! Get hysterical and go buy yourself some Alpo. That is a distortion and just a sample what the Democratics will throw against the wall and see if it sticks. It is based on lies, scare tactics and smoke and mirrors. As the guy in the car commercial once said; "you can pay us now or pay us later" (later will be much worse).
Stop your whining !
"The toxicity of the Ryan budget has been tested (on a small-scale, granted) before, and the results weren’t good for the GOP. Which is why, more than anything else, this is a huge risk for Romney – a risk he wouldn’t be taking if this summer hadn’t gone so poorly for him."
Posted by: sparky | August 11, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Poorly ? HA he is even steven with the incumbent based on Gallup daily tracking poll. A pick like Pawlenty or Portman (former Bush admin) would have been less effective. FYI - The Ryan budget goes out 10 years + but the fact is that budgets for the following year are the only budgets that matter - the rest of them can be tweeked the following year. It is not an edict or Gordian knot that will stick like Obamacare if it isn't repealed next year.
The left should be scared and the seniors should also be able to see through the left's scare tactics and will, once Ryan/Romney explain what the Democrats are trying to do to make this country a welfare state and what he and others propose to do to fix our economy and deficit, their house of phony arguments and sky is falling tactics will fall down.
Face it, the conservative base and the Tea Party are energized and if the progressives/statists want full out war as they appear to - war it will be. Obama is an empty suit, duplicitous and divisive whiner !
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Keep spinning KS and Tommy. This pick shows that Romney is an obedient Koch minion. Did you know that Ryan went to college on Social Security benefits due to his father's unfortunate death? SS is fine for him but not for other people. He has been in Congress since his 20's and has lived off what Chuckles likes to call "the government tit" for 20 years. And like a Walla Walla sweet, there is much more to come as we peel back the layers. Bwahahahahahah!
Posted by: Walt | August 11, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Paul Ryan is just Sarah Palin with a penis.
Posted by: Rocky | August 11, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Ryan sleeps in his office, because he doesnt work an 8 hour day like our First Dude, Obama ( 4 to 6 hours a day when it's a golfing day). With Ryan it's 16 to 20 hour work days. He doesnt even have an apartment in D.C. , just the cot in his office. He goes home to Wisconsin every weekend. Big family man. He's Catholic, by the way, for all you libber Catholic haters on the blog. hahaha libbers heehee libbers i think your derisvie bluster and chorus of forced laughter, like so many cawing , cackling crows, masks a very real , growing unease you have with the Ryan pick. Dare i say fear? Yes. Fear.
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 04:14 PM
Sarah Palin is lazy, stupid and a clown . Oh and shes also a quitter when the going gets a little rough. Paul Ryan is jus the opposite of all those four things. Next?
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 04:27 PM
It's a bit too warm to dialogue with a bunch of liberals that believe in taking all you can from the people that earn it without and consideration for where their money comes from or what those people do to earn it and sharing it with the non-producers.
Ryan is a good choice. He does understand where money (real capital) comes from and how it is made. Ryan understands budgets and priorities. The currant hacks have been unable to put together the most basic of budgets over the past three years.
It is time for real honest change and to put away the hopey-changey guy that is without a clue as to what to do to put the economy back to work for all of us.
Posted by: R-R 2012. Real Change For Real Progress | August 11, 2012 at 04:30 PM
He has been in Congress since his 20's and has lived off what Chuckles likes to call "the government tit" for 20 years. And like a Walla Walla sweet, there is much more to come as we peel back the layers. Bwahahahahahah!
Posted by: Walt | August 11, 2012 at 04:08 PM
Enough of the scare tactics and baseless screed. You don't have any room to talk supporting the duplicitous whiner in chief and their unsustainable welfare rip-off policies. Bwahahahaha
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 04:44 PM
The GOP loves to trash Obama by bringing up Saul Alinsky. Mitt & Ryan better get used to hearing Ayn Rand, the reason Ryan entered politics
Posted by: Rocky | August 11, 2012 at 04:57 PM
hahahaa Romney made the same mistake this morning that Obama made in 2008 when Obama introduced Biden as his pick. Both men introduced their picks as "the next President of the United States".....Romney had the stage presence, humor and grace to come back on stage, to briefly interrupt Ryan's speech and correct himself. The audience loved it. Romney Showed some real skills there . He wasnt the "strapped to a board", rigid dweeb that the libbers have been trying to cartoon him as. I don't believe stiff, pompous, prideful Obama ever deigned to "lower" himself by correcting his identical gaffe. No, i don't believe he did.
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 05:16 PM
hahaahah "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT !!" was the centerpiece of Romney's speech this morning. It's really the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Five things that Obama and the left does not want you to know about Romney and Ryan;
Remember, Politifact is a Left-leaning outfit, yet even they felt compelled to slam Democrats for their egregious distortions of Paul Ryan's Medicare plan. This debate is just getting (re) started, so here are a few key points to keep in mind as the "kill Medicare" falsehood gets spread far and wide:
(1) The Republican reform plan totally exempts anyone over the age of 55 from any changes. When President Obama promised Americans "if you like your plan, you can keep it" to push Obamacare, he didn't tell the truth. The Ryan plan explicitly, in black and white, protects current and soon-to-be seniors. No changes.
(2) The Democrats' non-plan does the opposite. It has already slashed more than half-a-trillion dollars (Update: $741 Billion, according to the latest CBO score) from Medicare to fund Obamacare, and it has established an unaccountable and extremely powerful bureaucratic board to ration care in order to keep costs down. To repeat, current seniors have already seen their Medicare cut by President Obama, not Republicans.
(3) Medicare's own accountants have calculated that Medicare will be insolvent within 12 years. As Democrats claim that Romney and Ryan want to "kill Medicare" or "end Medicare as we know it," they fail to mention that the calendar and basic arithmetic will do that in the face of inaction. Doing nothing is President Obama's plan because it tempts voters with the illusion that everything is going to be just fine, and that he's protecting them from "draconian cuts." He hopes this charade will get him through the election cycle. But reality is gaining on us. Medicare "as we know it" will be obliterated for generations to come unless we start making changes for the future, while shielding people currently at or near retirement from any switch. Between items two and three on this list, the truth is revealed: Democrats' plans cut Medicare, and Democrats' calculated inaction will result in its ultimate demise. The Republican plan is an urgently necessary move to save the program.
(4) After his plan was criticized for being too partisan in the first "Path to Prosperity" budget, Paul Ryan adjusted his reforms in the FY 2013 version. He updated his Medicare reform to embrace a bipartsian solution he co-crafted with progressive Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), which maintains the original "premium support" model, but includes traditional Medicare as an option for future seniors. Again, the Medicare reform plan for future seniors is bipartisan, and co-authored by a committed liberal who understands that the clock is running out to save the program. The updated version's provisions are also means-tested, meaning they entail more federal assistance to poorer and sicker future seniors than richer and healthier ones.
(5) The Romney/Ryan plan does not impose "draconian and radical cuts." In fact, the Republican budget increases spending. Every year. It simply slows the rate of increase. The most recent House-passed budget increases spending from $3.53 Trillion to $4.88 Trillion within the next ten years. This does, however, spend trillions less than President Obama's unanimously-defeated budgets envisioned. In case you hadn't noticed, we're broke, and it's getting worse.
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 05:38 PM
It's a interesting strategy that the GOP has. Change the name of something that people have worked their entire life for into "entitlement". Then say basically fvck you, the rich (job creators) need more tax cuts
Romney must have decided to forgo Florida, with all the seniors there he couldn't win with Ryan's wipe-out of the social safety net. Rick Scott will be toast too next time.
Tommy, Ryan might be RC but the Church is totally against his proposed budget!
Posted by: ExPattBrit | August 11, 2012 at 06:31 PM
It is happening all over the nation. It has started with cities and counties. Overspending and over promising and ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away. At the very least, leave the problem for the next guys.
Eventually the money runs out and bankruptsy is the only option.
At least we have a couple of adults that understand money and see the problem. They are offering up solutions.
Harry Reid, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Barry Obama and the rest of the Democrat Senate can't even come up with a budget to see what we have and what is coming in and going out. They are in complete denial and keeping the truth from us.
It really is time for the kind of change that we can all believe in. Get rid of the Democrats. If in 4 years the mess is still with us, get rid of the Republicans and start anew.
We are overspending, over promising and unable to deliver it all.
Posted by: R-R 2012. Real Change For Real Progress | August 11, 2012 at 07:29 PM
KS,
Here’s the one thing Rmoney doesn’t want you to know about, did you hear about the “Son of Boss” situation?
Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, declined to answer written questions about Romney’s role at Marriott. “For details of Marriott’s tax planning, we refer you to Marriott,”she said.
“Tax planning is conducted by the company’s management and is, like all aspects of our business, subject to board oversight,” said Thomas O. Marder, a Marriott spokesman.“Marriott only engages in transactions that we believe are in accordance with the tax code and that we think will create shareholder value.”
“During Romney’s tenure as a Marriott director, the company repeatedly utilized complex tax-avoidance maneuvers”
Posted by: BlackRhino | August 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Romney's the guy who fires you. Ryan's the guy who denies you.
Sparky, 2012
Sounds catchy to me.
Posted by: BlackRhino | August 11, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Is that all you have ? Lame. That pales compared to the crony capitalism of Owebama spending several billion dollars on his crony capitalism schemes of picking winners in the solar industry and is also 20 years ago.Try defending that for the first time.
Did this allegation go to litigation ? Why not ? Seems like flimsy evidence of any legal wrongdoing- tax loophole(s) were likely used there.
With the tax code as convoluted as it is, there are many more situations like this. The tax code needs to be overhauled and flattened to lessen the occurrence of loopholes being used and abused.
I am surprised Saul actually declined to put her foot in her mouth.
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 08:20 PM
hahahah, BR, you guys are absolutley comical, turning yourselves into pretzels tryign to find all of the arcane, ancient details of Romneys various employments, with hopes of "shocking" people with some sort of tax chicaneries or inhumane. brutal acts of employee firings. Everyone knows that however lttle or how much taxes Romney paid over the years, the payments were never less than what the law, in the hands of very clever but legal tax attorneys, technically,legally allowed. One libber on here admitted he respected Romney for knowing how to pay low taxes legally but he was too much of a priss and a goody -two-shoes to ever vote for a man like that. Unfortunatley for him, and for BR, TS and gang here the American electorate simply doesn't care about that stuff to the degree they do, and they certainly dont care about it enough to make them turn away from Romney if they beleive he can fix the economy and Obama can't. As for the inhumane , brutal firings issue, apprently your side is so desperate that they had to manufacture a Romney firing out of whole cloth, citing a woman who died of cancer whose husband was fired by Bain years after Romney had left the company.
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 08:21 PM
bwhahahahahahaahhahaa
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Can anybody here explain how Harry Reid got rich as a government employee?
Is there anybody here that does not take advantage of any deduction that they qualify for, like mortgage interest or charitable contributions?
Why do people and businesses have to pay billions of dollars for accountants and tax preparers every year to make certain they deduct all that they are entitled to? Could it be the messed up tax system is so convoluted that it has created its own history?
Posted by: Chucks | August 11, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Sure Chuck S, can you say Ol’ Harry skirted his tax responsibilities? If ol’ Rmoney didn’t do anything wrong, why not show his tax returns?
Posted by: BlackRhino | August 11, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Can you imagine how infuriated T-S is right now, looking at the two white men over 40 running on the Repub ticket? Can you imagine being in T-S 'es living room on election night, when R and R finally win in the late night hours>?..... Romney didn't even kowtow to the politically correct "racial sensitivity" card by picking Rubio or Condi.
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Ahhhh, race baiting flaunts its ugly head.
Thanks Thomas.
Posted by: Gentlemen Rouge | August 11, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Gee - I just heard this week that is was estimated that 30 million people WILL NOT be covered by Obamacare. Before this despicable POS legislation was passed, there were an estimated 33 million without health insurance. Another lie about Obamacare from the liar in chief.
"Harry skirted his tax responsibilities? If ol’ Rmoney didn’t do anything wrong, why not show his tax returns?"
Posted by: BlackRhino | August 11, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Another distraction - If Obama won't show us his college records, why should he ?
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Nice try KS, but as I suspected, no answer. You can try to change the subject all you want, but everyone wants’ to know what’s in his tax returns.
Posted by: BlackRhino | August 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Call John McCain and check with him. He has copies of all the tax returns Mitt Romney showed him in 2008. Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats are too stupid and asanine to not do that in the first place.
Nice try, BR - no sale.
Posted by: KS | August 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM
"If Obama won't show us his college records, why should he?"
In all seriousness, I think
Rolls/RoyceRomney/Ryan should run on this - preferably this alone. Whoops, I misspoke: R/R should broaden their scope and seriously discuss Obama's Kenyan connections, Marxio-Fascism and phoned-in Hawaii birth announcements.Posted by: Mercifurious | August 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Really KS? Someone has already leaked it to ol’ Harry. Chuck S is having a conniption due to this leak. Why not release the Tax returns Mittens? Unless you have something to hide…
Posted by: BlackRhino | August 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM
the word is that that First Dude, or BO, was a student at Columbia under foreign student status as a student from Indonesia...hence no release of college records. Just saying..the word is out on this...isn't that what Harry Reid said about Obama paying zero taxes for ten years? "the word is"?..yeah that's it..."the word is"..thats what harry said.......
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM
romney paying zero taxes, not obama
Posted by: Hedge Fund Hal | August 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Romney's the guy who fires you.
Ryan's the guy who denies you.
Posted by: Finis Hominis | August 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM
False narrative - is that all you have ? No substance as usual.
Posted by: KS | August 12, 2012 at 09:23 AM
"Call John McCain and check with him. He has copies of all the tax returns Mitt Romney showed him in 2008. Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats are too stupid and asanine to not do that in the first place.
Nice try, BR - no sale.".
McCain won't comment on Romney's tax returns, nor will any of the people who vetted Romney for McCain's VP and chose Palin instead because she was more qualified. Interesting isn't it.
Wonder if he still has copies. McCain probably doesn't want to step in this pile of poo.
Posted by: ExPattBrit | August 12, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Once again, if Obama releases his college records, as Romney already has, then Mitt should release his tax returns. Do you think the community organizer in chief would go for that ?
Hell NO ! I don't trust Owebama any more than a rogue dictator. The left is trying to manipulate this and McCain already has seen Romney's tax returns going back 12 years. Romney/Ryan need to fight this battle on their own terms. This is just another bogus issue meant to distract from the idire issues of this campaign that Owebama wants to obfuscate as much as possible.
Posted by: KS | August 12, 2012 at 09:29 AM
"McCain already has seen Romney's tax returns going back 12 years."
And what did McCain say about them KS?
Maybe something like "Hey this guy managed to write off 78Gs a year for a fvcking pet horse". Let's go for Sarah instead!"
Posted by: ExPattBrit | August 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Stop trying to change the topic away from what this election is about. An old stale Rahm talking point which was found to be bullshit...
It's four more years of President Deadout/Zero throwing future generations under the bus vs. restoration and real hope for the future. The choice is clear !
Posted by: KS | August 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM
In the 50s and 60s, the middle class in America was strong, because unions were in the mix. People made the cars, and the washing machines, and the steel. They paved the highways, patroled those same highways, and hauled the freight up and down those highways, as union employees. Our economy was as strong as its ever been, because those people took their good pay and bought homes. Then they bought those union-made cars and washing machines. And those purhases built sales tax revenue that built the schools and firehouses, and bridges and waterlines. A lot of people in America today are actually hoping we never return to that era, and I hope they don't succeed. The solution for America isn't in any politcal candidate, or even in any party. It's always been right in front of us- our hard-working people. The real hope to save this economy rests in unionized labor- the only job creators this nation has ever known.
Posted by: Rocky | August 12, 2012 at 01:32 PM
I remember the morning host on KPOJ based on the measure 66/67 debate of early 2010 and how a new publisher at the paper was campaigning against them with ads above the fold, above the banner trashing the tax measures that would fund among other programs, education. Then the publisher ran an editorial saying the paper endorsed Citizens United. On that one, Carl Wolfson(I don't know if it he spells it with a C or a K), said after the show, he was asking his partner about dropping their subscription. They got a call a few days later from a person who knew somebody that said the Sunday run was few thousand short. I thought that was not even a dent. That was 2 years ago. By the way, if they do go to printing a few days a week, it sounds ironic, one of the ways they cut schools when funding is short in Oregon? Eliminating a few days from the school year. Anyway, the 2 measures passed. The irony, was the Oregonian, when the debate was going on over the tax measures in Salem, endorsed them. They changed publishers in the time before the passage in Salem, and the measures going to referendum.
Now since this is an Open Thread, something I wanted to mention. In October SOund Transit will be opening a SOUNDER Extension, and this might surprise people, it was one I was skeptical would ever happen, as it is over 10 years late. FRA(Federal Railroad Administration) regulations prohibit Light Rail and COmmuter Rail trains from sharing the same track at the same time, so the BNSF line through Lakewood saw it's Tacoma end severed when Tacoma LINK Light rail came on line. A new connection had to be built between the ex-Milwaukee Road Tacoma Eastern line(now owned by the City of Tacoma) and the ex-Northern Pacific Prairie Line(aka Lakeview Sub, Tacoma to Nisqually Junction, now owned by Sound Transit). It took about a decade to figure out the best way to route the roughly a mile of new track. Once they figured that out, construction has been fast, roughly over a year. WHile the planning was going on, SOund Transit was building the two new stations in Lakewood and South Tacoma, and track improvements from Tacoma to Lakewood needed for it. The D-M street connector is now finished, train testing is now underway.(By the way, ST needs a couple new locomotives, being bought from a manufacturer in a Red State, Idaho).
http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/08/11/sounder-arrives-in-lakewood/
Now are the FRA regs tough? Yes. Are they set in stone and the current FRA refusing to budge? No. Just look at Denton County, Texas and their suburb-to-suburb commuter train, the A-Train. The Swiss-made, light Diesel Multiple Units were re-designed and the DCTA was granted a waiver from the FRA Reg.(The FRA has done the same for San Francisco-based CalTrain on their future electric trains)
By the way, the situation in Tacoma with the two train lines lacking an efficient connection between them all along, those two railroads were built by the private sector. Since ST's proposals for the line originally had it up and running in 2001, they probably assumed that they would have been using the AmShack in Tacoma as the station for Tacoma.(A nickname for cookie-cutter, standardized stations when Amtrak got started).
Posted by: EvergreenRailfan | August 12, 2012 at 03:27 PM
There is a universal phenomenon called natural localism. The majority of people, wherever they might live, are affected by this condition. It results in limited knowledge – knowledge of what is local, and ignorance (often breeding fear) of what is not local. Unless countered by positive education and tolerance, natural localism can result in aggressive behavior toward the unfamiliar.
In 1849 natural localism was institutionalized in a small nativist party in the United States called the American Party. It was basically an anti-immigrant affair. White men who were ignorant and fearful of outsiders came to see Catholic immigrants of all descriptions as undermining the true character of the US, the party was powerful for a short time, particularly in the northeastern states, electing candidates to local office throughout the region.
Appropriately enough, adherents to the American Party came to be called “know-nothings”. There were two reasons for this: on the one hand, party members tended to be secretive about their political affiliations, giving their party a strong conspiratorial flavor. When asked about the activities of the American Party they would reply, “I know nothing”. On the other hand, they really did know almost nothing of the groups that exercised their passions. They thought all Catholics were under the complete command of the Pope, like religious zombies.
Ignorance was the hallmark of the “know-nothings” and, while they never did capture national power, they never went away. Today you can find their successors throughout the land, fixated on a wide range of issues:
There are Americans who really know nothing about Muslims but are sure they are a mortal threat to the country. They have replaced Catholics as the modern know-nothing’s version of religious zombies.
There are some who know nothing about Mexicans and others from south of our border but are sure that anyone who speaks like they do is a threat.
There are some who know nothing about Iran, cannot even locate it on a map, but are sure it is a threat and should be attacked.
Actually the list is nearly endless. And, given that Americans know so little about so much of what they have strong opinions about, it is inevitable that know-nothingness should contaminate the politics of the nation. For instance, the Republican Party plays the role of today’s know-nothing party. Strong evidence for this conclusion comes from the circus that was the Republican presidential nominating campaign. Since almost all the contenders for the nomination were self-congratulatory know-nothings, it is no surprise that the man who won that contest, Willard Mitt Romney, is one as well.
The know-nothing candidate
Romney affirmed himself as the standard bearer of America’s modern know-nothing party during his recent trip to England, Israel and Poland. Here is how it went:
He came close to being declared persona non grata in England by gratuitously questioning the adequacy of British security for the Olympic games. All security issues had already been addressed. The British papers pilloried Romney for his comments.
In Israel, he made a speech before an audience of wealthy potential donors to his campaign (many of them flown in from the United States for the occasion). He told them that the difference between Israel’s economic achievement and that of the Palestinians was a function of (a) superior Jewish culture and (b) God’s will. Not one word about the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
If you would like to publicly challenge Romney or his campaign staff on any of this, the reply you can expect was set down during his brief stay in Poland. As reporters sought to ask questions, Mr Romney’s press assistant Rick Gorka replied, “kiss my ass.” Mr Gorka is a know-nothing too. His response has not been disavowed by the candidate.
Willard Mitt Romney knows about what has been local in his life. He knows how to be a particularly negative businessman, the kind who takes corporations apart and exports their jobs. He also appears to know how to make a lot of money and not pay taxes on it. As a politician he can glad-hand you in order to get a donation and play the chameleon so you are not sure what many of his positions are. He probably knows the other local things that most of us also know: how to balance a checkbook, drive a car and stay clean, etc.. Beyond this, however, it is a safe bet that he is a know-nothing. Worse yet, he is prone to fill his void of ignorance with magical thinking. For instance, that declaration that Israeli success is not only based on cultural superiority, but is also a function of the “hand of providence”.
Now the know-nothing candidate wants to be president. And he may well succeed, depending on just how many other Americans know nothing in ways that make them comfortable with Mr Romney’s ignorance.
They will vote for him. The infamous 1 per cent, many of whom agree with Mr Romney’s assertion that corporations “are people too” and have the same rights as individuals (more magical thinking) will vote for him. The “American firsters”, many of whom think Barack Obama is a closet Muslim and not a US citizen at all, will vote for him.
But, that is not enough to win unless the election day turnout is exceedingly low. So, how many other Americans, who otherwise might pass for relatively rational individuals of voting age, will successfully be lured into Mr Romney’s know-nothing party? After all, most Americans really know very little about the world beyond their local realm. “Ignorance is as ignorance does”, particularly on election day.
Posted by: Preston | August 12, 2012 at 06:27 PM