Allison Jackson submitted her op ed piece.
Paul Gallegos has his up.
Jeff Schwarz then wrote a piece encouraging Hagen voters to support Paul G.
Paul Hagen then chimed in in response to Schwarz’ letter. He does not endorse Allison Jackson, but he slams Paul G. He definitely held back last spring!
You can comment in response to the articles online.
Also on the Eye site – a slew of letters, many of them about the D.A. race. It does seem that next to the NCJ the Eye does receive the best letters, or is willing to publish them. It reminds me of the AVA in the golden years.
41 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 26, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Anonymous
Allison Jackson’s piece sounds an awful lot like the words of Rose Welsh
October 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Steve
I think your PG link goes to AJ’s piece.
October 26, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Anonymous
This sounds like the words of Rose Welsh, not Allison Jackson
October 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Eric Kirk
Thank you Steve. It’s fixed.
October 26, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Mitch
Regarding Paul Hagen’s letter… Unfortunately, we don’t get to vote for perfection. We get to vote for the better of two choices. I’m voting for Gallegos. If Paul Hagen thinks I should vote for Jackson instead, he should at least endorse her.
October 26, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Anonymous
As a Hagen supporter, I’m not voting for Gallegos. Both candidates are terribly flawed, but on the whole I think Gallegos has been a mistake. Democrats really screwed up in letting Hagen go. I’d rather have 4 years of Jackson and then get someone really good into the position.
October 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Hagen is a Joke
I used to respect Paul Hagen. That respect is now gone.
Hagen starts his rant by saying “I completely refrained from negative campaigning and wish to keep it that way.” That I could respect. but then Hagen follows it up by engaging in bitter negative campaigning. huh?
Hagen next states that smearing your political opponents is undeniably unethical. Also a fine statement. but Hagen then follows that statement by smearing his political opponent thereby showing himself to be unethical by his own definition.
Hagen then says, “vilification, smearing, and divisive politics are worse” only to follow it up with one of the most blatant examples of vilification, smearing and divisive politics we have seen. huh?
And left completely out of the Hagen rant is any explanation for why he does not support Jackson or any discussion of her smearing of her opponent, divisive politics, and negative campaigning. How does Hagen feel about Jackson’s ethics? Will he say it publicly like he has privately? If he thinks we care about his negative opinions why doesn’t he tell us about his other prior opponent, whose supporters have also asked for the votes of persons who supported Hagen. Is Hagen hoping to act like neutral in the hope that Jackson offers him a job or will he publicly state right now that he will not accept a job from Jackson even if she were to win and offer it to him? If he doesn’t state this, we have to question if his rant has a motive other than to just get back at his former boss for being fired. My guess is that he is hoping for a job from Jackson.
It is sad. I used to respect Hagen. I guess he is just a typical negative politician crying for some of the spot light now that the sun has set on his campaign. What is worse is he acts like he is different.
I hope the press can tell us a little more useful information about the candidates prior to the election, like how many murder trials they have each tried and what is their success rate. What types of cases have they each handled during the last four years? What do the candidates’ peers think of their skills and ethics? I suppose this is too much to hope for in the Eye given the papers unfailing support for anyone but Gallegos. Just like Hagen, we only get character assassination from the Eye and very little that will help voters with the decision on November 2nd.
October 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Anonymous
i still don’t see the big deal with hagen. gallegos is fine. let’s help him.
October 26, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Anonymous
Hey faux former Hagen supporter, you posted the same thing at the Eye and were already deposed by the Kevpod.
October 26, 2010 at 7:37 pm
connect the dots
Richard Salzman rears his ugly head as Hagen is a Joke. No Richard the joke is you. In the old days you would have been tared and feathered before being run out of town.
You have caused more trouble in Humboldt than anyone other person.
October 26, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Kevin Hoover
A smear would be if Hagen had said “Gallegos is a drunk,” which is something we’re being told about the latest person to run against him.
What Hagen did was cite specific actions by Gallegos which support his conclusions.
October 27, 2010 at 3:59 am
Plain Jane
Do you have any evidence that suggests the “Jackson is a drunk” is coming from Gallegos or do you just assume that everything negative that surfaces about his opponent comes from him, Hoover? Hagen’s hypocrisy is obvious – accusing Gallegos of smearing Jackson when he has done no such thing which is a smear of Gallegos as is his petty complaint about Gallegos going surfing during office hours. He comes across as a sanctimonious, progressive prig whose motives are less than pure. Is he seeking a job at the DA’s office if Jackson wins or just setting up his next campaign for DA?
October 27, 2010 at 6:44 am
Mitch
Kevin,
One thing I find interesting in the (online, at least) version of the Eye is that while Jackson’s submission stood alone in the headlines, the Gallegos submission shares billing with Hagen’s letter. Am I remembering incorrectly?
October 27, 2010 at 7:27 am
Kevin Hoover
“Do you have any evidence that suggests the “Jackson is a drunk” is coming from Gallegos or do you just assume that everything negative that surfaces about his opponent comes from him, Hoover? ”
No, o fake-name arbiter of critical thinking. I rather doubt that the defamation comes from Paul Gallegos himself. I don’t know the man, but he doesn’t seem like the meanie-face type. (On the other hand, these blogs seem to bring out certain special inner qualities in people.)
It’s a pattern that anyone who either runs against or criticizes Gallegos turns out to be incompetent or corrupt. Poor Worth Dikeman, who seemed for all the world like a dapper gentleman, came to be branded a cop-lover and racist, remember? Now Allison Jackson is all kinds of horrifying things as well. Who would have guessed?
Last spring, when I began to see the the dialogue go south, I called the Gallegos campaign’s Master Ethicist, Richard Salzman, on the phone. He blurted out that Allison had drunk-dialed him four times. Later he admonished me that our prior conversation was off the record, but of course it doesn’t work that way.
And whaddya know… now the fake-name set informs us that AJ is a drunken rage monster. Coincidence, I’m sure.
“One thing I find interesting in the (online, at least) version of the Eye is that while Jackson’s submission stood alone in the headlines, the Gallegos submission shares billing with Hagen’s letter.”
You find that interesting? That sounds like most boring thing imaginable.
October 27, 2010 at 7:41 am
Plain Jane
You must not be paying much attention to all the other political campaigns, Hoover, since they all have supporters who are willing to demonize the opponent of their chosen pol. Blaming Gallegos, or any candidate, for the smears perpetrated by their supporters, is ridiculous. However, neither you nor Hagen has called Jackson on her own smears of Gallegos and her deceitful claims about plea bargains so pot, meet kettle.
October 27, 2010 at 7:47 am
pathetic actually
So, is it just me, or does anyone else see that posters seem pre-occupied with trashing one another as much as making actual comments on the theme of the blog?
October 27, 2010 at 7:49 am
Kevin Hoover
Whoa. That changes everything.
October 27, 2010 at 7:49 am
Mitch
Our newspapers “objectivity”
Is matched only by voter passivity
With developer friends
Papers won’t make amends
Truth, for them, is like radjo-activity.
October 27, 2010 at 8:43 am
tra
The guy who came in third (Hagen) seems a bit bitter towards the guy who came in first (Gallegos)…big surprise.
October 27, 2010 at 9:02 am
Plain Jane
And Hoover is just bitter naturally. What a snide and unprofessional “journalist” he is.
October 27, 2010 at 9:54 am
brian
Notice that what Hagen wrote is not being disputed. “Shoot the messenger, shoot the messenger!!!!!!”
October 27, 2010 at 10:09 am
Plain Jane
Hagen’s complaints about Gallegos smearing Jackson were resoundingly refuted, Brian, and even Hoover doesn’t say that Gallegos was responsible. Furthermore, Hagen has shown himself to be a hypocrite with his smears of Gallegos. Since Hagen has discredited himself, there is no need to address the rest of his bitter grapes.
October 27, 2010 at 10:16 am
Eric Kirk
As someone above notes, it really doesn’t have to be this personal.
October 27, 2010 at 11:29 am
Kevin Hoover
But Eric, isn’t all this blog comment shreddage intended to help bring about a better world?
October 27, 2010 at 12:32 pm
brian
Now that’s funny………thanks for the laugh.
October 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Eric Kirk
I was talking about the campaign in general on and off the net, but it’s probably not all that different from town hall meetings dating back to colonial times. There is a perception that campaigns have become worse over the years, but you look at stuff from the 19th century and early to mid 20th century and you could make the case that we’ve actually improved.
The species is quite adaptable, and it will survive the blogs.
October 27, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, and my point being that it doesn’t have to be that way – it was based on the third district race a couple of years ago where Clif, Estelle, and Johanna all saw fit to run on the issues and hesitated to even criticize each other let along tear into each other. Yes, there were a few cromag moments on the blogs and letters pages, but the candidates all showed leadership and set the tone. It does happen.
October 27, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Kevin Hoover
As I’ve said before, it continues to astound me how you maintain your equanimity in the petty, hostility-rich blog environment. You’re certainly made of sterner stuff than I.
To paraphrase an old Python skit, Eric Kirk is like a stream of bat’s piss.
(A shaft of gold, when all around is darkness.)
October 27, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, that’s a new one!
Don’t get me wrong. Some threads almost have me believing in original sin!
October 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Joel Mielke
“I used to respect Paul Hagen. That respect is now gone.”
I’ll take Paul Hagen over anonymous blog commenters any time.
October 27, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Sigh
I voted for Hagen because he was “not Paul.” But reading his letter made me realize we really, really missed out on a great (coherent, educated, fair, overtly rationale) candidate for DA. Instead, we’re getting 4 more years of train wreck no matter who wins. I think I’ll go to bed early on Tuesday night.
October 27, 2010 at 6:04 pm
tra
The fact that Hagen felt he had to throw the surfing incident into his rant seems like an indication that he realizes how weak all the rest of his lame complaints really are. Just kind of a throw-all-the-mud-you’ve-got-and-see-if-anything-sticks approach.
Hagen’s bitterness is sad, but I suppose it’s not surprising considering the fact of how badly he fared in the first round of voting, coupled with the sensitive nature of his rather inflated ego.
October 27, 2010 at 6:07 pm
tra
“I’ll take Paul Hagen over anonymous blog commenters any time.”
However, that’s not the choice voters have to make. Voters have to decide between Gallegos and Jackson. Fortunately, Hagen’s hyperventilation notwithstanding, I believe most of us will be supporting Gallegos.
How ’bout you, Joel?
October 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Sigh
Tra, are you saying the surfing incident didn’t happen? Because if it did, I’d want the guy out of office, period. You insult Hagen, but don’t address any of his factual claims. That you describe a well-reasoned letter as “hyperventilation” speaks volumes about your partiality. Address issues instead of reciting hyperbole.
Yawn.
October 27, 2010 at 6:48 pm
tra
The surfing “incident” is a matter of record in that Gallegos was injured and rescued while surfing. Where the Gallegos-haters go off the deep end is when they seem to think that the DA job is a 9-5 time-clock punching deal and the fact that he was surfing during “business hours” was some kind of scandal.
“Well-reasoned letter?” You mean the one in which Hagen rests his argument on his claim that Gallegos is “congenitally” unfit for office? Really….it’s a matter of genes?
That’s every bit as kooky as Hagen’s reasoning when he told the Journal that he only drinks pure water because he “reasons” that because the human body is mostly water, therefore drinking anything else, even fruit juice or tea, would “pollute” his body. Shit, a 12 year old could pick apart that argument in a minute.
Face it…Hagen has turned into a classic whiny sore loser. How sad.
October 27, 2010 at 7:13 pm
tra
What’s bizarre is that he throws all that mud and concludes that Gallegos “isn’t an alternative” — but for some reason he’s not going to endorse the only other alternative on the ballot, Jackson? Who does he think he’s fooling? I suppose he hopes to get hired by Jackson if she wins, and realizes that the endorsement followed by the job offer would look like a quid-pro-quo. But so will his mudslinging on her behalf. I guess he figures it will give him some degree of plausible deniability on the potential job offer, and also a fig-leaf for those among his “progressive” supporters who now see him doing his best to help the Jackson, the least progressive candidate, make it past the finish line.
So Hagen is showing his true colors, and proving that the one thing Jackson and Hagen have in common is that they seem primarily motivated by their overinflated egos and personal grudges against Gallegos.
October 27, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Anonymous
still not denying anything he said.
October 27, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, Paul G. did deny the surfing thing vehemently, way back when it was first raised. Was it during the recall or the race against Dikeman? I don’t remember.
October 27, 2010 at 9:44 pm
tra
Again, he didn’t deny that he was surfing, just the claim that he had “called in sick.”
October 28, 2010 at 10:29 am
mreesquan
“describes Gallegos as “congenitally unqualified” for the position”
Funny comment coming from someone who blew a case against Walmart because he forgot the courtdate.
October 28, 2010 at 10:34 am
Jane
Well it is certainly nice to see all the important stuff about the candidates rising to the surface of the sewage sludge we call campaigning. Maybe we should launch a comparison of shoe choices and hair styles next.