Senator Susan Collins gets amazing press from the Bangor Daily News. AMAZING. Her press release’s complaints that she was being taped by the Allen campaign – while, gasp, marching in a parade – got the BDN to do a front page story and to run an editorial tut-tutting over it as bad for civil discourse in Maine.

When she first ran, the BDN got all agog because people had looked at information in the public record about her.

They are her biggest fans, excusing away every pro-war and pro-Bush vote. They help keep the myth alive that she is a thoughtful moderate.

Well, what almost no one knows is that the Executive Editor of the BDN (Mark Woodward)’s wife (Bridget Woodward) is on Senator Collins’ Bangor staff. This is a clear conflict of interest.

How can we inform the people of Maine about it? You know darn well that the BDN won’t tell anyone!!!

For a bunch of folks who are SO concerned with potential problems in how campaigns are run, the BDN is living in a big glass house.

Two sourses:”met them both (23 / 0-)

Recommended by:
jxg, Rolfyboy6, juls, chimpy, Spud1, aggressiveprogressive, homo neurotic, inclusiveheart, citizenx, GTPinNJ, QuickSilver, blue jersey mom, wiscmass, Spathiphyllum, lgmcp, Prof Dave, Ellicatt, Craig Burnham, A Mad Mad World, Rumarhazzit, KansasLiberal, ArgusRun, Oliver W Holmes the 3rd, BlueGenes

I met both of them at an event, where we chatted about any number of things and where I learned that Mark, the executive editor of BDN, is married to Bridget Woodward, a Collins staffer. Then when the BDN started criticizing the Allen campaign, I was talking to the person who invited me to the event, who reminded me of this relationship.

I haven’t found anything listing both on-line, but here is Mark http://company.bangordailynews.com/… and here is Bridget http://www.themha.org/… listed under the Maine (Bangor) office.

Anyone who is involved in Bangor area civic life/politics with folks at this level should be able to confirm this. Or just call either of them and ask them. I doubt they’d deny it.

by maineiac on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:55:44 PM PDT”

And this NYT article, seventh paragraph:
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/teens/wine.html

“When Zach asked his mother about Brian’s moving in, Bridget Woodward said, “I have to talk with your dad” — Mark Woodward, the editor of The Bangor Daily News — even though she knew it would fall mainly on her. Mrs. Woodward, an aide in the local office of Senator Susan Collins, is finicky about her home, and kept mentioning the extra laundry, the food and how they would fit everyone’s beverages in one refrigerator. But what she was thinking was, “Do I want all this responsibility?”

TSK TSK, Senator Collins shame on you for your double standard, and blatant dishonesty with the Maine voters.

the way to solve the “bully” charge is to assign a petite little woman to manage the camera…

ooooh, wicked funny!

bing-damnit-o!

When the Admin sez “we done nuttin’ wrong” out one side of their mouth, and “we ain’t talkin’, ’cause it’s privileged” out the other, this is the 2×4 that needs to be applied to their head!

brendan:

I left you a comment at the tail end of the last thread.

Thanks.

This would have been a more appropriate link during the last thread, but I’ve been busy making a sleeping potion powerpoint presentation for my big lecture class.

Here’s Ray McGovern on Why Cheney shivved Rove – so they can do Iran.

Wow. Thanks for the link. Ruined my lunch but, still, great article.

peanutbutter @ 13

A bit OT from downstairs, regarding the idea t hat Rove is attacking Clinton to draw away from Edwards.

I dunno about others, but I thought that sounded a little far fetched. So I went a-googling, and immediately found this, which was a real eye opener…
Rove’s shot at Clinton could mean anything

John Edwards for President.

The MSM and the pundits are trying to drag him down. Rove is attacking Hillary. It adds up.

Hillary = Republican Lite and Corporate Heavy

check out my bold on the following quote from think progress;

TNR’s Chait takes on Kristol. The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait takes on the “decrepit intellectual state of neoconservatism,” and its intellectual driver, Bill Kristol. Chait claims there was a time when “there was something inspiring” about the neoconservative vision, but no longer:

As the Iraq war has curdled, the idealism and liberalism have drained out of the neoconservative vision. What remains is a noxious residue of bullying militarism. Kristol’s arguments are merely the same pro-war arguments that have been used historically by right-wing parties throughout the world: Complexity is weakness, dissent is treason, willpower determines all.

Kristol’s good standing in the Washington establishment depends on the wink-and-nod awareness that he’s too smart to believe his own agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing.

I have alwasy said it looks like krystol doesn’t believe his own self when he’s being questioned, he always has this little smirk like;

“ya, that’s our story and we’re sticking to it”

I guess everyone gets that feeling from him

turd

And shame on Chait for ever taking the closeted little fascist seriously….

I left you a comment at the tail end of the last thread.

You’re dead on the money on the preblog mindset.