As someone who has been the object of a one sided, exaggerated, slanted and biased character assassination by the democratian, I can't help but be amused by the concern expressed by the rag over Jack's departure. For example:
Everything that Jacks has done here was done under the color of his office. He has no right or expectation of privacy concerning ANYTHING he's done while in office as a result.
Further, during the Dunn and Curtis debacles, I saw none of this one-sided concern... which is misplaced, as Jacks' actions here were done as a public official in public settings.
Censoring the public that has paid his salary to protect this democrat, particularly in the face of the efforts by this same rag to throw Republicans or anyone else... most of whom far more private individuals than Jacks... who opposes their agenda under a bus is what the democratian does best.
Treat EVERYONE the same. Write about Jacks the same way you ginzued Van Nortwick during the election cycle for example, you hypocrites.
And Lew Waters provided another example of this double standard.
All you leftists concerned about Jacks' privacy since he abandoned his constituents and quit?
Of course you feel the exact same way about.... Sarah Palin.... right?
Didn't think so.
What I'm asking for is that the rag and all you leftist defenders apply the same standard to Jacks... as you do to Palin.
As a result... covering for Jacks when you have absolutely NO reason to do so?
There is no excuse for that.
Please grant Jim his request for privacy so he can deal with his family's personal issues. He has taken the high road here by resigning his office and putting family first. I ask that people honor his request.
I have been down this road, as many in our community know. Ten years ago I walked away from public office to deal with a personal issue in my family, and like Jim, asked for privacy. Our community honored that request. In due time I was able to share the story publically of my daughter's drug addiction, but our family needed the time to deal with our challenges by ourselves. Jim and his family deserve nothing less, regardless of the issue that faces them.
I expect that Jim Jacks is experiencing an emotional and trying time. His resignation is a reminder that elected representatives are people with lives and families that deeply affect them.
No one saw this coming. Jim will share the story in time. Until then, we ought to offer support and comfort to him and his family.
I think for anyone posting here to suggest a rumor about why Jim Jacks resigned is ignorant. He resigned. The why....is his business, no matter the reason. People need to quit trying to put their own spin on what is probably a serious situation.
Hey everyone, I just wanted to get a few things out there.
First, we won't entertain any more speculation on this story from this point on. Please refrain from speculating in the comment box. Any comments along those lines will be removed.
Second, if you DO have tips, please get in touch with us. You can call Stephanie Rice at 360-735-4508 or e-mail her at stephanie.rice@columbian.com.
You can also submit a news tip on our website.
Thanks for your time.
Matt Wastradowski (Columbian Staff) — March 25, 2011 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink suggest removal ) Ignore User )
Though to me the more interesting part of the story is who will succeed Jacks, there seems to be a lot of speculation and rumors being posted about why he left. We're going to be removing those unless there is a confirmed allegation that he did something wrong in relation to his legislative job.
Craig Brown (Columbian Staff) — March 25, 2011 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink suggest removal ) Ignore User )
Hey everyone, I just wanted to clear a few things up. I think I used some poor word choices earlier.
If there is found to be any wrongdoing pertaining to Jacks' duties as a public official, we will certainly write about them. But there have been no confirmed wrongdoings, and we won't print rumors. And we won't tolerate them on our website.
Matt Wastradowski (Columbian Staff) — March 25, 2011 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink suggest removal ) Ignore User )
Councilman Burkman said it best -- give Jim & his family a break. He has served us well as one of our Representatives. The 49th will miss him. Say a prayer for Jim & his family. That's the best thing any of us can do right now.
These observations are absurd in every respect.Yes, Jacks is a "public figure", however, at this point he is an individual who has asked that we respect his privacy. Until it is shown that his concerns are also ours, he deserves that. I appreciate that the Columbian is finally doing something to limit the often mindless and mean spirited comments/speculation that frequently flood the website. It's not censorship, it's common decency. For those who feel they really need every bit of information, and they need it right now even if it's pure speculation, I'd suggest that perhaps what you really need is to get a life.
Everything that Jacks has done here was done under the color of his office. He has no right or expectation of privacy concerning ANYTHING he's done while in office as a result.
Further, during the Dunn and Curtis debacles, I saw none of this one-sided concern... which is misplaced, as Jacks' actions here were done as a public official in public settings.
Censoring the public that has paid his salary to protect this democrat, particularly in the face of the efforts by this same rag to throw Republicans or anyone else... most of whom far more private individuals than Jacks... who opposes their agenda under a bus is what the democratian does best.
Treat EVERYONE the same. Write about Jacks the same way you ginzued Van Nortwick during the election cycle for example, you hypocrites.
And Lew Waters provided another example of this double standard.
All you leftists concerned about Jacks' privacy since he abandoned his constituents and quit?
Of course you feel the exact same way about.... Sarah Palin.... right?
Didn't think so.
What I'm asking for is that the rag and all you leftist defenders apply the same standard to Jacks... as you do to Palin.
As a result... covering for Jacks when you have absolutely NO reason to do so?
There is no excuse for that.
2 comments:
Seeing Brancaccio once again pen a column on how "middle of the road' they are brought a chuckle to me this morning.
I wonder how Laird will treat this matter in his coming articles?
Rake Jacks over the coals like they did others who were Republican?
I'm not holding my breath.
Brancaccio seems to crank these articles out to actually convince himself that he is what he proclaims himself to be.
The reality, however, is entirely different.
Post a Comment