Thursday, March 13, 2008

Oakland Democratic Politics Quoted in New York Times

My entry from yesterday about Jack Kevorkian filing to be a candidate for Congress from the 9th Congressional District got notice by the New York Times.

Dr. Kevorkian is released.Dr. Jack Kevorkian walking to freedom last June. (Pool photo by Carlos Osorio.)

Having sworn off the death machine he invented, Dr. Jack Kevorkian has apparently decided to cast his lot with the ballot box by running for Congress. The news that practically satirized itself was reported by a local paper in Michigan, The Oakland Press, which spotted him picking up petitions from the county clerk:

“I plan to,” Kevorkian said Tuesday afternoon. “I wouldn’t do this otherwise. We need some honesty and sincerity instead of corrupt government in Washington.”

Kevorkian said he would have more to say about his candidacy next week. “Everything’s in a formative stage,” he said.

Perhaps sensing voter aversion to partisan politics these days (or the local Democrats’ and Republicans’ aversion to him), Mr. Kevorkian has decided on an independent run, the report said. He’ll need 3,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

Even local political junkies were shocked. Bruce Fealk, whose blog aims to collect “all your Oakland County Political News in one place,” completed a double take with the rest of us. “Now, I have to admit, I didn’t see this one coming,” he wrote.


MIKE said...

I smell a rat. Kervorkian doesn't stand a snowball chance - but you know the Republicans will exploit this.

Zark-Vader said...

No rat other than Dr. D., and there's nothing to exploit that Kevorkian himself isn't guilty of.

And Bruce, you were quoted on the New York Times blog, not its paper (at least as far as I can tell). I'd say that's mildly intriguing, but its just a blog.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chetly, I suppose you'd say that if it was Oakland Politics that had appeared? Even if it is "just a blog" it's still the New York Times blog.

Zark-Vader said...

Sure, I'd make note of the citation, but I wouldn't misrepresent it or puff it like you did. That's the story - you claim you were "quoted in the NYT" - but upon examination your claim is puffery, at best.

Having actually written a column for print version of the Wall St. Journal, and appeared in some fashion or another in dozens of major print or TV outlets, this is almost laughable. If I want to get national blog exposure, I can make phone calls and get bigger hit drivers than this from better blogs (shit, even a DailyKos frontpage mention is better than this, and I've even been there as a news source).

The NYT blogger did a keyword on Kevorkian and this race - you were one of the first (good for you) to talk about it, and he quoted you. But its just a blogger, one acting more as a news aggregator than source provider. What makes the NYT blog better than any other blog that tries to provide news? Nothing. Indeed, it proves the blogosphere is taking over, but it doesn't measure the value of the blog.

Zark-Vader said...

Also, I think its kind of funny that you folks 1) think the Republicans have any control over Kevork 2) want to keep Kevork out of the race.

Seems all very like Nader/excuse-making to me.

Bruce Fealk said...

Kevorkian is irrelevant. I don't share Mike's opinion on this one. Kevorkian won't get 1000 votes, if he even stays in all the way to the general. Besides, according to his parole provisions, he can't even leave the state.

Zark-Vader said...

The US Constitution probably allows him to go to DC - it would give a sitting Congressman immunity while in session - this is unique though since the condition/legal restraint was on him before election or inaugration. I suppose the question would become was whether the state's parole rule was a compelling interest and narrowly tailored. Since the parole could be rewritten narrowly to allow him travel to DC only for specific purposes, I'd expect he'd have a right to go.

On the other hand, I'd have no problem if a legislature saw fit to make it so that felons were ineligible to be in Congress, but our legislature hasn't done that yet. There'd be a compelling interest for such a blanket rule that EQUALLY affected everyone, and arguably it would be narrowly tailored to achieve its interest.