Monday, June 20, 2011

Going Rove hyper-locally

A week ago I ventured the hypothesis that the recent moves of the group that was started to help pass the Mayor's plan to sell off the Fairgrounds, Neighbors for Progress, seemed a lot like an election campaign designed to foil council votes against the Mayor. CM Jamie Hollin looks like he might believe likewise in a City Paper article by Charles Maldonado published yesterday:

"Other than the fact that I don’t know what he’s talking about, with everything that’s been coming out on this — Save My Fairgrounds just went about the job of collecting the signatures — they’re the ones that have been throwing the stones,” [CM Hollin] said ....

“To suggest that Boyer Barner or any of these other people has anything to do with Save My Fairgrounds, they don’t. It’s just fundamentally flawed,” Hollin said. “I’m not going to hold Colby Sledge accountable for someone else’s actions. He shouldn’t hold me accountable for someone else’s actions.”

The real reason for the letter, Hollin suggested, was to garner sympathy for Neighbors for Progress in response to Save My Fairgrounds’ success in getting the referendum on the ballot.

And the timeline — or the number of actions Sledge’s group took in a few short weeks — appears to lend at least some support to that theory. Hollin’s group turned in its signed petitions on Monday, May 16. Just prior to that, Neighbors for Progress announced that it had hired Barrett — who’s working pro bono, according to Sledge, but on a contingency basis, Barrett told The City Paper — to monitor the Election Commission as it counted the signatures. On June 2, the letter came. Four days later and through Barrett, the group challenged the validity of the referendum petition, in a letter to the Nashville District Attorney’s office.

It almost feels like the beginnings of an official political campaign ... to defeat the referendum.

Maldonado also discloses that Dean campaign consultant Will Pinkston moved easily from his former position of mustering and sniping against Michael Craddock to his current advisory role with Colby Sledge's group. So, now NFP has the benefit of a partisan mercenary to do the dirty work and a lawyer to give them legal gravity. But then again, Sledge's groups have been enjoying inordinate preferential treatment from the powerful since Karl Dean adopted them to wave his banner last November.

They don't seem able to to win these issues with pure power, so they're going to smear a legitimate popular cause in Nashville with the poor choices of an individual who supports that cause.


  1. Lol... Your anti Karl Dean propaganda blog is hilarious. I hope the limited readers of this blog will go and read the full article on the Nashville City Paper's website. Unlike this delusional blog post that only takes bits and pieces from the Nashville City Paper article, the Nashville City Paper article is pretty well balanced. When an article is well balanced that is when you can tell the difference between a real journalist and a want to be journalist. Wouldn't you agree Mike?

  2. Anonymous, You may want to take your left foot off of the ladder. I think you sense of "balance" may be flawed.
    The City Paper article was unbalanced from the headline to the finish.

  3. Mike,

    I'd have to argue with the 'poor choices' comment you made.

    You ain't exactly sitting in the catbird seat.

    For starters: One of my posts mentioned in the cease-and-desist from George Barrett specifically mentions one I made on this site. If Barrett were to file a law-suit, Enclave would likely be named for publishing such comments. And since you are the editor and pick and choose your posts, you would likely be named as well.

    At the time you posted that comment, you certainly had no problem with it.

    My comment on the Save My Fairground Facebook page about Colby Sledge "probably getting drunk" was obviously in jest, and posted in a forum where folks regularly vent on the antics of Sledge. If Jay Leno had said the same thing on late-night television, nothing would have been made of the matter.

    If Sledge is offended by such comments, he should "change the channel."

    George Barrett and Colby Sledge basically hung a micro-phone in the men's locker-room on this one. In such a venue, one will always hear language that some folks will find offensive.

    The person you should be calling out is George Barrett. His cease-and-desist and the resulting story are nothing more than part of his Barnum & Bailey approach to this entire matter.

    That said, if he indeed brings me to court, I will be wearing a clown suit and walking a pink poodle with a Bo-Bo hat. (I'd like to do all I can to add to Barrett's sense of the festivities.)

    Mike, on this one, you spoke wrongly. And I'd have to say, your back-bone went a bit soft.

  4. Boyer:

    You seem to assume that I only approve comments I agree with. That could not be further from the truth. The overwhelming majority of comments that are offered here are approved. Exceptions I have made in the past include spam (probably 90-95% of comments rejected), racially prejudiced language, and gang-related material.

    I even approve personal attacks against me that have nothing to do with the blog posts. You may see my unwillingness to endorse your comments (and I don't claim to endorse any comments unless I follow-up with an actual endorsement) as going soft, but I don't have to agree with your comments to consent to allow them on my blog.

  5. I agree with Boyer. Mike you enable posters by allowing them to post things they probably shouldn't post. I hope that neither one of you get sued. That would be a stressful situation. Cheers.

  6. Anyone can get sued. And for pretty much anything.

    Ain't nothing but a chicken wing.

  7. I applaud Mike for his forum. We have an opportunity to speak freely without censorship. We have the freedom to give our points of view and not be harness by a moderator deciding if our message is worthy.

    Like Boyer said, Anyone can get sued.