Left In Lowell

Campy Must Have Chosen This Article’s Title

9 Responses to “Campy Must Have Chosen This Article’s Title”

1. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

   Just my $.02 since I don’t know the players involved personally.
   It is more likely that Campy initially thought something was being hidden, but he certainly understands the situation now. HOWEVER, his paper has filed challenges to get the information released. So;

   1. It makes for good fodder for the paper to try to increase circulation to write headlines like that and keep the issue alive.
   2. He has to justify what he’s doing to his bosses in Denver since they are ultimately footing the bill, if he can show it’s an investment and is paying dividends in circulation numbers, great!
   3. Backing down now would show everyone that he was wrong…the paper is NEVER WRONG don’t you know that?

   In the Bud Lite and Rita combo he’s found two folks that put their political futures above all else and are willing to help out.

   That’s just one more reason Lowell needs legitimate alternatives to the newspaper.

2. Tim Little Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

   Fair analysis, ER.

3. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   I like numbers 2 and 3.

4. Josh Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

   If this was about a tobacco company keeping certain legal documents private or about George Bush asserting executive privilege, you can bet that Lynne would be singing a totally different tune!

5. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 8:26 pm

   Josh, it’s not about those things.

   It’s about a legal strategy the city is developing for litigation that involves public money.

   GW asserting Executive Privilege to prevent our representatives in congress from asking questions, on the record and under oath, or tobacco companies knowlingly lying about their target demo or nicotine content?

   A little over the top with your analogy don’t you think?

6. Josh Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

   I don’t think so. One could argue (like the city council) that the memos between Bush and the Justice Department are covered under attorney-client privilege because everyone in that department is a lawyer. Same goes for tobacco companies in the old days. It’s the same things in all three cases.

   I’d rather know about possible fraud and waste that occurred during the project than protect some politicians’ butts.

   I guess all the liberal talk of open and transparent government is selective in application.

7. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 13th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

   Well then I guess I’d love to have you as an opposing attorney because you’d obviously conference call me during dicussions with your clients!

   Of course once this issue goes to litigation, and every indictation is that it will, we are going to know exactly what happened won’t we? So knowing now will be beneficial to you how?

   Of course we’ll never know what happened in the Bush White House and the few folks that have come forward have been discredited.

   Oh well, that’s the Supreme Court for you!

8. Jay Booth Says:
   September 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am

   Actually Josh, they could make that argument for communications between Bush and his personal counsel. I’d even buy it, dunno what the precedent it and I’m not a lawyer myself.

   The Justice Dept aren’t his lawyers, they’re our lawyers. That’s why everyone’s so mad about him politicizing them to an unprecedented degree.

9. LovingLowell Says:
   September 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pm

   To shed some light on the process, HEADLINES (not TITLES) of articles are usually written by copy editors, not the editor-in-chief.

   So, it would probably be smarter to find another reason to pick at Mr. Campanini

Leave a Reply