Friday, May 14, 2010

Havre Daily "News" now Using Front Page for Their Opinion Page

It was quite apparent in Thursday night’s edition of the “fair, balanced, and unbiased” Havre Daily “News” that the editorial board and reporter Timmy Leeds have made a backhanded selection as to just who Havre voter’s should support in this year’s Hill County Attorney’s race in his story entitled "Race for Hill County attorney flares up" (to his credit he didn’t call it a Cat Fight at least).

Using BS from former Hill County attorney Cindy Peterson as a basis for his information, reporter Timmy wrote a whole long exposé listing all the negative qualities of Lorang and Randolph and reiterated Peterson’s long list of “facts” that pointed to the logical choice of Gina Dahl as being the only qualified choice to this office. One fact Timmy missed was that former county attorney Cindy Peterson is now employed in the federal system as a federal employee who obviously just violated the Hatch Act with her glowing endorsement of Dahl. I wonder if Timmy is going to do an article about that also?

What a story! It is also quite apparent that the Havre Daily “News” is now competing with the blogs for newsworthy opinion pieces where they can spew their opinion laced articles designed to lead their readers to their point of view. Interestingly, that is the same thing we do here on this opinion laced Havre Daily Corrector blog although we never try to lead you to believe even for one millisecond that we are a “fair and balanced” news source and of course we do not charge you one cent for the pleasure of reading our opinions. To run this story in the Newspaper, and worse yet to run it above the fold, is a miscarriage of decent newspaper reporting ethics. Judging by the big money Lorang has been spending on political campaign advertisements in this same pitiful paper I would guess she was feeling a little gut-punched last night.

The real pain I feel after reading that tripe last night was that I had nearly came to the same conclusion as reporter Timmy (that in itself is nearly sickening) and was going to actually vote to retain Gina as she does indeed appear to be the best qualified for this position. However, Lorang has noticeably out-worked her opponents this campaign and Randolph does have the advantage of being an outsider to the current lackluster performances coming out of this county attorney’s office of which both Dahl and Lorang have had an active part.

Now I am at the “what to do- what to do” point again and will be holding my absentee ballot for a few more days as I ponder this new information.  A very special thank you journalistic marvel Timmy Leeds for bringing these “facts” to the forefront for our reader’s comments


  1. I have decided to vote for Gina.

    Randolph was my first choice but he doesn’t appear to be doing anything to actually win the race and a vote for him this late in the race solely to effect change would in all likelihood be a vote for Lorang. Lorang comes off as young and energetic and I maybe could agree that she is working hard at being elected but she has been slinging too much mud for my taste. I rest my final decision to vote for Gina on the fact that Lorang’s husband had been really doing some nasty behind the scenes maneuvers to libel Gina in order for his wife to win which wasn’t really necessary.

    All this back alley negativity and punching below the belt has turned me off enough to stay with the status quo and vote for Gina.

  2. I thought the more interesting item in the HDN was in the legals.

    Notice to expend funds from the school general fund (nearly a half a million between the two) and the reasons listed were PARTIAL FUND for the Highland Park School (275,500), and the PARTIAL FUND for a fire alarm for the high school.($200,100)

    That must be quite the fire alarm.

    The bigger question is this PARTIAL FUND for the expenditures, or are these expiditures PARTIALLY coming out of these funds and the rest going to DAVE MAHON?

  3. The Corrector brings up a VERY interesting point. THE HATCH ACT. I would like to see this investigated further. It's my understanding that as a Federal Employee Cyndee cannot, CANNOT endorse any candidate. Someone needs to report this behavior, the unethical, unproffessional mud slinging letter was bad enough but it appears to me she has violated the law. Twice to be exact. I believe there was a letter to the editor from "The Petersons" shortly after Gina filed.

    To say Gina now gets your vote? I'm confused. She states she didn't know the letter's content before it went out? BULL. I don't believe for one minute Gina did not play a hand in that. It was the only way left to get the garbage out. Randolph may not be campaigning as hard as the other two, but campaigns cost a ton of money, money a number of qualified candidates just flat don't have. After all of this, the dog in the middle of the cat fight has my vote.

  4. randolph definently has my the hillbilly i hope you don't have any teens because if they get caught spinning there tires at a stoplight gina dahl will do anything in her power to convict them and ruin their lives because we've been there.

  5. The political campaign letter with false accusations (we call that MUD, HILLBILLY) sent out by Mrs. Peterson went out to I would believe were registered Democrats, not voters -PLEASE COMMENT ANYONE- I registered Democrat to vote against Obama in the primary did not get one. The HD SNOOOZE wrote an article about it thus publicizing and justifying the mud.
    Explain to me how it is news that the person who appoints you is the person who endorse you for the election. I agree with the corrector this was pure OPINION.

    WHY did Timmy present dissenting opinions when the court ruled that student work counted. Write the facts not the spin Timmy. SHe is either qualified or not. I have been waiting and prodding the Snooze to do some investigative reporting and they bring this crap to the front page.

    Lastly would you want a county attorney who uses any means (true or not true) possible to win going against you in court?

  6. The Hatch Act? Are you serious? Have you read it?

    In NO way does Ms Peterson violate the Hatch Act unless she is representing herself as a federal official and not a private citizen.

    Lastly, as someone who has actual experience with all 3 of the candidates I can say that Hill county is in deep doo doo.

    That said, Ms. Lorang has neither the experience nor the constitution for the job. She is immature and it shows.

    Ms. Dahl sorely lacks the personality and apparent ability to make sound prosecution decisions.

    Mr. Randolph appears to lack the organizational skills necessary required for the position.

    Knowing that, Mr. Randolph gets my vote and a hope for success.

  7. LAST thing that the school levy proved. There is a lot of talk about voting and outrage but not enough participation.

  8. I agree beerogre. If you did not cast a vote in the school election please refrain from making any further comments about the garbage the school board does . It does not matter if you are pro or con you are part of the problem

    The CA office will be the same, don't just complain-do something

  9. Hillbilly--What can I do to dissuade you from making a very serious mistake?

    Lorang or Randolph but not Dahl. I am voting for Randolph and I would encourage you to do the same. (I do not know what Mr. Lorang has done but I would vote for his wife before Dahl.)

    Please do not confuse Mr. Randoplph's lack of mud slinging or funds deter you from voting for the best choice.

    At the very least, please consider not voting in this category. I am telling you Gina Dahl is NOT someone you running that office. I can guarantee you a vote for Dahl is a vote for misjustice and you will kick yourself down the road.

  10. I actually emailed Tim and asked him if this should not have belonged on the opinion page. He replied that the article was written at the request of Lorang who knew that nearly everything in Peterson's letter was blatantly false. He said ethically he had to have Peterson's comments in there.

    Fair enough, but I do wonder why 80% of the letter was from was odd to me. I also can't quite figure out WHY the Daily News or anyone else in this town would want Gina Dahl in that position......

    Not saying the other two are stellar candidates but by comparison with the dreaded Dahl, they are fantastic.

    I still can't decide Lorang or Randolph but today I am leaning towards Lorang......

  11. MM, exactly why I decided to vote for Gina. Lorang and her husband are trying to strong arm everyone down town with mud and gossip about Gina, now they got the stupid smelly guy at the paper to give them a free front page mud tossing advertisement.

    Aside from all this it is now more than obvious that Stephen, joe morgan and even possibly MM are all married to one of the candidates and posting under different names. How dumb do they think we are? I am voting for Gina not because she is great, but because her husband isn't making an ass out of himself all over town

  12. To hillbilly; randolph aint slinging mud, at the least consider him and help your community out.Thanks.P.S.he's not my husband.

  13. Hillbilly: You must have missed my John Wayne quote: “I have a saddle older than Lindsay Lorang”.
    Did you also notice another former county attorney form out of town supporting Dahl? He is also one that should be brought up on Prosecutorial misconduct charges.

  14. Why would anyone vote for Gina? Oh and other peoples husbands is not a good reason Hillbilly. Why would you think its ok to vote for someone because the husband was the only one not mudslingin. How bout the facts? Thats why im voting for Randy. Fact; Larang wins 30 perc of her cases. Fact; Gina is the felony queen. Handing them out when not needed. Fact; shes also a bitch! Fact; Randy is a nice and decent guy. He has a lot of experience in the court room and he deserves a chance. Larang could be good. Needs a few more years experience.


    This is probably not a fact at all. Actually I just made it up. But I hope it proves a point. I have stated on this blog twice that I don't know much about Lorang or Randolph. (I can honestly say I wouldn't know Lorang if she came up and slapped me, though I would find out in a hurry). And I think it's pretty obvious I am not married to the charming and personable Gina Dahl.

    The whole benefit of an anonymous blog loses its usefulness if clowns like Hillbilly are going to label everyone who disagrees with him as a relative of the elected official in question.

    I believe those of us who have a strong disdain, distrust and any other dis-word you can think of for the affable Ms. Dahl have stated our reasons why quite eloquently. (except for shawnsretroworks who should have refrained from using such language. Though I agree with everything else he said.) If Hillilly disagrees and thinks the stateswoman known as Gina Dahl is the right choice--GREAT. But there are plenty of people in this town who disagree, and the vast majority of us are NOT related to any candidate at all.

    SO Hillilly I am asking you nicely to refrain from referring or accusing me, Stephen, as a relative of any candidate. If you have 100% proof of someone being related, great. We need to know if someone is truly biased by blood. Otherwise I suggest for the sake of this board and your shrinking credability, you keep to the facts and topics.
    Furthermore, thank you for the tip about Lorang's husband slinging mud. If I see his name on the ballot, I will NOT for him.

    Thank you.

  16. Oh one more thing to clarify Hillbilly....I have stated twice on this blog that I am voting for Randolph, so I assume you believe I am married to Randy. I can assure you that he is sooo not my type! If he were, my current wife and kids would be quite surprised to learn of my sudden change of taste! But I would give him a try as my county attorney.

    And one final response to your question "How dumb do you think we are?" Well, I don't know who the "we" you refer to is....and I really have no idea how dumb you are. Perhaps that could be the topic of a whole other section of this blog titled "How dumb is Hillbilly?" I am sure it would provide us with some stimulating answers.

  17. Sorry people for the multiple posts but Hillbilly has me a on a roll.

    He or she writes "I am voting for Gina not because she is great, but because her husband isn't making an ass out of himself all over town"

    Solid reason Hillbilly. Ya know many people say Eva Braun was a lovely woman who was void of any mailce whatsoever--does this mean you would have voted for her husband, Adolf Hitler?

  18. I have an IDEA ! Why not a public debate? When it is over hand out the absentee ballets.

  19. Ok Stephen - or Joe Morgan - or whoever you are pretending to be today.

    But you do have a good point Joe why don't one of the CA candidates challenge the other two to a debate? I am suprised a great newspaper like the Havre Daily hasn't suggested this already

  20. I fully admit that I came on this blog for one reason only-too encourage people of this city to get a new County Attorney. I don't normally blog and certainly never thought I would get angry over what someone writes about me on this board. But Hillbilly's stab in the dark that I might be married to one of the candidates greatly irrated me.

    First of all, I am a female and Randy is not exactly my type either! While I do know all the candidates by site, I do not know any of them personally.

    Hillbilly will choose to believe what he wants, so be it. But if I were related to any of the candidates I would just tell you. If I had a relative who I thought would do a good job, I would just say "my cousin would be good" or "my husband would be good."

    I don't know who you are hillbilly and I don't care. But let me assure with 100% certainty you have no clue who I am. If you choose to vote for the train wreck known as Gina Dahl, more power to you. But don't come bitching to the blog when you become or someone you know becomes one of her victims.

  21. And this is the reason I stopped reading the Daily Snooze. Left wing hackery, amateurism, and overpriced. Such an awful newspaper.

  22. Instead of just accusations what have these candidates to offer?

  23. Jimbo--You bring up a good point. Many of us (myself included) have done nothing but tell you WHY you should not vote for Gina Dahl. And while those are all excellent reasons (close-minded, dishonest, obnixious behavior, etc.) we haven't done much to tell what Lorang and/or Randolph bring to the table.

    Perhaps a Lorang supporter could do just that. After doing some research I have discovered that Mr. Randolph has been a successful attorney for many years. His clients seem to be very satisfied with is work. People who know him tell me he is personable, wise and knows the legal system very well. Being "on the other side" probably brings a pov to the office that Dahl lacks. (not to mention common sense, a willingness to work with others for the betterment of Hill County and the City of Havre, etc.)

    Anyone else?

    When it comes to Lorang and Randolph, I admit it's a big of a gamble as it always is with newcomers. But as I have stated before, it's a (slight) gamble that we have to take.

  24. Hillbilly--So NOW the bloggers who disagree with you are all from the mind of the same person? You are implying there are the people who agree with you, and then the one guy (me) who disagrees and pretends to be other people. Interesting theory. What color is the sky in your world HH?

    While I will agree that it is an amazing coincidece that Joe Morgan was in fact one my favorite baseball players, I would not use his name as an alias. I would likely use "Johnny Bench" or "Carlton Fisk." (Partial to catchers).

    I can assure you, I barely have time to rant as myself, let alone two or however many people you think I am. My name is not Stephen, that I will grant you. But you can rest assured I have but one personality and blog name.

    Mr. Morgan's idea, by the way, is a splendid idea...(the debate part--not the ballots part--that's obviously taken care of via a legal process.)

  25. you are right to ask Jimbo. What can these candidates do to make things better in this office?

  26. I have to admit I never heard of Joe Morgan the baseball player:But if he plays baseball he can't be all bad.
    " We need an open debate" With question from the gallery.

  27. People have been asking for POSITIVE statements instead of just pointing out why Gina Dahl is an ineffective and wasteful county attorney.

    Well here are some quotes about Linsday Lorang:

    "A truly awesome prosecutor."

    "She has found her calling. I think she's awesome and hope she never leaves the Hill County Office."

    And just who made these comments about Lindsay? None other than Gina Dahl herself just a little over a year ago. Don't believe me? Here's the link:

  28. Only one way to settle the race for the office.....KY WRESTLING MATCH!!!!!!!!!!!! Winner is the next CA for Hill County.

  29. Lindsay requested that Tim Leeds write the article in response to Peterson's letter, which in turn, backfired. Lindsay should have simply stated that she was qualified otherwise she would not have been able to run. Lindsay should have avoided the "student practice" experience.

    Lindsay's husband has been badmouthing Gina all over town and when he has a few beers, he is confrontational anybody he believes is a Gina supporter.

    I would like to see Randolph sneak in and win this election.

    It is time to clean the crap out of the hen house that the County Attorney's office has become.

  30. M.M. - Despite Gina's remarks a year ago, I think that Lindsay's record speaks for itself. She has won a lackluster 30% of her cases. This is due to coming to court unprepared, skewed discretion in charging cases.

    Maybe Lindsay should spend less time campaigning and more time preparing for trials. Remember, it isn't about the perpetrators going to prison, it's about the victims getting no justice when Lindsay screws up.

    I'm not saying that I think Gina is all that, but Gina is the lesser of the two evils.

  31. Okay no name, very interesting. For me this has always been Randolph vs. Lorang as Dahl is disgraceful, and I was leaning towards Lorang but I think Randolph might be the better choice. I may not decide til the deadline. (And I must say I really fear the worst is going to happen and the people of this County will have to learn their lesson the hard way with a few more years of the dreaded GD. Are we really that asleep people!?)

    I will also say that I really don't care what Mr. Lorang does....He is not running.

  32. M.M. -

    I believe that Randy Randolph would be a good choice for the county attorney position.

    Gina Dahl is very arrogant and refuses to consider the opinions of others because she thinks she is so much smarter than everybody else. Gina Dahl has forgotten that she works for the citizens of Hill County and that she should listen to their concerns.

    Randy has shown his service to people by offering many hours of pro bono (free) legal services. He understand what it means to work for the people.

    Although he doesn't have experience within the county attorney's office, he has many years of experience in both civil and criminal matters, which help balance this issue.

    Lindsay has very little civil experience and many citizens don't realize how much civil work the county attorney does. Civil work is much more complex than criminal matters.

    I sure wish the candidates would agree to a public q/a forum.

  33. Yes, I believe Mr. Randolph would shine at a public debate. In fact, I think he would even win the election hands down if the vast Hill County public could see Gina Dahl in person trying to explain what she has done to that office since she was appointed. (To remind you all, she was NOT elected.)


  34. If Gina Dahl were doing a great job, you wouldn't have one Deomocratic laywer (let alone two) trying to unseat her. You can bet that many people encouraged Lorang and Randolph to run because they feel Dahl is a disaster.

    Perhaps not reason enough to vote for her oppenents but it is a sign she is at best, semi-unpopular.