Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Righteous Indignation of Liars

We are most amused at the righteous indignation of Councilman Jerram, who apparently finally got his story straight in his own mind such that he was willing to talk to the press today. Seems he couldn't be found yesterday after he got caught with his pants down trying to kick a man (Sigerson) when he was down.

The righteous indignation of the mayor is equally amusing since we now have reports from several folks who have heard him opine about his desire to get Sigerson removed as quickly as possible so that he (Suttle) could move his agenda.

We repeat our assertion that both of these guys are absolute liars. They've been backtracking and trying to cover up their clandestine effort and now act like they are the victims. Had it not been for the several sources who revealed the scheme and the bravery of Tom Becka of KFAB to take the issue public, next Tuesday might very well have been Councilman Sigerson's last day in office.

If these guys, along with Council President Gernandt, Chief of Staff Oltmans and Communications Director Gerard want to prove their innocence, integrity and lack of simple prevarication in this incident we'd suggest as we did last night that they take a polygraph test. They won't because they know they'd fail it!

As for Councilman Jerram accusing our staff at the Objective Conservative of being cyber-bullies, we can barely wait to hear the monotonic bloviation he threatens to deliver at next week's council meeting. We'll be there to watch him make a fool of himself and his already special interest, conflict of interest, lying image as he feigns outrage and drones on for what will no doubt be an interminable and agonizing length of time.

And as to Jerram's suggesting that our revelation of the facts is sinful, we'd simply suggest that it is he, Councilman Jerram, that needs to seek the sacrifice of Penance as soon as possible. After his vote on Fahey Street, we suspect Creighton's Father Schlegel might make special arrangements for a quick confession.

Here is what Channel 6 carried earlier today:

"A blog called “Objective Conservative” accuses democrat, Chris Jerram, of “leading the charge to replace Sigerson.”

However, Jerram told Channel 6 News there is absolutely no truth to that allegation. "The people who are spreading those rumors are not only engaging in very deceitful and dishonest endeavors, but it's hurtful, sinful."

As far as the resolution to save Sigerson’s seat, Jerram says, "I am totally supportive of it. I think that Council member Sigerson has given the city many, many years of his service, and he deserves to take as much time as he needs to recover."

Jerram says the blogger is a “cyber bully” who simply makes things up, including an allegation that the mayor is “actively working to remove Chuck.”

To that, Mayor Jim Suttle says, "If we start running ourselves on gossip an innuendos instead of facts, we're in trouble."

Suttle added, his most important priorities right now are the budget shortfall and the police and firefighter pension funds, key to their successful contract negotiations.

“I’d love to have Chuck Sigerson get back on the council. He had a major hand in the Bates task force in shaping the alternatives to get this thing staged,” Suttle said. “I want him back on that council so he can vote yes on his idea that we’re bringing in on the details of these two contracts.”

Suttle says the blog may have provided fodder for talk radio, but has no factual basis.

Jerram adds, "There's someone, or some bodies, that are spreading a rumor for whatever reason that have gotten a lot of people riled up. And I think they'll find out on Tuesday that they got me riled up, too."

For the full story, you can click on: http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/70567877.html

5 comments:

NE Voter said...

Pat, you are the one trading in untruths and rumors. Just look at the resoltion on the Council's agenda. It is dated 11/10. Jerram's name is on the resolution supporting the excused absence.

The more important question is: Why did Mrs. Sigerson sign the letter for Chuck? The family spokesperson stated that Chuck has no physical impairment. Hmmmm.

I wish Chuck good health and long life, but the self-imposed secrecy is what is fueling rumors about his condition. Not "Democrats in City Hall"

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Good job, keep up the good work and good reporting

Objective Conservative Staff said...

In reply to NE Voter, we're not sure who you meant in addressing your comment to Pat. We presume it was Pat McPherson, one of our contributors. However, this piece was not authored by him but rather by our staff.

NE Voter said...

Thanks for the clarification. Can anyone address my question as to why Mrs. Sigerson signed Chuck's name on the letter? I'm serious here . . .