"the mayor refused to expand upon the prepared statement"

You know I love you, Matt, but shouldn't that be:

"the mayor did not respond to requests to expand upon the prepared statement"?

Or did Sam actively refuse at some point?

To me, "refusal" requires some kind of action. If you want to be colorful about it, but still somewhat in the ballpark of accuracy, you might go with "stonewalling".

I'd agree with you if it weren't for this blog post, Bob, but I'm challenging him here to respond. If he doesn't, then it's a refusal. Given that his communications director has acknowledged receipt of an email linking to this blog post, if he doesn't call us, I think that's an active refusal. Especially from a man who knows the rules, and how to play the media, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

A reporter "challenging" a politician or their staff and being ignored is not news, or journalism. Never was, never will be. Maybe it tries to be in Rupert-land.

Even you know the answers
1 To give the proponents a chance to prove themselves wrong
1b No, no
2 Yes, fairness and transparency
3 Talk to POVA
3b No
4 Talk to POVA
5 That is about jobs, not tourism, conventions or hotels
6 Yes, yes
7 Talk to the Nines developers, has nothing to do with the City

That hotel was a County, MERC & PDC item going back to 1989 not a Mayor item.

The Merc is beginning to sound like an even more irritating WW, generating non-news fodder.

I'm not sure you can hear me from up there on your high horse, R, but you'll be pleased to hear that the mayor has scheduled an interview for later this afternoon. He called a moment ago, but we were interviewing an Iraq veteran, and I didn't get the call. He sent a txt message saying "why don't you answer my calls? are you ignoring me?" Which I suppose was deserved.

Is Sam Adams sexting Matt Davis? Or did Sam text the wrong number? I'm sure Marty Davis and Matt Davis look quite similar if you're in a hurry.

Now see Matt, you've 'forgiven Sam and moved on", but you don't really trust him, do you? That's the big problem Sam will face for the rest of his term - we'll never be able to trust his word and we'll forever be suspicious of his motives.

I think it's pretty clear that Sam is a very typical politician, concerned only about his political survival, and will put himself first before the greater good of Portland. Maybe most politicians do that, but I think most of us that voted for him thought we were getting something different - like an honest and ethical leader. We were wrong.

I don't necessarily trust any politician, but this isn't related in my eyes to the events of the last 8 months. All I'm asking for is a brief phone conversation about a mayor's significant change in policy, which will then be relayed to you, the reader. That's my job.

Surely this is a good thing? We have a mayor who will take the time to thoroughly consider an issue, and then make a decision based on the facts at the time, even if that decision goes against what he thought originally. Sounds good to me.

The alternatives are "make a snap judgment based on personal opinions rather than facts and stick to it no matter if the facts change" (see: Amanda Fritz); or "make a judgment and stick to it no matter what so you look decisive" (see: GW Bush).

17 minute phone call now complete. And very comprehensive, I might add. Read the mayor's responses in the paper this week.

I'm really fed up with all you dipwit twits agonizing over your (political) relationships with dear old Sam, when you could have simply voted for me and elected a mayor who actually thought issues through and issued a considered and sustainable position on any subject in the public discourse.

Sorry.

The mayor's responses here:

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

I'm all for keeping tabs on local politics, but this seems a bit extreme. And then whining when you don't get the interview you want in time? You come off as juvenile. In the future, please report the local news but try to keep your hurt feelings our of it - it isn't about you. Sorry.