February 29, 2008
For Immediate Release
Contact: Marybeth Kuznik, Executive Director
VotePA APPLAUDS FAYETTE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DECISION
TO PURCHASE VOTING SCANNERS AND PAPER BALLOTS
This morning VotePA announced its strong support of the Fayette County Board of Commissioners' final decision this week to purchase Hart/Intercivic eScan machines and paper ballots in time for the upcoming April and November elections.
The choice of paper ballots and scanners was made in lieu of adding more paperless Direct Record Electronic (DRE) eSlate machines to those already in use in the county.
"This is the best possible choice the Fayette Commissioners could make with their county resources at this time," said Marybeth Kuznik, VotePA Executive Director. "It only takes a few seconds for each voter to send his or her ballot through the scanner, and many voters can be marking their ballots at one time, so the new system will do more to reduce the chance of long lines of voters forming than additional eSlates ever could. And having a true voter-marked paper ballot will preserve each voter's choices should problems arise."
Studies in multiple states have shown that totally electronic voting machines without paper ballots and audits of the results may be vulnerable to hacking, lost votes, and miscounted elections. A US Government Accountability Office report recently pointed out that 18,000 lost votes in the 2006 Florida 13th Congressional race would have been salvageable had paper ballots been used instead of all-electronic DRE machines. Legislation pending at the federal and state level would require the use of paper records for all votes, and some pending bills will require voter-marked paper ballots of the exact type Fayette County will be getting.
"If these bill pass in their current form, the choice made this week will put Fayette County well along the way to being ready to comply with the new law," said Ms. Kuznik. She pointed out that HR 5036 has been proposed recently in the US Congress by Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey as an opt-in bill that will reimburse counties making purchases such as scanners, paper ballots, and audits of the 2008 election. Ms. Kuznik said that VotePA urges all Fayette citizens to ask their Congressmen to cosponsor and support the HR 5036 legislation.
VotePA is a statewide alliance of groups and individuals that support voting rights and election integrity in Pennsylvania. The group can be reached on the web at
www.VotePA.us.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Fayette Finalizes Paper Ballot Optical Scan Purchase
In an article titled: Hotel tax gets OK in Fayette Tribune Review, the Fayette board of commissioners apparently voted to finalize the purchase of paper ballot/scanners voting system through vendor Hart InterCivic by entering into a financial contract throuhg an agency.
The interest rate is apparently a different one that was highlighted in an earlier Tribune-Review article. We're looking into why the discrepancy in interest rates over a period of only two days worth of news reporting.
At any rate, the move to purchase the system to supplement the county's years-ago purchase of eSlates is welcomed in the voting and election integrity movement.
Duplicated here a Press Release by VotePA
The VotePA site includes a section which highlights
GOOD CHOICE, FAYETTE -- PAPER BALLOTS :-)
The organization's website also includes material similar-minded activists may want to weigh in on before the time to do so passes.
Related
Related
The interest rate is apparently a different one that was highlighted in an earlier Tribune-Review article. We're looking into why the discrepancy in interest rates over a period of only two days worth of news reporting.
At any rate, the move to purchase the system to supplement the county's years-ago purchase of eSlates is welcomed in the voting and election integrity movement.
Duplicated here a Press Release by VotePA
The VotePA site includes a section which highlights
GOOD CHOICE, FAYETTE -- PAPER BALLOTS :-)
The organization's website also includes material similar-minded activists may want to weigh in on before the time to do so passes.
Take Action on Emergency Bill to Protect 2008 Elections -- HR 5036
Now is the time to urge your congressperson to get on board to protect the 2008 elections. Ask her/him to co-sponsor the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act.
The bill, HR 5036, sponsored by Congressman Rush Holt (NJ), authorizes $630 million nationwide to allow - but not require - states and localities to onvert to paper-based voting or to offer emergency paper ballots if using paperless machines; to conduct hand-counted tabulations; and/or to conduct random hand-counted audits.
http://www.votepa.us/
Related
Commissioners table computer consulting decision
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
03/03/2008
...Zapotosky and Vicites also voted to ratify an agreement between the county and Koch Financial of Scottsdale, Ariz. To purchase 113 of the eScan voting machines for a total purchase price of $580,120, using $170,000 as a down payment with the balance to be paid of equal yearly payments of $148,421, beginning in March 2009. The interest rate is 4.23 percent.
Zimmerlink abstained from the vote, saying she was out of the office when the contract was signed, and she didn't receive e-mail notification of it either.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19351846&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6
In an unrelated matter, commissioners voted 2-1 to ratify purchase of 113 e-Scan voting machines for $580,120. Fayette will make a down payment of $170,000, then finance the remainder through Koch Financial at an interest rate of 4.23 percent. Three annual, equal installments of $148,432 will follow, with the first payment due in March 2009.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_554879.html
Related
Fayette officials buy paper-ballot machines
By Mary Pickels TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Fayette County commissioners Wednesday agreed to purchase 113 eScan machines, giving voters a paper-ballot option to the eSlate machines in the April 22 primary election.
The purchase was approved by commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites.
Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink abstained, stating that insufficient information had been provided for her to make an informed decision.
With eScan, voters mark their choices on a paper ballot and feed the ballot into the machine, which stores the results on a flash card.
"I think the people of Fayette County have the right to the best system available," Vicites said.
"Turning or frustrating someone away from voting for the next president of the United States is a crime itself," Zapotosky said. "I don't think we rushed into anything. ... To me, it's the right thing to do and I'm proud to say we did pass the resolution."
The county spent $1.22 million two years ago to replace its 30-year-old, lever-voting system with eSlate machines. Voters use a dial to rotate through the choices in each race before pressing a button to select a candidate.
Most of the funding was covered by the federal government through the Help America Vote Act of 2002, intending to fix voting irregularities during the presidential election in November 2000.
But some people found the eSlate system confusing, and long waits resulted at some of Fayette's larger precincts.
Yesterday, the board agreed to purchase the eScan machines at a cost of $580,000. Officials plan to place one machine at each of 103 precincts.
County Controller Sean Lally reviewed a financing plan county officials discussed earlier this week.
Supplier Hart InterCivic will finance the cost over three years, at an interest rate of 4.23 percent.
The county will apply $170,000 of this year's budget, previously allocated for more eSlate machines, to the eScan purchase price.
It will then make three annual payments of $150,000 each to Hart InterCivic, which also supplied the county's eSlate machines.
The commissioners discussed the possibility of selling up to 100 of the eSlate machines for approximately $1,500 each, potentially raising $150,000 toward the cost of the eScan machines.
"We're speculating on revenue (from eSlate sales)," Zapotosky said. "If those funds are available via the sale of eSlates, they will go into the note."
Lally said another funding source would have to be found if none of those machines are sold.
Yesterday's action did not include the cost of 300 to 400 privacy voting booths. Depending on whether corrugated cardboard or molded plastic is chosen, the cost could range from $5,000 to $12,600...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_551193.html
Commissioners approve purchase of voting machines
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
02/07/2008
Updated 02/06/2008 09:00:22 PM EST
Saying it would give voters a choice in the upcoming April 22 presidential primary, Fayette County Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent A. Vicites took action Wednesday to purchase voting machines that are essentially a paper ballot with a scanner to use as an option to the county's electronic machines.
Following a lengthy discussion about the issue, Vicites and Zapotosky approved a motion to purchase 113 eScan machines from Hart Intercivic to receive in time for the primary at a cost of $580,120. The figure includes 103 machines to place at each of the county's precincts, as well as 10 additional machines for backup.
Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink abstained from the vote, saying there were too many unanswered questions...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19270696&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Thursday, February 28, 2008
7 Too Few Knocks Republican Challenger to Murtha
On the one hand, the voter registration rolls in PA are inflated, bloated, and in need of attention. Maybe officials will cull the rolls of at least the deceased and those who definitely have moved out of the state to another state.
Warning: Allegations
The nomination petitions are basically the first line of defense for the voters. Signers have to be registered of the same Party for Primary petitions. Sometimes voters just are not aware they cannot sign a petition for a candidate of another party at this time.
(Net the Truth Online)
Warning: Allegations
Ex-Erie legislator accused of forgery
Grand jury says petition signatures fake
Friday, February 29, 2008
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
In one case, an individual who purportedly signed one of the petitions on March 3, 2006, had been deceased since April 15, 2000."
One of the forged signatures appeared to be the mother of former Erie State Sen. Anthony "Buzz" Andrezeski...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08060/861438-85.stm
The nomination petitions are basically the first line of defense for the voters. Signers have to be registered of the same Party for Primary petitions. Sometimes voters just are not aware they cannot sign a petition for a candidate of another party at this time.
(Net the Truth Online)
Murtha's Republican opponent tossed off primary ballot
By Mark Scolforo
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, February 28, 2008
HARRISBURG -- The road to re-election for veteran U.S. Rep. John Murtha just got a good bit smoother.
A state judge on Tuesday ruled that the lone Republican running in the primary for the Western Pennsylvania seat did not collect enough signatures to make the ballot.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said Republican candidate Bill Russell's nominating petition contained only 993 valid signatures, seven fewer than required.
That left Murtha, 75, a Johnstown Democrat, without opposition in the primary or general election...
...Russell, citing a lack of money, said he was not planning an appeal to the state Supreme Court but would entertain a write-in nomination. To qualify as a write-in, Russell would need at least 1,000 votes and would have to be the top vote-getter in the Republican primary...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/news/s_554689.html
Bloated Voter Registration Lists: Problem Leads to Fraud
C-Span broadcast
Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
Made the comment during hearing Wednesday of the Senate Rules & Administration Cmmittee considering Senate Bill (presented by Mr Whitehorse (chaired by Diane Feinstein) on issues of robocalling and vote caging.
rules.senate.gov
Bradley King Indiana testified 1 in 4 of the mailings returned as undeliverable - sent a card to update voter registration. The effort was run by the state.
Startling one in four are possibily inaccurate opens a huge opportunity for vote fraud and stimulating orgs like ACORN...
Advancement Project Judith Browne-Dianis National voter registration act is sufficient allows for two election cycles to keep people on the rolls and then doing the voter registration maintenance... should be left to officials to do this job.
Sen. Whitehouse answered questions as the committee wrapped up its hearing.
S.2624 - A bill to regulate political robocalls.
Sponsor: Senator Feinstein, Dianne (introduced 2/12/2008)
http://rules.senate.gov/newsroom/Bills.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Related
States try to silence robo-calls
Automated recorded political phone calls targeted by state and feds
updated 11:43 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 7, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23047521/
Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
Made the comment during hearing Wednesday of the Senate Rules & Administration Cmmittee considering Senate Bill (presented by Mr Whitehorse (chaired by Diane Feinstein) on issues of robocalling and vote caging.
rules.senate.gov
Bradley King Indiana testified 1 in 4 of the mailings returned as undeliverable - sent a card to update voter registration. The effort was run by the state.
Startling one in four are possibily inaccurate opens a huge opportunity for vote fraud and stimulating orgs like ACORN...
Advancement Project Judith Browne-Dianis National voter registration act is sufficient allows for two election cycles to keep people on the rolls and then doing the voter registration maintenance... should be left to officials to do this job.
Sen. Whitehouse answered questions as the committee wrapped up its hearing.
S.2624 - A bill to regulate political robocalls.
Sponsor: Senator Feinstein, Dianne (introduced 2/12/2008)
http://rules.senate.gov/newsroom/Bills.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Related
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/in_nvra_comp.htm
Rules and Administration Committee holds a hearing, "Protecting Voters at Home and at the Polls: Limiting Abusive Robocalls and Vote Caging Practices." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, and North Carolina state Attorney General Roy Cooper testify. Location: 301 Russell Senate Office Building. Contact: 202/224-6352
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NATION05/388161541/1002/NATION&template=nextpage
Feinstein, Dianne U.S. Senator, D-CA
Bopp, James Jr. General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
Cooper, Roy Attorney General, D, North Carolina
Davidson, Chandler Professor Emeritus, Rice University, Public Policy
Whitehouse, Sheldon U.S. Senator, D, Rhode Island
Dakin, Shaun Founder and CEO, Citizens for Civil Discourse, National Political Do Not Contact Registry
King, Bradley Co-Director, Indiana, Election Division
Browne, Judith A. Co-Director, Advancement Project
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=561811633
`Robocall Privacy Act of 2008'
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
States try to silence robo-calls
Automated recorded political phone calls targeted by state and feds
updated 11:43 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 7, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23047521/
Colorado Mesa County Defiant Forced Use Paper Ballots
The county should be skeptical of the plan, but not for the reasons it presents.
The Colorado plan includes forcing counties to provide central scanners to tabulate the paper ballots.
Paper ballots are back to the dark ages without the 'precinct' scanners which voters use to scan in a voted paper ballot.
The scanners have the capability to notify the voter of errors which could prevent the ballot from being counted if over-votes are present.
The DREs without a paper record are worse, however. Mesa County may be lauded for its defiance on the one hand, but criticized for not thinking of the potential for mishaps with electronic voting machines. Without a paper record, what is there to re-count, should that eventuality arise as it did in New Hampshire's 2008 Presidential Primary?
(Net the Truth Online)
The Colorado plan includes forcing counties to provide central scanners to tabulate the paper ballots.
Bill shifts votes to paper ballots
Clerks criticize the plan, which allows electronic voting as a second choice.
By John Ingold The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/26/2008 11:50:17 PM MST
...The bill takes several steps to appease county clerks, many of whom asked the state to mandate a mail-ballot election. First, it would allow clerks to use aggregated vote centers and forgo reporting results by precinct. That would greatly reduce the number of ballot styles counties would have to deal with.
It also would allow clerks to count the ballots at a central location, meaning counties that have just one large ballot scanner in their main office would not have to buy smaller ballot scanners for every polling place...
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_8371929
Paper ballots are back to the dark ages without the 'precinct' scanners which voters use to scan in a voted paper ballot.
The scanners have the capability to notify the voter of errors which could prevent the ballot from being counted if over-votes are present.
The DREs without a paper record are worse, however. Mesa County may be lauded for its defiance on the one hand, but criticized for not thinking of the potential for mishaps with electronic voting machines. Without a paper record, what is there to re-count, should that eventuality arise as it did in New Hampshire's 2008 Presidential Primary?
(Net the Truth Online)
Concerns rising about requiring a paper-ballot election
One senator promises to fight the bill, the result of problems with electronic terminals.
By John Ingold
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/28/2008 02:54:03 AM MSTA bill mandating that the state conduct a primarily paper-ballot election this year may not be a slam dunk, even though it has the sponsorship of party leaders in both legislative chambers.
A handful of legislators said Wednesday that they have serious concerns about the bill, a sign that a battle may be shaping up.
"I'm just really disappointed that there's the possibility of this going forward," said Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, "and I will put all my effort into killing it in the Senate."
The bill, Senate Bill 189, was formally introduced Wednesday. It would require county clerks to offer all voters a paper ballot, although voters could ask to vote on an electronic voting terminal. Voters would also be able to vote early
or vote by mail.
Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, a Denver Democrat who crafted the bill, said the measure would move the state away from using electronic voting terminals, which came under scrutiny after a lawsuit and the secretary of state's subsequent decertification of many of the machines. It would also likely prevent a future lawsuit over the voting terminals, he said.
"I think we've hit the right balance here," Gordon said.
But several clerks say the bill would drive up election costs and could cause major voting problems.
Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, wondered why counties can't be allowed wide use of their electronic voting terminals, all of which have now been recertified. Meanwhile, 49 counties are still without certified paper-ballot scanners.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8387623
PA Governor NAFTA Good & Bad Amend Don't End
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democratic Super-delegate supporting Hillary Clinton in her bid to win the states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania puts the Party before the State of Independence.
Which does the Governor take an oath to?
Increasingly, it appears, the political party above the well-being of each and every Pennsylvanian.
Gov. Rendell obviously didn't believe he could win in a match on the issue of NAFTA with Lou Dobbs.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Rendell, starting right off about the two contenders seeking the Democrat Party nomination for President and Clinton and Obama comments at the last debate about NAFTA.
Blitzer specifically asked Rendell about NAFTA's effect on PA
Interview With Governor Ed Rendell
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/27/sitroom.01.html
Dobbs would've cleaned Rendell's clock in a similar interview wherein Gov. Rendell said the following:
Wolf Blitzer
Which does the Governor take an oath to?
Increasingly, it appears, the political party above the well-being of each and every Pennsylvanian.
Gov. Rendell obviously didn't believe he could win in a match on the issue of NAFTA with Lou Dobbs.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Rendell, starting right off about the two contenders seeking the Democrat Party nomination for President and Clinton and Obama comments at the last debate about NAFTA.
Blitzer specifically asked Rendell about NAFTA's effect on PA
Interview With Governor Ed Rendell
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/27/sitroom.01.html
Dobbs would've cleaned Rendell's clock in a similar interview wherein Gov. Rendell said the following:
Wolf Blitzer
Let's talk about NAFTA for a moment, which was a big issue in the debate last night between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Has NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, been good for Pennsylvania or bad for Pennsylvania?
RENDELL: It depends what section of the state. It's had a positive effect in some sections, but no question, it has hurt a lot of Pennsylvania manufacturing. And manufacturing has always been an important component of our economy. So it would get a mixed report card in this state.
BLITZER: So, on balance, would you want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, if they were president, to opt out, give six months' notice and say it's over to Canada and Mexico and move on?
RENDELL: No. I would like to use the old phrase to amend it, not end it. I think if we put certain things into the NAFTA agreement, it could work successfully for all of Pennsylvania and for all of Ohio.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/27/sitroom.01.html
Public Citizen
NAFTA Has Cost Pennsylvania Good Jobs
NAFTA's proponents said in 1993 that NAFTA would create 200,000 new jobs in its first two years. They based this prediction on their expectation of an increased U.S. trade surplus with Mexico and used a U.S. Commerce Department formula that estimates jobs per billions dollars of net exports. In NAFTA's first year, months before the December 1995 Mexican peso devaluation, the pre-NAFTA trade surplus the U.S. had with Mexico became a trade deficit. This new NAFTA trade deficit with Mexico ballooned to $15.4 billion dollars in 1995 and $16.2 billions dollars in 1996. At the same time, under NAFTA, the deficit the U.S. had with Canada mushroomed. The total NAFTA trade deficit in 1996 was $39 billion.
Using actual trade data for the US, Mexico and Canada in the Commerce Department's 1993 formula -- the one they used to promise creation of 200,000 new NAFTA jobs -- would indicate that the U.S. lost at least 400,000 jobs due to trade with NAFTA countries since 1993.(17) 17 See for example Rob Scott, "The Impact of NAFTA on Workers and Wages in the U.S.," testimony before the U.S. International Trade Commission, Economic Policy Institute, 1997. Commerce estimates that in 1994 $1 billion of exports supported 14,197. Scott uses 14,000 as the multiplier for the period 1994-1996, taking into account the effects of inflation.
The new NAFTA trade deficit directly contradicts NAFTA backers' promises. Thus, many NAFTA backers have tried to focus public attention on exports only, ignoring the effect of imports, or suggesting that we are better off because overall trade has increased. The current approach of the NAFTA backers recalls the joke about the businessman who thought he could make money selling below cost because he would make it up in volume.
Focusing on exports alone is a standard deception used by NAFTA backers trying to show NAFTA job benefits at the state level. This deception is facilitated by the fact that no data is kept systematically for imports at the state level...
In Pennsylvania, the Department of Labor has certified 10,089 workers as having lost their jobs due to NAFTA. In addition, 1,441 Pennsylvanian workers had their applications denied on the grounds that they "did not produce an article," i.e. were service workers. In the following table we reproduce the NAFTA TAA certifications for Pennsylvania...
http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=1731
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Governor Ed Rendell: NAFTA Working in Some Areas PA, not Others
Don't the areas where NAFTA is not working in Pennsylvania amount to more areas in PA where NAFTA is working?
Wolf Blitzer also asked Gov. Rendell whether whichever candidate became the nominee, in the first day of a Presendency should the 6-month notice to opt out of NAFTA be given to Canada and Mexico?
Gov. Rendell: No...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/sitroom.html
Read his own words, we can't stomach reporting what he said... as if we're all this stupid...
Ever the optimist, Gov. Rendell dismissed polls which reflect a dwindling lead by Clinton to some 6 points spread when a Feb. 14 poll reflected double digits.
In the meantime do some back-reading
Wolf Blitzer also asked Gov. Rendell whether whichever candidate became the nominee, in the first day of a Presendency should the 6-month notice to opt out of NAFTA be given to Canada and Mexico?
Gov. Rendell: No...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/sitroom.html
Read his own words, we can't stomach reporting what he said... as if we're all this stupid...
Ever the optimist, Gov. Rendell dismissed polls which reflect a dwindling lead by Clinton to some 6 points spread when a Feb. 14 poll reflected double digits.
February 27, 2008 - Young Voters Help Obama Narrow Gap In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; McCain Runs Neck And Neck Against Either Democrat
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, surging among younger voters, has cut Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead among Pennsylvania likely Democratic primary voters to 6 points, 49 - 43 percent, after trailing by 16 points just two weeks ago, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 52 - 36 percent lead for Sen. Clinton February 14.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1148
In the meantime do some back-reading
Opening Act's Attack: McCain Apologetic Over Remarks; Light Bulb Dangers; Ohio Crucial Groups: Women, Youth, Blue Collar Voters
Aired February 27, 2008 - 11:00 ET
CLINTON: We need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout.
OBAMA: We have to stop providing tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/27/cnr.02.html
Columnist Minimizes Hillary Clinton Mommie Smearest Tactics
Missing, missing Mommie Smearest in Maureen Dowd's column... guess the liberal Press is just too fearful to call Hillary Clinton a manipulator for her own gain, too. No less than Carl Bernstein has said the couple have used psychological warfare against Senator Barack Obama...
(Net the Truth Online)
(Net the Truth Online)
MAUREEN DOWD Op-Ed Columnist
Begrudging His Bedazzling
Published: February 27, 2008
After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary.
Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem. If she can only change this or that about her persona, or tear down this or that about Obama’s. But the whirlwind of changes and charges gets wearing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Hotel Tax Coming to Town
It's difficult to understand how a new tax will stimulate the local economy when the norm is for the reverse. Tax something and you get less of it... Stay back from governmental interference in the free market system, barring health and safety measures, and the economy is freed up to grow...
Net the Truth Online:)
Net the Truth Online:)
Fayette commissioners to act on hotel tax
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
02/27/2008
Updated 02/27/2008 12:15:46 AM EST
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
The Fayette County commissioners took the first step Tuesday toward adopting a hotel occupancy tax that is expected to generate $750,000 annually for the county.
The vote to place a motion on Thursday's agenda to consider adopting the 3 percent tax resolution pursuant to Act 142 and to continue addressing the memorandum of understanding with the Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau was approved 2-1, with Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent A. Vicites voting in favor of it and Angela M. Zimmerlink voting against it. The memorandum will outline how the money generated from the tax would be allocated...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19335177&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Fayette Moves to Ratify Paper Ballot Scanner Purchase
According to the Tribune Review's Fayette officials make deadline to buy scanners
the Herald Standard's "New voting machines set to be purchased for Fayette County," two Fayette commissioners took action on a financing agreement to bring the county a paper-ballot and scanner voting system to supplement the eSlate machines that will be used in PA's Primary April 22. One commissioner has questioned the action taken before an official board meeting, Thursday.
While it's considerate to be watching every move the board of commissioners makes, from inside to ensure proper procedures are followed, it's going a bit beyond the call of duty to question the legitimacy of ratification of a financial contract in-between or prior to official board meetings when that ratification is part of official administrative action a majority of board members can take.
Last month's board meeting included discussion and announcement such administrative action would be needed to be taken to adopt the voting system and make the order. The board discussed the matter at length, and finally a motion made was "to purchase eScan machines."
Particulars were discussed, including an option for financing with the vendor the previous board chose years back.
Actually, it looks like there may be a dramatic savings in costs since the interest rate appears to be lower from guesstimates offered during the last meeting.
Everybody understands the board doesn't have to bring the documents to the meeting and sign names in front of the public.
On the other hand, one commissioner, questioning the financial arrangement and the need for further details, was out of the area at the time the administrative decision needed to be made.
The board had discussed several options of how to pay for the new acquisition previously. Interest rates were also part of the details.
At the least, all commissioners should provide a means to contact them in the event signatures are needed on vouchers and similar documents such as this purchase of eScans.
Imagine an emergency situation in the event of inclement winter weather where something unforseen happens to one of two board members in the courthouse, and a commissioner out of town is needed to take some emergency action.
In this day and age where people can sign online using digital signatures, it isn't a stretch to think such might become a necessity somewhere down the road.
Had a two-person majority not been available to act on the purchase of the eScan units in the time-framed needed, the county would be in a position where it wouldn't have timely delivery of the 103 eScans for the crucial Presidential Primary set for April 22.
A quick look backwards: The previous boards should have taken action long ago and given the people of the county a choice of a paper ballot with the optical scan.
Had that action been taken in 2005 or early 2006, the savings to the county would have amounted to the entire cost of this new purchase.
At that time, the cost of eScan units was near or equal to the cost of the DRE eSlates. The county would have needed slightly more than 103 accessible eSlates, and 103 (with a few extras) eScans. At $3,000 a unit that works out to approximately a bit over $600,000.
Years ago, the voters would have had the choice of paper ballots/scanners and accessible DREs at the polling place, and very likely the county would have avoided the mess of the past four elections.
Those instances of long lines and two hour plus waits, by the way, made the list of 'complaints' voter activists have been keeping since implementation of the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and requirements for counties to change voting systems to systems affording privacy and accessibility, and other requirements.
While there is no guarantee there won't be long lines of voters due hopefully to a renewed interest in voting and increased voter turnout, the hours of waits should all but vanish since voters have a choice of a paper ballot with optical scan.
(Net the Truth Online)
the Herald Standard's "New voting machines set to be purchased for Fayette County," two Fayette commissioners took action on a financing agreement to bring the county a paper-ballot and scanner voting system to supplement the eSlate machines that will be used in PA's Primary April 22. One commissioner has questioned the action taken before an official board meeting, Thursday.
While it's considerate to be watching every move the board of commissioners makes, from inside to ensure proper procedures are followed, it's going a bit beyond the call of duty to question the legitimacy of ratification of a financial contract in-between or prior to official board meetings when that ratification is part of official administrative action a majority of board members can take.
Last month's board meeting included discussion and announcement such administrative action would be needed to be taken to adopt the voting system and make the order. The board discussed the matter at length, and finally a motion made was "to purchase eScan machines."
Particulars were discussed, including an option for financing with the vendor the previous board chose years back.
Actually, it looks like there may be a dramatic savings in costs since the interest rate appears to be lower from guesstimates offered during the last meeting.
Fayette officials buy paper-ballot machines
By Mary Pickels
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, February 7, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_551193.html
Everybody understands the board doesn't have to bring the documents to the meeting and sign names in front of the public.
On the other hand, one commissioner, questioning the financial arrangement and the need for further details, was out of the area at the time the administrative decision needed to be made.
The board had discussed several options of how to pay for the new acquisition previously. Interest rates were also part of the details.
At the least, all commissioners should provide a means to contact them in the event signatures are needed on vouchers and similar documents such as this purchase of eScans.
Imagine an emergency situation in the event of inclement winter weather where something unforseen happens to one of two board members in the courthouse, and a commissioner out of town is needed to take some emergency action.
In this day and age where people can sign online using digital signatures, it isn't a stretch to think such might become a necessity somewhere down the road.
Had a two-person majority not been available to act on the purchase of the eScan units in the time-framed needed, the county would be in a position where it wouldn't have timely delivery of the 103 eScans for the crucial Presidential Primary set for April 22.
A quick look backwards: The previous boards should have taken action long ago and given the people of the county a choice of a paper ballot with the optical scan.
Had that action been taken in 2005 or early 2006, the savings to the county would have amounted to the entire cost of this new purchase.
At that time, the cost of eScan units was near or equal to the cost of the DRE eSlates. The county would have needed slightly more than 103 accessible eSlates, and 103 (with a few extras) eScans. At $3,000 a unit that works out to approximately a bit over $600,000.
Years ago, the voters would have had the choice of paper ballots/scanners and accessible DREs at the polling place, and very likely the county would have avoided the mess of the past four elections.
Those instances of long lines and two hour plus waits, by the way, made the list of 'complaints' voter activists have been keeping since implementation of the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and requirements for counties to change voting systems to systems affording privacy and accessibility, and other requirements.
While there is no guarantee there won't be long lines of voters due hopefully to a renewed interest in voting and increased voter turnout, the hours of waits should all but vanish since voters have a choice of a paper ballot with optical scan.
(Net the Truth Online)
Fayette officials make deadline to buy scanners
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Fayette County Commissioners on Thursday will consider ratifying the purchase of 113 e-Scan voting machines at a cost of $580,120.
Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky announced during an agenda meeting Tuesday that he and Commissioner Vincent Vicites had given their approval to terms of a financing deal for purchase of the machines.
Zapotosky and Vicites said they were provided terms of the deal through Koch Financial late last Thursday. They had until noon yesterday to fax paperwork to the company to approve the deal, a deadline they said they met despite not having input from Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink.
Zimmerlink was out of the courthouse last week. Zapotosky said she was unavailable until after the deadline had passed.
Zimmerlink yesterday said commissioners should nonetheless have presented terms of the deal publicly before giving their approval. She wanted various details, including the interest rate, discussed publicly before approvals were given.
Zapotosky said the loan carries an interest rate of 3.92 percent and calls for a down payment of $170,000. Three annual payments, commencing in 2009, of $148,431 will follow.
Vicites and Zapotosky said they had to meet the Monday deadline to ensure delivery of the machines in time for the spring primary. Plans call for placement of at least one of the new machines at each of the county's 103 voting precincts.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_554415.html
New voting machines set to be purchased for Fayette County
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
02/27/2008
Updated 02/27/2008 12:15:46 AM EST
The Fayette County commissioners are slated to ratify a financing agreement for voting machines that are essentially a paper ballot with a scanner to use as an option to the county's electronic machines in the April 22 primary.
During Tuesday's agenda meeting, the commissioners voted to place a motion on Thursday's agenda to ratify an agreement with Koch Financial of Scottsdale, Ariz., to purchase 113 eScan voting machines. Voting in favor of the motion were commissioners Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, with Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink voting against it...
Zapotosky, who led the initiative to purchase the machines from Hart Intercivic of Texas, said the total cost is $580,120. He said the agreement includes a down payment of $170,000, and a financed amount of $410,120, with annual payments of $148,431 on March 2009, March 2010 and March 2011.
County manager Warren Hughes said the money for the three yearly payments would have to be budgeted.
The $170,000 down payment is money the prior board of commissioners budgeted to purchase additional eSlate electronic voting machines. However, because of reluctance by senior citizens to use the machines and long lines at the polls, Vicites and Zapotosky opted to purchase the eScan machines.
Zimmerlink expressed concerns about two commissioners signing the agreement and then ratifying it after the fact, saying when the motion was approved to purchase the machines, Controller Sean Lally mentioned there were alternatives for financing.
Zimmerlink abstained from the vote to purchase the machines, saying at the time there were too many unanswered questions, including how the county would pay for the machines.
Zapotosky said the contract is being ratified because it had to be returned by noon Monday or there would be a delay in getting the machines. He said the commissioners only received the contract after the deadline to place the item on the agenda and time was vital.
When Zimmerlink asked about the interest rate, Zapotosky said it is about 3.92 percent, and there is not a penalty for early payment.
"In order to have the machines by April 22, we have to move forward," Vicites said.
Zimmerlink said she understands that everything must be done in a timely manner, but said all options should be discussed at a public meeting.
Vicites said the options were discussed previously.
"The bottom line is people will have a choice on April 22," Vicites said.
When Zapotosky suggested to "move on," Zimmerlink said she had something to say.
"You can say what you want, we had to move forward," Vicites said.
Zimmerlink said such items should be placed on the agenda for approval instead of ratifying them after the fact, to which Vicites said they had been working on it for a month.
"We will further discuss it on Thursday," Zapotosky said.
Zimmerlink replied that it would be after the fact.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19335178&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Democratic Candidates on NAFTA
MSNBC Democratic debate
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
Neither candidate as President would give NAFTA traders a 6-month opt out notice Day 1 in office.
Both would re-negotiate for concerns central to U.S. labor, environmental...
After the questions about health care and NAFTA the MSNBC questioner Tim Russert asks Obama about his pledging to opt into public campaign financing in the general election. How many times does he have to tell them: he's trying to get the Republican nominee, or presumptive nominee pinned down on that and come to some kind of agreement - when he is the nominee. Geesh. What doesn't Russert understand about that answer?
How many times do they have to ask about Clintons' joint returns? They are not going to give them up, period.
Why won't she release her tax return? Why not now? Upon becoming the nominee, or earlier. Before next Tuesday's primary? A little busy now.
Seriously, these questioners are just asking questions based on news occurrences throughout the past few days.
They should have spent the entire time on healthcare plans both candidates claim are universal health care, and NAFTA.
We still don't have all the differences, straight from the two candidates.
(Net the Truth Online)(10 PM)
livebloggers rule
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14708421/
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
Neither candidate as President would give NAFTA traders a 6-month opt out notice Day 1 in office.
Both would re-negotiate for concerns central to U.S. labor, environmental...
After the questions about health care and NAFTA the MSNBC questioner Tim Russert asks Obama about his pledging to opt into public campaign financing in the general election. How many times does he have to tell them: he's trying to get the Republican nominee, or presumptive nominee pinned down on that and come to some kind of agreement - when he is the nominee. Geesh. What doesn't Russert understand about that answer?
How many times do they have to ask about Clintons' joint returns? They are not going to give them up, period.
Why won't she release her tax return? Why not now? Upon becoming the nominee, or earlier. Before next Tuesday's primary? A little busy now.
Seriously, these questioners are just asking questions based on news occurrences throughout the past few days.
They should have spent the entire time on healthcare plans both candidates claim are universal health care, and NAFTA.
We still don't have all the differences, straight from the two candidates.
(Net the Truth Online)(10 PM)
livebloggers rule
Democratic Debate Live Blogging
5:56 PM
3:18 minutes left until the start of the Ohio Democratic Debate
http://www.needapedia.com/news/
NY Daily News: How Ohio Became the NAFTA Primary
With an eye on tonight’s debate in Cleveland, the New York Daily News White House correspondent Ken Bazinet files a must-read on how the Ohio Democratic primary became a referendum on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=781
February 26, 2008
NAFTA WARS: ADIOS OR PICKETT'S CHARGE?
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/02/nafta-wars-adios-or-picketts-c.html
U.S. Democrats talk trade, but what would they really do?
By David Leonhardt Published: February 26, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/business/leon.php
Fact Check: Clinton, Obama and NAFTAPolitical calendar primaries
By Calvin Woodward
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPv82jAS_Z5KScllM3qzkOmEwL7AD8V28NH82
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14708421/
Global Cooling
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
McCain Waves Bye Bye With Iraq
Who didn't see this coming. This is the Establishment Republican presidential shoo-in - presumptive choice - what was he thinking? Was he brainwashed back when he first took office? Are all of them?
You begin to wonder when the likes of Hillary Clinton comes out like a scolding mommie smearest within days of a Democratic debate wherein she says: "I'm honored... absolutely honored... to be here with Barack Obama." Handshake.
Clap clap, if you will, but that was no performance.
The follow-up must be. All down-Hill from there.
Then McCain waves to his supporters and makes the comment that will put the idea in everybody's mind:
McCain ties his fate at polls to Iraq
You begin to wonder when the likes of Hillary Clinton comes out like a scolding mommie smearest within days of a Democratic debate wherein she says: "I'm honored... absolutely honored... to be here with Barack Obama." Handshake.
Clap clap, if you will, but that was no performance.
The follow-up must be. All down-Hill from there.
Then McCain waves to his supporters and makes the comment that will put the idea in everybody's mind:
McCain ties his fate at polls to Iraq
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lou Dobbs: Hope They Are All Wrong: Identity Politics
Lou Dobbs was in top form this evening. Don't miss the transcript.
Discussed ethnic and racial 'identity' politics with Bill Sneider, and a followup panel which included:
Doug Schoen Declaring Independence author
Mark Halperin The Way to Win author
Prof. Carol Swain Debating Immigration
We made a post concerning Schoen in Independent Agents of Change
Larry Elder author of Stupid Black Men, later says the same categories were voting for Hillary Clinton before, now they're voting in increasing numbers for Barack Obama.
We agree with Dobbs. Hope they are all wrong. Why aren't women voting for Hillary Clinton - now they've switched to Obama?
Simply, as we presented before, they do not like her as a President.
Why aren't white men voting for Hillary Clinton - now they've switched to Obama?
Simply put, as before, they do not like her as a President.
This is a woman who will use psychological warfare to obtain the Presidency of the United States of America.
And the psychological warfare observation about the Clintons is coming from Carl Bernstein.
The Latest on Campaign '08
Aired February 25, 2008
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/25/ldt.01.html
Discussed ethnic and racial 'identity' politics with Bill Sneider, and a followup panel which included:
Doug Schoen Declaring Independence author
Mark Halperin The Way to Win author
Prof. Carol Swain Debating Immigration
We made a post concerning Schoen in Independent Agents of Change
Larry Elder author of Stupid Black Men, later says the same categories were voting for Hillary Clinton before, now they're voting in increasing numbers for Barack Obama.
We agree with Dobbs. Hope they are all wrong. Why aren't women voting for Hillary Clinton - now they've switched to Obama?
Simply, as we presented before, they do not like her as a President.
Why aren't white men voting for Hillary Clinton - now they've switched to Obama?
Simply put, as before, they do not like her as a President.
This is a woman who will use psychological warfare to obtain the Presidency of the United States of America.
And the psychological warfare observation about the Clintons is coming from Carl Bernstein.
CBS Poll: Obama Surges Ahead Nationally
CBS News/NY Times Survey Finds Obama Opens Up 16-Point Lead; Also Leads In Head-To-Head Match Up With McCain
...The former first lady has lost her advantage among women, according to the poll: The two leading Democrats now have even levels of support among female primary voters.
Men, meanwhile, disproportionately favor Obama. He leads Clinton among male Democratic primary voters 67 percent to 28 percent, and leads among white men 61 percent to 33 percent.
Fifty-nine percent of Democratic primary voters said Obama has the best chance of beating likely Republican nominee John McCain in the general election. Twenty-eight percent said Clinton is most likely to win in November.
Obama is now seen as the likely Democratic nominee: More than two-thirds of Democratic primary voters said they expect the Illinois senator to win the nomination...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/polls/main3874915.shtml
PA Governor Filing Deadline Extension Politically Motivated?
Jonathatn Alter recommends "Hillary Should Get Out Now," in Newsweek's March 3, 2008 edition. Alter notes in the piece:
Others have elaborated on Rendell's order being politically motivated to benefit Hillary Clinton.
Rendell is a known supporter of Clinton's and announced his endorsement of her a while back.
Jonathan Alter's Newsweek piece and Baer's piece How Pa. extension benefited Clinton may give thrust to contentions Gov. Rendell's order was politically motivated.
On February 12, 2008, the deadline for candidates for office to file nomination petitions passed, at 5 PM.
But through an executive order, Governor Ed Rendell extended the filing date by two days, reportedly, due to the weather.
Rendell's executive order was likely released after 5 PM, Tuesday, Feb. 12, which we'll discuss herein may have caused an unintended consequence.
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/press/2008/filing_deadline_extension_02-12-08.pdf
According to the news reports, Rendell's justification for granting an extension by executive order to candidates "filing" nomination petitions was that day's weather.
Not only has that "snowstorm-constitutes-emergency" reasoning been disputed, a poster on Black Box Voting forum, points out the executive order itself is "illegal." (PA) Governor Illegally Extends Nomination Petition Deadline
The poster, noted on the site as V. Kurt Bellman, Reading, PA presents additional comments in a message Feb. 15th:
The BBV Forum poster continues
(Net the Truth Online)
Related
Alter: In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.
Posted on Tue, Feb. 19, 2008
John Baer: How Pa. extension benefited Clinton
Philadelphia Daily News
HERE'S A LITTLE political banana peel.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign failed to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's April 22 primary.
This despite the possibility the primary proves critical and despite Clinton owning the full-throated support of Gov. Rendell, state Democratic Party leadership, Mayor Nutter and, presumably, the organizational skill all that entails.
And despite a Rendell-ordered extension of the filing deadline that could be viewed as more than just coincidental.
"There are a number of Clinton delegates that did not file for reasons of illness or other issues," Democratic state chairman T.J. Rooney conceded yesterday after being questioned by the Daily News...
...Elsewhere, say Rooney and other Clinton supporters, one candidate's mother died suddenly, another candidate was ill and another had to deal with a property foreclosure.
The shortfall was brought to my attention by western Pennsylvania attorney Jack Hanna, a Democratic state party regional caucus chairman and Obama supporter.
Hanna says before the deadline extension Clinton could have been 21 delegate candidates short. One late filing was by former Mayor John Street.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/15759032.html
Others have elaborated on Rendell's order being politically motivated to benefit Hillary Clinton.
Rendell is a known supporter of Clinton's and announced his endorsement of her a while back.
Jonathan Alter's Newsweek piece and Baer's piece How Pa. extension benefited Clinton may give thrust to contentions Gov. Rendell's order was politically motivated.
On February 12, 2008, the deadline for candidates for office to file nomination petitions passed, at 5 PM.
But through an executive order, Governor Ed Rendell extended the filing date by two days, reportedly, due to the weather.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Feb. 12, 2008
GOVERNOR RENDELL TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR CANDIDATES’ FILING PETITIONS
http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=471551
Candidates get extra shot
Deadline to file was extended. Races are in store for Congressional and statehouse seats. By TOM JOYCE Daily Record/Sunday News
Article Last Updated: 02/13/2008 05:46:32 AM EST
Gov. Ed Rendell, however, signed an executive order Tuesday evening that extends the deadline until noon Thursday. The extension applies to handing over petitions to the Department of State in Harrisburg. Rendell spokeswoman Leslie Amoros said that action has been taken at least once before, in 2000.
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_8245060
Rendell's executive order was likely released after 5 PM, Tuesday, Feb. 12, which we'll discuss herein may have caused an unintended consequence.
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/press/2008/filing_deadline_extension_02-12-08.pdf
According to the news reports, Rendell's justification for granting an extension by executive order to candidates "filing" nomination petitions was that day's weather.
A Feb. 12th article Candidates file for April 22 primary; Rendell extends deadline
2/12/2008, 9:33 p.m. EST By PETER JACKSON The Associated Press
Rendell extended the filing deadline, which applies to candidates for Congress and the state Legislature as well as party offices, from 5 p.m. Tuesday until noon Thursday, citing traffic problems caused by snow and ice across the state. Rendell's executive order did not extend the deadline for candidates to collect petition signatures but did give them extra time to deliver them to Harrisburg.
http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-59/1202861383291070.xml&storylist=penn
Not only has that "snowstorm-constitutes-emergency" reasoning been disputed, a poster on Black Box Voting forum, points out the executive order itself is "illegal." (PA) Governor Illegally Extends Nomination Petition Deadline
Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 6:41 am:
Yesterday, Governor Edward G. Rendell illegally extended the nomination petition deadline for the April 22 primary from Tuesday, February 12 at 5PM EST to Thursday, February 14 at 12 Noon EST.
The Governor completely lacks any authority to extend this deadline. Current speculation is that several Hillary Clinton delegate candidates failed to get their papers filed on time...
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/71808.html?1203547495
The poster, noted on the site as V. Kurt Bellman, Reading, PA presents additional comments in a message Feb. 15th:
It is my fervent belief that Governor Rendell's recent decision to extend the nomination petition deadline may be both illegal and politically motivated...
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/71808.html?1203547495
The BBV Forum poster continues
(PA) Governor Illegally Extends Nomination Petition Deadline
Feb. 14, 2008
Attached here is the Commonwealth Court case that is being cited as a precedent justifying the extension of the deadline this year.
There is no similarity. This year's snow was not significant at all. You can see that the 2000 storm was QUITE significant.
If a Governor can at a whim extend a deadline based on a couple of inches of snow, what's next, a traffic jam on the turnpike? This is ridiculous!
pdf file of In Re: Nomination Petition of Farrow 54md00.pdf (23.5 k)
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/71808.html?1203547495
(Net the Truth Online)
BETWEEN THE LINESJonathan Alter Hillary Should Get Out Now
Clinton has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself.
Mar 3, 2008 Issue
If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I'm hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.
Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn't. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.
The much-ballyhooed race for superdelegates is now nearly irrelevant. Some will be needed in Denver to put Obama over the top, just as Walter Mondale had to round up a couple dozen in 1984. But these party leaders won't determine the result. At the Austin, Texas, debate last week, Hillary agreed that the process would "sort itself out" so that the will of the people would not be reversed by superdelegates. Obama has a commanding 159 lead in pledged delegates and a lead of 925,000 in the popular vote (excluding Michigan and Florida, where neither campaigned). Closing that gap would require Hillary to win all the remaining contests by crushing margins. Any takers on her chances of doing so in, say, Mississippi and North Carolina, where African-Americans play a big role?
The pundit class hasn't been quicker to point all this out because of what happened in New Hampshire. A lot of us looked foolish by all but writing Hillary off when she lost the Iowa caucuses. As we should have known, stuff happens in politics. But that was early. The stuff that would have to happen now would be on a different order of magnitude. It's time to stop overlearning the lesson of New Hampshire.
Hillary has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself. Nothing in the last 14 months suggests he will.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725
Related
Whither Weather February 19 2008 Filed under Governor, Politics - 08 by AlexC
Smartest woman in the world neglects to file full slate of Pennsylvania delegatesposted at 1:50 pm on February 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
blog net news
http://www.blognetnews.com/pennsylvania/feed.php?channel=87
PA Gov. Rendell Order Extend Filing Deadlines Unconstitutional
On February 12, 2008, the deadline for candidates for office to file nomination petitions passed, at 5 PM.
But through an executive order, Governor Ed Rendell extended the filing date by two days, reportedly, due to the weather.
Rendell's executive order was likely released after 5 PM, Tuesday, Feb. 12, which we'll discuss herein may have caused an unintended consequence.
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/press/2008/filing_deadline_extension_02-12-08.pdf
According to the news reports, Rendell's justification for granting an extension by executive order to candidates "filing" nomination petitions was that day's weather.
Not only has that "snowstorm-constitutes-emergency" reasoning been disputed, the Governor's actions could well be unconstitutional for creating an unequal situation.
Governor Rendell's action caused two separate classes of candidates to be formed, and the order is unconstitutional for its effect on candidates.
Two separate classes of candidates:
Those who filed on Feb. 12 before the 5 PM deadline without knowledge of Rendell's Executive Order
Those who filed on Feb. 13th and Feb. 14th with knowledge of Rendell's executive order
Notice the wording in Governor Rendell's Executive Order
Notice the order does not specify any obections to nomination petitions must follow the current law and meet the deadline specified in current law - within seven days after the last day for filing such petitions.
Keeping that in mind, Rendell's order moved the date for candidates to file nomination petitions back by two days, but the Feb. 12th filers (before Rendell's executive order) had no knowledge a new date for objections would be set as a result of an executive order at the time of their filings.
Feb. 13 and Feb. 14 candidate filers would be aware, but not Feb. 12 filers.
The executive order in its effect creates a different time frame for some candidates(without their fore-knowledge) for objections to their nomination petitions.
For candidates who filed on Feb. 12, and who expected any potential challenges to be filed within the seven days set by current law, a nine day total was in actuality afforded to objectors.
Creation of a different time frame (for those who had an expectation of a 7 day objection window from Feb. 12th) was a consequence of Governor Ed Rendell's executive order - importantly, a different time frame was created for candidates who should all be in the same class of persons.
For that reason, non-uniformity - even though objectors could file such challenges within seven days of the Feb. 19th deadline, the Rendell executive order is still - unconstitutional.
Rendell created different classes of candidates by the executive order. How can that be defended? Because he says he can?
Another reason the Rendell order granting extensions is unconstitutional:
the order impacts this election's candidates who filed on Feb. 12 differently than those who filed on Feb. 13 and on Feb. 14th.
One group of candidates is adversely affected by Governor Ed Rendell's executive order when their nomination petitions are challenged on Feb. 21st.
Those who filed nomination petitions on Feb. 12 before 5 PM and before knowledge of Governor Rendell's executive order.
That isn't exactly following the equality clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution, or the Federal United States Constitution, or the 14th Amendment.
The executive order rests on a snowstorm that didn't in reality deserve a declaration by Governor Ed Rendell of a statewide emergency or disaster anytime during the day of Feb. 12, 2008. Rendell did not issue an emergency delaration for the entire state, being concerned with the welfare of ALL residents.
The Governor didn't issue a declaration of an emergency at all for all.
He issued an executive order for a certain group of people - those who had ample time to get their nomination petitions in on Feb. 12 by 5 PM, but for whatever reason, did not.
How can that be constitutional?
The order could also be unconstitutional for altering election law during the election process. One effect of Bush v Gore in 2000 was to acknowledge the existing laws regarding elections for that election cycle could not be changed mid-election process.
In Pennsylvania, the state had an opportunity to change the date of the Primary, at a certain point in time. The state legislature didn't enact a Primary date change, or any other changes before that deadline.
The election to occur on April 22, 2008 had pre-established and published deadlines imposed per existing law.
Granted, the dates are subject to change, but everybody knows the emergency requiring such drastic changes must be of a nature that rises to a certain level.
The deadline for filing candidate nomination petitions was altered by Rendell's executive order, with the justification of an "emergency."
And the order created a 9-day and 8-day situation for some objections, not all.
The order may be unconstitutional according to federal election laws, as well.
It's doubtful anybody will actually challenge Governor Ed Rendell's executive order because most pretty much want the same opportunity for such in subsequent administrations, whether those be Democrat or Republican.
By the way, according to a news spot today, Feb. 25, Governor Ed Rendell has announced he is not seeking the Vice Presidential opening (with a Hillary Clinton administration.)
(Net the Truth Online)
Related
But through an executive order, Governor Ed Rendell extended the filing date by two days, reportedly, due to the weather.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Feb. 12, 2008
GOVERNOR RENDELL TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR CANDIDATES’ FILING PETITIONS
http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=471551
Candidates get extra shot
Deadline to file was extended. Races are in store for Congressional and statehouse seats. By TOM JOYCE Daily Record/Sunday News
Article Last Updated: 02/13/2008 05:46:32 AM EST
Gov. Ed Rendell, however, signed an executive order Tuesday evening that extends the deadline until noon Thursday. The extension applies to handing over petitions to the Department of State in Harrisburg. Rendell spokeswoman Leslie Amoros said that action has been taken at least once before, in 2000.
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_8245060
Rendell's executive order was likely released after 5 PM, Tuesday, Feb. 12, which we'll discuss herein may have caused an unintended consequence.
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/press/2008/filing_deadline_extension_02-12-08.pdf
According to the news reports, Rendell's justification for granting an extension by executive order to candidates "filing" nomination petitions was that day's weather.
A Feb. 12th article Candidates file for April 22 primary; Rendell extends deadline
2/12/2008, 9:33 p.m. EST By PETER JACKSON The Associated Press
Rendell extended the filing deadline, which applies to candidates for Congress and the state Legislature as well as party offices, from 5 p.m. Tuesday until noon Thursday, citing traffic problems caused by snow and ice across the state. Rendell's executive order did not extend the deadline for candidates to collect petition signatures but did give them extra time to deliver them to Harrisburg.
http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-59/1202861383291070.xml&storylist=penn
Not only has that "snowstorm-constitutes-emergency" reasoning been disputed, the Governor's actions could well be unconstitutional for creating an unequal situation.
Governor Rendell's action caused two separate classes of candidates to be formed, and the order is unconstitutional for its effect on candidates.
Two separate classes of candidates:
Those who filed on Feb. 12 before the 5 PM deadline without knowledge of Rendell's Executive Order
Those who filed on Feb. 13th and Feb. 14th with knowledge of Rendell's executive order
Notice the wording in Governor Rendell's Executive Order
The extension will move the last day for filing objections to the
petitions to Feb. 21.
Notice the order does not specify any obections to nomination petitions must follow the current law and meet the deadline specified in current law - within seven days after the last day for filing such petitions.
The extension only covers the filing of petitions. It does not extend the deadline for the collection of signatures. The extension will move the last day for filing objections to the petitions to Feb. 21.
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/press/2008/filing_deadline_extension_02-12-08.pdf
Objections to nomination petitions must be filed within seven days after the last day for filing such petitions. Section 977 of the Election Code, 25 Pa. C.S. §2937.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/54md00-71820.pdf
Keeping that in mind, Rendell's order moved the date for candidates to file nomination petitions back by two days, but the Feb. 12th filers (before Rendell's executive order) had no knowledge a new date for objections would be set as a result of an executive order at the time of their filings.
Feb. 13 and Feb. 14 candidate filers would be aware, but not Feb. 12 filers.
The executive order in its effect creates a different time frame for some candidates(without their fore-knowledge) for objections to their nomination petitions.
For candidates who filed on Feb. 12, and who expected any potential challenges to be filed within the seven days set by current law, a nine day total was in actuality afforded to objectors.
Creation of a different time frame (for those who had an expectation of a 7 day objection window from Feb. 12th) was a consequence of Governor Ed Rendell's executive order - importantly, a different time frame was created for candidates who should all be in the same class of persons.
For that reason, non-uniformity - even though objectors could file such challenges within seven days of the Feb. 19th deadline, the Rendell executive order is still - unconstitutional.
Rendell created different classes of candidates by the executive order. How can that be defended? Because he says he can?
Another reason the Rendell order granting extensions is unconstitutional:
the order impacts this election's candidates who filed on Feb. 12 differently than those who filed on Feb. 13 and on Feb. 14th.
One group of candidates is adversely affected by Governor Ed Rendell's executive order when their nomination petitions are challenged on Feb. 21st.
Those who filed nomination petitions on Feb. 12 before 5 PM and before knowledge of Governor Rendell's executive order.
That isn't exactly following the equality clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution, or the Federal United States Constitution, or the 14th Amendment.
The executive order rests on a snowstorm that didn't in reality deserve a declaration by Governor Ed Rendell of a statewide emergency or disaster anytime during the day of Feb. 12, 2008. Rendell did not issue an emergency delaration for the entire state, being concerned with the welfare of ALL residents.
The Governor didn't issue a declaration of an emergency at all for all.
He issued an executive order for a certain group of people - those who had ample time to get their nomination petitions in on Feb. 12 by 5 PM, but for whatever reason, did not.
How can that be constitutional?
The order could also be unconstitutional for altering election law during the election process. One effect of Bush v Gore in 2000 was to acknowledge the existing laws regarding elections for that election cycle could not be changed mid-election process.
In Pennsylvania, the state had an opportunity to change the date of the Primary, at a certain point in time. The state legislature didn't enact a Primary date change, or any other changes before that deadline.
The election to occur on April 22, 2008 had pre-established and published deadlines imposed per existing law.
Granted, the dates are subject to change, but everybody knows the emergency requiring such drastic changes must be of a nature that rises to a certain level.
The deadline for filing candidate nomination petitions was altered by Rendell's executive order, with the justification of an "emergency."
And the order created a 9-day and 8-day situation for some objections, not all.
The order may be unconstitutional according to federal election laws, as well.
It's doubtful anybody will actually challenge Governor Ed Rendell's executive order because most pretty much want the same opportunity for such in subsequent administrations, whether those be Democrat or Republican.
By the way, according to a news spot today, Feb. 25, Governor Ed Rendell has announced he is not seeking the Vice Presidential opening (with a Hillary Clinton administration.)
(Net the Truth Online)
Related
Whither Weather February 19 2008 Filed under Governor, Politics - 08 by AlexC
Smartest woman in the world neglects to file full slate of Pennsylvania delegatesposted at 1:50 pm on February 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
blog net news
http://www.blognetnews.com/pennsylvania/feed.php?channel=87
Independent Agent of Change
Key variable to a Third-Party choice for the people is getting the candidate to the National Debates.
Too true.
Douglas Schoen on C-Span this morning. Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System by Douglas Schoen, available February 5, 2008
http://www.douglasschoen.blogspot.com/
The thesis of his book may not be as valid as presented, however. The voters don't appear in any large numbers to be dissatisfied with the two-party "system."
They're often dissatisfied with the candidates selected, but the system, is not under attack at this time by political-party veterans.
Independents are fed up with the two-party majority system. Are they enough to mount a movement to open up ballot access to them?
We've believed for quite a long time now, the third-parties should have access in the same Primaries as the two majority political parties.
That's quite different than what the proportional vote movement is offering.
Schoen may be among those.
Wouldn't inclusion of all independent parties in the primary process be the agent of change the country needs?
All independent parties should hold their nominations at the same time as the Republican and Democrat parties and be able to participate in the Presidential Primary process across the nation.
That would give early access to the same process the two-majority parties enjoy.
That may be rebuked since the two majority parties enjoy incumbency-protection with the current system.
Cynthia McKinney will be the Green Party presidential candidate, for instance.
Who ran against her in the Green Party? Did the Green Party hierarchy choose her, or did the Green Party voters choose her?
How about a Libertarian Party candidate? How is that candidate chosen?
Should all parties show up on the ballot with a slate of candidates vying for the nomination from that political Party - during the same process afforded to the two majority parties, the country's voter turnout would increase dramatically.
see our comments on Lou Dobbs
Related Take the Poll (even though it excludes Lou Dobbs)
Too true.
Douglas Schoen on C-Span this morning. Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System by Douglas Schoen, available February 5, 2008
http://www.douglasschoen.blogspot.com/
The thesis of his book may not be as valid as presented, however. The voters don't appear in any large numbers to be dissatisfied with the two-party "system."
They're often dissatisfied with the candidates selected, but the system, is not under attack at this time by political-party veterans.
Independents are fed up with the two-party majority system. Are they enough to mount a movement to open up ballot access to them?
We've believed for quite a long time now, the third-parties should have access in the same Primaries as the two majority political parties.
That's quite different than what the proportional vote movement is offering.
Schoen may be among those.
Wouldn't inclusion of all independent parties in the primary process be the agent of change the country needs?
All independent parties should hold their nominations at the same time as the Republican and Democrat parties and be able to participate in the Presidential Primary process across the nation.
That would give early access to the same process the two-majority parties enjoy.
That may be rebuked since the two majority parties enjoy incumbency-protection with the current system.
Cynthia McKinney will be the Green Party presidential candidate, for instance.
Who ran against her in the Green Party? Did the Green Party hierarchy choose her, or did the Green Party voters choose her?
How about a Libertarian Party candidate? How is that candidate chosen?
Should all parties show up on the ballot with a slate of candidates vying for the nomination from that political Party - during the same process afforded to the two majority parties, the country's voter turnout would increase dramatically.
see our comments on Lou Dobbs
Related Take the Poll (even though it excludes Lou Dobbs)
Who would you like to see run as an Independent in the 2008 Presidential election?
Chuck Hagel 0 (0%)
Michael Bloomberg 3 (42%)
Colin Powell 4 (57%)
Tom Brokaw 0 (0%)
Change your vote
Votes so far: 7
Days left to vote: 5
http://www.douglasschoen.blogspot.com/
McCain Lobbyist Coziness Snooze or Wake Up Call?
Perception John McCain's http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cozinesswith lobbyists - does it hurt him.
C-Span asking South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford...
That depends? Many continue to believe McCain ...
Others, like us are questioning this:
Why didn't the New York times come out with the story - whatever they had - way back in October 2007?
According to the CNN report
The Drudge Report leaked something was coming in December.
Why not give the people all the information about these candidates from whatever sources when it is available?
The suppression of information by the Press has historical routes.
FDR, JFK. WJC.
Can you imagine a McCain in the White House and all of a sudden the coziness with lobbyist/s stories arrives on our front porches?
That would have been a slap in the face to all.
There is more than one story on McCains coziness, ties, connections with lobbyists.
The New York Times story includes an angle - suppostions by unnamed aides of a ptotential "romantic" liaison between McCain and Iseman - that entices the focus there, but there is more to the story of McCain's ties to lobbyists.
Many make up his insider camp.
At least with the information out now, the public can choose to research further or snooze. It's their choice, not the newspaper's or media's choice to make.
Net the Truth Online
C-Span asking South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford...
That depends? Many continue to believe McCain ...
Thu February 21, 2008
McCain on claim of coziness with lobbyist: 'It's not true'
"I'm disappointed in The New York Times piece. It's not true," he told reporters in Toledo, Ohio, his wife, Cindy, standing by his side.
He added that he has never "done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision" that would favor a particular group.
His wife added that her husband always puts family and country first, and is "a man of great character."
The New York Times issued a statement Thursday saying it stands by its reporting and that "the story speaks for itself."...
...One of McCain's senior advisers, Charlie Black, told CNN that the campaign first learned in October the paper was working on a story about McCain's relationship with Iseman. Watch Black address the allegations »
He said that information and documents provided to the paper disputes suggestions McCain tried to use his influence to help Iseman.
Black further said The New York Times was a liberal newspaper that was printing "rumors and gossip" in what he described as a partisan attack on the conservative McCain....
"He doesn't do favors for anyone," Black said of McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain/index.html
Others, like us are questioning this:
Why didn't the New York times come out with the story - whatever they had - way back in October 2007?
According to the CNN report
Thu February 21, 2008 McCain on claim of coziness with lobbyist: 'It's not true'
the McCain campaign first learned in October the paper was working on a story about McCain's relationship with Iseman.
The Drudge Report leaked something was coming in December.
Why not give the people all the information about these candidates from whatever sources when it is available?
The suppression of information by the Press has historical routes.
FDR, JFK. WJC.
Can you imagine a McCain in the White House and all of a sudden the coziness with lobbyist/s stories arrives on our front porches?
That would have been a slap in the face to all.
There is more than one story on McCains coziness, ties, connections with lobbyists.
The New York Times story includes an angle - suppostions by unnamed aides of a ptotential "romantic" liaison between McCain and Iseman - that entices the focus there, but there is more to the story of McCain's ties to lobbyists.
Many make up his insider camp.
At least with the information out now, the public can choose to research further or snooze. It's their choice, not the newspaper's or media's choice to make.
Net the Truth Online
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Freedom of Speech All Year Round?
Apparently not, if an individual who supports a presidential candidate can't put signs on his own property and his own lawn more than 30-days out from an election, only within the 30-day period.
How silly. Maybe Hillary Clinton will pick up on the Obama sign in Rudolph's lawn and come up with some clever and catch line during the Feb. 28th MSNBC debate.
Something we can all get another good laugh, because we're crying over this insanity.
(Net the Truth Online)
How silly. Maybe Hillary Clinton will pick up on the Obama sign in Rudolph's lawn and come up with some clever and catch line during the Feb. 28th MSNBC debate.
Something we can all get another good laugh, because we're crying over this insanity.
(Net the Truth Online)
ACLU Files Suit Over Obama Campaign Signs
February 20th, 2008 by Greg Palmer
For now, Joseph Rudolph can display a sign supporting Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential run on his front lawn in South Park. Whether it will be allowed to stay there will be decided in U.S. District Court...
...That would mean Dr. Rudolph couldn’t put up his sign until March 23, in advance of Pennsylvania’s April 22 primaries.
“Freedom of speech applies all year round,” said Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, “not just 30 days before an election.”
http://www.keystonepolitics.com/story/elections/2008elections/aclu-files-suit-over-obama-campaign-signs
NYT ombudsman slams article on McCain
The NYT should have published the story back in December, or earlier, whatever info or purported info the newspaper's reporters had gathered, even though second-hand and anonymous sources were used.
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: February 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
...(Page 4 of 4)
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.
“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”
Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.
It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.
Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203877068-GDatZOkmkh6wCKSaUBk6Ow
In
Apparently then, a named source provided info to the NYT about concerns.
The NYT had to go with the story to perform its due diligence. Had it left out anything, even this:
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnlx=1203877068-GDatZOkmkh6wCKSaUBk6Ow
The job of the press isn't to play favorites or distort information, or leave out information they've obtained, even when information is provided by anonymous sources.
The people who believe they can run for the highest office in the U.S. and not have to face scrutiny as if they are under a microscope shouldn't be running for that office.
Lay out the information, and let the people use common sense to determine whether or not the information proves whatever case is made.
(Net the Truth Online)
Anyone who has ever dealt with the Press understands you make every attempt to deflect that which isn't even mentioned, to divert attention from that which is.
(Net the Truth Online)
From The TimesFebruary 21, 2008
John McCain forced to deny romantic link with lobbyist
Tim Reid in Austin, Texas
The potentially most damaging allegations contained in the article centre on Mr McCain's reported conflicts of interests in the areas of political funding and lobbying. He has built a reputation as a scourge of the excesses of both but is accused of several instances of hypocrisy.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3407188.ece
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: February 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
...(Page 4 of 4)
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.
“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”
Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.
It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.
Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203877068-GDatZOkmkh6wCKSaUBk6Ow
In
McCain Denies Allegations of a Relationship with Iseman
John and Cindy McCain hold a press conference to confront accusations of an unsavory relationship
By Liz Halloran
Posted February 21, 2008
The newspaper, quoting former McCain aide John Weaver, reported that during his 2000 run for president, the senator's aides had warned her to stay away from him. And it detailed actions by the senator that benefited Iseman's client...
Weaver told the Times he arranged a meeting with Iseman in 1999 to tell her to keep her distance from the senator after aides became concerned that the relationship had become romantic. McCain said Weaver remains a friend and said he thought he last saw Iseman, whom he also characterized as a friend, several months ago at an event.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/02/21/mccain-denies-allegations-of-a-relationship-with-iseman.html
Apparently then, a named source provided info to the NYT about concerns.
The NYT had to go with the story to perform its due diligence. Had it left out anything, even this:
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnlx=1203877068-GDatZOkmkh6wCKSaUBk6Ow
The job of the press isn't to play favorites or distort information, or leave out information they've obtained, even when information is provided by anonymous sources.
The people who believe they can run for the highest office in the U.S. and not have to face scrutiny as if they are under a microscope shouldn't be running for that office.
Lay out the information, and let the people use common sense to determine whether or not the information proves whatever case is made.
(Net the Truth Online)
New York Times ombudsman slams article on McCain
Feb 23 06:48 PM US/Eastern
The New York Times' ombudsman strongly criticized the newspaper's insinuation this week that White House hopeful John McCain had a tryst with a female lobbyist 31 years his junior, nearly 10 years ago...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080223234747.av40rdow&show_article=1
Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.
The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203877068-GDatZOkmkh6wCKSaUBk6Ow
Anyone who has ever dealt with the Press understands you make every attempt to deflect that which isn't even mentioned, to divert attention from that which is.
(Net the Truth Online)
The McCain World Rift DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 22, 2008
...McCain was loyal to each camp in a house divided. But the poisons emanating from the rift have spread outward. They are the background for the article my colleagues at The New York Times published Thursday.
At the core of that article that began on the front page are two anonymous sources. These sources, according to the article, say they confronted McCain in 1999 with their concerns that he was risking his career by interacting with Vicki Iseman. As a columnist, I’m an independent operator, speaking for myself alone. I have no idea who those sources are. But they are bound to come from the inner circle of the McCain universe. The number of people who could credibly claim to have had a meeting like that with McCain in early 1999 is vanishingly small. I count a small handful of associates with that stature, including Davis and Weaver. There is nobody in that tight circle unaffected by the hostilities that emanate from the rift.
Thursday, as McCain was fervently and completely denying the allegations of an affair with Iseman, people in all quarters of the McCain universe were vehemently denying it, too. But even on this embattled day, they broke down into rival camps over the identity of the sources.
Many in the Davis camp argued Thursday that Weaver must be the chief anonymous source, and that he had roped in one other confederate. He’s had a hard life, they said, and is driven by demons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html
From The TimesFebruary 21, 2008
John McCain forced to deny romantic link with lobbyist
Tim Reid in Austin, Texas
The potentially most damaging allegations contained in the article centre on Mr McCain's reported conflicts of interests in the areas of political funding and lobbying. He has built a reputation as a scourge of the excesses of both but is accused of several instances of hypocrisy.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3407188.ece
Mahoney People's Agenda Excludes Unfair Tax Exemptions Elimination
Pennsylvania state Representative Timothy Mahoney The People's Agenda
Unfortunately, the state representative's People's Agenda excludes elimination of unfair tax exemptions.
Known as Keystone Opportunity Zones, the exemptions were the subject of controversy for years in the legislative district of Rep. Timothy Mahoney (D-PA 51st).
The people raised such a ruckus about application of tax freedom for almost 12-years to "housing developments" in a Springhill Township area that a former state legislator presented legislation to prevent any further designation of KOZs for housing developments. (Former state Representative Larry Roberts is seeking a return to the seat now held by Rep. Timothy Mahoney.)
Local county commissioners were well aware of objections to KOZ status for housing developments and subsequently denied a zoning request for Crystal Springs development which consisted of a "golf resort" - convention center - and expanded housing development. Years earlier, during a previous administration of county commissioners, the acreage had received KOZ designation due to the county's lead economic development agency's specific request.
A later administration of board of county commissioners nixed a renewed zoning request for Crystal Springs development which would have expanded the amount of housing to nearly 300-400 homes within the construction range of $250,000 and upwards.
We cover the situation in Resort to KOZ.
However, the KOZ status remains for the development project to continue
On the WMBS 590 radio program, Let's Talk, with Bob Foltz (Tuesday, August 28, 2007), Rep. Tim Mahoney admitted Keystone Opportunity Zones were unfair, not uniform according to the PA Constitution, and unconstitutional.
During our call, he was asked what he would do about KOZs given his agreement they were unfair.
In our September 10, 2007 report, Keystone Opportunity Zones unfair agrees state legislator Tim Mahoney we comment on Rep. Mahoney's excuses for not dealing with Keystone Opportunity Zones immediately.
His excuses were: he had two top priorities he had to finish BEFORE he dealt with KOZs. Those were:
Pennsylvania open records
local real-estate property tax elimination
(It was unclear whether Rep. Mahoney meant the elimintion of the real-estate property tax to apply to all three taxing bodies, school district, municipality, and county)
Rep. Mahoney also expressed his intention to make the KOZs a "third" top priority, after he got the job done on open records and property tax elimination.
We wrote a lengthy email to the legislator wherein he was presented with a request to make the KOZs a top-priority immediately. We suggested several measures he could introduce back then to forestall locating residential housing in Keystone Opportunity Zones, and preventing any additional legislation down the road to expand KOZs in any form.
Letter to PA Rep. Timothy Mahoney (October 8, 2007)
http://dirtline.tripod.com/wakeup/id22.html
We request PA state Representative Timothy Mahoney to:
do as much as you can to put the final expiration date on KOZs.
It's only fair to add that we've encountered Rep. Mahoney at two commissioner meetings, but did not take either of those opportunities to press the issue. Why not? It is up to the legislator to take action on not only what has been asked of him, but what he himself has agreed is "unfair, not uniform, and unconstitutional." How many times must we make our requests in writing for Rep. Mahoney to uphold his oath of office which includes following the uniformity clause of the PA Constitution.
According to the Herald-Standard article, state Rep. Timothy Mahoney calls his efforts up to now and to continue should he be re-elected "The People's Agenda."
That's odd since Herald-Standard Harrisburg correspondent Kori Walter made a comment on the WMBS 590 program in response to our rundown of Mahoney's position on KOZs and what he wouldn't do... until...
Walter: "it's the people who set the agenda." Walter went on to add the potential that the second of Mahoney's goals, elimination of school property taxes would require alteration of the PA Constitution, and how that could take years.
We find it more than odd, and unacceptable, Rep. Mahoney presents a People's Agenda which to date has not included action to put an end to KOZs for in many cases up to 15 years for "Fortune 500" companies, and residential housing developments.
The People's Agenda of Rep. Mahoney has not dealt with this situation on behalf of his constituency.
And he could as apparently he's got quite the leadership there in the "people's" Harrisburg House behind his freshman effort to open records to the public, and a qualified attorney.
We're not knocking the entirety of the effort to address the state's backwards information access laws. Yet, on that issue, we've covered many times the less-than-expected contents, including the original House bill 443 not applying to past records. (The Senate Bill 1 fixed that defect.)
Pennsylvania Open Records Scam of New Year?
With either legislation, we still have to convince somebody that what we want IS A PUBLIC RECORD. There are still "exemptions."
That's not to say the open records law that resulted after House and Senate concurrence is "totally bad."
One major change from the House version in the Senate version was applying the open records law "retroactively," according to news analysis which we cover in PA Senate Open Records Measure Retroactive.
But the people need to learn what's in the final bill before judging it's the end-all-be-all of the matter.
Word is, the open records law doesn't totally apply to the state General Assembly and will enable the GA to determine through one of its own agencies what is - or is not- the public record.
We'll cover the unsettling aspects of "reformers" who pressed for the open records legislation - and continued support of legislation which didn't meet all expectations, but who now are not OK with what resulted.
Maybe the state legislator representing the 51st district will step forward to explain what he will do about KOZs before the Primary election April 22, 2008 so the people can determine if he's moving on the real people's agenda.
If he doesn't - our criticism of him - stands. (think KOZ elimination will be a question in a round-table discussion sponsored by the Herald-Standard?) Keep watching.
(Net the Truth Online)
Unfortunately, the state representative's People's Agenda excludes elimination of unfair tax exemptions.
Known as Keystone Opportunity Zones, the exemptions were the subject of controversy for years in the legislative district of Rep. Timothy Mahoney (D-PA 51st).
The people raised such a ruckus about application of tax freedom for almost 12-years to "housing developments" in a Springhill Township area that a former state legislator presented legislation to prevent any further designation of KOZs for housing developments. (Former state Representative Larry Roberts is seeking a return to the seat now held by Rep. Timothy Mahoney.)
Local county commissioners were well aware of objections to KOZ status for housing developments and subsequently denied a zoning request for Crystal Springs development which consisted of a "golf resort" - convention center - and expanded housing development. Years earlier, during a previous administration of county commissioners, the acreage had received KOZ designation due to the county's lead economic development agency's specific request.
A later administration of board of county commissioners nixed a renewed zoning request for Crystal Springs development which would have expanded the amount of housing to nearly 300-400 homes within the construction range of $250,000 and upwards.
We cover the situation in Resort to KOZ.
However, the KOZ status remains for the development project to continue
On the WMBS 590 radio program, Let's Talk, with Bob Foltz (Tuesday, August 28, 2007), Rep. Tim Mahoney admitted Keystone Opportunity Zones were unfair, not uniform according to the PA Constitution, and unconstitutional.
During our call, he was asked what he would do about KOZs given his agreement they were unfair.
In our September 10, 2007 report, Keystone Opportunity Zones unfair agrees state legislator Tim Mahoney we comment on Rep. Mahoney's excuses for not dealing with Keystone Opportunity Zones immediately.
His excuses were: he had two top priorities he had to finish BEFORE he dealt with KOZs. Those were:
Pennsylvania open records
local real-estate property tax elimination
(It was unclear whether Rep. Mahoney meant the elimintion of the real-estate property tax to apply to all three taxing bodies, school district, municipality, and county)
Rep. Mahoney also expressed his intention to make the KOZs a "third" top priority, after he got the job done on open records and property tax elimination.
We wrote a lengthy email to the legislator wherein he was presented with a request to make the KOZs a top-priority immediately. We suggested several measures he could introduce back then to forestall locating residential housing in Keystone Opportunity Zones, and preventing any additional legislation down the road to expand KOZs in any form.
Letter to PA Rep. Timothy Mahoney (October 8, 2007)
http://dirtline.tripod.com/wakeup/id22.html
We request PA state Representative Timothy Mahoney to:
do as much as you can to put the final expiration date on KOZs.
It's only fair to add that we've encountered Rep. Mahoney at two commissioner meetings, but did not take either of those opportunities to press the issue. Why not? It is up to the legislator to take action on not only what has been asked of him, but what he himself has agreed is "unfair, not uniform, and unconstitutional." How many times must we make our requests in writing for Rep. Mahoney to uphold his oath of office which includes following the uniformity clause of the PA Constitution.
According to the Herald-Standard article, state Rep. Timothy Mahoney calls his efforts up to now and to continue should he be re-elected "The People's Agenda."
That's odd since Herald-Standard Harrisburg correspondent Kori Walter made a comment on the WMBS 590 program in response to our rundown of Mahoney's position on KOZs and what he wouldn't do... until...
Walter: "it's the people who set the agenda." Walter went on to add the potential that the second of Mahoney's goals, elimination of school property taxes would require alteration of the PA Constitution, and how that could take years.
We find it more than odd, and unacceptable, Rep. Mahoney presents a People's Agenda which to date has not included action to put an end to KOZs for in many cases up to 15 years for "Fortune 500" companies, and residential housing developments.
The People's Agenda of Rep. Mahoney has not dealt with this situation on behalf of his constituency.
And he could as apparently he's got quite the leadership there in the "people's" Harrisburg House behind his freshman effort to open records to the public, and a qualified attorney.
Lawmakers may revise unpopular open-records law
March 12th, 2007 by LVDem
Tim Mahoney had just won the Democratic primary for a Fayette County seat in the state House of Representatives last year when he paid a lawyer about $4,100 to draft a top-to-bottom revision of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law.
He campaigned on the ambitious 34-page proposal during the election, and introduced the bill as one of his first acts upon taking the seat...
http://www.keystonepolitics.com/lawmakers-may-revise-unpopular-open-records-law
We're not knocking the entirety of the effort to address the state's backwards information access laws. Yet, on that issue, we've covered many times the less-than-expected contents, including the original House bill 443 not applying to past records. (The Senate Bill 1 fixed that defect.)
Pennsylvania Open Records Scam of New Year?
With either legislation, we still have to convince somebody that what we want IS A PUBLIC RECORD. There are still "exemptions."
That's not to say the open records law that resulted after House and Senate concurrence is "totally bad."
One major change from the House version in the Senate version was applying the open records law "retroactively," according to news analysis which we cover in PA Senate Open Records Measure Retroactive.
But the people need to learn what's in the final bill before judging it's the end-all-be-all of the matter.
Word is, the open records law doesn't totally apply to the state General Assembly and will enable the GA to determine through one of its own agencies what is - or is not- the public record.
Pa. Legislature sends open records law overhaul to governor
February 12, 2008 02:41 pm
Mark Scolforo
...the law “does not control what an agency may provide to the public — it only governs what an agency is mandated to provide.”
http://www.dailyitem.com/panews/local_story_043144111.html
Landmark open-records legislation awaits Rendell’s signature
BY ROBERT SWIFT
TIMES • SHAMROCK
02/13/2008
...The bill creates a new Office of Open Records in the state Department of Community and Economic Development to assist individuals seeking open records, set photocopying fees and create a standard appeals process for people denied access to records.
...The final bill is like a glass more than half full, said Barry Kauffman, director of Pennsylvania Common Cause. But Kauffman added the bill contains shortcomings, including limited access to legislative records, lack of criminal penalties for officials and absence of a truly independent open records agency...
http://www.republicanherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19289742&BRD=2626&PAG=461&dept_id=532624&rfi=6
We'll cover the unsettling aspects of "reformers" who pressed for the open records legislation - and continued support of legislation which didn't meet all expectations, but who now are not OK with what resulted.
Maybe the state legislator representing the 51st district will step forward to explain what he will do about KOZs before the Primary election April 22, 2008 so the people can determine if he's moving on the real people's agenda.
If he doesn't - our criticism of him - stands. (think KOZ elimination will be a question in a round-table discussion sponsored by the Herald-Standard?) Keep watching.
(Net the Truth Online)
Mahoney seeks re-election on heels of success
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
02/23/2008
Updated 02/24/2008 12:06:04 AM EST
On the heels of passage of Pennsylvania's first open records law in decades, which state Rep. Timothy Mahoney began working on when he first took office a little more than a year ago, Mahoney officially announced Friday he will seek a second term.
The Democratic primary will be held April 22...
During his first year in office, Mahoney became the only freshman Democrat selected to serve on the bipartisan Speaker's House Reform Commission. Mahoney said he led the charge for passing the historic open records law that will bring transparency back to government.
Mahoney said he also played an instrumental role in passing other reforms such as enacting an internal rule change that does not allow the state House to vote on any issues, including controversial proposals such as pay raises, after the hour of 11 p.m.
"The people of Pennsylvania can sleep comfortably now," Mahoney said.
He said he is a man who prides himself on action and not words, adding that he looks forward to completing the balance of this session of the General Assembly. He said he hopes the voters will allow him to continue to serve and address what he calls, "The People's Agenda."
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19324520&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Anonymous Unpatriotic Obama Groundless
Wonder whether Hillary Clinton's campaign is responsible for the mass emails, seemingly coming from conservatives which features a photograph of Barack Obama and other candidates back in Iowa.
Guess somebody has to find a photo of Hillary Clinton and John McCain (together) at a ball game talking instead of facing the flag with hands over heart when the National Anthem is sung.
Of course it's being misrepresented Obama didn't place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, that simply is untrue.
Many would view not doing so a sign much like wearing a flag lapel pin upside down, or not at all. A protest of something America is doing, or not doing.
Conservatives really don't need something like this to complain about either of the Democratic candidates... so it must be Hillary Clinton's campaign doing.
Net the Truth Online
Guess somebody has to find a photo of Hillary Clinton and John McCain (together) at a ball game talking instead of facing the flag with hands over heart when the National Anthem is sung.
Of course it's being misrepresented Obama didn't place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, that simply is untrue.
Many would view not doing so a sign much like wearing a flag lapel pin upside down, or not at all. A protest of something America is doing, or not doing.
Conservatives really don't need something like this to complain about either of the Democratic candidates... so it must be Hillary Clinton's campaign doing.
Net the Truth Online
Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism
Feb 23, 12:00 PM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER
Last summer, Obama was photographed by Time magazine at an event in Iowa standing with his hands folded during the national anthem. His primary rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appear beside him, with their hands on their hearts.
It has been repeatedly reported that the moment came during the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's not the case.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V053E00.html
Obama Nabbed by the Patriot Police
Washington Post blog Michael Dobbs
Contrary to the e-mails attacking Obama for disrespecting the flag, the candidates were not reciting the pledge of allegiance. They were standing for the national anthem.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic.html
Myth Blaster - Obama Refusal to Respect the Flag/Patriotic Protocol
November 10, 2007 by Keith
There is an email circulating around concerning a photo of Obama on an outdoor stage showing his hands folded in front of him, while other Democratic Party members have their hands over their hearts during the playing of the National Anthem. The picture is depicted below:
Some email, like that which Joan B., Illinois, Friend of LPJ, submitted that states is was taken during the “Pledge of Allegiance” – that email is not correct.
U.S. Flag Code states that:
“During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.”
Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism, Illinois senator (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Barack Obama caused something of a stir in September 2007 when he was seemingly spotted (as in the image shown above) not observing the hand-over-heart form during a playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” at an Indianola, Iowa, steak fry attended by the six top Democratic presidential candidates.
The photograph itself is real, one of several images of the Iowa steak fry event published by Time, and shows Barack Obama standing with his hands clasped just below his waist, while New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, and Ruth Harkin (wife of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin) stand with their hands held over their hearts. … The Flag Code advises that they should be “standing at attention facing the flag,” but none of them is facing the flag displayed behind the platform on which they’re standing. Presumably there’s another flag off to the right of the platform, since most of them are facing that direction...
http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/myth-blaster-obama-refusal-to-respect-the-flagpatriotic-protocol/
Clinton Response to Obama Healthcare Mailer Thunder-Less
Update:
Monday, Feb. 25, 2008
Fox News Channel panel discussing Hillary Clinton's quote of the week "Shame on You, Barack Obama, shame on you..." for those mailers of Obama's about her healthcare plan, and NAFTA...
Bob Beckel: the mailer has been out now for weeks, over a month, why criticize them now - it's a long stretch...
Andrea calls the effort by Hilary Clinton shows she's the grumpy mother
Previous
Why is Hillary Clinton so late in going on the attack about a mailer from the Obama campaingn? The mailer has been circulating for how long (Feb. 4 is date of a factcheck.org post and article)? Clinton had ample opportunity to make sure everyone understood her healthcare plan particulars just this past Thursday, during the CNN sponsored debate in Austin. (The CNN debate will be rebroadcast tonight 8 PM)
Health care key topic in Austin Democratic debate
Obama reiterated the charge her plan is a mandate and one that even applies to those who could not afford it, with the potential for stiff penalties for non-compliance.
Obama even mentioned the Massachusetts plan for healthcare which is mandated and with its according to him resultant fines and problems of enforcement.
Clinton had ample opportunity to demonstrate the internal workings of every facet of her plan to a live audience and millions of CNN late evening viewers.
Instead, she uttered lines about Obama "lifting whole passages" which she pressed to the point of delusion, and which brought jeers from the wholly Democrat audience. Clinton: Obama 'change you can Xerox'
Instead, it appears Hillary Clinton is showing a spite-ing mode that may become her trademark and swan song.
But she's using similar tactics as previously done.
Carl Bernstein tagged the Clintons' approach to Obama as psychological warfare.
Her campaign launched a website http://www.delegatehub.com/ to promote her version of how delegates should be distributed, yet the 'agent of change' said nary a word during her face-to-face with Barack Obama in Austin when a question about super-delegates arose.
Democrats Playing by the Rules?
Her tactics don't appear to be changing from those she's distanced herself from, but nonetheless, somehow occur without her knowledge or approval.
Nazi reference by Clinton supporter repudiated by her campaign
By Hill Truth | The Hillary Project
Hillary Clinton Losing Reasons to Vote for Her
Obama's poll numbers in Texas are a dead heat to Clinton's. He's narrowing a 7 point lead of Clinton's in Ohio.
Now all Hillary Clinton can swing in her arms is Obama's wrong about her plan and should be ashamed.
HRC: 'Shame on you, Barack Obama' By: Kenneth P. Vogel Feb 23, 2008 01:32 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8648.html
doesn't that sound a bit "oldish?" We'd say spinsterish if she weren't married. On second thought, they are SPINsterish.
They're also childish. "Shame on you," to a grown man who after all, is a United States Senator.
If the comment had been made of her, she'd be screaming that's patronizing.
But how can she argue her healthcare plan is not "mandated" on everybody, or else? It's the or else part she's been evasive about.
She obviously ducked the question during a interview when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked her about wage-garnishing three times. But according to the CNSNEWS report, she didn't rule out garnishing wages.
Clinton May Garnish Wages to Achieve Universal Health Care
Obama's stolen Clinton's base.
When she begins to charge another Democrat with Karl-Rove-like tactics, she must know the laughter it will evoke?
OK Hillary, we can hear it now, during the next debate (MSNBC Feb. 28th) you say: your flyer, Obama, you should be ashamed of yourself, it's straight from Karl-Rove's playbook.
When you hear the resulting booing, Hillary, what will your conciliatory ending be this time?
The last one made you sound like the "schoolgirl kid."
"I am honored, absolutely, honored to be here with Barack Obama," the ... the... the next... next... next... ?
Rasmussen: Barack Obama 80% Chance Democrat Nomination
(Net the Truth Online)
February 4, 2008, 11:02 am
Would Clinton Garnish Wages to Enforce Health Plan?
Posted by Shirley S. Wang
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/04/would-clinton-garnish-wages-to-enforce-health-plan/
Monday, Feb. 25, 2008
Fox News Channel panel discussing Hillary Clinton's quote of the week "Shame on You, Barack Obama, shame on you..." for those mailers of Obama's about her healthcare plan, and NAFTA...
Bob Beckel: the mailer has been out now for weeks, over a month, why criticize them now - it's a long stretch...
Andrea calls the effort by Hilary Clinton shows she's the grumpy mother
Previous
Why is Hillary Clinton so late in going on the attack about a mailer from the Obama campaingn? The mailer has been circulating for how long (Feb. 4 is date of a factcheck.org post and article)? Clinton had ample opportunity to make sure everyone understood her healthcare plan particulars just this past Thursday, during the CNN sponsored debate in Austin. (The CNN debate will be rebroadcast tonight 8 PM)
Health care key topic in Austin Democratic debate
Obama reiterated the charge her plan is a mandate and one that even applies to those who could not afford it, with the potential for stiff penalties for non-compliance.
Obama even mentioned the Massachusetts plan for healthcare which is mandated and with its according to him resultant fines and problems of enforcement.
Clinton had ample opportunity to demonstrate the internal workings of every facet of her plan to a live audience and millions of CNN late evening viewers.
Instead, she uttered lines about Obama "lifting whole passages" which she pressed to the point of delusion, and which brought jeers from the wholly Democrat audience. Clinton: Obama 'change you can Xerox'
Instead, it appears Hillary Clinton is showing a spite-ing mode that may become her trademark and swan song.
But she's using similar tactics as previously done.
Carl Bernstein tagged the Clintons' approach to Obama as psychological warfare.
Her campaign launched a website http://www.delegatehub.com/ to promote her version of how delegates should be distributed, yet the 'agent of change' said nary a word during her face-to-face with Barack Obama in Austin when a question about super-delegates arose.
Democrats Playing by the Rules?
Her tactics don't appear to be changing from those she's distanced herself from, but nonetheless, somehow occur without her knowledge or approval.
Nazi reference by Clinton supporter repudiated by her campaign
By Hill Truth | The Hillary Project
Hillary Clinton Losing Reasons to Vote for Her
Obama's poll numbers in Texas are a dead heat to Clinton's. He's narrowing a 7 point lead of Clinton's in Ohio.
Now all Hillary Clinton can swing in her arms is Obama's wrong about her plan and should be ashamed.
HRC: 'Shame on you, Barack Obama' By: Kenneth P. Vogel Feb 23, 2008 01:32 PM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8648.html
doesn't that sound a bit "oldish?" We'd say spinsterish if she weren't married. On second thought, they are SPINsterish.
They're also childish. "Shame on you," to a grown man who after all, is a United States Senator.
If the comment had been made of her, she'd be screaming that's patronizing.
But how can she argue her healthcare plan is not "mandated" on everybody, or else? It's the or else part she's been evasive about.
She obviously ducked the question during a interview when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked her about wage-garnishing three times. But according to the CNSNEWS report, she didn't rule out garnishing wages.
Clinton May Garnish Wages to Achieve Universal Health Care
Obama's stolen Clinton's base.
When she begins to charge another Democrat with Karl-Rove-like tactics, she must know the laughter it will evoke?
“Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics,” she said, calling the mailings "tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook."
OK Hillary, we can hear it now, during the next debate (MSNBC Feb. 28th) you say: your flyer, Obama, you should be ashamed of yourself, it's straight from Karl-Rove's playbook.
When you hear the resulting booing, Hillary, what will your conciliatory ending be this time?
The last one made you sound like the "schoolgirl kid."
"I am honored, absolutely, honored to be here with Barack Obama," the ... the... the next... next... next... ?
Rasmussen: Barack Obama 80% Chance Democrat Nomination
(Net the Truth Online)
New York Times Politics Blog February 23, 2008, 1:24 pm
Clinton Slams Obama Tactics
By Julie Bosman
CINCINNATI – Accusing the Obama campaign of using tactics “that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” Senator Hillary Clinton angrily denounced Senator Barack Obama on Saturday for sending flyers to Ohio voters that she called misleading and false. “Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference after a morning rally, holding the flyers and shaking them in the air as she spoke. “It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”
The flyers were handed to Mrs. Clinton by a woman who attended the rally and then approached her on the rope line after Mrs. Clinton’s speech.
It was not the first time the Clinton campaign has seen the flyer,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/clinton-slams-obama-tactics/
Doyle, Kennedy Criticize Clinton Flyer As Negative Campaigning
Clinton's Campaign Hasn't Responded To Criticisms
POSTED: 7:05 pm CST February 17, 2008
Doyle and Kennedy are among the Democrats who have endorsed Barack Obama, Clinton's opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. The two are critical of a flier the Clinton campaign sent out this weekend claiming that Obama's health care plan would leave 15 million Americans without coverage and waste billions of dollars, WISC-TV reported.
Kennedy said he was shocked her campaign would put out a flier that relies on "fear-mongering."
http://www.channel3000.com/editorials/15327692/detail.html
Clinton, Obama Split On Insurance Mandate
By LAURA MECKLER
February 23, 2008; Page A5
The Illinois senator has hit the point hard in fliers mailed to voters' homes and in a televised debate Thursday night. "In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Sen. Clinton has said that we will go after their wages," Mr. Obama said during the debate broadcast on CNN...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120373195894587623.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Obama's Health-Care Flier
Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context.
By Jess Henig | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 4, 2008 | Updated: 4:56 p.m. ET Feb 4, 2008
Obama for America Mailer:
Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107897
February 4, 2008
Check Point
In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties
By KEVIN SACK
Correction Appended
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse.
Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.”
She then added that the focus on enforcement clouded a more important point, that her proposal to cover the uninsured was superior to Mr. Obama’s because she would mandate coverage for all, while he would require it only for children.
What might seem a mundane debate over health policy has taken on outsized importance in the approach to Tuesday’s voting because it is one of the few substantive differences between the two leading Democratic presidential candidates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us/politics/04checkpoint.html?pagewanted=print
February 4, 2008, 11:02 am
Would Clinton Garnish Wages to Enforce Health Plan?
Posted by Shirley S. Wang
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/04/would-clinton-garnish-wages-to-enforce-health-plan/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
