May 20, 2008

Rightwing blogger displays ignorance in attack

I don’t make a habit of blogging about right wing blogs, but I made an exception this time for two reasons. First, it involved people I know personally where I live, and this blogger is so afraid of opposing voices I have been banned from commenting there and setting him straight.

The paid party hack at wrongMichigan took some cheap shots at Matt Evans, the chair of the Livingston County Democratic Party. Apparently, Evans and Republican Green Oak Township Planning Commissioner John Mogelnicki filed to replace GOP Supervisor Mark St. Charles. But the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus reported Township Clerk Michael Sedlak, a Republican, paid extra attention to the nominating petitions and eliminated some signatures as duplicates. Election law says you must have 20 signatures. Evans submitted 23 signatures, but only 18 were ruled valid. Mogelnicki submitted 21 signatures, but only 19 were deemed valid. The result was for the want of two signatures for Evans and one for Mogelnicki voters will not have any choice and St. Charles runs unopposed.

The candidates can challenge that decision, and Evans said he plans to consult with the attorney for the state Democratic Party. This is where the idiot at wrongMichigan tries to paint Evans as whacked out and a conspiracy theorist, but he really only displays his ignorance of government.

“Me? I thank you for your wild conspiracy theories and rampant paranoia, too, he wrote on the blog.”
“The all-Republican Board of Trustees, for those of you wondering, had zero, zilch and nada to do with Mr. Evans disqualification. I mean, nothing. The local clerk identified the invalid signatures during his review of the documents (all two petition forms, assuming he filled the first one).”

Hey genius, in township government the clerk is a partisan elected office and a voting member of the “board of trustees.” He is also a full-time township employee along with the township supervisor. It makes you wonder if the clerk gave the petitions extras scrutiny. It also makes you wonder if the blogger is just an idiot or lying. Perhaps some of both. It would have taken a minute or two to get on their web site and check.

You would also think the clerk would give the candidates a call to tell them they needed one more and two more signatures. It’s not like he didn’t know how to reach them. After all, Mogelnicki is a township official. The paper claims they filed the petitions so close to the filing deadline he could not get hold of them. In a decade of covering local government I have never heard of a situation like this.

The end result is we have an unchallenged race, and a supervisor who is reelected for another four years without once having to answer to the voters for anything. So much for democracy. We know politicians are more responsive to people when the threat of an election is in the works. Now, I have known Mark St. Charles since 1998 when I covered the township for the South Lyon Herald and have nothing but respect for him. I have known Sedlak for almost as long, meeting him through his duties as a lieutenant on the township fire department. He has always been above board here, and I am not accusing him of doing anything unethical or illegal.

Since I was banned from his blog, I emailed the guy, and he did a half-assed correction. But the simple fact is that correction negates his entire reason for posting.

Then he goes on to attack Mogelnicki for daring to run for local office. He claims Mogelnicki can’t be a Republican because he claims none of the Republicans in the county knew him well enough, so he could not possibly be a Republican.
“The first was Planning Commissioner John Mogelnicki, apparently a Republican, though my inquiries with local County Party officials couldn't find a single person with more than a passing familiarity with his name.”

Let me get this straight. In a county with 170,000 people he is claiming he can’t be a Republican because party officials aren’t familiar with him. Unbelievable. The planning commissioners are appointed by the township board. Every single board member is a Republican. Mogelnicki’s real crime is he apparently signed Evans’ petition and Evans signed his, so he can’t possibly be a Republican. I would sign a local Republicans nominating petition to see a race. Democracy works better with contest elections.

Livingston County is a predominantly Republican county with all nine county commissioners Republicans, and all but about five local seats are in Republican hands. I am relatively active in the Livingston Democratic Party, and I don’t know every Democrat in the county.

I also wonder where he got the photo he used. That photo is from the Livingston County Democratic Party’s annual Edwin B. Winans Dinner at the Hamburg VFW Post, and it had to be taken in the last two years. The person behind Evans is also a good friend of mine, the chair of the 8th Congressional District, Kathy Carney. I wonder if it was from last month when another rightwing blogger made the ridiculous claim that the party was violating campaign finance laws with a 50/50 raffle. I certainly hope he was there to spy on us; as long as he paid his $60.


Brett said...

I read the blog that you cited and provided a link for and think that you missed the point the blogger was making.

Two people vying for a candidacy failed to turn in enough valid signatures. They turned in just over the minimum required. He had a good point that you cushion your filing with extra votes. Not one or two extra but ten or twelve extra JUST IN CASE someone signs that isn't eligible to sign.

I'm not surprised that you make the point that the clerk could have called to let them know they were short because a couple of signatures were invalid. It seems liberals need their hands held to get what they want accomplished.

The clerk is responsible for giving them the petitions for the want to be candidates to gather names and signatures. It is also the clerks responsibility to take the petition from the want to be candidate and to validate the signatures. The clerk did these two things.

Now, I don't know when the petitions were turned in but it really doesn't matter. It is up to the want to be candidate to be sure that they have the proper number of valid signatures. The only way to ensure this is to get more signatures than is needed.

How bad did these want to be candidates want that position to just turn in the minimum number of signatures? Was it just too difficult for them to visit forty homes to try to get thirty signatures?

I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat. If they want to be on the ballot, it is up to them to get the necessary signatures. It is not up to the clerk to reach them. If they gave themselves enough time, they could have checked with the clerk to find out if their petitions and the signatures on them were acceptable.

As for whether or not the guy has banned you from speaking on his blog, I don't know his reasons, but judging from your past posts in response to myself and others that have disagreed with you on issues, it wouldn't surprise me if your posts were removed due to your nasty nature when speaking, even through a blog, to others. I know that with some of the language you use, and the intolerance you have of others and the distasteful way in which you express your opposition to what someone says, if you were to post in a less than civil way on my blog, I would remove your posts from my blog as well. I wouldn't ban you, but I'd remove any posts that weren't civil.

That's my two cents worth. I'm quite certain that you'll respond with your usual intolerance for diverse opinions.


Communications guru said...

What a bunch of crap. “I'm quite certain that you'll respond with your usual intolerance for diverse opinions.” You came here first and attacked me. I’m also not going to let you get away with saying stuff I disagree with or is false and misleading. I don't possibly see how that can be judged intolerant. You also said you were through with me.

You keep displaying how little you know about government and politics. The clerk’s job is elections, and part of that is to ensure voters are properly registered and candidates are following the proper procedures. I also don’t think the Republican is a liberal. The entire reason for his post was that he was ridiculing Matt Evans for bringing up the clerk’s actions, and he was further ridiculed because the idiot had no idea the clerk was an elected official. We have only heard one side of the story.

The end result was we have an uncontested election, and perhaps you can explain to me how that benefits the voters.
Again, you came here and attacked me, yet you continue to say I’m intolerant of other views and I am nasty. I am not doing anything you are not doing. If I’m so intolerant why do I continue to let you come here and attack me? They guy who runs that piece of trash can also comment here, I can’t comment there. I don’t mind being called names, but I should be allowed to answer in kind.

I see you will censor comments, but that’s something I will never do.

Brett said...

Thank you for proving my point with your first five words. Simply amazing.

It is up to the voter to be certain they are properly registered. It is the clerks responsibility to not accept improper registrations.

An uncontested election is neither a benefit nor a hindrance. If the current officeholder is doing the job to the satisfaction of the constituents and nobody surfaces to challenge the incumbent, the office is filled with the best available.

If two want-to-be candidates can't get the proper signatures on their petitions for an office that they want, I think it's a good thing that they are disqualified for failing to do the very first simple assignment that they have. If they can't accomplish getting 20 valid signatures to put them on the ballot, I certainly don't want them in the office that they were planning to run for. They've proven themselves incompetent by not complying with the laws of their area, so why would the voters want a proven incompetent in office? And that applies to Democrats AND Republicans.

You can call it censoring if you like, but if someone can't be civil, I have no use for them. So I will remove the uncivil comments from my blog. Disagree if you must, but you will be civil or you won't make it on the site.


Communications guru said...

I have no idea how you reach the conclusions you reach. It’s certainly not based on facts. Amazing. It’s also the clerk’s responsibility to explain the proper procedures to the candidates and to assist them; not to play gottcha. An uncontested election benefits no one but the incumbent.

You can dress it up anyway you want but its still censorship. By your standard I should have deleted many of your comments because you came here and attacked me. Also, your standard for censoring is very vague. Apparently anyone is uncivil if they disagree with you.

Brett said...

Following (below the line)is a job description for county clerk. You'll notice that it says nothing about assisting candidates or want-to-be candidates. The clerk is responsible for giving out the supplies to be a candidate, and for receiving the petitions. They are NOT responsible for assisting the candidates. There may be handbooks, or there may be just a list of requirements that applies to all candidates. Anything in writing that explains the procedures are required to be given to each proposed candidate.

Apparently, these candidates knew the requirements because they got the minimum number of signatures. This tells me that the Clerk did their responsibility by providing them with the necessary forms and requiredments.

You may want to look up Livingston County's Clerk job description. I couldn't get it to load. Maybe Livingston County requires their clerk to hold the hands of the candidates...but I seriously doubt it.


Job Title: County Clerk
Department: County Clerk
FLSA Status: Exempt
Prepared Date: April, 2004

SUMMARY Directs the County department responsible for issuing licenses, maintaining vital statistics, registration of voters and conducting elections.

PRIMARY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned.

Responsible for the office that issues County licenses (marriage, motel, liquor, bingo), maintains records and issues certificates of Vital Statistics (birth death, marriage), computes tax extensions and Mobile Home Privilege Taxes and maintains accurate County maps.

Responsible for the registration of voters and the filing of documents from candidates for Campaign Disclosure Statements and Statements of Economic Interest.

Responsible for overseeing preparation of County-wide elections including ballots and election supplies. Responsible for the hiring, training and certification of election judges. Responsible for arranging for employees to tabulate votes and the election night procedures.

Supervises the preparation of the departmental budget, projecting expenditures and monitoring budget expense.

Adopts policies and procedures for the County Clerk's Office operations.

Reports department activities to the County Board as required.

Meets with government agency representatives, County Department Heads and the general public as needed.

SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES Directly manages the Chief Deputy County Clerk who supervises a total of 18 to 22 regular employees in the department and 700 to 800 election judges and 50 to 70 employees for tabulating votes. Is responsible for the overall direction, co-ordination, and evaluation of this unit. Carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the County's policies and applicable laws. Responsibilities include interviewing, hiring, and training employees; planning, assigning, and directing work; appraising performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and resolving problems.

QUALIFICATIONS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each primary duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required.

EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE As may be required.

LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures, or governmental regulations. Ability to write reports, business correspondence, and procedure manuals. Ability to effectively present information and respond to questions from groups of managers and the general public.

MATHEMATICAL SKILLS Ability to calculate figures and amounts such as discounts, interest, commissions, proportions, percentages, area, circumference, and volume. Ability to apply concepts of basic algebra and geometry.

REASONING ABILITY Ability to solve practical problems and deal with a variety of concrete variables in situations where only limited standardization exists. Ability to interpret a variety of instructions furnished in written, oral, diagram, or schedule form.


PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the primary functions of this job. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to stand; walk; sit; use hands to finger, handle, or feel; reach with hands and arms; and talk; or hear. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 10 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and ability to adjust focus.

WORK ENVIRONMENT The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the primary functions of this job. Normal office conditions. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet.

Pete said...

He got you square and fair CG

Communications guru said...

I disagree. One major job of the clerk is to ensure elections go smoothly. I think offering assistance to a potential candidate fits that bill. In fact, the Livingston County Clerk has one person that deals with nothing but elections. Did the GOT clerk do anything wrong? Probably not, but then again we haven’t head the entire story. In more than a decade of covering local government in four counties, including Livingston, I have never heard of a candidate disqualified for one or two signatures. My initial post dealt with the ridiculous attack over at wrong Michigan, by the way.

Now, I agree they should have known better, especially Matt Evens, as far as I know. You can use that as a reason for not voting for them. But I don’t see how democracy is served by having low voter turnout and no choices on the ballot.

Brett said...

I don't know how you can disagree with something that is in writing. You may WANT it to be a certain way, but the fact is that it's the responsibility of the candidate to see that he/she gets the proper signatures and number of signatures. Since a candidate has no way of ensuring that each person that signs his/her petition is legitimate, the only way that they can cover themselves is to get more than the bare minimum signatures.

There are many examples of petitions being denied due to lack of proper signatures. Here is just one example. There are many many more on google. It may not happen often in the four counties you are familiar with, but it happens all over the country all of the time:

Green Party hopeful is out; win for Casey
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
By James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The prospect of a three-way U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania appeared all but over yesterday as the state Supreme Court rebuffed Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli's bid to get on the November ballot.

The ruling, in a one-sentence order, was good news for the Bob Casey campaign, which had feared that Mr. Romanelli's presence on the ballot would siphon votes from the Democrat. For the same reason, it was a blow to Sen. Rick Santorum and to the Republican donors who had funded the petition drive that sought to establish the Green hopeful's access to the November ballot.

State election law dictates that independent candidates for statewide office submit nominating petitions with a total number of signatures from registered voters equivalent to 2 percent of the votes cast for the top vote-getter in the most recent statewide election. The justices upheld a Commonwealth Court ruling that set a 67,000-vote threshold based on 2 percent of the votes cast for Mr. Casey in his 2004 race for state treasurer.

Mr. Romanelli's attorney, Lawrence Otter, argued that state elections officials should have used a 2005 judicial retention election for Justice Sandra Newman, a move that would have resulted in a signature requirement of approximately 15,000. The Green candidate had originally submitted nominating petitions, which he said, contained early 100,000 signatures.

After a review by state elections officials and litigation before Commonwealth Court, thousands of those signatures were ruled invalid, leaving him at least 9,000 short of the required total. Requirements for valid signatures are exacting under state law. Signatures collected must be from registered voters, and precisely match the data, such as address, recorded on state voter rolls.

"We're disappointed, but we still have another appeal with significant issues," said Mr. Otter. In a separate appeal of the original Commonwealth Court ruling, Mr. Romanelli is challenging the validity of the overall statewide registration system and argues that his due process rights were denied as he tried to rehabilitate thousands of signatures ruled invalid in the painstaking review before the court.

Cliff Levine, attorney for the Democratic Party, welcomed yesterday's order and maintained that it was "inconceivable" that the Green candidate would prevail the remaining issues.

Mr. Santorum had sharply criticized the Commonwealth Court order throwing Mr. Romanelli off the ballot, describing it as the work of "partisan judges."

Denouncing that characterization, Mr. Levine said, "I think it's important to note that he blamed it on partisan judges without knowing the facts or the law.

"Now we have a decision by the Supreme Court which has a majority of Republican justices applying the law, not partisan politics. It was a disservice to the appellate courts to suggest otherwise."

Virginia Davis, Mr. Santorum's press secretary, had no comment on Mr. Leaven's criticism, but she expressed disappointment at the court's action.

"It is a shame how difficult it is for someone who's demonstrated a sincere interest in being part of the democratic process to actually be on the ballot," she said. "Bob Casey and his cohorts should be ashamed at the efforts they went to knock someone off the ballot who's actually willing to say what he believes."

Mr. Romanelli's potential presence in the race has not proved to be decisive in any public polling on the race so far. In the few surveys that posed the three-way test, Mr. Casey had still posted leads in the neighborhood of low double digits. Mr. Santorum, however, enjoys a significant financial advantage over his challenger as the race approaches its final month.

If he were to close the gap with Mr. Casey, Mr. Romanelli -- the only one in the race supporting abortion rights and favoring an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq -- could have proved a crucial competitor for Democratic votes.

The Casey campaign exulted over the twin rebuffs to Mr. Romanelli and his GOP financial backers.

"It's 14:59 and Romanelli's 15 minutes of fame are up," said Larry Smar, the Democrat's press secretary. "The question is whether Rick Santorum will ask Romanelli for his money back."

Communications guru said...

Easy. One of the jobs of the clerk is to ensure proper elections. I never said the candidates did not have any responsibility. I said the clerk easily could have informed the two candidates they were one and two signatures short. Again, how does low voter turnout and uncontested elections promote and foster democracy? Again, we do not know the entire story.

The long article you provided had nothing at all to do with this situation. Other than showing what a scumbag Rick Santorum is. it does not apply here; 9,000 signatures is a long way from one and two signatures.

And, again, you are ignoring the original reason for the post: the idiot over at wrongMichigan attacked two people based on his ignorance of the law and because the republic party in the country claim because they don’t know the republican in the race he can’t be a republican.

Brett said...

The clerks responsibility, as shown in the job description, is to follow the proper procedures. Not to offer assistance to one side or the other...or even both. I believe that there is 180 days for a person to gather the proper signatures for their petition. As I remember it from my running for a seat in Dansville about 15 years ago, I turned in the petition, and the clerk started working on verification after the expiration date when she had received all of the petitions.

Now imagine for a moment that you're running against me for a commissioners seat. You're a liberal and I'm conservative. We are required to gather 25 signatures. The clerk is conservative. Both of us turn in 25 signatures, the bare minimum. I turn mine in five days early and you turn yours in five minutes before the deadline ends.

The clerk, having had five days to review mine, finds that two of the signatures aren't any good and tells me I need to get two good signatures. I go and get five more and two of them are good.

The clerk having had five minutes to review yours tells you that you have only one bad signature and need to replace it. You leave, gather your one signature and return 10 minutes later, which is 5 minutes past the deadline.

It's almost a given that you're going to complain that the clerk played favorites by giving me the information that I needed to replace the two signatures, where you weren't afforded the same option. It would have the appearance of impropriety. The clerk must remain neutral.

Regarding low turnout, you cannot require a certain turnout of voters. You cannot require voters to vote. You can only offer them the opportunity by virtue of their citizenship in this country and their choice to register to vote.

If you're against elections that have low voter turnout, then am I to assume that you're against the May vote each year for school millages? Schools like having their elections in May because they get low turnout and the ones that will turn out are the ones that will back the school's wishes to renew millages or add more on.

It's interesting that you'd say Santorum is the scumbag. He wanted the libertarian to run and Casey didn't want the libertarian on the ballot. In light of your insistance that a clerk should be assisting candidates to have the proper signatures before the deadline, I would think that Santorum would have the higher ground in your mind. I believe the article said that 67,000 signatures were required, but over 100,000 were gathered and the libertarian fell short by 9,000. That means that 42,000 signatures were inproper. I don't care if it's one signature short or 100,000 short, it's still work that someone does and by your argument, the clerk should have helped the libertarian gather the correct signatures, which would put you on Santorum's side. Confusing eh?

Finally, your reason for the post, I believe, was out of context. I don't consider the writer over at wrongMichigan an idiot. He's not a professional writer, but I don't know him well enough to call him an idiot. You're not a professional writer, you're the same as he is. I believe you to be rude and crude but I haven't called you an idiot. You're writing on a blog. I write my own blog, I'm not a professional writer. I write about what I'm interested in and offer my opinions.

I'm a conservative and usually vote Republican on issues and candidates. I consider partisanship a great thing when the arguments can be defended. However, my Senator here is Patti Birkholz. She has done two things that I'm completely against. One I vehemently disagreed with her and let her know it. But the second thing was the tax increase. Not only did I disagree with her on it, but I told her that I disagreed with her on it and that if they started a recall my signature would be the largest and boldest one on the recall petition. She's a Republican.

I voted for her and would have again if she was eligible to run again, but once she agreed to the tax increase, if my choice was between her and a liberal, my ballot would have been turned in blank.

I expect people to stand up for what they believe in and to make their best arguments for it, but when they stand up and say they are conservative and know that tax increases hurt the economy then vote for a tax increase, they are not voting for what they stand for, OR they did not tell the truth when they ran for office. Both of those reasons are good enough reasons for me to be in favor or recalling her and would do so in a minute if someone presented me a petition for her recall.

I am partisan, but it's based on my beliefs, not based on whether a person has an (R) or a (D) at the end of their names. If you're going to run as a tax and spend liberal and you're elected, I know what I'm getting. But if you're running as a conservative against increasing taxes and lowering spending then I'd damn well better get what I paid for with my vote.

It cost Joe Schwarz his job, and if I could I'd make sure it cost Patti Birkholz her job.


Brett said...

Here's the actual story from the Livingston Daily. Both candidates turned their signatures in at the last minute according to the story.

Supervisor candidates disqualified
By Christopher Behnan • DAILY PRESS & ARGUS • May 15, 2008

Read Comments(4)Recommend (2)Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
Both challengers to Green Oak Township Supervisor Mark St. Charles were disqualified Wednesday after it was learned a handful of residents signed nominating petitions for both candidates.

As a result, petitions for Livingston County Democratic Party Chairman Matthew Evans and township Planning Commissioner John Mogelnicki, a Republican, were deemed invalid for the Aug. 5 primary.

Evans said he plans to run as a write-in candidate.

Under state law, a voter can't sign the petition of more than one candidate running for the same position, Clerk Michael Sedlak explained.

Sedlak said he confirmed the disqualifications with the State Bureau of Elections, and reported them to the county.

"You need to be asking questions. You need to be making sure you have enough signatures," he said.

Green Oak Township candidates must have at least 20 signatures to get on the ballot based on the township's population of roughly 19,000 people.

Mogelnicki submitted 21 signatures, 19 of which were deemed valid.

Ironically, he signed both his and Evans' petitions. He signed his own May 1, and Evans' on May 13.

Only the earliest signature in such cases is valid, according to state law, making Mogelnicki's signature for himself valid, and disqualifying his signature for Evans, Sedlak said.

A resident signed both Mogelnicki's and St. Charles' petitions, and another printed twice on his forms, rather than printing and signing each once. Sedlak said that, too, disqualifies signatures.

Evans submitted 23 signatures, 18 of which were deemed valid, falling short of the 20 needed.

Sedlak said both candidates turned in their petitions at the last minute Tuesday, which didn't give him a chance to inform them in time to acquire valid signatures.

"The unfortunate part about this is these candidates turned in these nominating petitions at the last moment, not giving this office the opportunity to know they were short on signatures. That is part of the danger of turning them (in) on the last day," Sedlak said.

Both former candidates can challenge their disqualifications, first through the county.

Evans said he will review the matter with the attorney for the state Democratic Party.

"They're going to have opposition in November by hook or
by crook. They may have won this round, but I will be on the ballot in November," Evans said of the all-Republican Board of Trustees.

Mogelnicki didn't immediately return phone calls Wednesday.

On Wednesday, two additional petitions for trustee were processed for residents Michael Kruszewski and Richard Everett, both Republicans.

Pete said...


By calling Santorum a scumbag because he is a republican tells me all I need to know about you as a blogger.

I will no long read your posts

Communications guru said...

The clerk’s job is elections. That means you ensure voters and candidates have the best information and are registered and candidates are on the ballot. It doesn’t mean you look for everything you can find to disqualify them. Matt Evans certainly was not out of line questioning the disqualification, like the idiot over at wrongMichigan tried to claim.

Like I have said before many times, the candidates should have done a better job and are not blameless, but to question one or two signatures is not out of line.

First, there is no such party as liberal or conservative. I have never seen that designation on any ballot. If you’re past the deadline you’re past the deadline. Your scenario doesn’t mean anything, and helping a candidate get on the ballot is not improper.
Low voter turnout is not good for anyone, and we should be doing whatever we can to improve voter turnout and ensure every office has a race. We should push things like voter registration, no reason absentee voting and same day registration. Instead, we throw up road blocks to voting like the ridiculous voter ID law. People died for the right to vote, both in wars and in the segregated south, and half the registered voters don’t bother to vote. To me that’s shameful and sad.

No, I’m not against the May school elections. The new election law gave them options to choose from, and that was one of them. I always know when the school board elections are held every year. You are wrong on the millage issue.

Yes, Rick Santorum is a scumbag. There is no libertarian candidate in that story. Santorum is pushing to get a candidate on the ballot from a party he does not believe in anything it strands for. To me that's disgusting. People died for the vote and people are screwing around with an election.

Out of context? Are you serious? He made a big deal out of the fact Evans questioned the clerk’s actions, and he claims Evans is a loon because he thinks the nonpartisan clerk who does not sit on the board was being overzealous. All of that was untrue. I am a professional writer, and he is a professional too, just not a writer. Well, at least paid. If you think that hack is doing that for free you really are misguided. He’s also a coward because he knows he cannot defend the shit he writes. I can. That’s why I let anyone post and do not censor like you or he does.

I’m a little sick and tired of you making claims like rude and crude. You came here and attacked me and called me names. I didn’t come to you. If you can’t stand a little heat, don’t comment here. If you can’t stand a little rough language, don’t come here. This is a blog for adults.

If you want to recall your Senator, do it when you are supposed to, in November, unless they have committed a crime or did something unethical in office. You’re a partisan, but it’s “not based on whether a person has an (R) or a (D) at the end of their names.” That makes no sense, and if that’s the case then you are not a partisan. A tax increase does not hurt the economy. Every politician is “tax and spend,” even the most conservative ones.

Communications guru said...

Yes. Santorum a scumbag. I’m supposed to be upset you’re not going to read my blog? Bye.

Brett said...

Yikes! You're really out there.

Communications guru said...