DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the individual authors and contributors. Mercer County Conservatives offers a round-table platform that encourages discussion and involvement. If you are interested in becoming a contributor, contact the editor at Roberta.in.Mercer@gmail.com.


Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Butler Tea Party a Success . . . Sour Grapes for Some (and---News Flash--Paul Huber spotted wearing cowboy boots)

Written by Roberta Biros

What a weekend! It was an example of political wrangling at its best (and worst). In the end there were winners and there were losers, and I’m here to report what I saw first hand.

NOTE: I recently had a friend say that they appreciate my style of writing because I manage to cut through all the garbage and get to the basics. That is what I’ve attempted to do in this case. There will be those that think I’ve cut away too much, but I’ve only cut out those things that muddied the waters. If you don’t like what is left, I apologize . . . but . . . as always, it’s just my opinion.

Background Information

A Tea Party was organized in Butler PA. The first sign of the event to “regular people” like you and I were signs that popped up in the Butler area advertising the date, time, and location. It was pointed out to me early on, however, that the simple street address that was included on those signs was actually the address for Kelly Chevrolet and Cadillac on Pittsburgh Road in Butler. It seemed fishy . . . it appeared to be a set up . . . it came across as an event ORGANIZED AND FUNDED by Mike Kelly in an effort to hijack the Tea Party movement.

On Friday evening (late) an email message was sent out by the people at the Clayton Grabb campaign. The message stated that “we the undersigned” have decided to boycott the event and hold our own event on the same day and at the same time as a form of protest against the original event (I paraphrased there, but the actual release can be read HERE).

On Saturday, a message was sent out in response by candidate Steve Fisher. Mr. Fisher made it very clear that he never approved the first letter and he did not approve of the boycott. He had every intention of attending both events, but his first priority was to the Tea Party as he had already given his word and commitment to them (again, I paraphrase, but you can read his release HERE).

I published everything. I then promised that I would attend both events in an effort to see for myself EXACTLY what was going on. I did what I said I would do, and now I’m here to summarize everything for all of you.

My Plan

My husband and I made the hour long trip to Butler on Sunday morning. We arrived at the primary event location (Mike Kelly’s car dealership) at about 11am. We made a brief visit across the street for coffee, donuts, news papers, and a rest room brake before making our way to the Mike Kelly parking lot. I approached a group of event participants (who were all wearing “Freedom Patriots” t-shirts). I openly explained who I was and asked if they would be willing to talk to me about the event and the problems that had surfaced during the past few days. They were happy to do so, and I’ll report my findings below.

At about 1PM, my husband and I took a drive to the secondary event at Alameda Park. There were signs leading into the pavilion area. At that time only Clayton Grabb was on hand. I left my husband with a pad, pencil, and camera so that he could cover the start of the second event. I returned to the primary event location (the Kelly lot) with a camera-equipped Blackberry, a pen, and paper. The goal was to cover both events simultaneously, but I would leave the Tea Party (primary event) AS SOON as the presentations were completed. I would then head over to the second location to take part in that event also.

A plan was in place for full coverage of both events. My husband and I went in our separate directions with clear instructions.

An Overview of the Butler Tea Party event at Mike Kelly’s car dealership (and some background information)

This event was a real Tea Party. The organizers planned a great mix of speakers, presenters, and political analysts and politicians. They had booths representing various groups and charitable organizations, and they were focused on offering an informative program. The organizers admitted that this was their FIRST Tea Party, but they were excited to get involved in the process.

When the organizers first made their decision to have a Tea Party, they attempted to rent a park location. At first they were told that the fee would be $250 for the park rental. They explained that after the park found out that the event would be a Tea Party, the price changed to $1000 per hour for a total of $3000 plus insurance. They couldn’t afford a price anywhere close to $3000, and felt that they could not get a large enough venue to handle a crowd that could reach 2000. Mike Kelly stepped in and offered the use of his lot at no charge. The Freedom Patriots group jumped at the offer. Kelly provided a free (and very spacious) venue and he offered the use of his electrical service. The Freedom Patriots were left to organize the event, invite speakers and vendors, and they were also left with other responsibilities like acquiring portable rest rooms. A deal had been struck.

I estimate that between 250 and 400 people were in attendance, which was pretty good considering the day long threat of rain. It was absolutely a REAL TEA PARTY that was attended by REAL TEA PARTIERS. It was not an advertisement for Mike Kelly and it was NOT focused on the race for the 3rd Congressional District. It was a gathering of concerned citizens discussing issues of history and politics. It was proud patriots taking advantage of their freedom to assemble. It was supported by a handful of candidates that showed integrity by supporting the Tea Party movement. In exchanged they were each given five minutes to speak at the end of the event . . . in the wind and rain.

ABOVE: A photo of the crowd at the Tea Party from the far front corner.

BELOW: A tent was provided for the speakers while they waited for an opportunity
to address the crowd. The three congressional candidates that attended
(Steve Fisher, Mike Kelly, and Martha Moore) sat together.


Congratulations to the Freedom Patriots for their success in their very first Tea Party! It was a difficult task, but you did a great job in pulling it all together. I give them credit for providing the hard work, time, and effort, and I congratulate them for keeping their heads held high even after attacks from naysayers and attempts to derail their event.

An Overview of the candidates that spoke at the Tea Party

The list of speakers (in presentation order) was as follows:

Darryl Metcalfe, candidate for Lt. Governor
Steve Fisher, candidate for 3rd Congressional District
Martha Moore, candidate for 3rd Congressional District
Mary Shaff, representative for the campaign for Jean Craig Pepper for Lt. Governor
Mike Kelly, candidate for 3rd Congressional District

Highlights from the speakers?

Daryl Metcalfe wants to create a “new type of Lt. Governor’s office” in that he wants it to become the “Accountability Office”. A great concept that I really liked.

In a particularly classy move, Steve Fisher thanked Mike Kelly for his involvement in the event and thanked him for the use of the Kelly property for the Tea Party. He then explained that the “Tea Party is not about us (the candidates) . . . it is about YOU (the concerned citizens that attend).” It was a comment that struck a chord with attendees, and it was something that sorely needed to be said.

Martha Moore made a point of explaining to the ladies in the crowd that the day “was a bad hair day” and apologized for her appearance which was a result of rain and wind. It made me laugh as I was experiencing the same “bad hair day” as Dr. Moore (but that is clearly why God invented hats). Dr. Moore continues to make me smile.

Jean Craig Pepper’s representative spoke briefly about Craig Pepper’s campaign and attempted to provide the same humorous flair as Craig Pepper herself. It was a brief but interesting presentation.

Mike Kelly closed the event by reminding everyone that attended that the event was supposed to be about the Tea Party. He stressed . . . “let the record show that on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010, a Tea Party was held in Butler Pennsylvania”. It was a brief speech, and he did not “show boat”. He kept his comments short and sweet because WE ALL were suffering from the wind and rain . . . his brevity was appreciated. It was yet another classy move that I witnessed on this day.

An Overview of the Candidate Forum at Alameda Park (and some background information)

At the conclusion of the closing statements by Mike Kelly (about 4pm), I headed for my car. Due to some limitations in parking spaces, I was blocked in. It took me about 5 twists and turns of my vehicle in an effort to “skootch” out of the parking spot, but I managed to exit the parking lot without doing any damage (whew). I quickly made the ~5 mile trip to the secondary location.

The Candidate Forum (the secondary event) was held in Odd Fellows Gazeob in Alameda Park. I tried to be careful not to “squeal tires” while serpentining the parking lot as the event was already well underway. Upon arrival I quickly parked and headed up into the pavilion. I took a seat beside my husband. I quietly asked him how things were going, and he responded “it’s been very heated”.



ABOVE: A photo of the beginning of the event during the mix and mingle session.

BELOW: Another photo of the mix and mingle session from inside the shelter.



According to my husband, the event began with a mix and mingle session. The presentation portion of the event began at about 3pm. I arrived at about 4:15pm and the “forum” portion of the event was still underway. There appeared to be less than 50 people in the pavilion, although it was apparent there were more attendees earlier (as demonstrated by gaps in the parking spaces in the lot). The format was very casual. The three candidates in attendance (Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Paul Huber) stood at one end of the shelter and answered questions in rotation from attendees that were seated at picnic tables in the center of the shelter. There was no specific format for questions or answers. It was very relaxed and unrestricted. Unfortunately, the lack of structure also lead to lack of self-control from some attendees.

Of the <50 people in attendance, it is our estimation that 90+% were friends, family, and firm supporters of either Grabb, Franz, or Huber. The shelter was not filled with “undecided voters that were trying to learn about the candidates”. Instead it was our impression that the crowd was an assembly of very firm supporters of one of the candidates in attendance. The event, therefore, became a catalyst for unfriendly and (at times) unruly banter between attendees and candidates. It amounted to candidates and their respective camps arguing with one another.

That was the case until shortly after my arrival. A few minutes after I got to the event, Dr. Martha Moore’s car entered the parking lot. Dr. Moore, who also attended the primary event, made the trip to the secondary event. As she pulled into the parking lot the criticisms had already begun. As she approached the pavilion, candidate Ed Franz chose to throw some fuel on the fire by “joking” that they should now conclude the event (before Dr. Moore reached the shelter). Upon entry, Dr. Moore was offered the opportunity to speak and her arrival was met with booos and yelling.

I yelled from the back of the pavilion “come on now . . . give her a chance to speak”, but my words were ignored (as I was sort of considered the enemy at this point too). None of the original three candidates (Grabb, Franz, or Huber) stepped forward to stop the nonsense. They let it go.

The line of questioning to Dr. Moore was regarding her decision to attend the first event. They questioned her about the “fake Tea Party” and the “fake Tea Partiers”. At one point (out of frustration), Dr. Moore said “why don’t you ask Roberta . . . she was there”. I felt so bad for the beating that she was taking. It was unfair, but it was not MY place to step in to help her. The individuals who should have helped her stood silent.

At about 4:45, it was announced that time was almost up. It was suggested that the forum again break down into a mix and mingle session so that those in attendance could have the opportunity to talk with Dr. Moore. Again the crowd erupted and an attendee stood up and yelled “if she wanted to talk to us she could have been here before . . .but instead she went to the other event”. More yelling ensued.

I’ve been to a number of political events in the past two years. I can only compare the behavior in this event to ONE. It was a DEMOCRAT event in March of 2009 where a crowd of angry Democrats attempted to shout down a conservative candidate (who also happened to be a Democrat). I wrote briefly about that experience HERE. However, that event didn’t come any where near the hostility that could be felt in the Odd Fellows Gazebo on Sunday afternoon.

I’m sure there will be people that attended the event at Alameda Park that will complain about these comments and they’ll try to say how wonderful the event was. I suppose that if you are on the side that is “throwing stones”, you have a different perspective. I, on the other hand, have NEVER supported beating up on the little guy. It sickens me to see an innocent individual and candidate (like Dr. Martha Moore) verbally attacked while a group of three men (who are also candidates) stood by with their hands in their pockets and watched.

I challenge ANYONE to refute the fact that one of those men/candidates shouldn’t have stepped forward to say “please treat Dr. Moore with respect as she has taken the time to join us today, and we thank her for being here”. They did not, and I lost respect for each and every one of them at that moment. The truth is, they were all still “angry” with Dr. Moore and saw her as the enemy. Why? . . . Because she dared to attend a TEA PARTY.

The Butler Fiasco was caused by one problem compounding another

There were lots of fingers to be pointed if you want to “blame” someone for the problems that occurred on Sunday. The Freedom Patriots did not fully understand the political toes that were being stepped on, and Mike Kelly didn’t make a point of explaining that the choice to use his car lot might appear biased. Mike Kelly took advantage of the situation, and it was a brilliant move on his part. He was able to show that he was charitable and he managed to get his name tied to a potentially high-profile event. If Clayton Grabb, Paul Huber, or Ed Franz could have held an event for 400+ people in their back yards, they would have also jumped at the opportunity (and don’t EVEN try to tell me otherwise).

It was the responsibility of the Tea Party organizers to refuse Kelly’s offer, but they were not politically savvy enough to realize the mistake that they had made. They didn’t see the event as a “forum for the 3rd Congressional Candidates”. They were concerned with holding a Tea Party and they didn’t understand the complicated political undertones that were involved.

Unfortunately, the other candidates (Huber, Moore, and Franz led by Grabb) began a campaign against the TEA PARTY organizers. Rather than doing their homework and taking the time to discuss the problem with the Freedom Patriots, they took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury. They made a VERY BOLD MOVE and took a stand to boycott the Tea Party. Their biggest mistake, however, was in hastily drafting an “official notice” without first crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s. They authored a “we the undersigned” letter without realizing that that type of document is intended to be drafted as a group. Instead, the letter was drafted by a few without getting the sign off of the other candidates for which they were speaking. That is a HUGE error. PERIOD. They “signed” the names of candidates, but did so without their full and explicit written authorization. It was a bold move, but it was a mistake.

Lastly, intelligent people learn from history. So, I’d like to offer a reference to the Nixon years and Watergate . . . “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up”.

If you make a mistake, just stand up and say “crap, I made a huge mistake”. Don’t compound the original mistake by explaining . . . blaming other people . . . pointing fingers . . . and throwing more people under the bus. Just say “I made a mistake and I apologize for it”.

Winners and Losers?

In the end, there were winners. The biggest winners were the Freedom Patriots who pulled off an excellent Tea Party and I congratulate them. The other winners were Mike Kelly, Steve Fisher, and Dr. Martha Moore, who managed to demonstrate that the people are more important than the candidates. The Tea Party event was not about any of them, and they were happy to take a back seat to the “real” event.

The losers? You know what I’m going to say, and I won’t apologize for it.

The losers were Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Paul Huber. They made the Tea Party event about politics rather than about people gathering to celebrate freedom. They tried to put their own candidacies above the ideals of the Tea Party movement. Most importantly, they made this about anger and fighting. When given the opportunity to stand up and try to calm the waters (by defending Dr. Moore, for instance) they chose to take a back seat and watch.

This was just one event, and it was simply one more opportunity for concerned citizens to compare the candidates that are competing for the Republican nomination for the 3rd Congressional Seat. There is still time for these individuals to stand up to right the wrongs, and there is still time for others to crash and burn. This one day (Sunday, May 2nd) will not decide the election, but it is just another opportunity to see how these candidates work under stress.

The Highlight? Paul Huber's Boots!

Lastly, I’d like to make reference to my subtitle of this blog post. The header photo is a picture of Paul Huber’s cowboy boots. I’ve always seen Paul dressed like a business man, and I LOVED seeing him dress down a bit for an event. I laughed when I saw it because it was so darn “cool”, and I told him that it would be the headline. There were many witnesses to my promise, and I always keep my promises.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

22 comments:

  1. I have a few questions...and they may just be rhetorical.
    - Why would a Tea Party group even consider having a party at a place that is the epitome of government run amok? A place that participated in Cash for Clunkers? I can't believe that there weren't any other places in all of Butler where they could meet. The event may have been good (a plus) but the choice was horrible (a minus). Sounds like a wash to me...

    - The Herald article mentioned that Fisher and Grabb have different recollections over the conversation about the two events, yet you have clearly sided with Fisher. Did you talk with Grabb, Huber, or Franz about their recollection? I haven't talked to all of them yet, but I am finding out there are clearly two sides to this story, which seemingly run deeper than just this event.

    - Kelly as a winner? I suppose if you are ranking a "win" as manipulation of the Tea Party, then yes, he won big. I see he still spoke last - a condition he put on the event, which was clearly for political reasons. If it wasn't about the PA-3 race, Kelly didn't need to speak at all.

    As always, thanks for the summary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let me first start by saying that I don’t recall seeing you at either event. Perhaps you should have made a trip to Butler in an effort to get the full perspective of ALL sides of the story.

    Question #1: Why would a Tea Party group even consider having a party at a place that is the epitome of government run amok?

    Answer #1: If you have ever scheduled an event like this, you would realize that the offer of a welcoming location with no upfront cost was considered a home run. I am certain that the issue of “Cash for Clunkers” wasn’t in their heads when they were trying to put together their plans. It is sort of odd to think that you would expect that to have been part of their thought process. IT WAS A PARKING LOT for goodness sakes.

    Question #2: The Herald article mentioned that Fisher and Grabb have different recollections over the conversation about the two events, yet you have clearly sided with Fisher. Did you talk with Grabb, Huber, or Franz about their recollection?

    Answer #2: How, exactly, have I sided with Fisher’s recollections? What recollections have I published from Grabb, Huber, Franz, OR Fisher. I’ve attempted to document things that I’ve seen and experienced as well as announcements from the various camps.

    Unlike you, I’ve talked to all of the candidates many times. If my level of involvement with the candidates is in question, I offer you the following:

    I’ve been in contact with Clayton Grabb and his wife by phone and email and I’ve talked to them both at multiple venues. I’ve also shared email messages with Clayton’s parents, and I am familiar with a number of people that are associated with his campaign. I’ve talked with Clayton twice by phone in the past two days. I spoke with his wife once yesterday.

    I’ve been in contact with Paul Huber and his wife on numerous occasions. Paul and I had coffee once, and I’ve shared email communications with his wife. I’ve talked to them both at multiple venues. I know Paul’s campaign manager, Danny. Danny and I spoke on the phone yesterday afternoon.

    Mike Kelly contacted me by phone many weeks ago and he and I eventually met for coffee well over a month ago. I’ve talked with him briefly on many occasions. I know Mike’s campaign manager, Jon, and I’ve talked with him briefly many times.

    Steve Fisher was the first to contact me at the beginning of March (in response to a question that I sent to all of the candidates). He and I have communicated by email on a regular basis, and I’ve met him personally a number of times. I met his wife once. I know numerous people that are associated with his campaign and I’ve met with them on a number of occasions at different venues.

    Ed Franz was the first candidate that I met personally. I attended a meet and greet that he had in Linesville. Ed and I share some mutual friends. I’ve met both him and his wife more than once. I spoke with Ed by phone on Sunday night.

    I’ve met and talked with Dr. Moore on a number of occasions and I’ve met her mother almost as many times. If you know Dr. Moore you realize that her mom is not usually very far away. I’ve never communicated with Dr. Moore by phone or email, however.

    I’ve attended more meet and greets, debates, fundraisers, Tea Parties, and general public gatherings that I can even count. My husband attended his first event on April 8th in Sharon. He has now met the candidates so many times that he also now knows all of them on sight (and most know him too).

    Please don’t take my word for it . . . ask the candidates.

    Question #3: Kelly as a winner? Blah, blah, blah . . .

    Answer #3: You are simply making a political statement . . . and it is an extremely biased one at that. I suppose that is fair. However, it is also fair for me to point out that if you were SO interested in this topic, you could have done what I did . . . go to both events and see for yourself and THEN make a judgment. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, but doing the legwork and attempting to gather information takes a considerable amount of time and effort.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Rich's post showed just how poorly he runs his blog. He should do proper research before posting. I wonder if he will make any changes on his site. But that will not happen because only a real man can admit a mistake. Also, how can he say that you have a Steve Fisher bias? Just look at his blog. He is so slanted to Grabb that he completely ignores how good some of the other candidates are. I believe Fisher will benefit from this and because of Grabbs involvement in trying to sabotage the Freedom partiots Event and instead host a pep rally at Alameda they alienated real tea party activist. What do you say "shoot first ask questions later" Rich? BTW please do real footwork this time not talk to Clayton over Instant Messanger for insider tips...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Anonymous All good points.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Roberta, I'm a bit surprised with your response, so maybe I'm reading it incorrectly. You've always been cordial in person, but your response to me (and the one to "anonymous") come across as mean spirited and snarky. Of course, if you meant them to be mean spirited and snarky, then that's your choice, too. All's fair in politics, I've been told.

    I have spoken with all of the candidates. When I said "I haven't talked to all of them yet" I was referring to the "Teapot Dome Scandal."

    As far as you taking Fisher's word, please note your comment in your Fisher Responds post. Your comment at 7:51am is clearly in support of Fisher's account. It clearly assumes that the folks who put the letter together didn't have everyone on board, which is something in dispute. It's your classic he-said, he-said.

    As far as my blog...I have listed pros and cons of each candidate. Four weeks ago, I liked every candidate very well; however, some are rising to the top (Grabb) while some are sinking (Kelly). My job isn't to proclaim myself as an objective journalist. Some blogs are pro-Fisher, some are pro-Kelly, some are pro-Grabb.

    Eventually, you gotta pick a horse...and we all have our reasons.

    As for "anonymous" - have some courage and post your name next time. Insults are much more meaningful when you know who is saying them and the person isn't hiding behind a monitor. You clearly have no idea how much footwork I do. But that's okay...

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's getting closer to the Primary and nerves are frazzled. Mistakes and misunderstandings unfortunately cause hard feelings (sometimes forever) and finger pointing. I think it is telling how people handle themselves in situations like this. Martha Moore was the only candidate to attempt to attend both events, so she is the winner in my mind in this fiasco, although I don't plan to vote for her.

    I can't quite keep up with the various Tea Parties and the names of the organizers, but I am curious who are the organizers of the "Freedom Patriots"? As I recall, Kelly Chev is outside Butler and Alameda Park seems a more central, and obviously neutral location. The Freedom Patriots, once aware of the potential conflict, should have moved the event, but I don't know the timing nuances or signage problems, and as their first tea party(?), it was important to them to have a successful pep rally, especially if the organizers support Kelly and appears that they might. Excuse me, but big old Butler surely had many other locations for this event besides the Kelly property. Maybe Grabb smelled a rat and there is some fighting over Butler votes, and like Rich suggested much deeper crap going on. Fisher engaged in some smooth gamesmanship and Huber managed to stay out of the fray, my two frontrunners from the beginning and remain so.

    I like your writing and opinions, also Rich's. He runs his blog just the way he wants to, no need for 3:39 Anonymous to be insulting.

    And loved the picture of Huber's cowboy boots.

    HFK

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, Rich, we have been cordial lately . . .

    In this instance it was clearly noted that you made every attempt to suggest that I had not done my homework because I did not support your horse in this race. I am not here to support any particular horse. I tell it like I see it, and I let the chips fall where they may.

    As I clearly stated, I did my homework and perhaps you should have done the same. I stick to that comment. You recently stated on your blog that you only recently met some of the candidates and only very briefly yet you are head over heals for one (very clearly).

    My comments before are the same as they are now. Someone did not cross their Ts and dot their Is. If you are going to write a letter headed "we the undersigned" and if you intend on signing the names of 5 candidates, you had dog-gone well have written approval to do so. If you ask the Grabbs directly you will find that they admittedly received 4 of the 5 signatures required before publishing the letter. They have no written signature for Steve Fisher. That is an inexcuseable mistake.

    Clayton and his wife have explained plenty about why they felt they didn't need a signature, but I am putting together stories from many sources. In the end, they DID NOT get Steve's signature.

    I challenged anyone that had proof to supply it, and they could not.

    The truth is that I've spent far more hours on this than I can afford. I spent my entire day on Sunday (10am - 7pm); a 10:30pm call with Ed Franz, email messages on Monday along with a phone call from Cindy Grabb, Paul Huber's campaign, and Clayton Grabb; and another phone call today with Clayton. None of that includes the hours of time to draft the post, edit, and prep photos and a radio interview on the topic on Monday morning.

    If you would like to continue to challenge my homework, I'll be glad to answer you questions, but realize that the tone in you questions was also lacking lightheartedness. You seem to be implying that I haven't done my fair share. So, therefore, I'd love to know what legwork you've done to uncover details and communicate with ALL of the candidates.

    Regarding your other comments, you are simply continuing to criticize people with which you have had little to no contact. Just as you have no leg to stand on when criticizing my "homework", you also have no right to criticize the organizers of the event.

    If you are coming here to say "rah rah" for Clayton Grabb, don't pretend that you are offering intellectual conversation. If you were offering intellectual conversation, be smarter about it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To HFK

    Anonymous wasn't being completely insulting. I agree that Rich can run his blog any way that he wants . . . and I don't go to his blog and question his research and opinions. Where Rich made a mistake is coming to this forum and questioning something about which he has no details to offer.

    If you go to Rich's site, you'll see that he never mentioned the release from Steve Fisher and he never answered the questions regarding the inconsistencies in the announcement from Grabb. He should probably fix his site and update as necessary, but he has not.

    Again, he can run his blog any way that he wishes, but, in turn, I don't need him attempting to belittle my work.

    Fair enough?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great Job Roberta

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Anonymous.

    I’d like to clarify a few things . . . just for the record.

    Mr. Talbert does not speak for the “blogging community” when he states “Some blogs are pro-Fisher, some are pro-Kelly, some are pro-Grabb.”

    I have made every effort to remain fair on this blog on every issue with every candidate. I have been accused in the past of being pro-Grabb, pro-Fisher, pro-Martha Moore, and (this weekend) pro-Kelly. I have not written the details that are presented in this blog for the purpose of propping up any candidate.

    On Monday I had a conversation with the Grabb campaign. In that conversation I stated “you show me a signature that Steve Fisher signed on the ‘we the undersigned’ letter, and I WILL throw Steve Fisher directly under the bus”. The response from the Grabb campaign was that no such signature existed.

    On that very same day I had a conversation with the Fisher campaign. At that time I made it clear that I did not determine my opinion based on ‘what Steve Fisher did’. The fact is that I determined my opinion based on all of my experiences . . . and Steve Fisher’s actions (along with Mike Kelly and Martha Moore) were acceptable to me based on the data and the circumstances. If Steve Fisher had made the wrong decisions, I would have quickly criticized him for it.

    I can’t remind you all enough . . . take a close look at all of the details and make a decision for yourself! I am not here to promote “group think”. Group think is exactly what caused these problems this past weekend. Candidates decided to revolt against the Tea Party event (at Kelly’s lot) and they became emboldened as a group. “Group think” took over and bad decisions were made. It is exactly that type of ‘group think’ that created Health Care Reform legislation. Think about it . . . don't take my word for it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I want to make this very clear I'm not supporting Huber BUT I'm sure Roberta will get what I just said confused... the big picture and the big deal of pointing out Hubers boots was plain stupid...But I did like his boots and after meeting him I find him to be a very nice person..now Roberta you are making yourself out to be a hero for covering both events the alameda event and the T-party/Kelly event..which you need to remember Your husband covered the alameda event and you covered the t-party/Kelly event..you said yourself you left the kelly event and had to spin your wheels in order to make it to the alameda event before it would be over..and now since you spent a large amount of time at the t-party/Kelly event and got to know the people that organized it (Judy) and what wonderful people they where...you now need to ask and post all the good questions #1 what is all the necessary information that needs to be put on a web site that confirms it to be a legit t-part... #2 who will be accountable for all money collected at the t-party/Kelly event...my last little comment..... from now on don't pretend that you covered a story when really your husband did the story.... because after all if he does the story it is he said she said...you can't be at two places at one time and when you say you covered both places it makes you look foolish

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, by the way . . . my husband says 'thank you' too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. what is wrong with you people? from what I read reberta tried to talk about both sides. she got to both events and wrote on both. How in the world could someone be in 2 place at one time? her husband helped and that makes her unfair? it seems like your just mad that she didnt pick your event first. it scares me that you people vote.

    I liked the boot picture. it was funny.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous

    Thanks for getting the comic relief reference to Huber’s boots. I smiled when I saw it and I snapped a picture. Later, I told Paul that I intended on making it the headline . . . and I did what I promised. It was funny, and anyone that failed to see the humor has issues.

    As far as the other comments, at the point a participant in this forum directs their hostilities towards me (or my husband, for goodness sakes), they show themselves for what they are. I guess it makes them feel powerful. Whatever.

    Thanks for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  15. to robota all is fair in love and war...you run a post you get shot at...may it be good or bad,,,,this is what you are asking for

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm going to refer to you as "obsessed anonymous" so that no one confuses you with any of the other folks that are sharing conversation on this blog. I've tagged your IP address so that I can properly refer to you by name from this point forward if your comments are worth posting.

    Your statement "you run a post you get shot at" is a little frightening as that isn't the way that a normal and balanced person would think or talk. I will, therefore, closely moderate your comments. If your statements are not on point and about the topic (that topic being the race for the 3rd Congressional seat), your comments will be rejected.

    I apologize to other followers of this blog, as it is obvious that the escalation of your anger has become a distraction from the subject matter.

    Paul Huber (or his campaign) should seriously contact you directly to get your behavior under control.

    ReplyDelete
  17. this is a direct message to Anonymous (from Farrell)

    Yes, Anonymous (from Farrell), I got your post. No, Anonymous (from Farrell), I have not published your post. Just as I did not publish the post that you sent a day ago.

    I will remind you and others that this particular conversation is about the race for the 3rd Congressional District and it is about the events of last weekend in Butler. This is not your private forum to be used to attack me . . . Tea Party . . . conservatives . . . etc.

    Your comments will be rejected as they are received. They are inappropriate . . . to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am going to offer this, and I think that it is something that analytical observers like Roberta and Rich can both appreciate. I think that any actual public policy ideas from these Republican candidates is being drowned out by this obsessive need to pander to a "tea party" that no one seems able to define.

    While the GOP argues who is an authentic tea partier and who is for or against 'big government,' Rep. Dahlkemper is just doing what she has done from the beginning: taking action on the things she said she would work on.

    Now, you can call Dahlkemper a "socialist" or say she is complicit with Obama and Pelosi (I happen to think that the electorate here sees Dahlkemper as more of a centrist, overall).

    The fact is, conservatives in this congressional district are arguing too much about who is the true heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy or who is imbued with the Great Spirit of Barry Goldwater, rather than talking about public policy ideas.

    Voters in this district like ideas. They don't care so much about politics and they for damn sure don't care much about political philosophies.

    Now, I firmly believe--and I am a registered Democrat--that Roberta Biros' message during the County Treasurers race was drowned out by politics. She--you--had some great cost-cutting and efficiency improvement ideas. Everyone was unfortunately paying attention to the feud with Lark and what makes a "real" Republican vs. a "real" Democrat, etc. Politics, in other words. That election became not about ideas, but about who knew whom and who had the most Mercer County GOP pals, right? It was all about politics and not about qualifications or ideas, or I think we know who would have won.

    Now, Rich and Roberta, neither of whom I agree with totally but both of whom I respect and enjoy reading, immensely: if two conservatives such as yourself are going to go at it over what is a real tea party, don't you think that by the time a GOP winner is chosen for November, indies and undecided voters might have tired of all this infighting and have already decided, "Ah, forget it. These Republican aren't giving us any real ideas. I'm going with the status quo and voting for Kathy."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jason,

    Once again, we agree (adding to my observation that we agree more often than not).

    The PRIMARY will be Republicans choosing which candidate most closely matches their “conservative think”.

    The politics was demonstrated this past weekend, and those events will sway some Republicans to one camp or another. The same goes with the spit-balls that are currently being thrown in TV commercials between a few candidates.

    I have been stressing all along that it does no one any good to lose sight of the big picture . . . and that big picture is finding a way to defeat Kathy Dahlkemper in November. I’ve mentioned it numerous times on my website and I reminded all of the candidates of that fact in an email message that I sent to them on Monday night. I’m afraid of the dirtiness going past the point of no return because that is the point that voters will get turned off.

    Because I am most concerned about November’s race, I am making a point of publishing no “endorsement”. I think doing so is counter productive. Let the best candidates win on their own merit. I’m attempting to make the Primary about a comparison of issues and candidates. I’m attempting to get voters interested and stimulated in the process and the people and trying to get them to get out and ask questions. In two weeks, when this is over, conservatives will need to unite behind ONE candidate if they have any chance of winning an election against Kathy Dahlkemper. Drawing such dark lines at this point is a mistake.

    In two weeks, hatchets need to be buried and POLICIES need to become the ONLY topic. The OTHER SIDE will attempt to make it an issue of POLITICS, and if they are successful they will turn voters off and Kathy Dahlkemper will remain in office by default. You and I both know that The Herald and the Mercer GOP and Democrat committees managed that on a small scale last year in my case my race for Treasurer. The 2010 3rd Congressional race could potentially magnify that ten times or more. Therefore, if you want to unseat an incumbent, you had better keep your eye on the prize.

    Thank you for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Before we agree on too much, though, I do want to make it clear that I am unequivocally in support of Kathy Dahlkemper, regardless of which candidate the GOP ends up choosing. Attempts to paint Dahlkemper with a far left-wing brush do not hold up to scrutiny when you look at her record; she's a center-right pragmatist, even with her vote on health care (and I won't go into details here explaining how a health care law that gives millions of new customers to private companies is anything but 'socialist').

    I think that this current crew of GOP candidates is weak, unqualified, and particularly lacking in policy ideas. They are also doing a great disservice to the realm of public discussion by fighting each other over political theology instead of presenting plans for the economy.

    From a purely analytical standpoint, however, you could not be more right, Roberta: if the GOP has any chance of winning this district, they need to focus on policies, not politics.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We are still on the same page, Jason.

    I take no offense in the fact that you are backing Dahlkemper. Last year I was excited by the idea of a "blue dog"/fiscal conservative, right-of-center Democrat too. However I had time to get to know Mrs. Dahlkemper a bit more and I don't like what time has revealed. I personally found her lacking in character, lacking in substance, and (when it came down to it) lacking in the concepts of fiscal responsibility on the Health Care issue. I have very specific reasons for feeling that Congresswoman Dahlkemper is not the right person for the job . . . but I respect your willingness to continue to support her.

    I am a true believer in the idea that competition makes for good public servants. The race between Dahlkemper and a "yet to be named Republican" will be healthy for all parties involved, and the voters will be the big winners. That was what I attempted to do last year, and it is why I am involved again in 2010. Every elected official needs to be held accountable for their records, and an election year is the time to bring ALL DISCUSSIONS to the table. It is our civic duty to discuss the issues and policies that matter to us.

    After the primary when we start getting back to talk of POLICIES, I look forward to debating those very issues with you in detail. After all, May 19th is the day that the real fun begins!

    ReplyDelete




SUPPORT OUR SPONSOR
Featuring Tea Party and Political Products


Mercer County Conservatives