Friday, April 07, 2006

Who gets to choose who replaces Lane Evans?

Don Johnston and John Gianulis seem to have different opinions about who will have votes in the selection of a Democratic candidate in the Illinois 17th Congressional District race to replace Lane Evans who decided not to run after the primary election was over. Don Johnston says that only precinct committemen who were elected in the primary have a vote. John Gianulis says that people he appoints as precinct committeemen in precincts in which no one was elected should also get to vote. It seems a rather lopsided argument to me. Don Johnston, along with Mary Boland, will set up and oversee the process and appears to me to have both the letter and the spirit of the law on his side. The law clearly intends that the persons who represent the Democrats of the precincts in the district vote on the nomination. How does someone who was selected by the county chairman just for the purpose of voting in this special election represent the precinct, especially if some of them won’t even live in the precinct?

So why is there so much arguing in the blogsphere about this when it seems so obvious?
The only reason I can think of is that some people are so used to the county chairman doing whatever he wants to with regards to selecting people to be the Democratic candidates that they think that that is the way it should always be.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

He may have the spirit and the law on his side but he also has MRS. Boland in there to help him sway the day.

Dave Barrett said...

OK, anonymous 6:41, let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that Mrs. Boland has influenced Don Johnston to be of the opinion that precinct committeeman appointed by the county chairman after the primary are not eligible to vote because the elected precinct committeemen are more likely to select Mike Boland than the newly appointed precinct committeemen. Is that right? That's the only way Mrs. Boland's bias could have any effect, right? But if that is true then it reflects a bias against Mike Boland in how John Gianulis is selecting appointed precinct committeemen, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

No it implies that Don Johnston has been offered a position with Mike Boland staff if he wins.

Anonymous said...

A Rock Island County Democratic precinct committeeman showed me a letter he received today from Don Johnston. It was co-signed by Mary Boland, State Central Committeewoman.

I know she's doing her job, but with her husband all but declared as someone seeking the appointment maybe she should step out of that role to keep the process clean.

What's your take on that?

Dave Barrett said...

No, anonymous, you are not getting it. You must be of the opinion that it is more likely that Mike Boland will be selected if only the elected precinct committeement vote, otherwise your objections don't make any sense. Right? But if you believe that then you must think that the appointed precinct committeemen are less likely to vote for Mike Boland than the elected precinct committeemen, right? Why would that be? Why would the appointed precinct committeemen be less likely to vote for Mike Boland then the elected precinct committeemen? The only reason that I can think of is that the person doing the appointing is picking people who are less likely to pick Mike Boland than the rank and file Democrats. Right? Why else would there be any difference between the elected and appointed precinct committeemen?

So if this is the case doesn't it more reflect a bias against Mike Boland in how the county chairman is appointing precinct committeemen than it reflects a bias toward Mike Boland by Don Johnston?

How can it be a bias for or against any candidate to say that only elected precinct committee can vote? The elected precinct committeemen all reside in their precincts and have been working for the Democratic Party for some time. Any bias they have as a group would be a bias shared by a lot of other Democrats. So who is biased here, Don Johnston or John Gianulis?

Anonymous said...

I just think that the name Boland on the letter is an endorsement for the other Boland. That's how I look at it.

Ray said...

IF you will note -on March 21, Mike Boland had his wife run on the ballot throughout both his own district and the entire 17th Congressional district as “M. Boland”. Couple that with the fact that Mike Boland listed himself as candidate for State Rep as M. Boland on quite a few ballots in the counties and you can see where I am going with this.

Dave Barrett said...

Mary Boland and Don Johnston are the elected state central committeemen for the 17th Congressional District. They are mandated by law to set up the process by which the precinct committeemen will select the replacement candidate. Why would her name on a letter be an endorsement of anything other than the fact that she is a state central committeeman?

Do you actually think that the elected precinct committeemen are going to be influenced to vote for Mike Boland because they received a letter with the name Mary Boland on it? Seems sort of far fetched to me. And what does all this have to do with whether newly appointed precinct committeemen should be allowed to vote?

I am answering your questions but you have not answered mine. Why would not allowing newly appointed precinct committeemen to vote favor Mike Boland, unless John Gianulis is purposely appointing people less likely to vote for Mike Boland than the elected precinct committeemen? And if you believe John Gianulis is doing that why are you not outraged at his bias against a Democratic elected official?

SAMADAMS said...

Dave,

Why are you trying to disanfranchise my vote?

I voted for Lane. Now you suggest I shouldn't have vote in the appointment process simply because I don't have an "elected precinct committeeman?" Why do you want to denying my voice from being heard?

Anonymous said...

Why are you always protecting Boland. Ha s he offered you a job also. This is a sham with his wife running the election for he husbands office.

Anonymous said...

Dave you are being very arrogent about this. I think that the M Boland's are married.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4/07/2006 3:21 PM
I never looked at it this way. I do not have a committeman in my are. Are you saying that my vote will be overlooked. Why are you for this Dave.

Dave Barrett said...

How does having John Gianulis appoint someone to be the precinct committeeman in your precinct enfranchise you? If having someone appointed your precinct committeeman and that person having a vote enfranchised you then I'll enfranchise you by appointing my brother-in-law who is an elected precinct committeeman in Rock Island to be your personal representative. When he votes for Lane Evan's replacement then he will, by virtue of my appointment, be representing you. Feel better now?

Anonymous said...

The law on filling Precinct Committeeman vacancies is simple and not open to interpretation. After April 20 (30 days after the primary) the county chairman can fill vacancies. We will not even have an official vacancy on the ballot for Congress until after that date. So you are telling me that a county chairman cannot follow the law and fill his committee and have his county's weighted vote participate in the process?

Please read the law:
(10 ILCS 5/7‑9)
Sec. 7‑9. County central committee; county and State conventions.
(i) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever a vacancy exists in the office of precinct committeeman because no one was elected to that office or because the precinct committeeman ceases to reside in the precinct or for any other reason, the chairman of the county central committee of the appropriate political party may fill the vacancy in such office by appointment of a qualified resident of the county and the appointed precinct committeeman shall serve as though elected; however, no such appointment may be made between the general primary election and the 30th day after the general primary election.

THESPEAKER said...

What kind of Democrat are you Dave? You don't think my vote should count and that yours should?

Why is your vote more valuable than mine? I hope you don't have a precinct committeeman representing your precinct and don't get a vote. For anyone that is so unamerican that they think my vote shiouldn't count isn't a "maverick," but rather a facist.

Phil Hare is Lane's hand-picked replacement. This is Lane's seat, he can give it to Phil and we should honor his wishes. Isn't Lane better suited than you and M. Boland to determine who should replace him? Or do you think you are smarter and wiser than Lane Evans? Please!

Dave Barrett said...

anonymous 6:39,
Obviously the county chairman can appoint precinct committeemen. The question is how many votes the appointed precinct committeemen would have in a process in which the number of votes is stipulated in the law as the number of votes in the primary in which the precinct committeeman was elected. The law seems to give a precinct committeeman who was appointed after the primary no votes in such a process.

That's the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that we should try to come as close as we can to a process which selects the same candidate as voters in the primary would have selected if they had the same choices we have now.

If giving the appointed precinct committeemen votes in the process would make a differnce in the outcome then which outcome is closer to what the voters in the primary would want -- the outcome which results from just the elected precinct committeemen voting or the outcome when appointed precinct committeemen are included?
If it makes a difference in the outcome that means that the appointed precinct committeemen voted differently as a group than the elected precinct committeemen. If the two groups are voting differently then that must mean that one of the groups more closely matches how the voters in the primary would have voted than the other. Which group
would that be?

Dave Barrett said...

thespeaker,
If you do not have an elected precinct committeeman then you do not have anyone representing you whether or not your county chairman appoints someone. Why would an appointed precinct committeeman represent you any better than an elected precinct committeeman from another precinct that you happen to know or meet?
If the county chairman is appointing people to precincts that do not have an elected precinct committeeman just for the purpose of electing a candidate for Congress then I do not see how any of the appointed precinct committeeman represent anyone other than the county chairman.

Dave Barrett said...

thespeaker,
I am not endorsing Mike Boland. I only mentioned him in response to comments accusing Don Johnston of being biased in his favor.
But what kind of Democrat are you if you think that we as voters are bound to honor Lane Evan's preference for his replacement? This is not a monarchy! Our leaders become our leaders because we elected them, not because they inherited the position or had it handed to them by any one person.

Here is the kind of Democrat I am. I think the Democratic candidate for the Illinois 17th Congression district should be the person elected to that position by the voters in the primary, and if that is not possible because the elected candidate withdrew then the candidate elected by the elected precinct committeeman. No one person should be able to select who that candidate is because this is a democracy -- not Lane Evans, not John Gianulis, not Don Johnston and Mary Boland. That is the kind of Democrat I am.
What kind of Democrat are you?

Anonymous said...

The democratic party Godfathers Stewart Winstien and John Gianulis have made their coice. So all faithful party committeemen are expected to fall in line. Especially those who won jobs from John either for themselves or their people.
Even though it seems autocratic, it is nothing but good politics if you want to remain a "good" Democrat in John G's eyes.
The democractic way of life is a myth an an ideal that people are willing to die for. In practice is boils down to surviving in a world of politics at its lowest level. To paraphrase Tip O'Neil " its all local."

Dave Barrett said...

Anonymous 9:46
John Gianulis can only determine who the candidate is if enough other precinct committeemen voluntarily give him that power over their votes. Why anyone would voluntarily hand their vote over to another person when they can see on the tv news people in other countries suffering and dying for the right to vote is beyond me.
It is nice of John Gianulis to give the rest of us the benefit of his knowledge and experience and tell us who he supports. But that does not obligate anyone to vote for his selection.

Anonymous said...

The term "in which the precint committeeman was elected" refers to the date of the election, not the individual person who was elected.

paladin said...

In my view, it's this kind of statement that sums up what is wrong with the local Democrat Party:" This is Lane's seat, and he can give it to Phil and we should honor his wishes." Phil Hare has not so much as run for dogcatcher in this district, yet he should be "given" the seat. We saw this last year when Denny Jacobs "gave" his seat to his boy, and Mike Jacobs had not so much as run for dogcatcher either (and just narrowly defeated a total and complete unknown in the primary). Pat Verschoore was "given" his seat, and so the culture of entitlement prevails in local Democrat politics, where a single office holder feels he is entitled to make decisions for the thousands of Democrats in the district, and we had all damn well just better shut up and sit down. This is just plain wrong----and undemocratic.

Anonymous said...

Dave: an appointed precinct committeeman "shall serve as though elected" If a committeeman is appointed before we have a vacancy, then how can that person be excluded from voting. The law only says that you cannot appoint committeemen before the county convention, but after the convention vacancies can be filled and the law is very clear. What would be your argument that they shall not serve as though elected?

Anonymous said...

Dave we know who you are. Quit putting your pic next to every post it is anoying as all get out.

Dave Barrett said...

Anonymous,
You could have your picture next to your comments also. Just create a blogger account, upload your picture, sign in using your account when you leave your comment and then your picture will appear next to your comments, also. It does not even have to be your real name and real picture. Think about how annoying that will be to people who disagree with you!
I sign my name to all my opinions, but I guess not everyone is in a position to do that.

Anonymous said...

I agree enough of your face already.

Anonymous said...

Appointed Precinct Committeemen will have full authority to vote. They have full authority as if elected. It is the law. Due to the timing of this, the county chairs can and probably will make choices that favor their own candidate. It's not a matter of how we wish things to be but how they are. The most votes win. (except in Presidential elections) Everyone is working their numbers.

The Congressional Committee has not met or elected either Don Johnston or Mary Boland as Chair. The other becomes co-chair by law. The Congressional Committee has not approved any formal procedures for the election. The law refers to "In the organization and proceedings of congressional committees". Anything of a legally binding nature that Johnston/Boland do without Committee approval may not withstand legal challenge. The law is minimal at best but it does require us to get together as a real functioning committee.

samadams said...

Why do you seek to disanfranchise my vote? How can your precint committeeman vote for me? I don't have a precinct committeeman. Why should Lane Evans be allowed to appoint Phil Hare and I can't appoint my precinct committeeman? What kind of Democrat thinks his vote counts, but mine does'nt? Or that your committeeman can vote for me although I am not in his or her district.

You have a precinct committeeman, I don't. So you think my vote doesn't count and yours does? What kind of Democrat are you anyway?

What is your feeling about M. Boland setting up rules that may benefit her husband? Is this democracy? Doesn't the person that set the rules win? Won't M. Boland set-up rules to benefit her man like Lane did for Phil?

What do you know about M. Boland agreeing to hire Don Johnston as his Chief of Staff? Does this seeem fair to you? Does it seem fair that Lane has appointed Phil Hare as our congressman? Please advise.

Dave Barrett said...

To answer the charge that I am disenfranchising people without an elected precinct committeeman I would have to repeat myself, so everyone just reread my previous comments to see my answer to that charge.
As for having the pictures next to people's comments I kind of like that. I just wished that more commenters would create blogger accounts so there would be other pictures besides mine. If you can't afford to reveal your identity you could upload a picture of someone else the way "The Inside Dople" does.
Or a cartoon character. How about Yosemite Sam?

The Inside Dope said...

Dave, when are you going to realize that you can't argue with sick minds.

They're just toying with you with their absolutely ridiculous arguments and if you'll notice, they don't read a word you say, or else they're too stupid to comprehend what your replies are, and they simply repeat their numbskull arguments ad nauseum.

As long as you keep posting their stuff and taking the bait, they'll continue to make you crazy.

Your argument and explanations of how it doesn't make ANY sense to suggest that Mary Boland having a hand in organizing the process of having precinct committeepeople vote for a candidate is exactly sane, sober, and 100% correct.

There's no way she could throw the election one way or another, and if anyone is influenced by the fact that her name appears on correspondence and therefore thinks they have to vote for Boland even if they don't want to, they're simply too stupid and suggestible to function anyway.

And you shouldn't even dignify the utterly moronic argument that you want to "disenfranchise" people because you don't feel Gianulis and others should be able to appoint committeepeople to fill vacant slots.

Whoever dreamed that one up is either a drooling fool or simply trying to be a jerk and being very successful at it.

Ignore 'em, or better yet, don't even publish their stupidity.

Anyone who advocates a more open and democratic process in this area is in for attacks and harrassment from this gang of stooges, as they've made perfectly clear of late.

The little clique of elites is very threatened by spreading power around, thus they react like children who are afraid someone's going to take their toys away.

Tell 'em to go get bent.

Anonymous said...

TID. You are not the voice of the people. Lane Evans and Phill Hare are the voice of the people. The sooner you get this fact the better off you will be. Your party needs you to unite.

Anonymous said...

There is no problem with Mary Boland being Chair of the Congressional Committee. It is not a conflict of interest, it is the interest. Partisan politics is the business. We make our choices in every primary and we all lose half of the time and then come together behind our nominee. As Chair of the Committee she has certain obligations of fairness, but having a horse in the race is no big deal. Her biggest problem is she does no work, at least outside of R.I. county, and is seem more as a detriment than as an asset to Mike. Phil Hare has the same problem. He has been District Director for over 20 years and few people down district even know who he is. He has not gotten out of this chair in a decade. It's a little late for Phil to run around and try to introduce himself to the party activists now.

Anonimity said...

Lane Evans is the voice of the 17th District for the 109th Congress. He's not the voice of the People for the 110th Congress, until Lane Evans is elected in November. Lane Evans can do anything he wishes with his seat in the 109th. But no one, not Evans, not Phil Hare, not John G, owns the seat in the 110th Congress.

If Evans choses to stick it out for relection in November and wins the seat in the 110th Congress, I'd have no issue with Phil Hare taking the job until the 2008 election season.

I do have an issue with blog writers and party leaders that tell belivers in democracy to shut up and back THEIR choice while at the same time manipulating the process to get their untested candidate on the ballot.

To let that happen without the People's vote is not democracy, it's tyranny.

If Phil Hare's name is chosen to appear on the November ballot by an open process that represents the People of the 17th District, I will be satsified that the process was not hijacked. If not, be prepared for a very contentious 2008 primary and a dismataling of the party's status quo.

Anonymous said...

How come no one wants to talk about Mike Boland giving his rep seat away to run for congress?
No one ever wants to talk about that!
Or is he running for BOTH seats?

Anonymous said...

Why are you attacking Lane Evans? He is suffering from Parkinson’s disease and for you to go after him in his time of need is a tragedy. For you to not honor his wishes shows your insensitivity to the man and the disease. If you knew what this man has been through to serve the people in this trying time you would do the right thing and support Phil Hare. He is the right choice for the people.

Babs said...

Yes, why should we want someone on the congressional ballot that can appoint yet another state rep in our area? I for one don't want that.

Anonimity said...

No one is attacking Lane Evans. I know him personally and respect him. I'm very thankful for the service he's provided the 17th District and to veterans nationwide.

He's got every right to endorse and support Phil Hare and Phil Hare may just be the right guy.... but the people must speak and decide.

Evans is not trying to substitute Phil's name for his own on the November ballot, though I can see that several bloggers would like to see that happen without input from the people.

I'm personally very grateful to Lane Evans.

He and I agree on one point that seems to be lost in all the expressions of loyalty: A Congressman serves the people of the District, the State, and the Nation--not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

You say that you know Lane Evans. I don't think so. If you did you would get behind his wishes and support the best man for the job. If it is good enough for Lane, then it is good enough for me. Now that is friendship. Friendship is Evans Picking Hare as his eyes and ears in Washington. This will help keep Lane in the mix and help his health in the long run. You would support Lane if you were a friend.

Anonymous said...

I see the difference:

Self-sacrifice vs. Self-interest

Serving the nation as a U.S. Rep is self-sacrifice. Treating the 17th District seat as personal
property is self-interest.

Anonimity said...

Anonymous @ 4/10/2006 11:03 AM,

Nice attempt to taunt. I reaffirm what I've said here.

nicodemus said...

The congressional seat "belongs" to the "people" of the 17th district, as gerrymandered as it is.
The seat does not belong to Lane Evans anymore than it belonged to Tom Railsback. Ask yourself: if you got sick tomorrow, what are the chances that you could dictate to your employer who your successor would be?
This is especially true of FEDERAL jobs, which is what this is. Lane Evans cannot control this anymore than your mail carrier can choose who takes over his route. That is just the way it is, folks, like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Denny Jacobs gave his son his job as Lane Evans is doing here. What is the difference?

NEITZCHE said...

You elect these people because you think they will make good decisions, so how DARE you question the decisions they make about there succesors.

The people have say through their appointed leaders! The people have spoken and they want Congressman Hare!

Anonymous said...

Same guy, same rant, different name, same gramatical errors.

I DARE question everything they do because it's my right and duty as a citizen to do so.

Elected officials serve us.

And NO, the people haven't spoken, yet. Screw this process up and the people will speak by electing Zingbat in protest.

Anonymous said...

M Boland is the true chosen one. He is a populist as is Evans. He has a collage degree, and has been elected before. Lane Evans thinks that he can just pick his successor. Well think again, Boland and not hare will win the nomination.

PLATOFORTHEMASSES said...

No, no, the people do not rule, the appointed leaders do.

Why do you question their leadership when you have annointed them with your vote?

It's people like you that provide the rational for "dumbing down the school system."

It's true that the masses should have some say, but to leave this importan decsion to them is wrong. The rabble is not ready to make such an important determination. This decsion should be made by the leaders and those they trust.

Those who disagree are wrong.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Plato, take your crown back across the Pond and join up with King George. We expelled you on July 4, 1776 and built something a few years later called a Constitution.

Perhaps you'd like a copy?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1891743007/ref=pd_sim_b_4/103-1945378-9515800?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

I Got me a "COLLAGE" Degree said...

PLATOFORTHEMASSES, it's spelled "rationale," and you are irrational.

JOHNLOCK said...

Tose who flame over spelling erros often only do so because they cannot argue over the essence of my strong views.

The people will follow me as I lead us to victory in the fall against the GREAT ZINGA!

Down with the masses, up with the aristocracy.

paladin said...

Hilarious! I stole this from another commenter on another blog, but it seems apt here: "Apparently the illiterates are supporting Hare."

Anonymous said...

Paladin, don't you mean subliterate?

The most baffling thing about them is whether they're acting dumb on purpose or not.

They seem incredibly stupid, but then I think, they can't POSSIBLY be that stupid, and begin to think they're just goof-offs who don't take anything seriously.
But then they write something else and it's so pure 100% pristinely idiotic that I figure an intelligent person couldn't have possibly made it up, even if they were trying to sound stupid.

So it's nearly impossible to tell with this band of flakes, who I think really are only one or two people.

There's a newcomer here who writes pure sarcasm and satire, but at least you can tell.

The others read like satire but they're clearly serious.

I think blogs would be better off without any of these sorts, but alas, they seem to be the most persistant and frequent commenters there are.

Anonymous said...

Hare has no collage degree. If you want to teach my kindergardner then you will need a collage degree. If you want to deal with the worlds problems I believe that you should be as competant as a teacher. Get a job that fits your competancies
Mr. Hare.

Anonymous said...

Many of the 17th District County Chairs met in Springfield Tuesday to discuss the process of selecting a nominee. It was a serious and civil discussion. The Rock Island chair will be supporting Phil Hare and most the others were supporting Senator John Sullivan. We are united in working through the process and then getting behind our nominee. There is some disagreement about the process and what is required by law but I expect the lawyers to hammer out the details to everyone's satisfaction.

Anonymous said...

The RI party leadership has hired two indivduals in the HQ office staff to submit quips into all the blogs in an effort to make readers think Dems really want to hand Phil Hare the spot on the November ballot out of loyalty or respect to Evans.

Jessie James said...

A friend told me that Rep. Boland has hired Don Johnston as his campaign manager and I don't work for anyone anymore so I'm not a hired gun. Just a voter. This bothers me.

Anonymous said...

Why would Boland doing everything that he can to win the nomination bother you. He has to spend the money on hand before he gets the nod.

paladin said...

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Lane Evans brought down the Mighty Gianulis Machine by insisting Gianulis back Lane's pal, the unelectable Hare?

Anonymous said...

Tomarrow John G will tell us who the next congressman from the 17th district will be. Vote Hare for Lane Evans sake.

Anonymous said...

Word on the street is that tomorrow John Gianulis will not endorse anyone, but some RI county dems will announce for Phil Hare.
Silence from John Gianulis, though.

Anonymous said...

Today Lu Ann Kerr will fall inline behind Congressman Hare and begin the process of aannointing Phil to congress. Lu Ann Kerr is a major player in the underground Democrat movement that is now moving to protect Lane's choice.

Anonymous said...

I just looked up various Hare removal products. There are cream Hare removers, laser Hare removers, wax Hare removers, books on how to "Remove Unwanted Hare Now", bleaches for Hare, bikini line Hare removers (oh, bad image there), Tweezers for Hare removal. And now we need, Precinct Committeemen for Hare removal.

Anonymous said...

You can't underestimate John G.'s power. you cna have all of the Hare removers you want but John G. will be so thick at the root that there will be no Hare remover strongenough to remove it. Better luck next time. The rest of you are losers.

Anonymous said...

Schwiebert has been very quiet. My understanding is that he will endorse Hare at the event on Saturday.

Dave Barrett said...

DogBoy:
Speculation on the identity of the author of another blog is off topic on this blog. The purpose of the comment section of each blog entry is to discuss the topic of the blog entry. I will continue to delete comments that are off-topic, incoherent, profance, insulting or that I do not like for any other reason.
Speculation on MY identity is on-topic. Discussion of rumors that I am not 55 year-old David Barrett of Moline at all but actually a young James Garner will be permitted.

Anonymous said...

The arogance of Phil Hare to compare himself to Lane Evans is appauling. He is no Lane Evans.

DOGBOY said...

Don't fall prey to the arrogance that envelope all these self-appointed blog leaders. What is it with all you GUYS that make you think you have the power to censor others ideas and beliefs? Do you also burn books?

What kind of Maverick Democrat is opposed to the FREEDOME OF SPEECH? What are you so afraid of Dave?

The only reason anyone comes to your blog is because allowed anonymous posters the "courage of their convictions." Now that you have turned out to be a Republican right-wing hack, I feel betrayed. I thought you were a great Democrat leader Dave, but you have proven to be a fraud!

When will one of you self-appointed blog leaders let the people speak their minds. You think we have the right to vote, but not talk! This is wrong!!!!!!!

Dave Barrett said...

DogBoy:
At the upper right on the screen when you first enter my blog is a Blogspot link to "Get Your Own Blog". All you have to do is click it to create your own blog. If you post some things about local politics and inform all the places that list local political blogs your blog will be listed and you will have a forum that is just as visible as my blog. You will have complete control over it and you can run it any way you see fit.
You could demonstrate for the rest of us how to run a "Democratic" blog.
If you have are not a computer and internet whiz and have trouble with or don't understand any of the steps to creating the blog or have any questions about how to do something involving creating blog entries (my brother-in-las has a blog and still does not understand how to create links to other sites in his blog entries) just send me a private email and I will be glad to help.

Anonymous said...

It's sad that you would rather censor speech than answer my questions. I don't want to run a blog, I only want a plcae where I can speak my mind without fear of the "thought police" determining what is proper and what they do not want to hear. I am very sad to hear you say that you will continue to abridge free speech.

Dave Barrett said...

You want a place where you are free to speak your mind but you do not want to start a blog? That is like saying you want to say something in a letter to the editor of the newspaper but do not want to write and mail a letter yourself and so insist that I allow you to add a few lines to my letter to the editor.
No one starts a blog in order to provide you a forum. They start a blog to provide themselves a forum. You have opportunities to speak your mind without interference from the "thought police" and those opportunities involve starting a blog. It is easy and free.

Anonymous said...

Dave you will have to miss the forum today as it is a closed door meeting and only we can attend. Don Johnston has made me feel so important with this closing out the public. This is the way it should be as you people don't have any vote anyway. If you people want to attend start your own party for this party belongs to us elected committeepeople.

Dave Barrett said...

It's fine with me that Don Johnston closed the forum to the public, because the purpose of the meeting is for the elected precinct committeemen to get the information they need to decide how to vote.

Anonimity said...

"the purpose of the meeting is for the elected precinct committeemen to get the information they need to decide how to vote."

Dave, my concern is that the only information that they'll get from this forum after hearing 10 measly minutes from each candidate is an endless drone of John G. and his cronies saying, "Okay, we've heard from everyone now vote for Phil, if you know what's good for you."

I can only hope that the press has access enough to this meeting and understands its importance enough to fully report on what happened in there.

Anonymous said...

John Sullivan did a great job. The only trouble was that Phil Hare has this thing sewn up. It is great to see John G. work his magic.

Thank heavans for Lane Evans!

dirtmover said...

Lane has already made his choice known. That's who chooses!