I know politicians tend to exaggerate

by: chickpea

Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 19:54:58 PM EDT

What brought this up is that I keep seeing Paul LePage on TV, saying how as mayor of Waterville,  "I" cut taxes, "I" balanced the budget, "I" built up a surplus, etc., etc.

And on his campaign web site, this claim:

"The only candidate for Governor to have served as the chief executive of a Maine government, Paul LePage cut taxes, eliminated budget waste and red tape, improved services, and fixed the debt rating."

He did all this ALONE?  Holy Cincinnatus, Batman, I had no idea that Waterville is an elective dictatorship.

 So I went to the city's website and found this under Mayor Paul R. LePage:

"The Mayor's position has had a long and proud history within Waterville City government. The position was first created in 1888 with the election of Reuben Foster as Waterville's first Mayor. That was the same year that Waterville became incorporated as a City. For many years, the Mayor served as the chief executive officer of the City. That changed significantly in 2005 when voters approved a new Charter which changed Waterville's government from a "strong Mayor" to a "Council-Manager" form of government. For a more complete explanation of the powers and duties of the Mayor, please see Article II of the City Charter."

Now if you look at the Charter, it sure looks like the City Manager and the Council do all the heavy lifting (drafting and passing the budget and that sort of stuff).  Under Article 2, the Mayor's duties, aside from wielding the gavel at council meetings, appear to be pretty much limited to ribbon-cuttings and issuing proclamations and commendations.  (LePage's mayoral web page contains forms for citizens to request these munificent municipal benefits.)

I'm sure the mayor does provide a leadership role to some degree.  But are we supposed to seriously believe that LePage personally "cut taxes, eliminated budget waste and red tape, improved services, and fixed the debt rating" before the city charter amendment of 2005?  His website doesn't say anything about it, but a Sun-Journal article says he was elected mayor in 2004.  So he must have worked fast to accomplish all those accomplishments before Waterville's government changed from a 'Strong Mayor' to a 'Council-Manager' form of government.

Hopefully someone will ask him about this.   Because his claims that he accomplished all these great things for Waterville all by his big loveable self sound like he's pushing exaggerations to its limits -- or beyond?

Twin City Twits

by: chickpea

Sat May 22, 2010 at 21:52:25 PM EDT

First, shouldn't it be "Twin City [sic] Times"?

Because if you're referring to BOTH of the two (duh!) twin cities, it would be "Twin Cities," wouldn't it?

That's neither here nor there.  The point is, if anyone is from L-A or greater Andro county, they might want to pick up a copy of the May 20 issue of the TCT.  It's free, incredibly.

Because the May 20 issues contains what is possibly the most offensive editorial ever presented in an onstensibly mainstream Maine media publication -- in which Editor Peter A. Steele refers to President Obama as "an unqualified brown guy in the White House."

Of course, Steele immediately follows that up by saying that because of his reference to the President's race, he will undoubtably be attacked by the forces of "political correctness."

Hey, Steele, why don't you just stop dicking around and call the President a commie nigger, for chrissake?

If anyone calls you on it, you can just say (as you did in the editorial), "The Liberal Left and their bosom buddies in the Mainstream Media [his caps] will vilify you as a rascist and charge you with a 'hate crime,' another ridiculous product of political correctness."

Yeah, right.

What amazes me is how many major companies in Lewiston-Auburn and Androscoggin County advertise in this rag.  I can only suspect that they were contacted by an ad rep who said, "We print [definitely not "sell" or even actually distribute] a hundred thousand [or whatever] copies a week, and our rates are based on a penny per copy printed."  So the company writes a check for $25 or $50 a week, in the hopes that it will bring a customer or two to the door.

Now, the "unqualified brown guy" got 58 percent of the vote in Maine, and Androscoggin County.  And of course the Maine Legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic.  An advertising rag like the TCT is normally politically neutral; indeed, assiduously inoffensive.  I suspect that no matter what their personal political views, the TCT's advertisers assume that this publication is not about alienating a substantial number of potential customers.

It would be absurd to suggest an advertising boycott, if only because the range of TCT advertisers is so wide.  However, it wouldn't hurt to contact these advertisers and inform them of TCT's political viewpoints, and ask them if they want to be associated with a publication that refers to our president (for whom 58 percent of us Mainers voted) as "an unqualfiied brown guy."

Sweet Fracking Jaysus!!!

by: chickpea

Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 21:14:50 PM EDT

  I said this is "my wont," because I'm constantly amazed at how the AMG posters (including the, ahem, "Editor") fail to even notice news stories that might put their extreme right-wing GOP agenda in a bad light.

 So I was fully expecting to find no notice of Oklahoma City on AMG.  What I was not expecting was this, from an asshole which calls itself "Woodcanoe":

http://asmainegoes.com/content...

 There are plenty of replies, none of which condemn McVeigh for much more than "overreacting."  As some asshole named Calvin says:  "Oklahoma City was a direct result of what happened in Waco, yet no one in our government can connect the dots, or wants to."

According to the New York Daily News, "In 45 hours of interviews he gave to two Buffalo News reporters before he was executed in 2001, McVeigh says a dangerous government was destroying America's freedom and the only way to get that government's attention was with "a body count."
"To the parents of the 19 children killed by his bomb, he says, "Get over it."

 Gerald, you know I'm a fan of yours.  But I implore you to do the only thing any decent person can do:  Boycott this despicable web site "AMG."  Don't try to reason with these hate-filled fascists.

 Do you really believe that, given the opportunity, you could have "reasoned" McVeigh out of his "mission" to protect "real Americans" from "the government"?  Do you really believe that these AMGers are any more amenable to reason?

 To call these people swine is truly unfair to pigs. . . .

Rusho Mathbo

by: chickpea

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 14:55:00 PM EDT

So this guy calls and says something to the effect that since Roosevelt, the Democrats have never REALLY been a majority.  To which El Rushbo agrees, adding:

"If they were a majority, they'd have 60 percent of the vote on health care."

SWEAR TO GOD!!!  It was at just about 2:23 p.m. today, 3/23/10, on the FM "Maine's news-talk" radio.  (I'll be damned if I'm going to post their frequency here.)

What a perfect distillation of the intellectual incapacity and moral bankrupty of the Republican Party, as epitomized by its leader, "Talent on Loan From God."

Asshole Alert

by: chickpea

Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 19:48:53 PM EDT

http://www.asmainegoes.com/con...

Me and Ted

by: chickpea

Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 21:15:44 PM EDT

   So I have to mention this:  Lewiston-Auburn, and the balance of Androscoggin County, is overwhelmingly Democratic, and voted overwhelmingly for Obama. And yet the Sun-Journal populates its editorial page with Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry and Cal Thomas. And then they piss and moan that people aren't "doing their civic duty" by supporting the local newspaper.

   Anyway, here's what the Sun-Journal felt their readers would not be interested to read:

In the fall of 1976 I had recently been hired for my first newspaper job, as a reporter for a daily newspaper in a Massachusetts city about the population of Lewiston.  Sen. Ted Kennedy was up for re-election, and although the result was a foregone conclusion, he dutifully made the rounds of newspapers in the Commonwealth.  I was assigned to interview him.

He was a big and imposing man, the size of a retired NFL linebacker or tight end (and I've met a couple of those).  He wore a fine suit and I noticed he had holes in the soles of his wingtip shoes.

We spoke about some of the issues of the day, which I've forgotten.  I do remember two things: He told me how his mother, Rose Kennedy (he did not mention his father) had raised all her children to understand that they had been blessed at birth with great wealth and privilege, and that with that good fortune came an obligation to help the less fortunate.

Then he spoke about his son, Patrick, who had recently been treated for cancer.  This isn't verbatim, but it's close:

"I'm a very wealthy man," he said. "My son had the best medical care money can buy.  What I want to know is, how is it that in this country of ours the child of parents who work hard every day but have no insurance and little money will be treated so differently than the child of parents who, like me, inherited great wealth?"

In the ensuing years, I have often thought about that question.  I've thought about it a lot more since the health care debate took off, and since Sen. Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer.  I have never heard an answer to that question.

He was a fallible man, to be sure.  His name will forever be linked with the word "Chappaquiddick."  I have often been impressed at how many self-styled Christians had and have no reluctance to "cast the first stone" when it came to him.  Personally, having shared with Ted Kennedy a very Boston Irish Catholic upbringing, I've always been reluctant to cast metaphorical stones at anyone.

I can understand how someone might disagree ideologically with some or all of Ted Kennedy's positions on issues.  But I fail to see how anyone can look at his record and see anything other than a life devoted to following his mother's admonition to try to help those less blessed - by God, or Fate, or whatever - than he was.

Political pundits can talk about Kennedy's legislative history.  I still think of the question he posed 33 years ago.  If ordinary hardworking people and their children are entitled to the same medical care as the inheritors of great wealth, do you call that "socialism"?

If the inheritors (or even earners) of great wealth are by that fact alone entitled to better medical care than people who go to work every day and do the best they can to provide for their loved ones, what do you call that?  "Hereditary aristocracy"?  That would certainly encompass both the Kennedys and the Bushes and many more rich families, and the present state of health care.

I realize that some will choose to focus on Ted Kennedy's faults and failures. That's a great "out" because it means they don't have to deal with the issues of fairness and social justice that he raised.  But in addition to the question he posed to me 33 years ago, I would add these two questions:

1.  Should we, who have been blessed with wealth and health, follow Ted Kennedy's example and try to help those less fortunate than ourselves? Politically speaking, isn't Kennedy's mission consistent with the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which states that its purpose is, among other things, to "promote the general welfare"?

2.  If your answer to question 1 is no, please explain.