It’s not that no one else cares about the truth. It’s that no one puts any stock in Ek’s political punditry. Ek statements like: “these turncoats rode Paul LePage's coattails to a senate majority,” are a good reason why.
Fact: senate republicans won 76,500 more votes than the governor did statewide (the so-called turncoats collectively received 25,000 more votes than the gov received in their districts).
That someone could have such a skewed perspective isn’t funny. It’s very sad.
I have no direct knowledge of the others but I know the ever-supple Tom Saviello's first reaction to the budget was that he would be happy to see it. Then he got some phone calls and now he "can't support that budget." And he tells a teacher's meeting in Franklin County that "we can't balance the budget on the backs of the teachers." He did not say upon whose backs the budget is to be balanced, but logic seems to point to the taxpayers.
ODF: "It was pretty disappointing to find only one other AMGer who cared a whit about the truth."
Caring about the truth and trying to wring a confession from someone are two different things. It is possible for us to find our own information without taking part in the personal bickering between other AMGers.
And he tells a teacher's meeting in Franklin County that "we can't balance the budget on the backs of the teachers."
Don't you love hearing Democrat talking points coming from the mouths of GOP legislators?
I think he's the one who wants to extend the pension pay-back period. Let him say so without spreading the other side's propaganda.
No doubt the modest cut to our top tax rate will be among the first of LePage's budget proposals to be dropped.
I have been a political junkie for pretty near as long as my friend Roger has been one. One does not have to be clairvoyant, but merely a student of politics and political history to see where this is all headed.
The left of center is so stirred up by Gov LePage's actions that they are a hornets nest that someone rode a bicycle through. The Turncoat 8 recognize, that in THEIR districts, support for LePage, if there ever was much, is vanishing rapidly under a bunch of rabid dogs and that if they want to have a political future, they need to divorce Paul LePage immediately.
This criticism of Gov LePage, if warranted, could easily have been done privately, and would accomplish the idea of trying to get him to soften his message a bit.
The very fact that this message was delivered very PUBLICLY and very LOUDLY was proof that it was directed not at the R's but at the L's that make up most of the votes in those 8 districts. The Redcoats are intersted in their own a**es and could care less about anything to do with Paul LePage from this moment forward.
Proof of this is in political history. How things are done is pretty indicative of what will follow as most all of this kind of stuff has been seen before. Cause and effect is a matter of history. Now that Turncoat 8 have loudly procalimed this message, it is a foregone conclusion, supported by political history, that they will now continue to move in a leftward direction on everything, including the budget, as they have sent a loud message that they don't want to be associated with Paul lePage or anything he tries to do. Words are cheap, especially to politicians, but actions speak much louder, just watch.
I supported the Tea Party goals along with Roger Ek and lots of other Mainers and other folks around this nation. Those goals are still good goals and will be heard from again in elections. I suggest that the Turncoat 8 were never supporters of the Tea Party goals from the beginning. It is pretty clear that one could not win elections in their districts by strongly supporting Tea Party objectives.
I am dissapointed that these 8 needed to make such a public pronouncement but that is politics. I thought the Republican coalition to be shaky at best, from day one of the new legislature. Those who need to will disavow the party if it is important to their next election. Keep in mind that our two ladies in the senate are so far from Tea Party objectives, and even traditional Republican party issues that it is laughable.
The overall Republican party win, statewide, in the last election, came about in part because of Tea Party activities. Unfortunatley those activities are not very popular in the liberal part of Maine, that part that is next to Massachusetts.
Like my friend Roger, I too am disappointed at this very public activity, and share his disgust at probably seeing now, some of what many folks who helped elect Paul Lepage to do, is going down the toilet after a very satisfactory start. Just like Roger, I believe the Tea Party has been shrugged off by most upper level Republicans in Maine, like a horse shrugs off a fly. Elections are quickly forgotten after political realities set in.
But to repeatedly "dis" a long time Republican Party activist like Roger, is regrettable. Nothing good will come from it, but perhaps that is the intent.
Roger has been one of the grunts in the trenches, working for the party for much of his life, much like my own mother did for 50 yrs in this state, and these folks are quickly forgotten sometimes once the heads swell up from the air in Augusta. There is no one on AMG that I am aware of that has worked any longer or any harder on Repbulican party issues than Roger. Lets flog the progessives in this state and not our own.
Beautiful speech, WC! Well done!
Now, can we please get some answers from Roger Ek?
I’d like to know what his coattails calculation is.
Bob Emrich: "Caring about the truth and trying to wring a confession from someone are two different things. It is possible for us to find our own information without taking part in the personal bickering between other AMGers."
I understand that concern about "bickering" but the fact is that Roger Ek made a slanderous and baseless accusation here about the senate republicans. That slanderous and baseless accusation was then picked up in the Tea Party and Refounders forums across the state.
When I asked here where that accusation came from Roger Ek was first dismissive and then absolutely silent. And Jim Cyrs response was "ODF, your complaint is getting mind-numbingly monotonous." And that seemed to signal an end to the conversation.
Two points of clarification: I am unenrolled and have no dog in this fight. But I do detest it when people make up accusations about anyone out of whole cloth and then refuse to discuss the accusations. It is dishonest and destructive. As you can see if you look at Maine Tea Party sheep sites.
Second It did not start out a "complaint" [though it sure is now.] It started out a question and part of a dialogue. Until the refusal and dismissal of a valid question.
Pat Riot: "It’s not that no one else cares about the truth. It’s that no one puts any stock in Ek’s political punditry."
Thanks. That explains a lot. I didnt start out thinking that but it sure has become evident from the messages I got last night.
Unless you live outside of the state of Maine, you most certainly do have a "dog in this fight." If you live by sucking of the public teat, you are rooting for the dark side. If you are trying to make a living by working in the dreaded private sector, you are rooting for common sense and the principle of personal accountability. If you are one of the "Spineless Eight", you don't know what you want other than to be re-elected.
ODF: If you have no dog, and you're an independent, why are you traipsing around through Tea Party sites folks like me know nothing about?
More crack punditry. Still, no answers.
ODF " But I do detest it when people make up accusations about anyone out of whole cloth "
That is kind of what I thought when you implied AMGers who chose not to participate in the thread do not care about the truth. :)
mr. roger ek posts a fully false statement, old dame fortune questions mr. ek's statement, mr. ek has not the decency to give old dame fortune a direct answer, and yet there are amg posters on this thread critical of odf for asking her question? at the same time the same amg posters are giving mr. ek a pass?
my thanks to you, odf, for your persistence. i am sorry for the boorish reaction from some, not all, amg posters.
What's the point of weighing on the ODF/Ek conflict when we don't know what is actually being done with the budget in the appropriations and tax committees?
Unless someone has facts, it's speculation either way.
We do know how the red tape reduction effort is unfolding - LD 1 is ready for a final hearing, after the "extreme" stuff has been stripped out.
Among the extreme stuff taken out was the Cutler proposal embraced by LePage to replace BEP with a panel of judges.
I wonder, if Cutler had won the election, would people still call this an "extreme" proposal?
Correction. We do know this much: The taxation committee has rejected the governor's proposal to change the way revenue sharing works.
Does the fact that someone has been an activist , whatever that means , for years negate an answer to the question ?
It would be nice to see the factual basis for the accusation or is it because of above a persons' activism it is supposed to be left as is with no explanantion.
Crickets and peepers from Roger Ek.
Nine days after the slanderous statement was made by Roger Ek there is still no retraction. Rather than admit he misspoke or had a brain hiccup or even out and out lied he remains silently standing by a claim he made up and pulled from a stinky part of his anatomy.
"Now in 2011 we have a group of Republicans blocking the LePage budget"
I don't know why you are asking Roger Ek to "prove" this statement. Every member of the legislature knows it - it's like asking for proof that the Democrats want more government spending. My soundings among legislators indicate that LePage does not even have a majority of the Republican caucus on board with his budget. The Lettergate 8 in the Senate are certainly opposed to the pension reforms, etc.
There are still deals in the works, but the LePage budget is dead - and the weak kneed girlie men in the GOP killed it. Maybe we should offer to swap legislatures with Wisconsin - they didn't roll over, even when besieged by 75,000 crazies. Our guys and gals headed for the hills after a few irate emails from the hogs at the trough.
Anyone with a grasp of politics in this state knows full well that the 8 went public with this because it amounted to a "political divorce" from Paul LePage, his politics and his budget proposal as well as trying to put distance between the mural and all the other stuff that has happened.
Main reason: They are looking out for their own a**es in the next election. To them that is far more important than trying to put the state on a sound financial footing. They might as well have DEM after their names.
Why they did this is clear as a crystal to anyone with the ability to think. No one has to defend talking about the "inevitable". We all know what is coming.
thrasybulus, you post as if you have direct knowledge of the inner workings of the maine legislative caucuses regarding governor lepage's budget proposal. yet you offer not one bit of evidence to substantiate your post. no wonder you are so quick to pooh-pooh requests for mr. ek to substantiate his claims of insider knowledge. birds of a feather?
I just clicked on this thread for the first time in several days and I see that Dolly, ODF or whoever she is is having a hissy fit over "the gang of eight", (not a term I originated) and the folks who are slowing progress on the budget. When somebody tells me something in confidence I don't name that person unless he releases me from that promise. I may check back into this thread later in the month. In the meantime, play nice all you anonymous posters.
By the way. I believe that Greg Fish runs a newspaper on MDI.
Only the truth will be known when a budget is passed and signed into law. I do not believe for one moment that a gov. will not end up signing a budget that gets a start on what they want to accomplish! The whole process was shot this final 6 months with DHHS shortfalls and needs. The proposals are what govs. do they do not and have not enacted a budget by themselves.
What if the 8 come up with ideas and ways to meet needs and address issues are they still to be vilified?
An example was the MTA thing, At first some things were said then what did a gov. do? Turned down the
rhetoric and recognized there was a purpose and he saw a future need they could meet!
This guy is no different then any other gov. once in office. Anyone with any knowledge of politics knows that.
The only issue is when they are willing to acknowledge that!
Thank you, Roger. I was going to post something along the lines of "maybe he's on vacation or not checking in, or maybe just doesn't have much time to post". I have been on AMG for quite some time, and the display by several posters in REPEATEDLY (and I do mean repeatedly) going after you for not "explaining" was one of the low points on here. It bordered on nasty, and was clearly personalized.
I hope some people on here can GET A LIFE.
In hindsight wouldn't it be prudent to acknowledge that a source has requested to be confidential eliminating anyones' questioning it ! If the source had been identified as confidential (anonymous) then "anonymous" posters'
need to ask could have been nullified.
Wodocanoe, I agree with your earlier statements and understanding of why the eight did what they did..I would only add one thought for people to consider....the biggest hurdle for the tea party backers is getting people to understand their premise, their roots and their concerns. There is more misinformation about the tea party than there is truth and fact and until people understand their mission, the party activists will continue to be villified by some and pushed aside by others using what i can only call information by proxy.
I will also point out that no member is obligated to answer any question posed to them on the forum. Of course, in the interest of good debate, it is preferable if folks being questioned do give some kind of explanation or response, if they can. That's their choice, however.
Repeated baiting gets old, and should be taken to PM.
I have been on AMG for quite some time, and the display by several posters in REPEATEDLY (and I do mean repeatedly) going after you for not "explaining" was one of the low points on here. It bordered on nasty,. . .
I would have to agree. And thank you too, Thrasybulus, for your coment.
you offer not one bit of evidence to substantiate your post
Well, I can't really rat out the people I'm talking to in the legislature, but you all have telephones too. Call a legislator who trusts you and ask 'em - you'll get an earfull.
And don't snitch on them by name. That is journalism 101:-)
Thras - to whom is your comment directed?
I see a lot of drive-by posters with no proof to back up their claims. Then when asked, they claim confidentiality or anonymity, as if that will make the whole matter disappear and any discussion cease.
Now I am not one to "bait", but it seems if drive-by shots are taken, some explanation should be due other than what we have seen here. This is how rumors and innuendo are started. Here's a hint folks...if someone tells you something in confidence and wishes not to be named, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Otherwise you run the risk of damaging your credibility or that of your confidant. In either case, it does little good and contains no reliable substance.
I agree whole-heartedly with the "divorce, Republican style" comment.
Moderate, trans-political, bi-political, RINO, questioning; seems like we have the makings of a new minority working to make itself recognized among the chattering and 'hacademic" class.