This morning I continued catching up with Roxbury's reports. Good stuff.This video (FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL) is illustrative of what happens when incumbents stay well past their expiration date.
Much like undrinkable, spoiled milk, Reed's ability to do good works for our city has been sorely compromised by his need to feed his own political machine. He simply can't be an efficient steward of our tax dollars when his loyalties are bound by his primary obligation to keep his campaign coffers filled. And how does he keep the coffers piled high? He takes care of those that take care of him.
Unlike Obama, who mainly financed his operation with grassroots internet donations, Reed is beholden to the machine cogs first, tax payers second. More often than not, this is a common theme in politics. The longer you play the game, the sooner the game starts playing you.
Oh my fellow voters, where is your umbrage? Oh yeah, you're scared of change and believe what the "smoke" machine wants you to believe. The saddest thing is that most of you voted to break the paradigm of stagnancy by voting for a fresh face (Obama!) last November. Why won't you throw in the towel on Reed yet?
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
Each (*) represents a year Reed will have been in office if he wins an 8th term. Is the city better than it was? Well...was when? Reed has lost his mojo. He's been there so long that people who say he has done wonders for this city have to go back ice ages just to make a useful comparison.
**** ****
Above is each year (*) George W. Bush had in office. Thank God Bush was term limited. He only had 8 years to do damage. Imagine if he had 8 terms?! Better yet, imagine if Reed was President. Every city would have five museums. Hell, Reed would probably put a museum on Egyptian history in Barrow, Alaska. The guy needs geography lessons.
Hmm, again, the definition of insanity comes back into play: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In this case, electing the same creature over and over again and expecting a nearly 32 year incumbent to suddenly produce results after so many poor decisions on his part.
6 comments:
This is not a good post--too much insinuation and not enough facts. I am not disputing what you say, but rather your lack of substantiation. To whom is the mayor beholding? How much and in what way did these beholders benefit? Contracts? Grants? Did the mayor's largesse result in any improvements to the city or was this just "cash in pocket?" This is just too political. Facts, man, facts. Tell us what you know--if you indeed know anything.
If you had seen the list of Reed's contributors, there is a clear link between where the money comes from and whom benefits in the small club that is Harrisburg politics.
The post was spot on. You already told me that you are unable to open Roxbury's quicktime videos because you are not computer literate. Since you did not view those videos, I think that you are lacking the facts to form a substantive argument.
With that being said, go ahead and vote for the mayor like I expect you will. Do the conservative thing. Continue to live with lower expectations. The fact is that you aren't interested in facts.
Forbes Magazine listed Harrisburg as the 12th most desireable city in the USA in which to live. How did it get to be that way do you think? (Maybe Steve Forbes is one of those beholding to the mayor!) But I jest. . . Your response did not address my original question: name names and cite examples as I asked. I am interested in the facts, but you haven't provided them yet.
You are making me go back and review the video. Nice. I get it, you don't want to watch it. I will indulge your sophist tendencies "Harris."
Okay, let's see. We have people with ties to apartment building renovations and/or construction giving $2500 to Reed in the past few months. One of the groups giving $2500 is seeking a use variance from the city's zoning hearing board. Then there is Reynolds giving $2500. His construction firm is involved in the SciTech schools and incinerator.
It's pay to play. I am sure you will need more examples. Look at the law firms that give money and get city bond work. On and on. People give campaign money to grease the wheels, but no one ever really admits to it. Sure, relationships with Reed have been forged, but come on, none of this giving and taking is fresh smelling.
We really need campaign finance reform at all levels. Right now there is just too much going on that is suspicious. Frankly, in this town, it is always the same people benefiting. "Eternal incumbency" brings about this sort of coziness.
As for the Forbes list. It was the whole Harrisburg region that made it, the entire metro area bub. With your logic you may as well give sole credit for that ranking to me because I live here.
Now, why don't you give me some FACTS as to why Thompson and Ford are so unworthy of your vote, and this doesn't mean I want to hear why you love Reed. That chatter from your mouth is tired at best. I still think Thompson and Ford are better than Reed, in spite of the fact that neither knocked on my door.
Coke pays an up-front premium to keep Pepsi out of Riverfront Park so it can gouge the public with high prices for drinks. The money received may be used to pay the police department for services and protection at the event. The police department deposits that money in a bank account, and the bank, "grateful" for the business, provides an evening of fireworks along the river, thereby attracting the public where Coke can sell its over-priced drinks. That is how business works.
It is not surprising that the "incumbent" should have received funds from local businesses since many if not most contribute to all campaigns, winners and losers. I repeat again: I am not opposing your assumptions, I am merely pointing out that your comments are poor journalism. Who are "they" and what illegal activites took place?
Wow. What we are talking about here is favoritism toward people and businesses that contribute to a politician and in turn they gain preferential treatment.
Now suppose a non-contributor to Reed could perform a city-related function for half the cost. Sounds great, right? Well, guess who gets the contract? That's right! The Reed contributor gets the public tax dollar funded work from the city BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTE TO REED. If this followed your Coke vs. Pepsi theory, then the soft drink maker able to provide services for the lower amount would get it. Not so in politics.
You are also ignoring far too many ages of Reed being an inept mayor by splitting hairs over pay-to-play.
What about Reed paying law firm Cozen O'Connor to fight city council, the firm charging $750/hour overall for services, and then having a Cozen O'Connor attorney bill $450/hr (must have been a discount)for attending a Reed fundraiser? Oh, they spoke about the case briefly. Great. This article is interesting too: http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2009/04/20/daily23.html?ana=from_rss. Nice Wolf Block redux.
What about the museum artifacts and that waste?
What about the possible post-primary shit storm that will occur when Reed (if he wins) sells off city assets to cover incinerator debt? That's like selling your liver to save your heart.
What about the lies regarding how much better city schools are doing?
What about the high crime that is worse than DC or NYC per capita?
What about not having more city police? Oh yeah, they used money for that to pay for Reed suing city council.
What about John Levenda having a nice $90000+ job for DOING NOTHING? Oh yeah he gave money to Reed too, a nice $1000 on 10/10/07. I am sure there are more instances also. Oh wait, is this pay-to-play too? Hmmm...
You can tell me this is poor journalism all you want if it helps you feel good about voting for Reed. Frankly this blog isn't supposed to be the NY Times. More to the point, you aren't even looking at the linked material, thus you are hardly participating in the discourse. Rather you, seem hell bent merely on supporting Reed out of fear. Fear borne out the 1960's race riots.
Grow up Ronn, it's 2009.
Post a Comment