If it's Biden, this may explain Obama waiting so long to make the VP announcement
By Paul Goldman
Following-up on this morning's earlier analysis, never in the history of modern presidential campaigning during this primary-dominated era has someone who fared so poorly as did Senator Biden this year been chosen for the Vice-Presidency over someone who did so well such as Senator Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, never before as a better performing candidate been rejected for a worse performing candidate, not to mention in this case a near winner being rejected for a huge loser, indeed someone who has now been forced to twice withdraw from the presidential contest after his campaign did so poorly.
If it's Biden, my gut says: The Obama high command was worried about a potential backlash from Clinton supporters for several reasons, not the least is the fact that the Clinton campaign made her gender such a big part of her strategy, and now, here again, we see the woman rejected for a man who she crushed in the primaries.
By keeping the Biden thing under wraps until the weekend before the Democratic Convention, when key Clinton operatives and feminist activists will be otherwise somewhat distracted by the need to be traveling to Denver, this makes any such big backlash being part of the narrative a lot less possible.
Once folks get to Denver, with Senator Clinton due to speak on Tuesday night, this calendar maneuver I think is calculated to reduce any possible " once again, the woman plays by the rules, beats the man, but he gets the job anyway" type of backlash in the media against Biden's nomination.
Think about it: The polls show that most of the Hillary constituency wants her to run for VEEP. They think she earned it.
She crushed Biden, who while a super-guy and a solid Democrat, still lost badly. He didn't have the money nor the opportunity to show what he could do, that's true, and he has a solid record in office.
But the operative issue is simply that he got beat, by her, and badly.
So, again we thinking out loud in terms of the average Clinton backer, why is that Hillary, the woman, loses to Biden, the man, for the VP prize?
As people know, I have addressed the issues of gender, race, and the like in several articles in the past in major dailies, I wrote some new one's this year, but the news media has chosen this time to review them, and in the end not to publish them.
In my view, the Obama team has been worried about a possible backlash being played out in the 24/7 media political echo chamber - not on the Convention floor - so they have reduced the time available for it.
For Senator Clinton's 18 million I think it is voters, and millions more, especially women who she targeted with her campaign strategy, the sense of hurt and rejection is a fair concern for Democratic leaders to have. Joe Biden has a solid Democratic record. But again, he got beat big time by Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton will be addressing it in her Convention speech, you can bet on that. So will her husband.
So if it is Biden, don't be surprised if the GOP tries to play some political games here.
Senator Bayh, a Clinton backer, would not have the Biden circumstance, the same for Governor Kaine, since he backed Obama, and in that regard, it is understandable that he would be more likely to be chosen than Senator Clinton.
Biden didn't back Obama, he ran against Hillary, he got beat big time.
Yet he ends up with the prize.
That is going to be the view of a lot of Clinton supporters in middle America.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Why Robert Grey and Bill Pantele are in Dire Straits
[To be read with the Dire Straits Grammy-winning song "Money for Nothing" playing in the background on your MTV].
By Paul Goldman
Whose wasting the most taxpayer money, Robert Grey by backing the Mayor's budget spending, or Bill Pantele, by opposing it?
Truth is, both Robert and Bill are both wasting big $, indeed the same Big $, but at least Mr. Grey can say he isn't trying to hide anything. For some reason, the local news media has yet to inform the public about the level of spending in certain key areas at City Hall during these first two months of the new fiscal year: and how the rate of spending compares to the expected level of spending in such areas as contained in the City Council budget, which Mr. Pantele and his City Council posse claim is legal, although they refuse to try and enforce it!
Robert, Bill and I are lawyers of sorts, so we know this basic tenet of law, namely that the chief executive of a locality must have legal authority, through action by the legislative branch, before he or she can legally expend public funds. The Wilder Administration says it has such lawful authority due to the automatic enactment of the Mayor's budget on account of the failure of the Council to pass it's budget according to the requirements of the City Charter.
As indicated, big firm corporate lawyer Mr. Grey agrees with Hizzoner: small firm general practice lawyer Mr. Pantele naturally backs his own handiwork.
But focusing on the legal side of the feud misses the wasteful spending side, for as the feudists fiddle, the Wilder Administration burns up public dollars. The Council budget and the Mayor's budget differed significantly in certain areas of spending. However, the actual total annual amount of such spending is only one aspect of how big $ money can be wasted: there is also the rate of monthly spending in these certain areas by City Hall.
Remember: An executive generally has discretion as to the rate of his/her spending in any given month in many areas unless the law provides otherwise. Soon, we will be 2 months into the new budget year. The Wilder Administration says it is following their spending plan, not the Council's, to the extent there are no legally binding ordinances on the books.
What Big $ waste can this situation produce? Let's use round numbers to develop a hypothetical example. Assume the Mayor's budget proposed spending say $2,000,000 for public relations. The Council budget however only appropriated $1,000,000 in this area. .
Thus, assume they are are feuding over which is the legal appropriation, $2M or $1M.
But under either legal theory, the Mayor could spend $1M during this FY 09 before it could be argued that he has exceeded the law, since even if the Council budget was to be ultimately proven to be the legal one, their budget gave the Mayor $1M to spend in that area.
So here is the "rub" as they say. The Council appropriation in the above example presumed that this $1M would be spent over the 12 month period in some fairly regular fashion. But standard practice would be to leave the monthly the rate of such spending for the executive to decide. Thus, in the example above, the Mayor has the legal right to spend the full $1M during the last six months of his term, which is the first six months of the current fiscal year.
Query: Going from the above example used to explain the budget math to what is actually going in Richmond right, is the Council's failure on the budget, and the media's failing to focus on the issue, leading to a waste big $ due to the Wilder Administration's rate of spending in certain areas?
Remember: In the example above, the Council presumably thought that any spending in excess of it's $1M was wasteful and unnecessary. But if the Wilder Administration, using the math above, was spending at a rate of 2x what the Council thought was necessary, this would equate to the Mayor exhausting the entire million in just six months.
The above is just a example to help explain basic budget math.
But between Wilder and Grey's legal position on one side, and Pantele along with City Council on the other side, this begs the question:
What is the rate that Mayor Wilder is burning up public money in certain areas?
The Mayor says things are going along as usual at City Hall.
What does that mean in terms of spending in certain areas?
Surely Council, by virtue of elective responsibility, and the media, by the obligations of the fourth estate, have a duty to get the public the facts so we can judge ourselves.
Mr. Pantele objected to my saying that he and the other Council members, along with the staff of City Hall and City Council, were wheeling and dealing behind closed doors during these many weeks of the unprecedented situation of having no budget. He said they were hiding nothing.
But yet, the public has been told nothing officially, as Councilwoman Ellen Robertson, head of the Finance Committee, admitted in the RTD on Tuesday.
Mr. Pantele claims in his campaign literature that wants to be the "people's Mayor." Mr. Grey in his campaign handout says he has a different "attitude" than the Wilder Administration and that the people deserve "new approaches."
Unfortunately, their talk may not be very cheap at all: in their own way, they are perpetuating the same old things in the same old ways, getting the same old results.
More legalese from lawyers who, while taking different sides of the argument, wind-up justifying what could be just another Big $ raid on the public treasury.
By Paul Goldman
Whose wasting the most taxpayer money, Robert Grey by backing the Mayor's budget spending, or Bill Pantele, by opposing it?
Truth is, both Robert and Bill are both wasting big $, indeed the same Big $, but at least Mr. Grey can say he isn't trying to hide anything. For some reason, the local news media has yet to inform the public about the level of spending in certain key areas at City Hall during these first two months of the new fiscal year: and how the rate of spending compares to the expected level of spending in such areas as contained in the City Council budget, which Mr. Pantele and his City Council posse claim is legal, although they refuse to try and enforce it!
Robert, Bill and I are lawyers of sorts, so we know this basic tenet of law, namely that the chief executive of a locality must have legal authority, through action by the legislative branch, before he or she can legally expend public funds. The Wilder Administration says it has such lawful authority due to the automatic enactment of the Mayor's budget on account of the failure of the Council to pass it's budget according to the requirements of the City Charter.
As indicated, big firm corporate lawyer Mr. Grey agrees with Hizzoner: small firm general practice lawyer Mr. Pantele naturally backs his own handiwork.
But focusing on the legal side of the feud misses the wasteful spending side, for as the feudists fiddle, the Wilder Administration burns up public dollars. The Council budget and the Mayor's budget differed significantly in certain areas of spending. However, the actual total annual amount of such spending is only one aspect of how big $ money can be wasted: there is also the rate of monthly spending in these certain areas by City Hall.
Remember: An executive generally has discretion as to the rate of his/her spending in any given month in many areas unless the law provides otherwise. Soon, we will be 2 months into the new budget year. The Wilder Administration says it is following their spending plan, not the Council's, to the extent there are no legally binding ordinances on the books.
What Big $ waste can this situation produce? Let's use round numbers to develop a hypothetical example. Assume the Mayor's budget proposed spending say $2,000,000 for public relations. The Council budget however only appropriated $1,000,000 in this area. .
Thus, assume they are are feuding over which is the legal appropriation, $2M or $1M.
But under either legal theory, the Mayor could spend $1M during this FY 09 before it could be argued that he has exceeded the law, since even if the Council budget was to be ultimately proven to be the legal one, their budget gave the Mayor $1M to spend in that area.
So here is the "rub" as they say. The Council appropriation in the above example presumed that this $1M would be spent over the 12 month period in some fairly regular fashion. But standard practice would be to leave the monthly the rate of such spending for the executive to decide. Thus, in the example above, the Mayor has the legal right to spend the full $1M during the last six months of his term, which is the first six months of the current fiscal year.
Query: Going from the above example used to explain the budget math to what is actually going in Richmond right, is the Council's failure on the budget, and the media's failing to focus on the issue, leading to a waste big $ due to the Wilder Administration's rate of spending in certain areas?
Remember: In the example above, the Council presumably thought that any spending in excess of it's $1M was wasteful and unnecessary. But if the Wilder Administration, using the math above, was spending at a rate of 2x what the Council thought was necessary, this would equate to the Mayor exhausting the entire million in just six months.
The above is just a example to help explain basic budget math.
But between Wilder and Grey's legal position on one side, and Pantele along with City Council on the other side, this begs the question:
What is the rate that Mayor Wilder is burning up public money in certain areas?
The Mayor says things are going along as usual at City Hall.
What does that mean in terms of spending in certain areas?
Surely Council, by virtue of elective responsibility, and the media, by the obligations of the fourth estate, have a duty to get the public the facts so we can judge ourselves.
Mr. Pantele objected to my saying that he and the other Council members, along with the staff of City Hall and City Council, were wheeling and dealing behind closed doors during these many weeks of the unprecedented situation of having no budget. He said they were hiding nothing.
But yet, the public has been told nothing officially, as Councilwoman Ellen Robertson, head of the Finance Committee, admitted in the RTD on Tuesday.
Mr. Pantele claims in his campaign literature that wants to be the "people's Mayor." Mr. Grey in his campaign handout says he has a different "attitude" than the Wilder Administration and that the people deserve "new approaches."
Unfortunately, their talk may not be very cheap at all: in their own way, they are perpetuating the same old things in the same old ways, getting the same old results.
More legalese from lawyers who, while taking different sides of the argument, wind-up justifying what could be just another Big $ raid on the public treasury.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Deep cuts in Mayor's office, Mayor's entourage, cost of City Council, top-level of city bureaucracy must be made: and now.
Goldman for Mayor - 19 August 2008 - For Immediate Release - Contact, 804-833-6313
"Any budget deal without deep cuts to Mayor's Office, the Mayor's entourage, the cost of the City Council, the top levels of the bloated and most expensive city bureaucracy in the state, is both unacceptable and irresponsible."
Goldman calls the 1% solution headlined in today's RTD "a an election-year back-room deal that someone with level of graduate education in public budgeting knows to be - and I am sorry to have to say it - amateur hour."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "the revelations in this morning's Richmond Times Dispatch - based on material given to the newspaper only after Delegate Jones and I showed real leadership by challenging City Hall and City Council to reveal their wheeling and dealing behind closed doors - prove that Delegate Jones and myself "peeped Mayor Doug Wilder and City Council Bill Pantele's hole card" as they say in poker.
My experience had taught me that when elected officials order financial wheeling and dealing in the back-rooms so as to keep the public in the dark, there is usually something they are trying to hide from the public.
If Mr. Jones' reporting is correct, then our elected officials actually think that it is both fiscally prudent and fair to the people that the parks, the libraries, and other vital services be cut as much as the most wasteful, expensive, bloated and top-heavy City Hall and City Council in Richmond's history.
This kind of across-the-board budgeting technique is considered the height of amateurism by those of us who have studied public budgeting at the graduate level.
With all due respect to my friends Doug Wilder and Bill Pantele, they have allowed a bloated, top-heavy, wasteful City Hall and City Council bureaucracy to bleed the public treasury dry, to the point where we now, by their own admission, face a record budget deficit.
They have created an unprecedented fiscal mess, with Richmond now almost 2 months into the new fiscal year, with a deficit budget, something that is not permitted, much less even contemplated, by the City Charter.
City Hall preaches accountability, so does City Council.
The time has come for them to accept their responsibility and be accountable for the fiscal mess they have created.
There is only one way to achieve a fiscally responsible and fair resolution to the budget mess they have created: And that is going to require deep cuts in the Mayor's Office, the Mayor's entourage, the top levels of the city bureaucracy, the cost of City Council, for starters."
------------------- 30 ----------------
"Any budget deal without deep cuts to Mayor's Office, the Mayor's entourage, the cost of the City Council, the top levels of the bloated and most expensive city bureaucracy in the state, is both unacceptable and irresponsible."
Goldman calls the 1% solution headlined in today's RTD "a an election-year back-room deal that someone with level of graduate education in public budgeting knows to be - and I am sorry to have to say it - amateur hour."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "the revelations in this morning's Richmond Times Dispatch - based on material given to the newspaper only after Delegate Jones and I showed real leadership by challenging City Hall and City Council to reveal their wheeling and dealing behind closed doors - prove that Delegate Jones and myself "peeped Mayor Doug Wilder and City Council Bill Pantele's hole card" as they say in poker.
My experience had taught me that when elected officials order financial wheeling and dealing in the back-rooms so as to keep the public in the dark, there is usually something they are trying to hide from the public.
If Mr. Jones' reporting is correct, then our elected officials actually think that it is both fiscally prudent and fair to the people that the parks, the libraries, and other vital services be cut as much as the most wasteful, expensive, bloated and top-heavy City Hall and City Council in Richmond's history.
This kind of across-the-board budgeting technique is considered the height of amateurism by those of us who have studied public budgeting at the graduate level.
With all due respect to my friends Doug Wilder and Bill Pantele, they have allowed a bloated, top-heavy, wasteful City Hall and City Council bureaucracy to bleed the public treasury dry, to the point where we now, by their own admission, face a record budget deficit.
They have created an unprecedented fiscal mess, with Richmond now almost 2 months into the new fiscal year, with a deficit budget, something that is not permitted, much less even contemplated, by the City Charter.
City Hall preaches accountability, so does City Council.
The time has come for them to accept their responsibility and be accountable for the fiscal mess they have created.
There is only one way to achieve a fiscally responsible and fair resolution to the budget mess they have created: And that is going to require deep cuts in the Mayor's Office, the Mayor's entourage, the top levels of the city bureaucracy, the cost of City Council, for starters."
------------------- 30 ----------------
Monday, August 18, 2008
Goldman cites President Lincoln in defending seniors, retirees, while challenging City Hall, City Council
Goldman for Mayor - 18th August 2008 - Release 9 AM - Contact, 804-833-6313
City Attorney said COLA enactment part of legally valid budget ordinance
Goldman worried "back-room political deal may be made by City Council and City Hall that will hurt the many senior citizens who had thought they could count on city leaders to abide by the law and provide what the City Attorney says is a legally valid cost of living pension adjustment."
Goldman says such a back-room deal "would be terrible for Richmond's image."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "it is one thing for the Mayor and the City Council to heap blame on each other with endless finger-pointing. But it something entirely different when the result is to hurt innocent senior citizens and other city retirees by cutting their pension benefits.
"The City Attorney says the City Council budget is legal, which means the Cost of Living Adjustment [COLA] so included was properly granted. Thus, the practical effect of City Hall and City Council making a back-room deal to renege and eliminate this COLA amounts to cutting the pensions benefits of many economically squeezed senior citizens below what was promised by law a few weeks ago, creating a terrible image for the City of Richmond.
"Delegate Jones and myself are here today to tell City Hall and City Council that President Lincoln was right, they can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but on this issue, City Hall and City Council aren't fooling anyone any longer if their back-room budget deal reneges on the legal promise made to these senior citizen and other retirees."
-------------30 ------------------
City Attorney said COLA enactment part of legally valid budget ordinance
Goldman worried "back-room political deal may be made by City Council and City Hall that will hurt the many senior citizens who had thought they could count on city leaders to abide by the law and provide what the City Attorney says is a legally valid cost of living pension adjustment."
Goldman says such a back-room deal "would be terrible for Richmond's image."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "it is one thing for the Mayor and the City Council to heap blame on each other with endless finger-pointing. But it something entirely different when the result is to hurt innocent senior citizens and other city retirees by cutting their pension benefits.
"The City Attorney says the City Council budget is legal, which means the Cost of Living Adjustment [COLA] so included was properly granted. Thus, the practical effect of City Hall and City Council making a back-room deal to renege and eliminate this COLA amounts to cutting the pensions benefits of many economically squeezed senior citizens below what was promised by law a few weeks ago, creating a terrible image for the City of Richmond.
"Delegate Jones and myself are here today to tell City Hall and City Council that President Lincoln was right, they can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but on this issue, City Hall and City Council aren't fooling anyone any longer if their back-room budget deal reneges on the legal promise made to these senior citizen and other retirees."
-------------30 ------------------
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Robert Grey's 100% support for Mayor Wilder's confrontational, illegal budget action is a defining moment in his campaign.
Goldman for Mayor - For Immediate Release - Contract, 804-833-6313
Robert Grey's full support for City Hall's confrontational, illegal budget action shows that a Grey Administration would be just more of the same, not the "change" he claims.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that not "only is Robert Grey wrong on the law, his support last night for City Hall's confrontational "my way or the highway" illegal approach on the budget, the same attitude having previously given us Fiasco Friday among other things, shows Robert would just be more of the same, that he isn't anything like the change he is pretending to be."."
"Robert talks a good game, but at last night's debate, he made the amazingly revealing statement that he was in total support of the illegal, confrontational City Hall budget action taken by Mayor Wilder that has created an unprecedented budget situation in Richmond."
"Fortunately, the Grey statement was caught on video, and in my view, it may in retrospect prove to be the defining moment in his campaign."
-------30------------------
Robert Grey's full support for City Hall's confrontational, illegal budget action shows that a Grey Administration would be just more of the same, not the "change" he claims.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that not "only is Robert Grey wrong on the law, his support last night for City Hall's confrontational "my way or the highway" illegal approach on the budget, the same attitude having previously given us Fiasco Friday among other things, shows Robert would just be more of the same, that he isn't anything like the change he is pretending to be."."
"Robert talks a good game, but at last night's debate, he made the amazingly revealing statement that he was in total support of the illegal, confrontational City Hall budget action taken by Mayor Wilder that has created an unprecedented budget situation in Richmond."
"Fortunately, the Grey statement was caught on video, and in my view, it may in retrospect prove to be the defining moment in his campaign."
-------30------------------
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Richmond GOP challenged to repudiate Rove's anti-Richmond remarks at it's McCain HQ meeting tomorrow night
Goldman for Mayor - 12 August 2008 - For Immediate Release: Contact, 804-833-6313
12 August 2008
Mr. Cortland Putbrese
Chair,
Richmond Republican Committee
Richmond, Va
Dear Cortland:
According to you website, the Richmond Republican Committee is meeting tomorrow, August 13th, at the McCain Campaign Richmond Headquarters at 2819 Parham Road. This meeting will begin a 6:30 PM. Due to the recent disparaging comments about Richmond by Mr. Karl Rove, in his effort to demean our town and hold it up to national ridicule in hopes of gaining political advantage for the Republican national ticket, I believe the Richmond GOP has a community obligation, by formal resolution, to repudiate this former Bush White House official so that not just our fellow residents, but the entire nation, will see that we here in River City, Democrats and Republicans, are united in such repudiation of this offensive remarks uttered on national television.
To be sure, I am presuming that you and the members of your committee are by now aware of what Mr. Rove said this past Sunday, such disparaging comments the subject of Michael Paul Williams' column today in the Richmond Times Dispatch. Moreover, given Mr. Rove's status as another of those Inside-the-Washington-beltway commentators and believer that the bigger the government, the better [the federal deficit is now at an all-time high], his disparaging comments about middle-class towns like Richmond are, sadly, to be expected. They seem to have such an elitist attitude toward those towns whose residents raise the children, fight the wars, and obey the 10 commandments.
The people of Richmond, who have labored as hard as any in America to build our nation, don't need for someone who has benefited as much from this sacrifice as Mr. Rove - who has led a rather privileged life for most of this century at public expense - to be disparaged and ridiculed by a Republican of his stature on national television.
In this regard, I would hope we are all Richmonders, not divided into partisan political camps. To be sure, Mr. Rove may believe that Richmond is not the equal of Henderson, Nevada, a town that didn't even exist until after WW 2, a place that grew because it was a commute away from downtown Las Vegas, a locality best known in many circles for it's role in the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever wherein Sean Connery barely foils the plan to cremate him alive at the Palm Mortuary!
But the issue now is not what he believes, but what the Richmond Republican Committee believes.
Accordingly, with this electronic letter, I am writing to request that your Richmond Republican Committee, at their meeting tomorrow, pass an appropriately worded formal resolution rejecting (1) the disparaging comments made by Mr. Rove and (2) extolling the many sacrifices and good works of Richmonders past and present in building not just a terrific City but a great state and country.
Sincerely,
Paul Goldman
Richmond
804-833-6313
.
12 August 2008
Mr. Cortland Putbrese
Chair,
Richmond Republican Committee
Richmond, Va
Dear Cortland:
According to you website, the Richmond Republican Committee is meeting tomorrow, August 13th, at the McCain Campaign Richmond Headquarters at 2819 Parham Road. This meeting will begin a 6:30 PM. Due to the recent disparaging comments about Richmond by Mr. Karl Rove, in his effort to demean our town and hold it up to national ridicule in hopes of gaining political advantage for the Republican national ticket, I believe the Richmond GOP has a community obligation, by formal resolution, to repudiate this former Bush White House official so that not just our fellow residents, but the entire nation, will see that we here in River City, Democrats and Republicans, are united in such repudiation of this offensive remarks uttered on national television.
To be sure, I am presuming that you and the members of your committee are by now aware of what Mr. Rove said this past Sunday, such disparaging comments the subject of Michael Paul Williams' column today in the Richmond Times Dispatch. Moreover, given Mr. Rove's status as another of those Inside-the-Washington-beltway commentators and believer that the bigger the government, the better [the federal deficit is now at an all-time high], his disparaging comments about middle-class towns like Richmond are, sadly, to be expected. They seem to have such an elitist attitude toward those towns whose residents raise the children, fight the wars, and obey the 10 commandments.
The people of Richmond, who have labored as hard as any in America to build our nation, don't need for someone who has benefited as much from this sacrifice as Mr. Rove - who has led a rather privileged life for most of this century at public expense - to be disparaged and ridiculed by a Republican of his stature on national television.
In this regard, I would hope we are all Richmonders, not divided into partisan political camps. To be sure, Mr. Rove may believe that Richmond is not the equal of Henderson, Nevada, a town that didn't even exist until after WW 2, a place that grew because it was a commute away from downtown Las Vegas, a locality best known in many circles for it's role in the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever wherein Sean Connery barely foils the plan to cremate him alive at the Palm Mortuary!
But the issue now is not what he believes, but what the Richmond Republican Committee believes.
Accordingly, with this electronic letter, I am writing to request that your Richmond Republican Committee, at their meeting tomorrow, pass an appropriately worded formal resolution rejecting (1) the disparaging comments made by Mr. Rove and (2) extolling the many sacrifices and good works of Richmonders past and present in building not just a terrific City but a great state and country.
Sincerely,
Paul Goldman
Richmond
804-833-6313
.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Goldman defends Richmond, Kaine from Karl Rove's attacks seen on CBS-TV, Channel 6
Goldman for Mayor - 11 August 2008 - For Immediate Release
Dear Karl,
Why is it that so many people who work, or did work, for President Bush, seem so eager to thumb their nose at middle-class America? Case in point, your elitist attacks against us here in Richmond, stated this Sunday where you told the CBS TV audience:
"Will all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years," Rove told Bob Schieffer [host of Face The Nation on CBS]. "He's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done."
Rove even dragged Richmond into his sights. "[Kaine] was mayor of the 105th largest city in America," Rove said. "And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa, or Gilbert, Arizona; North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town."
Karl, as I have been saying, ever since you went to Washington, you and the other Bushites have become creatures of the Inside DC crowd, who believe those in that federal enclave have all the knowledge and all the wisdom. You thumb your nose at us here in the middle of Virginia, like you do at Middle America generally.
You have lost touch, assuming you ever really had it, with the rest of America, those living outside the beltway, the middle-class families the do the work, raise the children, fight the wars, and move our country forward.
Yes, Richmond isn't the biggest city in America. Thank goodness for that. You believe, as one would expect from someone who advised the President to run-up the biggest deficits in American history, that the bigger the government, the better.
Richmond is a great city, with great people, and one reason is it's manageable size, and the fact it is still a community with so many small, viable, neighborhoods.
Tim Kaine did a lot to improve our City, and I was happy to work with him to improve our form of government, an historic change praised by Republicans and Democrats alike in our area.
It has been a long time since America has had someone with hands-on experience in dealing with urban and suburban issues as our Vice-President.
Karl, you think that kind of experience would be bad for American. I believe it would be not only good for America, but great for America.
Richmond may not be the biggest city in our country. But it is a city that faces so many of our challenging issues, and I would rather have Mayor Tim Kaine trying to solve them, then Vice-President Dick Cheney, who had no experience in these areas whatsoever [as he has shown], Vice-President Dan Qualye [true, I suppose he could have helped with First Tee], to name just the last two GOP VEEPS.
Indeed, Mayor Kaine proved to be a far better administrator and problem-solver on these crucial issues to America than anyone the Republicans have elected to Vice-President since Teddy Roosevelt in 1900, who likewise got his start in politics as a local leader [actually, TR ran and lost for Mayor of New York before becoming Police Commissioner].
Harry Truman got his start in local government: he faced the same elitist criticisms from the GOP. But HST was a great Vice-President and President.
Next time you are in Richmond, give a ring.
Sincerely,
PG
Dear Karl,
Why is it that so many people who work, or did work, for President Bush, seem so eager to thumb their nose at middle-class America? Case in point, your elitist attacks against us here in Richmond, stated this Sunday where you told the CBS TV audience:
"Will all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years," Rove told Bob Schieffer [host of Face The Nation on CBS]. "He's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done."
Rove even dragged Richmond into his sights. "[Kaine] was mayor of the 105th largest city in America," Rove said. "And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa, or Gilbert, Arizona; North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town."
Karl, as I have been saying, ever since you went to Washington, you and the other Bushites have become creatures of the Inside DC crowd, who believe those in that federal enclave have all the knowledge and all the wisdom. You thumb your nose at us here in the middle of Virginia, like you do at Middle America generally.
You have lost touch, assuming you ever really had it, with the rest of America, those living outside the beltway, the middle-class families the do the work, raise the children, fight the wars, and move our country forward.
Yes, Richmond isn't the biggest city in America. Thank goodness for that. You believe, as one would expect from someone who advised the President to run-up the biggest deficits in American history, that the bigger the government, the better.
Richmond is a great city, with great people, and one reason is it's manageable size, and the fact it is still a community with so many small, viable, neighborhoods.
Tim Kaine did a lot to improve our City, and I was happy to work with him to improve our form of government, an historic change praised by Republicans and Democrats alike in our area.
It has been a long time since America has had someone with hands-on experience in dealing with urban and suburban issues as our Vice-President.
Karl, you think that kind of experience would be bad for American. I believe it would be not only good for America, but great for America.
Richmond may not be the biggest city in our country. But it is a city that faces so many of our challenging issues, and I would rather have Mayor Tim Kaine trying to solve them, then Vice-President Dick Cheney, who had no experience in these areas whatsoever [as he has shown], Vice-President Dan Qualye [true, I suppose he could have helped with First Tee], to name just the last two GOP VEEPS.
Indeed, Mayor Kaine proved to be a far better administrator and problem-solver on these crucial issues to America than anyone the Republicans have elected to Vice-President since Teddy Roosevelt in 1900, who likewise got his start in politics as a local leader [actually, TR ran and lost for Mayor of New York before becoming Police Commissioner].
Harry Truman got his start in local government: he faced the same elitist criticisms from the GOP. But HST was a great Vice-President and President.
Next time you are in Richmond, give a ring.
Sincerely,
PG
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Wilder Administration Wrong on Baseball. Today's RTD about bulldozing The Diamond and not replacing it a huge mistake by City Hall.
Goldman for Mayor - 09 August 12 - For Immediate Release: Contact, 804-833-6313
Today's RTD story requires any serious candidate for Mayor to respond.
"First, I reject any plan to bulldoze the Diamond and eliminate any baseball stadium from the current area, indeed that would be tantamount to the Wilder Administration having driven baseball out of Richmond."
"Second, given that voters will soon be electing a new Mayor and a new City Council, it is the height of arrogance, not to mention a big waste of time and money, for a lame duck City Hall and/or lame duck City Council to be involved in the proposal process from developers and/or campaign contributors referenced in today's Richmond Times Dispatch."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, responding to the revelations about city government in today's RTD, said that "after failing to do anything for almost 4 years, and driving the Braves out of Richmond, it would be the height of arrogance for a lame duck City Hall and a lame duck City Council to handcuff the people of Richmond to another of their failed visions or schemes."
"In a very short time, we will have a new Mayor and a new City Council" Goldman said. "What City Hall and City Council need to do is to concentrate on closing what the Mayor says is a 6 million dollar hole - I believe City Hall and City Council have actually created a far bigger fiscal mess - in the city budget, not on some last minute attempts by lame duck officials to impose another of their failed visions or schemes on the people of Richmond."
"First, I reject any plan to bulldoze the Diamond and eliminate any baseball stadium from the current area, indeed that would be tantamount to the Wilder Administration having driven baseball out of Richmond, as there is no other viable location for a Triple AAA or Double AA stadium in the City."
"Second, given that voters will soon be electing a new Mayor and a new City Council, it is the height of arrogance, not to mention a big waste of time and money, for a lame duck City Hall and/or lame duck City Council to be involved in the proposal process from developers and/or campaign contributors referenced in today's Richmond Times Dispatch."
----------------------30--------------------
Today's RTD story requires any serious candidate for Mayor to respond.
"First, I reject any plan to bulldoze the Diamond and eliminate any baseball stadium from the current area, indeed that would be tantamount to the Wilder Administration having driven baseball out of Richmond."
"Second, given that voters will soon be electing a new Mayor and a new City Council, it is the height of arrogance, not to mention a big waste of time and money, for a lame duck City Hall and/or lame duck City Council to be involved in the proposal process from developers and/or campaign contributors referenced in today's Richmond Times Dispatch."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, responding to the revelations about city government in today's RTD, said that "after failing to do anything for almost 4 years, and driving the Braves out of Richmond, it would be the height of arrogance for a lame duck City Hall and a lame duck City Council to handcuff the people of Richmond to another of their failed visions or schemes."
"In a very short time, we will have a new Mayor and a new City Council" Goldman said. "What City Hall and City Council need to do is to concentrate on closing what the Mayor says is a 6 million dollar hole - I believe City Hall and City Council have actually created a far bigger fiscal mess - in the city budget, not on some last minute attempts by lame duck officials to impose another of their failed visions or schemes on the people of Richmond."
"First, I reject any plan to bulldoze the Diamond and eliminate any baseball stadium from the current area, indeed that would be tantamount to the Wilder Administration having driven baseball out of Richmond, as there is no other viable location for a Triple AAA or Double AA stadium in the City."
"Second, given that voters will soon be electing a new Mayor and a new City Council, it is the height of arrogance, not to mention a big waste of time and money, for a lame duck City Hall and/or lame duck City Council to be involved in the proposal process from developers and/or campaign contributors referenced in today's Richmond Times Dispatch."
----------------------30--------------------
Thursday, August 7, 2008
"Office of Mayor needs new financial rules" says Goldman. No more....
Goldman for Mayor - 07 August 08 - For Immediate Release
"Given what we know now, such arrangements as the Mayor remaining on VCU's payroll, even in a part-time capacity, should have been prohibited by the Elected Mayor."
"Additionally, without pre-judging any particular situation until all the facts are clear, it is also necessary that any hint of special benefits related to the sale, purchase or financing of real estate, as we learned may have been the case with several United States Senators, must be prevented especially given the current situation in the housing market."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, author of the Elected Mayor law, said that "the original draft of the Elected Mayor law prevented a Mayor from holding even a second, part-time job, but this provision was eliminated from the final draft of the current law. Given what we know now, it would have been wiser to have had such a provision in the law passed by the General Assembly in 2004."
"As someone who has been in the forefront in changing Virginia and Richmond for many years, I have always taken the approach of the greatest President of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who helped lift of the country out of our biggest economic crisis. He was never afraid to innovate, but likewise, ready to realize when improvements in approaches were necessary."
"Clearly, the minimum a candidate should do, after now having a chance to review the operation of things for roughly 4 years, is to lay out what he or she will do on a voluntary basis, whether the law is changed or not, whether anyone else will do it or not."
In a statement, Goldman listed the following voluntary pledges:
"I will not hold any other job, part-time or otherwise, while serving as Mayor.
I will not conduct any other business, or accept any other compensation or remuneration, including speaking fees or any such related fees, while serving as Mayor.
I will not accept any special preferences, either as a seller or a buyer, as regards any real estate transaction, in terms of below-market or above-market transactions, while serving as Mayor.
Hopefully, what I am going to do voluntarily will be put into the Elected Mayor law directly by the 2009 General Assembly. If given the privilege of serving as Mayor, I will be requesting that City Council ask the General Assembly to make these Charter changes since this is the process required for such legal enactments.
All things considered, it seems to me that going forward, this is in the best interest of the city of Richmond and in the best interest of the Office of Elected Mayor."
"Given what we know now, such arrangements as the Mayor remaining on VCU's payroll, even in a part-time capacity, should have been prohibited by the Elected Mayor."
"Additionally, without pre-judging any particular situation until all the facts are clear, it is also necessary that any hint of special benefits related to the sale, purchase or financing of real estate, as we learned may have been the case with several United States Senators, must be prevented especially given the current situation in the housing market."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, author of the Elected Mayor law, said that "the original draft of the Elected Mayor law prevented a Mayor from holding even a second, part-time job, but this provision was eliminated from the final draft of the current law. Given what we know now, it would have been wiser to have had such a provision in the law passed by the General Assembly in 2004."
"As someone who has been in the forefront in changing Virginia and Richmond for many years, I have always taken the approach of the greatest President of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who helped lift of the country out of our biggest economic crisis. He was never afraid to innovate, but likewise, ready to realize when improvements in approaches were necessary."
"Clearly, the minimum a candidate should do, after now having a chance to review the operation of things for roughly 4 years, is to lay out what he or she will do on a voluntary basis, whether the law is changed or not, whether anyone else will do it or not."
In a statement, Goldman listed the following voluntary pledges:
"I will not hold any other job, part-time or otherwise, while serving as Mayor.
I will not conduct any other business, or accept any other compensation or remuneration, including speaking fees or any such related fees, while serving as Mayor.
I will not accept any special preferences, either as a seller or a buyer, as regards any real estate transaction, in terms of below-market or above-market transactions, while serving as Mayor.
Hopefully, what I am going to do voluntarily will be put into the Elected Mayor law directly by the 2009 General Assembly. If given the privilege of serving as Mayor, I will be requesting that City Council ask the General Assembly to make these Charter changes since this is the process required for such legal enactments.
All things considered, it seems to me that going forward, this is in the best interest of the city of Richmond and in the best interest of the Office of Elected Mayor."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)