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
Monday, August 11, 2008
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."
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Does Richmond media care that Wilder, Council are violating City Charter on chosing an acting Chief Administrative Officer?
Goldman for Mayor - 31 July 2008 - For Immediate Release -Contact, 804-833-6313
Elected Mayor Law is clear on how Acting Chief Administrative Officer is to be Chosen
If City Hall and City Council had been doing their job, not feuding, there would be no problem
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor and author of the Elected Mayor law said today "that City Hall and City Council once again - does it ever end? - continue to hold Richmond up to ridicule by failing to believe they have any responsibility to make sure they follow the clear mandates of the City Charter."
"Yet all this raises a bigger question: Does the local Richmond media care either whether the Charter is followed or not, and to the extent they signal a negative answer, then should it be surprising that our politicians believe they can disregard the Charter whenever it suits their purpose, since without the media informing the public, how can more than only a handful of residents know what is in the City Charter?"
In a statement, Mr. Goldman discussed the relevant section of the Elected Mayor Law as it was incorporated into the City Charter:
"In 2004, in passing the Elected Mayor law, the General Assembly enacted the following section of the City Charter:
"§ 5.07. Acting chief administrative officer.
The mayor shall, with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of council, designate the head of a department, bureau or other officer appointed by the chief administrative officer, to act as chief administrative officer in case of the absence, incapacity, death or resignation of the chief administrative officer, until his/her return to duty or the appointment of his/her successor. An acting chief administrative officer shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor."
"To the best of my knowledge, this 2004 revision remains as part of the City Charter. According, City Hall and City Council should have long ago taken care to carry out their responsibilities under this section, namely to have an Acting CAO already designated.
Apparently, this was not done and no doubt each side with be blaming the other for the situation. But frankly, I believe most Richmonders are as tired and fed-up as I am with the constant blame gaming from City Hall and City Council.
But even more importantly right now is this: We need to make City Hall and City Council understand that the City Charter is not just something they follow when it suits their purposes.
Moreover, if the Richmond media wants to be taken seriously in the area of public policy, as opposed to being seen as their own version of tabloid or blog.com journalism, then reporters and editors have to likewise take responsibility for what they do and don't do.
Bottom line: If § 5.07 remains the law in Richmond, then it must be followed and the public must be informed of the law's existence.
As they say, for purposes of full disclosure, my being the only candidate for Mayor who actually wanted to give the people the right to elect their Mayor and who actually did the grunt work, from writing the law to leading the petition drive, might I suppose explain why I apparently take a different view from the others, taking such an old-fashioned view that City Hall and City Council should be required to follow the law."
Elected Mayor Law is clear on how Acting Chief Administrative Officer is to be Chosen
If City Hall and City Council had been doing their job, not feuding, there would be no problem
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor and author of the Elected Mayor law said today "that City Hall and City Council once again - does it ever end? - continue to hold Richmond up to ridicule by failing to believe they have any responsibility to make sure they follow the clear mandates of the City Charter."
"Yet all this raises a bigger question: Does the local Richmond media care either whether the Charter is followed or not, and to the extent they signal a negative answer, then should it be surprising that our politicians believe they can disregard the Charter whenever it suits their purpose, since without the media informing the public, how can more than only a handful of residents know what is in the City Charter?"
In a statement, Mr. Goldman discussed the relevant section of the Elected Mayor Law as it was incorporated into the City Charter:
"In 2004, in passing the Elected Mayor law, the General Assembly enacted the following section of the City Charter:
"§ 5.07. Acting chief administrative officer.
The mayor shall, with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of council, designate the head of a department, bureau or other officer appointed by the chief administrative officer, to act as chief administrative officer in case of the absence, incapacity, death or resignation of the chief administrative officer, until his/her return to duty or the appointment of his/her successor. An acting chief administrative officer shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor."
"To the best of my knowledge, this 2004 revision remains as part of the City Charter. According, City Hall and City Council should have long ago taken care to carry out their responsibilities under this section, namely to have an Acting CAO already designated.
Apparently, this was not done and no doubt each side with be blaming the other for the situation. But frankly, I believe most Richmonders are as tired and fed-up as I am with the constant blame gaming from City Hall and City Council.
But even more importantly right now is this: We need to make City Hall and City Council understand that the City Charter is not just something they follow when it suits their purposes.
Moreover, if the Richmond media wants to be taken seriously in the area of public policy, as opposed to being seen as their own version of tabloid or blog.com journalism, then reporters and editors have to likewise take responsibility for what they do and don't do.
Bottom line: If § 5.07 remains the law in Richmond, then it must be followed and the public must be informed of the law's existence.
As they say, for purposes of full disclosure, my being the only candidate for Mayor who actually wanted to give the people the right to elect their Mayor and who actually did the grunt work, from writing the law to leading the petition drive, might I suppose explain why I apparently take a different view from the others, taking such an old-fashioned view that City Hall and City Council should be required to follow the law."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
VP choice prediction: Obama wants running mate who didn't support the Iraq War.
The Goldman Blog
I believe Governor Tim Kaine is at the top of Senator Obama's short-list for VEEP, indeed, as I will show, the list may only have two people on it.
Here is the logical deduction, or at least an attempt at it. Unfortunately, to do the math right, it takes many steps, there is no way to do it in a few paragraphs and give the logic.
1. Senator Obama's 2002 opposition to the Iraq War was fundamental to his primary candidacy, and he continues to make his 2002 opposition to the war vs McCain's 2002 vote for the War a fundamental litmus test for November, using the same successful construct - Judgment vs Experience - that worked brilliantly against Senator Clinton.
By November, the Economy, not the War, is likely to decide the election based on historical analysis. But right now - and that is when the decision is being made - it is the Peace Issue, not the Prosperity Issue, that is dominating the Obama vs McCain battle.
And at this moment, the battle is less one of specific issues and more of defining them in a broad way with the general public. This is normal at this juncture of a campaign, at almost any level really.
2. Thus, Senator Obama has to ask himself one fundamental question at the very start of his VEEP decision-making:
Do I want to run with a Vice-Presidential nominee who is on record as having supported going to War with Iraq, either voting for the 2002 War Resolution or having voiced support for the invasion at the time?
To be sure, the 2002 Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq if he thought it necessary to protect America's national security left the decision to Mr. Bush, so in technical terms a vote for the Resolution was not, per se, a vote to go to War. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards made that point repeatedly in that year. But it didn't wash politically, even though it is legally true.
Politically, it was a vote for war, and the American people are not fools.
3. Obama's answer: No, unless I have no other viable option. HE KNOWS THAT if he chooses a pro-war running mate, THIS WILL be what the media use as the defining dimension to the selection, it will dominate the press conference held to announce the choice.
And Senator Obama knows this too: In the final analysis, his choice of a VEEP will be a big defining moment for him in the eyes of the public.
4. Accordingly, I think any pro-war voting Senator is out. This eliminates Bayh, Biden, and Clinton.
5. Here is the list of all the anti-War votes on the Iraq War Resolution: .
Akaka (D-HI)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Byrd (D-WV)Chafee (R-RI)Conrad (D-ND)Corzine (D-NJ)Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Graham (D-FL)Inouye (D-HI)Jeffords (I-VT)Kennedy (D-MA)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Reed (D-RI)Sarbanes (D-MD)Stabenow (D-MI)Wellstone (D-MN)Wyden (D-OR)
Among the Democrats, you have, in theory, potential running mates in Bingaman, Boxer, Conrad, Corzine, Durbin, Levin, Murray, Reed, Stabenow, and Wyden, under the anti-war analysis. If Obama were from any state but Illinois, I believe Durbin would be the pick.
The two Michigan Senators - Levin and Stabenow - come from one of the key states this year, but there are various reasons why they are not likely to be selected. Truth is, none of the anti-war Senators is considered a good fit for Obama, with Senator Jack Reed probably being the top pick here, followed by either Kent Conrad or Patty Murray. But the latter two are long-time Senators and thus they seem to have been eliminated by Obama saying he doesn't want a Washington insider, or at least someone who could be painted that way.
In that regard, Senator Reed, although a Congressman before moving up the Senate, is the best choice, having served in the military.
Net, Net: But for Reed, no anti-war Senator is likely to get to the final round.
6. Senator Jim Webb was on a paper a great VEEP fit, as he was not in the Senate in 2002, but as strong anti-war credentials yet was also President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a decorated military guy. Besides, Webb is super-smart, the anti-politician image, the whole package. But Webb said he didn't want in an almost Shermanesque way. As soldier, Webb would no doubt do his duty if asked, but when a guy says he doesn't want the VEEP thing, then Obama is going to respect that.
7. Senator McCaskill arrived in the Senate along with rookie Webb. She has proven to be a very effective pro-Obama campaign leader, she is savvy, good speaker, sharp on the issues and comes from the key state of Missouri. But she is not apparently under consideration.
8. So if you take out the sitting Senators, then you say: What about former Senators, former Governors, former top officials? A guy like former Governor and Senator George Mitchell, super-respected, savvy pol, would be a perfect choice if he wasn't a big time lobbyist now, the same for several other high profile former top DEM elected officials. Obama can not go there, and he knows it.
9. ERGO: Unless Senator Obama goes with an anti-war Senator like say a Reed, then logical deduction gets us to the sitting Governors. Moreover, it might be that Obama calculates that he should not go with either an pro-war or anti-war Senator, since this gives him maximum political flexibility, avoids a lot of questions, and as Emerson says, events are in the saddle and they ride mankind, in political strategy, having room to maneuver on the tough issues is worth more than all that Internet fund-raising.
10. Net, net: Senator Obama, by the process of elimination - the usual thing for VEEP choices historically - arrives at needing a sitting Governor, who has no 2002 position on the War, someone from a key state, someone he likes, you do the math.
Of course Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is at the top of the short-list: he is likely the only one on the list except perhaps for Rhode Island Senator Reed. But it is better to go South or West, or even Midwest for Obama, the Northeast is the most reliable Democratic bastion in the country, the "Solid North" really, since except for New Hampshire, it has been as solid as the South in the last two presidential elections, indeed solid twice for Clinton.
Yet Reed has a great resume.
He is a Harvard lawyer though, so whether it be Kaine or Reed, it is Harvard Law ticket all the way.
Hillary is Yale and that might be a big problem too!
If the War is indeed the fundamental Colonel Travis line in the sand on the VEEP decision, then that leaves Kaine and Reed as perhaps the last guys standing.
I believe Governor Tim Kaine is at the top of Senator Obama's short-list for VEEP, indeed, as I will show, the list may only have two people on it.
Here is the logical deduction, or at least an attempt at it. Unfortunately, to do the math right, it takes many steps, there is no way to do it in a few paragraphs and give the logic.
1. Senator Obama's 2002 opposition to the Iraq War was fundamental to his primary candidacy, and he continues to make his 2002 opposition to the war vs McCain's 2002 vote for the War a fundamental litmus test for November, using the same successful construct - Judgment vs Experience - that worked brilliantly against Senator Clinton.
By November, the Economy, not the War, is likely to decide the election based on historical analysis. But right now - and that is when the decision is being made - it is the Peace Issue, not the Prosperity Issue, that is dominating the Obama vs McCain battle.
And at this moment, the battle is less one of specific issues and more of defining them in a broad way with the general public. This is normal at this juncture of a campaign, at almost any level really.
2. Thus, Senator Obama has to ask himself one fundamental question at the very start of his VEEP decision-making:
Do I want to run with a Vice-Presidential nominee who is on record as having supported going to War with Iraq, either voting for the 2002 War Resolution or having voiced support for the invasion at the time?
To be sure, the 2002 Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq if he thought it necessary to protect America's national security left the decision to Mr. Bush, so in technical terms a vote for the Resolution was not, per se, a vote to go to War. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards made that point repeatedly in that year. But it didn't wash politically, even though it is legally true.
Politically, it was a vote for war, and the American people are not fools.
3. Obama's answer: No, unless I have no other viable option. HE KNOWS THAT if he chooses a pro-war running mate, THIS WILL be what the media use as the defining dimension to the selection, it will dominate the press conference held to announce the choice.
And Senator Obama knows this too: In the final analysis, his choice of a VEEP will be a big defining moment for him in the eyes of the public.
4. Accordingly, I think any pro-war voting Senator is out. This eliminates Bayh, Biden, and Clinton.
5. Here is the list of all the anti-War votes on the Iraq War Resolution: .
Akaka (D-HI)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Byrd (D-WV)Chafee (R-RI)Conrad (D-ND)Corzine (D-NJ)Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Graham (D-FL)Inouye (D-HI)Jeffords (I-VT)Kennedy (D-MA)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Reed (D-RI)Sarbanes (D-MD)Stabenow (D-MI)Wellstone (D-MN)Wyden (D-OR)
Among the Democrats, you have, in theory, potential running mates in Bingaman, Boxer, Conrad, Corzine, Durbin, Levin, Murray, Reed, Stabenow, and Wyden, under the anti-war analysis. If Obama were from any state but Illinois, I believe Durbin would be the pick.
The two Michigan Senators - Levin and Stabenow - come from one of the key states this year, but there are various reasons why they are not likely to be selected. Truth is, none of the anti-war Senators is considered a good fit for Obama, with Senator Jack Reed probably being the top pick here, followed by either Kent Conrad or Patty Murray. But the latter two are long-time Senators and thus they seem to have been eliminated by Obama saying he doesn't want a Washington insider, or at least someone who could be painted that way.
In that regard, Senator Reed, although a Congressman before moving up the Senate, is the best choice, having served in the military.
Net, Net: But for Reed, no anti-war Senator is likely to get to the final round.
6. Senator Jim Webb was on a paper a great VEEP fit, as he was not in the Senate in 2002, but as strong anti-war credentials yet was also President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a decorated military guy. Besides, Webb is super-smart, the anti-politician image, the whole package. But Webb said he didn't want in an almost Shermanesque way. As soldier, Webb would no doubt do his duty if asked, but when a guy says he doesn't want the VEEP thing, then Obama is going to respect that.
7. Senator McCaskill arrived in the Senate along with rookie Webb. She has proven to be a very effective pro-Obama campaign leader, she is savvy, good speaker, sharp on the issues and comes from the key state of Missouri. But she is not apparently under consideration.
8. So if you take out the sitting Senators, then you say: What about former Senators, former Governors, former top officials? A guy like former Governor and Senator George Mitchell, super-respected, savvy pol, would be a perfect choice if he wasn't a big time lobbyist now, the same for several other high profile former top DEM elected officials. Obama can not go there, and he knows it.
9. ERGO: Unless Senator Obama goes with an anti-war Senator like say a Reed, then logical deduction gets us to the sitting Governors. Moreover, it might be that Obama calculates that he should not go with either an pro-war or anti-war Senator, since this gives him maximum political flexibility, avoids a lot of questions, and as Emerson says, events are in the saddle and they ride mankind, in political strategy, having room to maneuver on the tough issues is worth more than all that Internet fund-raising.
10. Net, net: Senator Obama, by the process of elimination - the usual thing for VEEP choices historically - arrives at needing a sitting Governor, who has no 2002 position on the War, someone from a key state, someone he likes, you do the math.
Of course Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is at the top of the short-list: he is likely the only one on the list except perhaps for Rhode Island Senator Reed. But it is better to go South or West, or even Midwest for Obama, the Northeast is the most reliable Democratic bastion in the country, the "Solid North" really, since except for New Hampshire, it has been as solid as the South in the last two presidential elections, indeed solid twice for Clinton.
Yet Reed has a great resume.
He is a Harvard lawyer though, so whether it be Kaine or Reed, it is Harvard Law ticket all the way.
Hillary is Yale and that might be a big problem too!
If the War is indeed the fundamental Colonel Travis line in the sand on the VEEP decision, then that leaves Kaine and Reed as perhaps the last guys standing.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Council, Wilder should do honorable thing, reimburse city for salaries paid from July 1 until they do their job and agree on a budget.
Goldman for Mayor - 25 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - 804-833-6313
First City Hall, First City Council in Richmond History to Fail to Agree on a Budget By July 1
"The Mayor and City Council should follow the lead of those members of the General Assembly who did the right thing, and refused to accept pay for the Special Transportation Session since it achieved nothing. The Mayor and City Council should reimburse the city for their salaries from July 1 until they both agree on the single most basic responsibility of any elected official: passing a budget each side accepts as the operative city budget for the new fiscal year."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "it is time for City Hall and City Council to accept responsibility for the an unprecedented budget fiasco, the first time in the history of Richmond that City Hall and City Council have not agreed on a budget by July 1, the starting date of the fiscal year."
"I don't think any of this would have happened if the Mayor and Mr. Pantele, et. al knew they would not get paid for failing to fulfill their most basic responsibility, passing a budget each side would accept as lawful on July 1, the starting date of the city's fiscal year" Goldman said.
"The City Charter has a clear procedure that would have resolved these matters by now had the Mayor and the City Council done the right thing and followed the law. As the RTD editorial page notes this morning, I was the only candidate they could name who "has addressed the budget and related items" in my efforts to remind city officials of the Elected Mayor law revisions to the City Charter that reinforced this procedure."
"While the Pantele-led Council puts all the blame on the Wilder-led City Hall, and vice-versa, the truth is this: Both sides are to blame for the current state of the budget fiasco."
"Accordingly, starting July 1, 2008, both sides share responsibility for the unprecedented budget fiasco."
"Thus, given this continuing failure to do the most basic function of their jobs, each side should do the honorable thing and agree to reimburse the city for the salaries they will be paid from July 1 until they agree on a budget as required by the City Charter."
"Moreover, the longer these budget follies continue, the greater chance all Richmonders, or at least some of the citizenry, will be unnecessarily and unfairly hurt by the political fallout."
---------------------------------------- 30 -------------------------------------
First City Hall, First City Council in Richmond History to Fail to Agree on a Budget By July 1
"The Mayor and City Council should follow the lead of those members of the General Assembly who did the right thing, and refused to accept pay for the Special Transportation Session since it achieved nothing. The Mayor and City Council should reimburse the city for their salaries from July 1 until they both agree on the single most basic responsibility of any elected official: passing a budget each side accepts as the operative city budget for the new fiscal year."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "it is time for City Hall and City Council to accept responsibility for the an unprecedented budget fiasco, the first time in the history of Richmond that City Hall and City Council have not agreed on a budget by July 1, the starting date of the fiscal year."
"I don't think any of this would have happened if the Mayor and Mr. Pantele, et. al knew they would not get paid for failing to fulfill their most basic responsibility, passing a budget each side would accept as lawful on July 1, the starting date of the city's fiscal year" Goldman said.
"The City Charter has a clear procedure that would have resolved these matters by now had the Mayor and the City Council done the right thing and followed the law. As the RTD editorial page notes this morning, I was the only candidate they could name who "has addressed the budget and related items" in my efforts to remind city officials of the Elected Mayor law revisions to the City Charter that reinforced this procedure."
"While the Pantele-led Council puts all the blame on the Wilder-led City Hall, and vice-versa, the truth is this: Both sides are to blame for the current state of the budget fiasco."
"Accordingly, starting July 1, 2008, both sides share responsibility for the unprecedented budget fiasco."
"Thus, given this continuing failure to do the most basic function of their jobs, each side should do the honorable thing and agree to reimburse the city for the salaries they will be paid from July 1 until they agree on a budget as required by the City Charter."
"Moreover, the longer these budget follies continue, the greater chance all Richmonders, or at least some of the citizenry, will be unnecessarily and unfairly hurt by the political fallout."
---------------------------------------- 30 -------------------------------------
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wilder, Council failing to follow City Charter: budget feud can be fairly resolved by following the process put into Charter for this situation.
Goldman for Mayor - 24 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - Contact, 804-833-6313
City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, can resolve the budget feud without a wasteful law suit.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that " the City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, anticipated the kind of fiscally irresponsible budget politics we are seeing from City Hall and City Council by having in place a process that will work to balance the budget and do the people's business without a law suit if our elected officials will put the public interest ahead of their political budget feuding."
Goldman pointed out that "Section 6.16 of the City Charter, according to what is available on the General Assembly website, reads as follows after the last General Assembly revision:
6.16. Amendments after adoption.
..(c) If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the Mayor that the revenue or fund balances available will be insufficient to finance the expenditures for which appropriations have been authorized, the Mayor shall report to the city council without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by the Mayor and recommendations as to any other steps to be taken. The council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or reduce any deficit, and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. [Emphasis added].
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"The above process offers a responsible way to resolve the current feud between City Hall and City Council without a law suit, assuming each side will put the public interest ahead of their selfish political interests.
Since the Wilder Administration say it's budget is the legal one, then Section 6.16 imposes a clear legal obligation on the Mayor given his statement that his budget has a big deficit.
The Mayor can not have it both ways: if is right and the City Council failed to pass it's budget in the time required by the Charter, then he has now failed to report to the Council as required by the Charter.
As for the City Council, they seem incapable of showing any leadership except to leading the way to the local courthouse. .
But as we can see from the above Charter section, this is totally unnecessary.
Instead, the Council should call on the Mayor to report to the city council without delay since Mr. Wilder says the budget is millions in the red. Given the language in the Charter, the Mayor has no option, since the word "shall" has an accepted legal definition. Moreover, if the Mayor were to refuse, then he would effectively negate his legal claim as regards his budget.
Once the Mayor responds as legally required, the Council can then make whatever appropriate budget adjustments a majority feel is necessary. The Mayor then has the option of using his veto, and the Council the power of override.
While it is not a perfect solution, it serves the public interest in a responsible, timely and balanced fashion while avoiding the acrimony of yet another expensive law suit if City Hall and the City Council are finally willing to put the public interest first."
-------------------30----------------
City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, can resolve the budget feud without a wasteful law suit.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that " the City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, anticipated the kind of fiscally irresponsible budget politics we are seeing from City Hall and City Council by having in place a process that will work to balance the budget and do the people's business without a law suit if our elected officials will put the public interest ahead of their political budget feuding."
Goldman pointed out that "Section 6.16 of the City Charter, according to what is available on the General Assembly website, reads as follows after the last General Assembly revision:
6.16. Amendments after adoption.
..(c) If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the Mayor that the revenue or fund balances available will be insufficient to finance the expenditures for which appropriations have been authorized, the Mayor shall report to the city council without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by the Mayor and recommendations as to any other steps to be taken. The council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or reduce any deficit, and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. [Emphasis added].
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"The above process offers a responsible way to resolve the current feud between City Hall and City Council without a law suit, assuming each side will put the public interest ahead of their selfish political interests.
Since the Wilder Administration say it's budget is the legal one, then Section 6.16 imposes a clear legal obligation on the Mayor given his statement that his budget has a big deficit.
The Mayor can not have it both ways: if is right and the City Council failed to pass it's budget in the time required by the Charter, then he has now failed to report to the Council as required by the Charter.
As for the City Council, they seem incapable of showing any leadership except to leading the way to the local courthouse. .
But as we can see from the above Charter section, this is totally unnecessary.
Instead, the Council should call on the Mayor to report to the city council without delay since Mr. Wilder says the budget is millions in the red. Given the language in the Charter, the Mayor has no option, since the word "shall" has an accepted legal definition. Moreover, if the Mayor were to refuse, then he would effectively negate his legal claim as regards his budget.
Once the Mayor responds as legally required, the Council can then make whatever appropriate budget adjustments a majority feel is necessary. The Mayor then has the option of using his veto, and the Council the power of override.
While it is not a perfect solution, it serves the public interest in a responsible, timely and balanced fashion while avoiding the acrimony of yet another expensive law suit if City Hall and the City Council are finally willing to put the public interest first."
-------------------30----------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)