Just a note on the above discussion -- you don't actually have to register as a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. You just select the primary you're going to vote in when you arrive at the polling place. Once you've chosen, you can't switch parties for run-off elections, but that's the only limitation; you're not then "registered" as a Democrat, Republican or other.
*This is basically my entire argument: that if you are going to hold one candidate to a standard, and disqualify him/her from contention for your vote or endorsement, you must hold every other candidate to that same standard. In this case, if MP's lawsuits disqualify Lee from contention, then the city's current lawsuits and violations of federal regulations should disqualify Johnson.*
Then let me be clear, because you don't seem to understand what we wrote in the endorsement. Lee wasn't "disqualified" from our endorsement on some sort of technicality. He wasn't endorsed **because he didn't get enough votes** from our Editorial Board.
A primary reason (among others) he didn't get enough votes is that he ran as the business candidate and it turns out his business is subject to a number of default judgements from vendors -- meaning the company didn't show up to defend against them -- that Lee isn't willing to explain on the record.
Another is that he told us he had never owned the business, although he had previously represented himself as a business owner. Still another, is that he couldn't get the timeline straight on when he left the company, and he seemed to be putting all of the trouble off on his mother.
This despite the fact that a search of the online records showed that he hadn't done anything with the Secretary of State to step down as president (which he'd claimed) and a search of our own interviews with him in the past showed that he had claimed to be a business owner, which, last week, he said he has never been.
In other words, he's not running a great campaign. And if you can't run a campaign, we feel like you can't run a city.
Disagree? Fine. Ignore our endorsement and vote for someone else. God bless America.
Are there summary judgements in these cases? I'm a little out of the loop (I'm not a reporter) but I don't even think there's a lawsuit in the JATRAN case.
So Anonymous Commenter is free to call weeks worth of work on our part a "hissy fit" and "unsurprisingly close-minded, infantile, anti-progressive and pro-Democratic-Party status quo move by the Jackson Free Press" and then tells me all you're trying to do is discuss it reasonably?
Tell you what -- put your name there and ask a reasonable question and we'll start a conversation. Act like you're in public.
I'll say this about Lee... I'm not sure how it would be responsible to endorse him with as much controversy swirling as it is. He's run on a platform of being a successful business owner but, when he sat with us, he couldn't explain the turmoil at his family company and wouldn't give us any evidence that over $200k in summary judgements against the company were somehow unwarranted or being handled professionally.
You can call it off-handed if you want; I disagree. I have the advantage of having been there, thinking my thoughts while considering my part in this endorsement.
@AndGoodbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeee I understand people are upset when we don't endorse their candidate. But your cute little screen name is more of a "hissy fit" than our endorsement.
Let me know when you're ready to discuss it reasonably. We're right here.
@hotrod -- No, I didn't make your point. What I linked to shows exactly how well single payer works in Canada. It's not perfect, but it works; in fact, the AARP link I posted pretty much contradicts everything you've said about healthcare so far.
I don't think it *necessarily* follows that 8 candidates are breaking the rules, since I don't think you have to file if you didn't raise or spend money in the timeframe for the report. The suggestion is that some of the other leading candidates might have raised and spent money and therefore be late, but that won't be clear until they file. (That's my understanding -- I'm sure the Edit folks will chime in once they come up for a breath -- today is press day for the weekly.)
tstauffer says...
Just a note on the above discussion -- you don't actually have to register as a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. You just select the primary you're going to vote in when you arrive at the polling place. Once you've chosen, you can't switch parties for run-off elections, but that's the only limitation; you're not then "registered" as a Democrat, Republican or other.
On Re-elect Harvey Johnson Jr.
Posted 3 May 2013, 11:10 a.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
*This is basically my entire argument: that if you are going to hold one candidate to a standard, and disqualify him/her from contention for your vote or endorsement, you must hold every other candidate to that same standard. In this case, if MP's lawsuits disqualify Lee from contention, then the city's current lawsuits and violations of federal regulations should disqualify Johnson.*
Then let me be clear, because you don't seem to understand what we wrote in the endorsement. Lee wasn't "disqualified" from our endorsement on some sort of technicality. He wasn't endorsed **because he didn't get enough votes** from our Editorial Board.
A primary reason (among others) he didn't get enough votes is that he ran as the business candidate and it turns out his business is subject to a number of default judgements from vendors -- meaning the company didn't show up to defend against them -- that Lee isn't willing to explain on the record.
Another is that he told us he had never owned the business, although he had previously represented himself as a business owner. Still another, is that he couldn't get the timeline straight on when he left the company, and he seemed to be putting all of the trouble off on his mother.
This despite the fact that a search of the online records showed that he hadn't done anything with the Secretary of State to step down as president (which he'd claimed) and a search of our own interviews with him in the past showed that he had claimed to be a business owner, which, last week, he said he has never been.
In other words, he's not running a great campaign. And if you can't run a campaign, we feel like you can't run a city.
Disagree? Fine. Ignore our endorsement and vote for someone else. God bless America.
On Re-elect Harvey Johnson Jr.
Posted 1 May 2013, 10:41 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
Are there summary judgements in these cases? I'm a little out of the loop (I'm not a reporter) but I don't even think there's a lawsuit in the JATRAN case.
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…
On Re-elect Harvey Johnson Jr.
Posted 1 May 2013, 7:48 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
So Anonymous Commenter is free to call weeks worth of work on our part a "hissy fit" and "unsurprisingly close-minded, infantile, anti-progressive and pro-Democratic-Party status quo move by the Jackson Free Press" and then tells me all you're trying to do is discuss it reasonably?
Tell you what -- put your name there and ask a reasonable question and we'll start a conversation. Act like you're in public.
On Re-elect Harvey Johnson Jr.
Posted 1 May 2013, 7:43 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
I'll say this about Lee... I'm not sure how it would be responsible to endorse him with as much controversy swirling as it is. He's run on a platform of being a successful business owner but, when he sat with us, he couldn't explain the turmoil at his family company and wouldn't give us any evidence that over $200k in summary judgements against the company were somehow unwarranted or being handled professionally.
You can call it off-handed if you want; I disagree. I have the advantage of having been there, thinking my thoughts while considering my part in this endorsement.
On Re-elect Harvey Johnson Jr.
Posted 1 May 2013, 7:28 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
@AndGoodbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeee I understand people are upset when we don't endorse their candidate. But your cute little screen name is more of a "hissy fit" than our endorsement.
Let me know when you're ready to discuss it reasonably. We're right here.
On Re-elect Harvey Johnson Jr.
Posted 1 May 2013, 7:16 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
@hotrod -- No, I didn't make your point. What I linked to shows exactly how well single payer works in Canada. It's not perfect, but it works; in fact, the AARP link I posted pretty much contradicts everything you've said about healthcare so far.
On Large Companies Are Increasingly Offering Workers Only High Deductible Health Plans
Posted 2 April 2013, 4:43 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
Here is, perhaps, a more balanced perspective on Canadian healthcare than the one hotrod is presenting: http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/go…
On Large Companies Are Increasingly Offering Workers Only High Deductible Health Plans
Posted 2 April 2013, 2 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
Hal's family has posted a CaringBridge site here: http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/halwh…
On City Praying for Hal White
Posted 27 March 2013, 6:39 p.m. Suggest removal
tstauffer says...
I don't think it *necessarily* follows that 8 candidates are breaking the rules, since I don't think you have to file if you didn't raise or spend money in the timeframe for the report. The suggestion is that some of the other leading candidates might have raised and spent money and therefore be late, but that won't be clear until they file. (That's my understanding -- I'm sure the Edit folks will chime in once they come up for a breath -- today is press day for the weekly.)
On UPDATED: Mayoral Campaign Reports Raise Questions
Posted 19 March 2013, 2:47 p.m. Suggest removal