Mr. Earley...I share your concerns. This is what I said in my letter to the city "I am in no way suggesting that the city does not retain the authority to regulate political signs on public property and will respect those ordinances." The city, I believe, does have the authority to sets some limits on public property display, especially if they are a hazard to safety. The concern behind my efforts was private property display. Citizens have the right, firmly established by the Supreme Court, to display political signs on their private property without government intrusion or regulation. The request to remove my signs from private property, including my own, was the foundation of my challenge.
Hey, Dan...You may want to do little research. McAleer was first appointed to MEMA by none other than Gov. John Baldacci...long before Lepage even announced he was running for governor.
“I am pleased to nominate someone of Robert McAleer’s caliber to
serve in this important leadership role,” said Governor Baldacci.
“Robert’s extensive military career coupled with his recent
experience in homeland security and emergency preparedness will
make him a wonderful leader of this department. He has a proven
record managing a wide range of challenges, and his unique set of
skills will greatly benefit the safety and welfare of the state.”
Was he also an incompetent Democratic crony who got a patronage job? It seems to me that Lepage did a real good thing for Maine.
This is more a publicity stunt than example of moral outrage. AID has never been a credible Senate candidate, never ran with any energy (if we can call it running), and never attempted to network with tea party leaning Republicans. He was a marginal tea party member, having difficulty being accepted even in that circle. Heck, his position as "leader" of the Maine TEA Party was his own self-anointing. Now, apparently, he hasn't even tried to gather any signatures nor raised any money. He never crafted a message or platform...only running as the "anti-Snowe." I suspect he is seeking free publicity by blaming the caucus process for his decision. I don't buy it...no money, no signatures, no networking equals no motivation...which results in no support. It has nothing to do with the caucus process. Scott D'Amboise has at least done the work to be a viable candidate. His battle may be uphill but he did, at least, get off his couch and do what was necessary to compete. D'Amboise, of all candidates, could most cry foul to the establishment. Senator Snowe, after all, maintains a large base of support across the state and his candidacy has been largely dismissed as hopeless. But he has spoken at the caucuses he has attended, he has raised money, and gathered his signatures. Subsequently, the Maine GOP has given him the audience he has earned, whether the "establishment" supports him or not...even if, as Dodge maintains, the "establishment" is committed to having Snowe re-elected. I haven't heard Scott whine about the process. It has increased his motivation to work harder...even if it means he may fall short. AID could learn something from him.
You need to understand something, Mr. David...I don't surrender my rights because some deranged nut abused theirs. One of the first "inalienable rights" asserted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was "life." I have the inalienable right to protect my life...it is not a privilege, sir. Typically that is done with the right to own the means of self-defense. If I surrender my right to arm myself, I have then surrendered my right to life to...who? The local authorities? The military? You, Mr. David? No, it is my God-given right to defend my life. Shall we also outlaw machetes, baseball bats, or other device that may be sued to kill someone? The 2nd Amendment is in place to protect you from being deprived of your God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abolish it, or "tweak it," at your peril. Thanks for reminding me to send in my NRA membership dues.
Get out of here with that Punch and Judy documentation. You would get flunked in any respectable university for trying to pass off your conclusions while attempting to use these citations as credible sources. Blogs? Please...Plus, nice cut and paste job and using it in other posts this morning. Paid blogger for the Dems perhaps? It's over Voisine...your Democrats are done come Tuesday. Nobody is buying the snake oil your selling...Get used to it.
Michaud's "Blue Dog" bi-partisan affirmation is the biggest lie of this man's Congressional career. He voted 96% with Nancy Pelosi...this man is no "Blue Dog." And let's be careful about lauding the man for his vote on the Wall Street bailout. He was in FAVOR of that legislation but opposed it because the restrictions on business weren't tough enough. So, Mike is in favor of not only a government takeover of health care, energy, and individual liberty, he is also in favor of a government run economy...which, in a word, is socialism. Sure he has a commendable record on veteran's issue, which I appreciate as a veteran. But the rest of this man's record supports imposing the government's will over mine...and yours. You should think about that.
Yeah...Mike's a real "stand up" guy. He's always standing up for whatever Nancy Pelosi wants as opposed to us Mainers. As for being concerned about laws only applying to the "little guy," Mike agrees with that, too. He voted to give all of US a health care plan that HE won't take for himself. He prefers that posh health care plan that Congress gets...paid for by my tax dollars. I'd much rather "share" the road with Levesque than "share" my tax dollars with Michaud.
Perhaps we should all just bow down and say, "Yes, your highness" when Obama speaks? I seem to recall from history class where a group of men named Franklin, Adams, Washington, and Jefferson among others collectively told an oppressive king to "go to hell" in the language of their day. I would rather have a governor who stands between me and a federal government seeking to control my life then one who says, "Sure, come take over my state."
You know what, tron? That is a reasonable, lucid, and honest response that, though I disagree with you, can respect. There are many reasons to not be in compliance with civil traffic laws that have nothing to do with character. But you have decided already that you are voting for Michaud because you think he has done well and that's fine. I am voting for Levesque because his driving record does not affect me, he supports what I believe in (Michaud doesn't)...and that should also be fine. But...if Levesque's driving record is an issue for you, and you think it indicates poor character, then you should apply that standard evenly to both parties. That's the point I was trying to make.
Well I can at least respect your willingness to not defend Patrick. But let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Do you think this is what should decide candidates? If this were Michaud I wouldn't care...Shouldn't we stick to the issues? Hey, I can respect someone disagreeing with me. But let's speak to the issue. A candidate's driving record does not discredit his views does it?