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.

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.

Nice piece, Scott...I am looking to Senator John Thune or Governor Chris Christie to be the next Reagan...And I share your predictions about the outcomes.

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."

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?

Let me define this for you since you are too lazy to do it yoursefl: slander: 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. Nothing I said about Kennedy was false, thus there can no defamation, which is a necessary of element for slander. Since there is no slander, and what I speak of Kennedy is true, it cannot be perverse. Come back when you are able to refute the content of the post.

You know, veritas...You've been blogging for some time now. I don't ever recall you being concerned with how Ted or Patrick Kennedy navigated the halls of Congress.

Well, shoot, Bob...Thanks for the public service announcement. Do you really want the Democrats making decisions for you? Do you really think they care about you? I mean, really, you TRUST Pelosi, Reid, et al. to make the right decision for you and your family? They are more credible...why? Because they promise you the fruits of other's labor? Hey, go right ahead, get in line behind them...but I'd rather make my own decisions. Here's a flash for you...I don't give a rip if anyone politician cares about me. Just get out of the way and let me live my own life. I reject the "cradle to grave" dependency the Democrats are trying to force on us.

Really? Speeding tickets? And why the mention of a traffic accident where Levesque wasn't even driving? If all they have is speeding tickets, the left is really desperate. Mistler is a leftist hack anyway, anyone who reads his stuff knows that. I find it curious that the political persuastion that found Clinton's perjury acceptable (which got him disbarred) would make such a big deal out of this. I think this is proof that Jason is gaining on Michaud. Levesque was caught speeding? OK. He pleads guilty, pays the fines, and accepts the consequences. That's what responsible people do when they screw up. These are all civil infractions.

And seriously, is that what we want to do to those who want to run for office? I don't care what party it is. No one out there is perfect, not a Democrat, not an independent, not a Republican. And before the leftists out there accuse me of hypocrisy...no, I don't challenge Obama's citizenship. I just wish the SJ would apply the same journalistic scrutiny to Michaud's voting record. Levesque's civil violations don't affect me. Michaud's votes in Washington, however, affect me a great deal. Why won't the SJ talk about that?

You are off the reservation, my friend. You're post has nothing to do with anything that I posted or said, anyone who reads this thread of post will see that, thus I am not going to get dragged into your rant. You are clearly having a conversation with someone but it's not me. I suggest you look into that medically...it's not healthy.

Whose posts are reading? Are you living in some detached reality somewhere? Where do I mention Reagan (other than the blog name), triads and cartels (whether they exist or not), or anything else that you have addressed? And where do you get any of that in what I have written today. I make it a point to not get into rational discussion with irrational people...Have a nice day.

Secretly financed by outsiders? Is that an issue for you, Joe? So I guess you are against the fact that 75% of Michaud's war chest has come from out of state PAC's? 75% of Levesque's money has come from individual donors that actually live in Maine. And you are slinging the labels around rather indiscriminately aren't you? Levesque is a racist and white collar thug?! How so? Employing Mainers and building a business from the ground up through hard work and personal initiative? He's a KKK Grand Wizard who steals citizenship? You don't have an ounce of credibility. You are everything that you accuse Levesque of being...YOU are the one hurling inflammatory labels without proof. Just because these things are "true" in your deluded and hate-filled mind doesn't mean they translate to reality for those of us who are level-headed. The American public is hip to this Saul Alinsky tactic...it's not going to work. It's over, Joe...your ilk is going to be run out of Washington on the fast-track. But take heart...you can always move to the socialist utopia of France. I'll even help you pack.

Yeah...Michaud voted against the bailout...but for all the wrong reasons. He voted against the bailout, not because he didn't think the government should bail out Wall Street, but because he didn't think there was ENOUGH government control of business written into it for afterwards. That argues against his "smaller" government act. I appreciated his vote against the bailout until I saw why. He not only wants the government to control our health care, but our businesses, too!! He votes with Pelosi 96% of the time. Give me a break, Mike...this "conservative" or Blue-Dog democrat act of yours is a bunch of B.S. Anyone who has reviewed your voting record knows it. Hey, Mainers...you like Nancy Pelosi and her ideas for America? Vote for Mike Michaud. Not this Mainer...I'm voting for Jason Levesque.

[This comment has been removed by the administrator]

There is no such thing as an "unfunded" tax cut, veritas...we the people fund the government, not the other way around. Where do you liberals get off telling me that keeping more of what I earn needs to be "funded?" I EARNED it...it's my money! Debt is caused by overspending, not tax cuts. There's plenty of blame to go around, too...it is a Democrat and Republican problem. I never read you railing on irresponsible Democratic spending on wasteful entitlement programs that don't work and are rife with fraud and abuse, yet the other day you proclaim yourself a "truth-teller." And you also fail to mention that some debt is unavoidable because life happens and it's necessary. I may not like going into debt to buy a new furnace for my house but if freezing is the alternative, I guess I have to, don't I? I don't like that the United States had to spend into debt to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, or for the War on Terror but it was necessary. I don't like going into debt for wasteful and unnecessary government programs (BOTH parties can share the blame). The government (BOTH parties) needs to cut spending...period. If I get in debt in my household it is because I spend what I don't have, not because my employer did not give me enough...I control how much I spend. Tax cuts do not create debt...too much spending does. Tax cuts stimulate consumer spending, which in turn creates jobs and expands the tax base. Washington (BOTH parties) needs to learn to"live" on what we send them.

Mr. Michaud is a busy man? To busy to respond to constituents, which is his JOB!!?? So it's your contention that Michaud should only take the time to listen to people who agree with him when he is supposed to represent all of us? According to you, the only legitimate need for his representation is to tell him how wonderful he is and how much I agree with him? Anything less is "crackpot?" I can see that you may not be busy, tron, since you have time to blog all day long but I work 60 hours a week and would like the congressman to be a little bit more responsible with how Washington decides to dispose of the fruits of my labor. That may not be a legitimate concern for people like you but I think that's a legitimate concern for people who work. Michaud shouldn't be worried about helping us working people? Just brilliant, tron...

Listens to Maine people? Really? I have seen Jason Levesque everywhere speaking to people about how they feel about the issues. I haven't seen hide nor hair of Mike Michaud. I have sent e-mails to his office that were not answered, not even with a form letter. I have called his office and asked for answers and got nothing. Right, he listens to Mainers. No town halls to take questions, no e-mail responses, and no answers from his staff. I get periodic e-mail updates from Collins and Snowe but I have NEVER received an update from Michaud's office. No thanks...I'm voting for Jason Levesque. If Michaud is the standard of measurement for responsible representation, we're all in trouble.

"Democrartic?" As for being a "winger," I guess I could accuse Michaud of being the same...a left "winger." I guess it all depends on which ideology you subscribe to that makes the difference. You'll find out in November that there are more people on Levesque's "wing" than Michaud's. As for who opens their "yap" I have spoken to both men face to face while they were out campaigning and heard some pretty ridiculous things come from Michaud's. If I have to lay money as to which candidate was the sharper of the two when it comes to Maine families, I'll go with Levesque. At least Levesque thinks that Mainers should decide their own fate, decide how to spend their own money, and how to provide for their own needs. Michaud thinks we should let Washington do it. After speaking to Michaud about some of the issues, I wouldn't trust him with my pocket change. Levesque is a significant improvement for Mainers.

Steve Mistler must have looked far and wide for a poll to discredit the increase of Levesque's popularity within the state and the dissatisfaction with Michaud being a Pelosi hack. As for Levesque's camp, I guess the best way to respond to this is to ignore it...kind of like the way the Sun-Journal ignored polls that show Levesque within 7 points. Funny Mistler didn't write a story on that. As for campaign money, I have read from Michaud's supporters about how Mike Michaud is for Maine. How does that explain all the PAC money from out of state? I thought Michaud was against "special interests?" He's for Mainers, right? Sure...PAC money tells me he's in Nancy Pelosi's pocket and can be counted on to vote for her agenda. As for this article, it tells me that Michaud's people are nervous...

I can't speak to the posters perspective but I can tell you this...I called his office three weeks after the first vote on the health care bill was postponed and asked if he had read it and his office said, "I don't know." I thought it was funny they couldn't answer that...since he was prepared to cast a vote on it. I asked them to ask Michaud and I would call back...which I did--for three weeks. I heard nothing from them and never got an answer, either. So I asked Michaud myself at the Buckfield parade. He never answered 'yes' when I asked him to his face if he read it. I read that bill myself and I asked him questions about specific pieces of it. He looked like a deer in the headlights. He doesn't have a clue about that bill. He voted the way he was told...ala Nancy Pelosi. Line up behind him if you want, but I want more than that from my representative.

Right...like the current Secretary of the Treasury in your beloved Obama Administration? You're irrelevant, tron...or haven't you noticed? The tired and worn out drivel regurgitated every election season by you liberals is falling off deaf ears. I am looking forward to Election Day this year more than Christmas. You should put together a resume, tron. You may lose your free ride and have to get a job. As an aside...anyone who can sit there and blog all day on a computer is well able to get a job in data entry or telemarketing.

Looks like Poliquin is not familiar with Reagan's 11th Commandment...Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican.  Face it, Bruce.  You're unispiring and irrelevant. 

I couldn't resist...plenty of corruption to go around...

William Jefferson Clinton- Impeached by the House of Representatives over allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, but acquitted by the Senate. Scandals include Whitewater - Travelgate Gennifer Flowersgate - Filegate - Vince Fostergate - Whitewater Billing Recordsgate - Paula Jonesgate- Lincoln Bedroomgate - Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate - Lippogate - Chinagate - The Lewinsky Affair - Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate - Kathleen Willeygate - Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate - Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate - Jaunita Broaddrick Gate - Lootergate - Pardongate

Edward Moore Kennedy - Democrat - U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

DNC - The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct.

Sandy Berger - Democrat - National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration. Berger became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings.

Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Jesse Jackson - Democrat - Democratic candidate for President. Admitted to having an extramarital affair and fathering a illegitimate child.

Gary Condit - Democrat - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park..

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde - Democrat - the son of newly elected U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, was booked on charges of criminal damage to property for allegedly slashing tires on 20 vans and cars rented by the Republican Party for use in Election Day voter turnout efforts.

Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.

Melvin Jay Reynolds - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. Convicted on sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison.

Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.

George Rogers - Democrat - Massachusetts State House of Representatives from 1965 to 1970. M000ember of Massachusetts State Senate from 1975 to 1978. Convicted of bribery in 1978 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Don Siegelman - Democrat Governor Alabama - indicted in a bid-rigging scheme involving a maternity-care program. The charges accused Siegelman and his former chief of staff of helping Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo rig bids. Siegelman was accused of moving $550,000 from the state education budget to the State Fire College in Tuscaloosa so Bobo could use the money to pay off a competitor for a state contract for maternity care.

John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

James C. Green - Democrat - North Carolina State House of Representatives from 1961 to 1977. Charged with accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI agent, but was acquitted. Convicted of tax evasion in 1997.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.

Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison

Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.

John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.

John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.

Marion Barry - Democrat - mayor of Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1991 and again from 1995 to 1999. Convicted of cocaine possession after being caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine. Sentenced to six months in prison.

Mario Biaggi - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1969 to 1988. Indicted on federal charges that he had accepted bribes in return for influence on federal contracts.Convicted of obstructing justice and accepting illegal gratuities. Tried in 1988 on federal racketeering charges and convicted on 15 felony counts.

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Frank Ballance - Democrat - Congressman North Carolina. Pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering related to mishandling of money by his charitable foundation.

Hazel O'Leary - Democrat - Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration - O'leary took trips all over the world as Secretary with as many 50 staff members and at times rented a plane, which was used by Madonna during her concert tours.

Lafayette Thomas - Democrat - Candidate for Tennessee State House of Representatives in 1954. Sheriff of Davidson County, from 1972 to 1990. Indicted in federal court on 54 counts of abusing his power as sheriff. Pleaded guilty to theft and mail fraud; sentenced to five years in prison.

Mary Rose Oakar - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Ohio from 1977 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of funneling $16,000 through fake donors.

David Giles - Democrat - candidate for U.S. Representative from Washington in 1986 and 1990. Convicted in June 2000 of child rape.

Gary Siplin - Democrat state senator Florida- found guilty of third-degree grand theft of $5,000 or more, a felony, and using services of employees for his candidacy.

Edward Mezvinsky - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Iowa from 1973 to 1977. Indicted on 56 federal fraud charges.

Lena Swanson - Democrat - Member of Washington State Senate in 1997. Pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting unlawful payments from veterans and former prisoners of war.

Abraham J. Hirschfeld - Democrat - candidate in Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from New York in 1974 and 1976. Offered Paula Jones $1 million to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton. Convicted in 2000 of trying to hire a hit man to kill his business partner.

Henry Cisneros - Democrat - U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

James A. Traficant Jr. - Member of House of Representatives from Ohio. Expelled from Congress after being convicted of corruption charges. Sentenced today to eight years in prison for accepting bribes and kickbacks.

John Doug Hays - Democrat - member of Kentucky State Senate from 1980 to 1982 Found guilty of mail fraud for submitting false campaign reports stemming from an unsuccessful run for judge. He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by six months of home confinement and three years of probation.

Henry J. Cianfrani - Democrat - Pennsylvania State Senate from 1967 to 1976. Convicted on federal charges of racketeering and mail fraud for padding his Senate payroll. Sentenced to five years in federal prison.

David Hall - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1971 to 1975. Indicted on extortion and conspiracy charges. Convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

John A. Celona - Democrat - A former state senator was charged with the three counts of mail fraud. Federal prosecutors accused him of defrauding the state and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from CVS Corp. and others while serving in the legislature. Celona has agreed to plead guilty to taking money from the CVS pharmacy chain and other companies that had interest in legislation. Under the deal, Celona agreed to cooperate with investigators. He faces up to five years in federal prison on each of the three counts and a $250,000 fine

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah from 1975 to 1977. Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Jerry Cosentino - Democrat - Illinois State Treasurer. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud - fined $5,000 and sentenced to nine months home confinement.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1961 to 19 79. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

Albert G. Bustamante - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Texas from 1985 to 1993. Convicted in 1993 on racketeering and bribery charges and sentenced to prison.

Lawrence Jack Smith - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida from 1983 to 1993. Sentenced to three months in federal prison for tax evasion.

David Lee Walters - Democrat - Governor of Oklahoma from 1991 to 1995. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor election law violation.

James Guy Tucker, Jr. - Democrat - Governor of Arkansas from 1992 to 1996. Resigned in July 1996 after conviction on federal fraud charges as part of the Whitewater investigation.

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

William McCuen - Democrat - Secretary of State of Arkansas from 1985 to 1995. Admitted accepting kickbacks from two supporters he gave jobs, and not paying taxes on the money. Admitted to conspiring with a political consultant to split $53,560 embezzled from the state in a sham transaction. He was indicted on corruption charges. Pleaded guilty to felony counts tax evasion and accepting a kickback. Sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Walter Fauntroy - Democrat - Delegate to U.S. Congress from the District of Columbia from 1971 to 1991. Charged in federal court with making false statements on financial disclosure forms. Pleaded guilty to one felony count and sentenced to probation.

Carroll Hubbard, Jr. - Democrat - Kentucky State Senate from 1968 to 1975 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1975 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Elections Commission and to theft of government property; sentenced to three years in prison.

Joseph Kolter - Democrat - member of Pennsylvania State House of Representatives from 1969 to 1982 and U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1983 to 1993. Indicted by a Federal grand jury on five felony charges of embezzlement at the U.S. House post office. Pleaded guilty.

Webster Hubbell - Democrat - Chief Justice of Arkansas State Supreme Court in 1983. Pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges - sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Nicholas Mavroules - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1979 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to charges of tax fraud and accepting gratuities while in office.

Carl Christopher Perkins - Democrat - Kentucky State House of Representatives from 1981 to 1984 and U.S. Representative from Kentucky from 1985 to 1993. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud in connection with the House banking scandal. Perkins wrote overdrafts totaling about $300,000. Pleaded guilty to charges of filing false statements with the Federal Election Commission and false financial disclosure reports. Sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Richard Hanna - Democrat - U.S. Representative from California from 1963 to 1974. Received payments of about $200,000 from a Korean businessman in what became known as the "Koreagate" influence buying scandal. Pleaded guilty and sentenced to federal prison.

Angelo Errichetti - Democrat - New Jersey State Senator was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $40,000 for his involvement in Abscam.

Daniel Baugh Brewster - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Maryland. Indicted on charges of accepting illegal gratuity while in Senate.

Thomas Joseph Dodd - Democrat - U.S. Senator from Connecticut. Censured by the Senate for financial improprieties, having diverted $116,000 in campaign and testimonial funds to his own use

Edward Fretwell Prichard, Jr. - Democrat - Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Kentucky. Convicted of vote fraud in federal court in connection with ballot-box stuffing. Served five months in prison.

Jerry Springer - Democrat - Resigned from Cincinnati City Council in 1974 after admitting to paying a prostitute with a personal check, which was found in a police raid on a massage parlor.

Guy Hamilton Jones, Sr. - Democrat -Arkansas State Senate. Convicted on federal tax charges and expelled from the Arkansas Senate.

Daniel Flood - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1945 to 1947, 1949 to 1953 and 1955 to 1980. Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving payoffs and sentenced to probation.

Otto Kerner, Jr - Democrat - Governor of Illinois from 1961 to 1968. While serving as Governor, he and another official made a gain of over $300,000 in a stock deal. Convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges. Sentenced to three years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

George Crockett, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan. Served four months in federal prison for contempt of court following his defense of a Communist leader on trial for advocating the overthrow of the government.

Cornelius Edward Gallagher - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1959 to 1973. Indicted on federal charges of income tax evasion, conspiracy, and perjury

Mark B. Jimenez - Democrat fundraiser - sentenced to 27 months in prison on charges of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit election financing offenses.

Bobby Lee Rush - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois. As a Black Panther, spent six months in prison on a weapons charge.

Bolley ''Bo'' Johnson - Democrat - Former Florida House Speaker - received a two-year term for tax evasion.

Roger L. Green - Democrat - Brooklyn Democrat Assemblyman. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for accepting travel reimbursement for trips he did not pay for and was sentenced to fines and probation.

Gloria Davis - Democrat - Bronx assemblywoman. Pleaded guilty to second-degree bribe-taking.

Reverend Taylor...I am one who normally thinks that you don't get enough credit for your attention to the needs of the downtown area and probably one of the few in the area that knows where you come from.  As a friend in the faith, however, I disagree with some of what you say here.  No, perhaps these commentators are not the gospel writers.  But don't make the mistake of implying that there wasn't some passion in those men.  James and John were nicknamed the Sons of Thunder for wanting to rain fire on Jesus' enemies, after all.  I am sure you are familiar with the passion of Jesus in Matthew 23.  Admittedly these commentators are not preaching religious values, they are preaching conservative values, most of which are grounded in western religious tradition, be it Judaism or Christianity (something argued deepy on these boards daily).  But I would dispute your claim that they do so to make a profit out of controversy.  Would you say the same about Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, or Chris Matthews?  These are men of passion, not controvery.  But those with firm and unwaverable convictions are often said to be controversial, either right or left.  You of all people should know that, Doug.  You have organized many public displays over the years and have been accused in this forum as the same type of man that you accuse these commentators of being.  Are you a man of conviction or controversy?  I would submit conviction.  And the only difference I see in these men that you list and you is the size of the audience.  There is nothing wrong with a little righteous indignation.  And you're right...the churches need to do more of it.  Now I'll wait for the fallout from the "big three."  Good morning, guys.     

Wow...now I am Phyllis Schlafly in drag?  What a great, well-researched response.  Beautiful...

Imagine the local used car dealer who sold a vehicle to someone who killed a family of four on their way home from the movies because he was drunk.  Murder is character issue, Dr.  It matters not what the device used to commit the act.  If someone wants to go on a murderous rampage, he doesn't need a gun to do it (see Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, countless others).  Would you like to outlaw anything that can be used to commit mass murder?  How about airplanes, too? This is not an issue of safety for you, Doc, so stop hiding behind your ideology.  You don't like guns...period.  If this was about safety, you would want to ban cars...they are involved in far more fatalities than guns are.  But since you don't like guns, I'll make sure I don't use mine to protect you. 

I am sure we agree on the destination of Beck's soul, but I am sure for different reasons.  However, I am more concerned with the truth of his "rants."  What is untrue about what Beck says?

Would you PLEASE just answer the question.  Should we support those who are too lazy to support themselves.  I don't need to be a professional and again, tron, your point is irrelevant and avoiding the question.  I know guy who has no feeling from the chest down and has been in that condition for 30 years.  He finished high school, college, and has been working every day of his life since.  When does supporting those unwilling to work, against our will through taxation, become stealing?

Make sure we consider the whole counsel of the scriptures, veritas.  I am no friend of Rome and would agree that the Bible mandates caring the poor and downtrodden.  But we must also consider this:

II Thes. 3:6-10: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.   For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;  Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:  Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

I Tim. 5:8: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Nowhere are disciples of Christ commanded to pick up the slack for those too lazy to do for themselves.  Unable, yes.  Unwilling, no.  Beck is right in his assertion that we have created a dependent class in the country that is seeking for a loophole and a chance to get on the government dole.  That, Biblically speaking, is sin...but the churches Beck speaks of have enabled people to do just that, laying blame at the feet of believers who believe what the Bible says about subsidizing the lazy.  Very few people in this country are truly unable to work.  Yet we have 30% of the country receiving some kind of entitlement.  Speaking for myself...I worked two jobs over 11 years so that I would not have to be dependent on someone else.  This has nothing to do with being rich...I make 40k a year.  I don't want to help support someone unwilling to go to a job.  Unable?  More than willing to help and do.  Unwilling?  No, that is subsidizing laziness.  Do you think we should do that?

Yeah...I noticed you didn't respond to my question about your post on that the other day.  You know, the one that asked for actual examples of how the textbook editors were rewriting history, as opposed to emphasizing something you didn't like?  No answers, I guess?  Oh, that's right...you posted a plagiarized body of work.  Silly of me to think that you actually know anything about it.  You're simply regurgitating someones else's work....no original thoughts of your own.

No fake?!  He hijacked the post from someone else?  Damn...and I gave him a compliment, too.  I am feeling gracious today.  Where's veritas?  I want to chest bump him!

Yeah, you're right about that but are you seriously trying to say that Republicans are the ONLY ones responsible for the debt?  I am not defending debts or deficits but, seriously, you don't think any of the blame can fall on Democrats?  All spending bills must, by Constitution, originate in the House of Representatives and, subsequently, be approved by them.  The Dems had the House from 1954 to 1995 (including the Reagan years) and regained it 2006. Any increases in the debt or deficit spending, then, must fall on them.  Clinton increased it some, too, in his first couple of years.  But is also went down under the Republican Congress in the remaining years.  W’s a little different…he ran up the debt, too but he also had some help from the Democratic Congress in his 8 years (’07 and ’08).  In W’s early years, he has his own party to blame and I, as a Republican, am willing to hold him and the party accountable for that.  I blame the RINO’s but that’s another story.  Now, are you willing to admit that there is plenty of blame to go around or are you just going to blame Republicans?  And will you have similar scorn for President Obama, whose projected budget is quite high?  If we are going to fix these problems, we have to be willing to admit our own errors.  I did.  Are you?

Sincerely, I mean that.  I, too, have been following this textbook argument.  But I do have a serious question (no, really).  The objections that have brought up are well known.  The question is this:  when it comes to history, what exactly is historically incorrect about what they wish to include or emphasize?  I know that you take issue with what they are excluding (separate argument) and I can respect that based on your political ideology which, of course, is different than mine.  I see you take issue with what they are choosing to emphasize, but what is incorrect about it?  I see this more as an issue of opposing ideological emphasis on which history is important, as opposed to distortion of facts. 

1.  Aquinas, Blackstone, and Calvin were influential historical figures.

2.  Many of McCarthy's accused persons were shown to Communist sympathizers, although I personally think he an abusive drunk.

3.  Germans and Italians were interred during WWII...it was not isolated to Japanese (it was still wrong)

4. Separation of church and state?  Yeah...but not how it has come to be defined.  The gov't should advocate no religion and hinder no religious groups (I am Christian).  Let all freely worship according to their conscience (that is what Jefferson believed), even if I believe the Christian faith to be superior (Jefferson believed that, too)

5.  The Black Panthers did advocate violence while MLK advanced his righteous cause with passive and peaceful demonstration.

6.  There was a significant Christian influence in the founding of this country.  Were there also some deists?  Sure.  But that doesn't erase the Christian influence.

7.  There was a conservative resurgence in the 70's and 80's.  See my hero...

I don't want to list every example...but seriously, which of these things that you listed did not happen?  If it's the ideological emphasis you oppose fine, say that.  It's honest.  But to say they are making up history is inaccurate.

Predictable...I am stupid, a coward, and a poor example who doesn't care for his family.  I wonder if you libs are capable of having any discussion without attacking the individual...but I digress.  I can't control the spin on the plan and I offered these articles as proof that the GOP has offered a plan, something the original poster was disputing if you read it.  I never said the articles you referred to supported the GOP plan.  You are offering this analysis as if I did.  I did notice that you left out the WSJ analysis which is somewhat is disagreement with the analysis at CBS and the LA Times and lays some serious charges at the government plan.  Charges, by the way, none of you ObamaCare supporters care to answer.  If it's so good, why won't Congress adopt it for themselves?  Try to answer that, would you xyz?  This such a great plan but they won’t take it.  What gives? 

P.S.  Awful brave of you to throw around the names when you don't put your name on your profile...and I'm the coward.  I'll give lil, tron, and veritas that much credit.  They're at least willing to put their name on their post.

You’re right; the facts are overwhelming…against your argument.  The Republican plan is more than just a few pages, it is 230 pages and has been circulating for more than six months now.  Since you claim to have been waiting to see them, I’ll assume you are not like the “big three” (tron, lil, and veritas) and are actually interested in what the Republicans have to offer.  Some of these proposals were offered during the Bush Administration and filibustered by Democrats.  You may check out these links from reputable news sources, even those not friendly to the GOP.  They are not, as the “big three” would have you believe, just stamping their feet in a tantrum screaming, “No!”   That is simply NOT true.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/nation/na-health-gop5

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/politics/main5510731.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61757T20100208

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

Now I will wait for the assault on my character rather than speaking to any of the issues here.  And my question still remains:  Why should I trust a health care plan if the people who want me to have it won’t take it for themselves?  This Republican will call his congressman today and tell him to support it...if the Congress and government bureaucrats in Washington put themselves under the same plan they want to force me to take. Is that so unreasonable?

You've tried plenty...you seem to give me alot of attention for someone not trying.  I just don't swallow the liberal BS that you, tron, and lil try to pass off on this board.  You spew this liberal crap and can't even see your own hypocrisy, illogic, or inconsistency.  I am through giving you Bolsheviks a pass.  I reject this socialist utopia that you are so fond of and will fight it with every ounce of strength I have.  When I was young I was taught to prove all things and think for myself.  Of all the questions I have posed to you, lil, and tron you have answered none of them.  You have only attacked me.  I am neither crazy nor drunk; I want answers to questions and I won't accept the propaganda that you and the rest of the liberals serve up.  You've given up?  Then I guess I win...

The validity of the arrests is irrelevant.  YOU said that George Bush took away rights and had people arrested.  He did not order the arrests of anyone or have anyone arrested because of what they said.  That's what YOU said and it's a fact that he did not.

You're avoiding the question again but, yeah, the inherent right of self-defense...like in the Declaration of Independence.   Inalienable rights endowed by their Creator...life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...all that stuff.  And you forgot..."the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."  And before you run and hide behind the "militia" hang up, the Constitution indentifies who is meant by "people" in the Preamble...We the People of the United States."  Perhaps you care to speak to lil's double logic?

Another great non-answer from the big three (tron, lil, and veritas).  Answering a direct question with an irrelevant question.  Explain your double standard, lil...that's the question on the table here.  Stop hiding...or get off the board.

Great non-answer...you, veritas, and tron must be bowling partners.  I am not the one who is being inconsistent here, buddy.  You are the one saying that concealed carry is dangerous and people should not have weapons because someone could get hurt.  Why are you not advocating the same for automobiles?  More people are killed every year by cars, you said so yourself.  Seems to me you are more afraid of people having guns than people driving their cars since you are advocating against concealed carry laws.  You drive a car!!!  Do you know how many people are car killed in automobile accidents every year in America?  Are you so entitled that you cannot make it through the day without putting people at risk by driving?!!!  Ridiculous, right?  So is your gun argument.  Please explain your double standard to me...and to all of us on this board. Fear?  No...It is a question of the inherent right of self-defense.

You're great at ducking the issue aren't you?  I don't take anything for granted.  You are avoiding the question again.  Bush cannot pass the Patriot Act by fiat, or take away anything without the Congress.  Many Democrats voted for that bill which you hang on Bush.  Give me a break...How do you blame Bush for how Democratic legislators voted on that bill?  Your own Democrats voted for that bill, too.  How can you blame Bush for that?  You can't but you do...what is wrong with you people?  As an aside, any chance as a self-professed educated man that your are capable of communicating without veiled profanity?  

Perhaps you're aware of the massacre in Killeen, Texas in 1991...in a cafe of all places.  That nut job killed 23 and wounded another 20.  One armed patron who could have shot back would have stopped a lot of carnage.  A quote from the Wikidpedia article concerning the shooting, "Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle because laws in force at the time forbade citizens from carrying firearms."  What's your point?  That these folks who didn't do anything but go to lunch should be victims of a nut job with a gun?  You will notice, of course, that the law which prohibited citizens from carrying firearm was obeyed by the guy who shot everyone?  Oh, wait...the law only stopped already law-abiding people from carrying their guns.  I am sure there are many family members of victims who would have appreciated the opportunity for their loved ones to defend themselves.

I have to confess I am not up to speed with this proposal.  Could you post the link to the Wall Street Journal article on this?  Or maybe provide the issue and I can look it up myself if you don't have the link?  I'd really like to read it.  Thanks!

Have to say, I am a little offended at the insinuation that Republicans do not take up arms to defend their nation.  I am Republican and served in the military.  My father was a Republican and served in the military.  My grandfather's both served in World War II and were...gasp...also Republicans.  My great-grandfather, who immigrated from Canada fought in World War I, was also a Republican.  If you take a look historically at those who dodged the draft and loathed the military (Bill Clinton), you will find they are mostly peacenik, tie-dyed wearing, pot-smoking, kumbaya singing Democrats.  And it is also NOT Republicans who think Americans should give up their 2nd Amendment rights... 

There is no subsidy of anyone's lifestyle here...we are talking about the justice of taxing entities that do not turn a profit, especially those who provide services free of charge to the community.  Dr. McLaughlin pays income taxes on the salary he earns as direcror of the mission; no one is subsidizing his lifestyle.  But the corporation should not have to pay taxes when it lives off of donations.  Hope Haven Gospel Mission has housed and fed more homeless people than I suspect you have.  Give the guy a break.  Seems to me your issue is with religion, not tax breaks. 

I have seen that, too, but you missed the point...I was referring to tron accusing him of being a threat to shoot someone over a parking space simply because he had the means to do so...owning a gun or carrying a gun does not make someone reckless, violent, or unreasonable which is what tron was trying to hang on him.  And you are still not getting it...simply because there are irrational, impulsive, reactionary, and angry people out there is no excuse for denying the right to carry a gun to someone who isn't.  C'mon, man...you're a retired cop.  Gun violence, while tragic, doesn't mean that I should not have a means of self-defense from those who would perpetrate violence.  Cops can't be everywhere at once and you know as well as I do that guns are used to deter crime as much or more than they are used to perpetrate crime, it just doesn't get the media play that wing nuts who go crazy with a gun get.  What am I supposed to do while waiting for a cop to show up?  Run in serpentine fashion until they get there?  People get drunk and kill people while driving their cars, much more common than firearm deaths by the way, are you and tron going to turn in your car keys?

Really, veritas?  I guess I should just trust that criminals will obey the laws that prohibit guns and law-abiding citizens will be safe and won't need guns for protection?  How'd that work out in Kankakee?  There are four categories of people in this argument: good and evil, armed and unarmed.  What should the good/unarmed do against the evil/armed?  Wait for the police?  How'd that work out in Kankakee?  Your kind of thinking gets people killed.  You advocate that people should lay down their arms and....what?  Trust the good people of America not to hurt you?  I guess I would buy that argument if only good people existed.  You, of all people on this board, should know that is not true.  You mention the Pentagon...that wacko was stopped by someone with a gun.  What if someone with a gun, cop or otherwise, had not been there?  How many people would have been hurt?  As many people as he had bullets for, that's how many.  Carry a gun 24/7?  I personally don't.  But when I am somewhere far removed from help, you're darn right I am carrying a gun.  I know the kind of people that live in this world...and so do you.       

I guess you're going to take a pass on providing any examples on the "Communist doctrine" accusation?  You liberals would be great in a court room.  "They're Communists, your honor!  They should be exiled and shot!"  "Oh, really?" says the judge. "What evidence do you offer to prove this?"  Tron stands there, shifting his weight from foot to foot, anxiously reviewing his memory for the last time he watched Keith Olbermann.  "Well?" says the judge.  Tron finally blurts out his trump card..."They're Communists, your honor!  They should be exiled and shot!"  Yep, we should all surrender our lives to these people.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt!  I can't wait for the mid-term elections!  Great job, tron.  You are a great apologist for the Democratic party. 

Communist doctrine?  You have really reached the depths of ridiculousness this time, tron.  I don't suppose you would care to offer an example of such "doctrine" would you?  Perhaps one or two examples and the page number of the Communist Manifesto where it can be found wouldn't be difficult for you, would it?  Especially since you are so familiar with it.  The very idea that you would seek to suppress the expression of one side's view, whether you agree with it or not, however, is reminiscent of the Tass News Agency in the former Soviet Union, or perhaps MSNBC...take your pick.  And try not to be like veritas...try to actually answer the question.  Since you made the accusation, the burden of proof is on you.  Communist doctrine!!?? Now that's funny! 

You people have no idea how to reason logically...I said no such thing and you stating that I did doesn't make it so.  Yet you STILL avoid my question (name calling is all you folks are good at).  First of all, Obama's health care plan is nothing like military medical care and you know it.  Secondly, being in the military is in NO WAY like being forced to swallow this bilge water that the Democrats are serving up.  If I wasn't satisfied with my care with the military medical facilities, I could go to someone else (and sometimes did)...I didn't surrender anything.  That is not so under the Obama plan.  There is nothing unreasonable about that and your reactionary hyperbolic drivel doesn't make it so.  I most certainly act in the manner in which I reason.  So let me re-phrase this then...maybe you can answer it now..."Why should I surrender my health care decisions to someone who will then forbid me from going somewhere else if that care is inadequate, rationed, or denied?"  

I am in control.  Good grief, it's basic free market economics.  If I, as a private consumer, am unsatisfied with my health care coverage I am free to take my premium to another vendor...just like any other business in this country.  Don't like the quality of the Toyota you bought?  Buy a Chrysler next time.    And that's the point...I get to choose what is right for ME and my family.  That's what freedom is, or so I thought.  If the government plan stinks, guess what?  I am not only stuck with it but I am FORCED to buy it.  That is not freedom, my friend, that's socialism or, dare I say, tyranny.  Really?  The American people would rather have the federal government making their health care decisions?  Which poll did you get that info from?  The Daily Kos?  Wasted my time making this post?  I'll take my chances...but thanks for the public service announcement.

Wow...I can't believe the responses on this board.  No one seems to be concerned that the state has not met its obligation to pay its bills...to the tune of 27 million bucks; and that is just to one hospital.  Let's not worry about that, though.  Let's nail the hospital administrator who has showed up for work and met the obligations of his employment contract and runs a responsible hospital that serves the needs of the sick in the community.  Yeah, that's a good idea.  Let's see how many of you posters are willing to accept not getting paid if your employer decides not to pay you because the state of Maine is not paying for services it has used from YOUR employer.  We should be annoyed at the state for not paying its bills.  What are they doing with our tax dollars is the question we should be asking.  Get a grip people...start holding your government accountable, not a business executive that is maintaining a business that employs a thousand people who use their paychecks and taxes in the Maine economy.

I have a serious question for the Sheriff, one that I have not seen the press ask yet. When you go into the Sheriff's department, there is a board on the wall so the public knows who is in charge of what. Apparently there is a Jail Administrator and an Assistant Jail Administrator identified on this wall. Please tell me, Sheriff Desjardins, what the heck are the county taxpayers paying THEM to do? And why haven't they been called to account for what happened? To the Sun-Journal, I am guessing that you would have one hell of a story if you started to interview the employees of the Androscoggin County Sheriff's Department about what goes on in that jail. Desjardins may think he took the high ground by firing these individuals. But who allowed such an environment to exist in the first place? If this goes on under the nose of the administration, they are not doing their job and I am guessing by the look of this video that has been the case for a long time. Desjardins may have acted in this case, but what past inaction bred an environment where this behavior happens without a second thought? If the employees of the jail are willing to horseplay in front of the video camera, clearly they didn't think anything would come of it. Could it be they thought that way because, as Truthfulbitch says, the administration turns their backs when it comes to the behavior of some, but not of others. Why doesn't the Sun-Journal look into that? I would love to read that story...and I bet there are a multitude of staff persons, fed up with the apparent favoritism, who are willing to tell it.

Don't create a controversy when there isn't any. This would be a decision of the local towns and deputies would be assigned to those towns, or did you not read the article? I am not in favor of preserving a government program, in this case the Bethel PD, or any small PD for that matter, because the entrenched political establishment or a comfortable police chief in that town wants to preserve it at the expense of the taxpayer. When the same service can be provided cheaper and just as effectively, then it should be done. This is not a federal or a state mandate, this is the citizens of Bethel deciding to contract, not being forced to contract, with the sheriff's department for the same service at a lower price. This is local control. The citizens of Bethel can also choose not to renew the contract. Doesn't get much more "local control" than that, does it? By the way, these would all be ideas that Reagan would approve of...perhaps you should read his writings. Reagan would be against the government walking in and taking over against the will of the citizens...much like they have every other program once entrusted to the locals. I might also submit that the existence of the sheriff's office predates the municipal police in American history.

Excuse me, tron, for not being specific...Mainers have voted several times against particular gay rights legislation. But you are correct in this was the first specific gay marriage referendum. Is that better?

What does the MHPC have to do with anything? They did not corral the voters into the voting booth to vote "yes" on 1. Nor did they coerce those who signed the petition to support the referendum. You don't think the 'no' on 1 crowd is financially supported? Give me a break, tron. How have they hijacked the process? That is the process. You don't think the 'no' on 1 crowd has the financial resources to pay people to collect signatures for a referendum. They outspent the 'yes' on one crowd by 3:1 on this issue. As for representative government and elected legislators, we agree and probably always have. However, the gay marriage law had been repealed by referendum twice prior to the legislature passing it this past year. I think that violates the spirit of "trying to represent our interests and also to intelligently decide serious issues that confront us," don't you? After all, we are not talking about a clean water bill here. The MHPC has the right to organize political opposition. They don't put anything before the voters. The voters who sign the petition do. There is nothing corrupt about that. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign the petition. I walk past signature gatherers all the time if I don't support their cause. You give MHPC too much credit and I suspect you are just looking for someone to blame. Do you think people in Maine are incapable of thinking for themselves? When the voter goes into the voting booth he stands alone...The majority of Mainers, for now anyway, don't want gay marriage. The legislature needs to listen.

Tron, you know nothing of the democratic process. I think you would be much more comfortable in a country where there is no dissent and the only choice on the ballot is the one put forth by the establishment. So what if Tabor is put back on the ballot in an another election year? If the people who favor Tabor have gone through the process of gathering the signatures to support a referendum, why do you care? That's how representative government and democracy works. It doesn't take away your ability to have your say and vote against it, does it? The same goes for those who favor 'no' on question 1. Take your case to the people, gather the signatures to support a referendum, and let the people vote. But you don't want to do that, do you? No, you want the legislature to enact laws by fiat, without the consent of the governed. That takes away everyone's ability to have a say, even yours. Good grief, man, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? You want the only view passed by the legislature to be yours. You want the only position on the ballot to be yours...Just check the box that supports your view. And you call conservatives and Republicans fascists? That view, my dear Tron, is the very definition of tyranny and I am confident that you would be the first one squawking about tyranny if the legislature voted in Tabor the way they voted in gay marriage.

The editorial board has made some useful recommendations. But let's not get carried away and lump the entire county public safety division into one mess. Dispatch and the patrol division are largely problem-free. I never have issues with county deputies or county dispatch; I cannot say the same for the local municipality's police departments or the LA 911 center. But the point of the county charter is well-taken. I would suggest that it also include a civilian review board to approve the promotions of personnel within the Sheriff's department, in particular administrative positions. The county commissioners have been hopelessly derelict in this responsibility over the years, rubber stamping recommendations for administrative and supervisory promotions from the Sheriff's office without even a surface review of the candidates who apply. Case in point is the current Chief Deputy Eric Samson, the chief patrol deputy in the division who has never even been to the police academy. Someone in the Sheriff's office thought he was qualified to supervise law enforcement officers with more than a decade of experience and college educations. The county commissioners approved this appointment and thought that was a useful way to spend tax payer money. The internal administration is largely inept as is evidenced by its on going internal problems highlighted by this incident and many others that have never been made public, I am sure. The administration is more concerned with promoting personnel who will protect those secrets rather than make serious changes that will benefit the tax payer. The Sheriff's office has a responsibility to see to it that tax payer money is spent employing the most qualified people available and they don't. Poor supervisors result in poor behavior. But we cannot simply blame the Sheriff. The jail adminstrators also bear some of the responsibility. Oversight is clearly lacking. Is management not up to this task? If they are not, who promoted them? When job performance stoops to this level, clearly there is a problem with the management. This is not the first such public incident regarding bad behavior in the Sheriff's department, in particular the jail. Where is the jail management? Change in the Sheriff's department needs to start with Desjardins, that is true. Perhaps Desjardins needs to take a look at his administration. If he is unwilling to do that, perhaps voters need to reconsider him in the next election.

To speak to your first question, Stacy, I'd be happy to...It's right there in Genesis 1:27-28...God created male and female, blessed them, and told them to be "fruitful and mutliply, and replenish the earth." Now, if you had read my post carefully and honestly, not reading into it what you wanted it to say, you would understand that I was not referring to infertile couples at all. Infertile heterosexual couples are not what I had in mind. Your implication that somehow I am opposed to your marriage because you cannot have children is sensationalistic hyperbole of the highest order. I said no such thing. You and your husband are not against nature; you are biologically compatible and, if not for a medical anomaly, would reproduce in like kind. This has nothing to do with couples that cannot have children. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, can be perfectly healthy and yet they will not reproduce in like kind; they are not biologically capatible. They have to have "help" from the other sex. Even then, one of them has no biological connection to the offspring. Your reference to Ezekiel is curious...If you think it refers to those who reject same-sex marriage, you are sadly mistaken. You have taken the verse completely out of its context; go back and read it. The day Ezekiel is referring is that day of judgment and doom that God had brought against the Jews for rejecting his Law and the arrogance they showed by not heeding his warnings. So, if anything, it is an indictment on those who accept same sex marriage, since that is condemned in the Bible, and homosexual activists refuse to accept it. Incidentally, I never "interpret" the Bible for anyone...I simply tell you what it says. If you think it means something other than what it says, it is you who is interpreting, not me. Now, in conclusion, I govern my life by the Bible's moral code. You don't have to and I really don't care if you do or don't. That's between you and God and that's YOUR right. But since I am accountable to God, I will vote according to the moral code He has given me. That's MY right.

Are you seriously implying that this newspaper has a conservative base? This paper is about as liberal as it gets. Let me give you the opinion of a conservative straight from the heart and not the opinion the liberal media has programmed you to expect from conservatives. First, the Sun Journal article yesterday was despicable and if any harm comes to this man I hope his family sues the newspaper; the reactionary behavior from some in the community was deplorable. Second, no true God-fearing conservative would treat this man the way the article reported. Those who did are not conservatives and I have a news flash for you tron, many liberals tormented this man, too. Third, as a conservative, what I take issue with is that this man is able to work but won't. He admitted himself that he did light janitorial work but "couldn't take it." So now he resorts to begging. Janitorial work may not be the best paying job but it is productive...and there is self-respect in being productive, however lowly the job. If a person is working and is down on their luck, they'll get help from this conservative. If they are unwilling to work, I am not giving them a thing. I am only enabling them to be lazy at that point. Most of us have no problem helping those who "have not" because they "cannnot." But I am not helping a "have not" because he "will not." Fourth, your comparison to Bill O'Reilly is misplaced as well as inaccurate and taints an otherwise useful post. This man's treatment has nothing to do with political persuasion and you know it. Don't exploit this man's tragedy to take a shot at conservatives.