Michael Vass interviews Broome County Sheriff candidate Tim “T.R.” Roberts – history, experience, medal of valor and life saving
Michael Vass interviews the Broome County New York Sheriff candidate Tim “T.R.” Roberts about the upcoming Democratic primary on September 21 and the mid-term elections.
The interview includes conversation on the past experience and credentials of Tim Roberts, his commendations and medals, his time as Cheif of Police in Deposit, NY, his proposals to help reduce costs and improve law enforcement and corrections operations for the County, as well as his views on topics of the day: 9/11 mosque, NY cigarette Tax enforcement and the American Native Indian tribes, the Arizona Immigration Law and more.
Note – M V Consulting, Inc. does not advocate any candidate or incumbent for any elected office at the local, State, or Federal level. We have not recieved any payment for any interview with a political candidate or incumbent. The interviews, present, past, and future, are intended to allow voters the chance to learn about the candidates and the issues such that an informed decision can be made in the election booth.
Where is New York going?
The titular question is perhaps the most important question facing residents of New York seperate of directly wondering about the economy. With the economic uncertainty of the nation and State at hand, proposals to increase taxes at the local and State levels (not to mention Federal), and issues like the 9/11 mosque New Yorkers are divided. Though not as significantly as some pundits would suggest.
A recent Siena Poll (August 2010) is very clear in what it states. 67% of the population believe New York State is on the wrong track. A view that is almost uniformly felt by every demographic breakdown pollsters use.
Considering the events of the past year this is not a surprise. In 2010 the State has had politicians line up in favor of holding the 9/11 trials in NYC, in favor of the wisdom of building a mosque at the ruins of the Twin Towers, in favor of tax hikes, in favor of violating the 4th Amendment, and in favor of imposing bans on individual choices (no salt, ect) before some elected officials reversed their positions as the mid-term elections have drawn near.
In addition the year has seen several incumbents, up for re-election, actively secure funding from the Federal Government – at the cost of increasing the national debt – with huge publicity; while these same individuals have refrained from discussing the details of how the funding will be applied or if the funding will in fact help the State. Which says nothing of scandals from the bizzare with Eric Massa, the unending with Rep. Rangel, to the end of political careers for yet another Governor.
Favorability of the current incumbents is low as a result. Gov. Patterson is at 32%, and appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrans is at 40% for example. In fact Senator Gillibrand is almost as unknown and held without opinion as she is held in good favor (31% vs 40%). This is in addition to the fact that 62% would vote for someone else or are unsure of who to vote for in the mid-term elections. A full 51% would vote out any incumbent State Assembly member.
But that’s where things get strange.
In New York, nearly a full third of the population is unclear on who Senator Gillibrand is and the job she has done for New York. Virtually 2/3 would like to replace her. Yet the Republicans running against her (Blakeman, DioGuardi, and Malpass) each barely miss gaining 30% of those polled in favor opposed to Gillibrand.
It seems strange indeed. Senator Gillibrand has flipped her position on the 9/11 trials, the immigration debate, and multiple other issues. She has voted (almost alone in the Senate) in favor of ACORN. She has supported the Health Care Reform and Obama Stimulus – each without ever answering the question “Have you read the Bill” or attending a single town hall meeting on the issues. In fact, as has been proven repeatedly on this site, Senator Gillibrand has actively refused to answer questions posed to her.
Why would there be such an imbalance between how the public feels, the votes against the wishes of the public that incumbents like Senator Gillibrand and Rep. Hinchey have done, and the polling against opponents?
It may be the media. While there has been no lack of attention in the media to the passage of Bills, there has equally been no real coverage of the results (real or projected) of those Bills. The major media has provided a pass to the refusal of the incumbents, like Senator Gillibrand, in not responding to the public or in the efforts to discract voters with recycled messages.
Even worse, some major media outlets have framed opponents – and any organization that might support an opponent to incumbents – in the worst of lights. Like the Press & Sun which distorted the coverage of the recent Tea Party Rally in Binghamton via a reporter who showed up more than half way after the start of the event and then used 6 words to quote 1 of 7 speeches (each speech being no less than 7 minutes long) making the event seem radical – if 200 people (age 30 – 60) standing and listening to speakers can be called radical.
In a pro-Democrat State, all the stops are being poured on to counter the anti-incumbent view of voters, and to distract from facts that have occured over the year. Even as the level of unemployment and loss of small businesses maintain levels that spell doom to the economy.
Perhaps the question should be why would voters re-elect politicians that have actively ignored the public’s feelings on major issues, increased spending without the resources to pay for that spending, and driven businesses out of the State almost as fast as the general population? If the average person was asked if they would elect an alleged crook to office the answer would be no. If asked to elect a person that would ignore their opinions and views, they would say no. If asked to elect a person that would flip their positions based on special interst spending, the answer again is no.
But yet there are several incumbents, like Rep. Hinchey and Senator Gillibrand, that according to polling stand to be re-elected?
Is blind partisanship truly worth more than representation that matches the will of the public? Are politics so askew of reality that behavior as described above is considered acceptable? Is the major media warping of facts and molding of politician actions effectively the sheparding of sheep?
These are all very good questions. The answer will come in November. And depending on that answer we will learn if New York State will continue to go down the wrong track as has been the trend for over the past 2 years.
Full interview with Art Garrison – candidate for the 126th NY Assembly seat
Michael Vass interviewed Art Garrison, who is running for the 126th seat on the New York State Assembly – currently held by Donna Lupardo (Democrat). The interview took place at the business of Mr. Garrison, Family Hobby and Crafts in Vestal, New York.
The interview delves into the background of Mr. Garrison, his motivation to run for elected office, plans to deal with the State deficit, term limits, reaction to the Health Care Reform, comments on the 9/11 mosque and proposals by Gov. Paterson dealing with the cigarette tax and Native American Indians, among other issues.
Several of the questions covered in this interview are in response to the Open Letter to candidates and incumbents for New York elected office posed by Michael Vass previously.
Note – M V Consulting, Inc. does not advocate any candidate or incumbent for any elected office at the local, State, or Federal level. We have not recieved any payment for any interview with a political candidate or incumbent. The interviews, present, past, and future, are intended to allow voters the chance to learn about the candidates and the issues such that an informed decision can be made in the election booth.
How do you say ‘I give up’? Ask President Obama
Listening to President Obama’s speech about the retreat that he has insisted on for years, there was one consistent thought that rang through my mind. America is weak, we won’t stand up to anything. Not that I agree with such a thought, but that’s what the flat, bored, deadpan speech President Obama projected in droves.
If Iran had a fear of America, if Al Quaeda worried about the mission in Afghanistan, they no longer do so.
President Obama complicated the defeat in Iraq, exemplified by our retreat, with his economic policies that have failed. He created an inference that all the woes of the economy have been firmly caused by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A connection that is as defeatist as it is flawed.
The end of combat operations in Iraq will not suddenly place America in an economic boom phase. The impending retreat from Afghanistan will not inject growth into an economy burdened by higher taxes, Government interference, and policies that have only increased the national debt faster than any Presidency ever.
President Obama did rightly state that all the Armed Forces that have served in Iraq, or in the military ever, deserve to be honored (something that Speaker nancy Pelosi’s home district should be reminded of) and those wounded given the best of care. The only praise of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is deserved solely to the soldiers that performed under the most horrendous restrictions and confusion of politicians playing war. And that applies to both Republicans as well as Democrats.
Based on the speech, and the manner in which it was delivered, it seems clear that going forward America’s approach to Iraq will be the same as that of post-war Viet Nam. A response that allowed millions to die, though not a single Liberal that insisted in retreat mentioned a word about it. Therefore Iraq should be prepared to be thrown to the wolves, with Afghanistan soon to follow.
The consequence of what has happened in this retreat that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid foretold and has now been realized will likely be felt in 5 – 10 years. The failure to achieve a plan and attain a win, will be revisited long after President Obama has left office. Perhaps at a moment when America’s attention is diverted, to horrible consequence.
There is no question that President Obama entered office with a difficult task in Iraq and Afghanistan. But these were aspects of the position that he wanted to take on. That he insisted he was ready for. That he could win, or at least derive a positive result.
The speech tonight provides the proof that either these tasks were beyond President Obama, or that his defeatist attitude never intended to do anything but to retreat and isolate America.
Why President Obama chose to make this speech, considering the failure it highlights and the attitude on these issues President Obama apparently holds, is beyond this political mind. Perhaps it is an open hand to the far-left, or a plea to the families of soldiers – either case in hopes of resurrecting the re-election dreams of incumbent Democrats.
At least there is one group that is assured to have enjoyed tonight’s speech. Iran and Al Quaeda (I lump them into one group, pro-terrorists). Sadly for President Obama, neither can vote in America.
Michael Vass interviews Art Garrison – NY State Assembly candidate – 9/11 mosque, Native American Indians, cigarette tax
Michael Vass interviewed Art Garrison, who is running for the 126th seat on the New York State Assembly – currently held by Donna Lupardo (Democrat). The interview took place at the business of Mr. Garrison, Family Hobby and Crafts in Vestal, New York.
The interview delves into the background of Mr. Garrison, his motivation to run for elected office, plans to deal with the State deficit, term limits, reaction to the Health Care Reform, comments on the 9/11 mosque and proposals by Gov. Paterson dealing with the cigarette tax and Native American Indians, among other issues.
Several of the questions covered in this interview are in response to the Open Letter to candidates and incumbents for New York elected office posed by Michael Vass previously.
Note – M V Consulting, Inc. does not advocate any candidate or incumbent for any elected office at the local, State, or Federal level. We have not recieved any payment for any interview with a political candidate or incumbent. The interviews, present, past, and future, are intended to allow voters the chance to learn about the candidates and the issues such that an informed decision can be made in the election booth.
The following is the third part of a multi-part interview:
Victory laps are only for political agendas
Shocking news form D.C. President Obama has stated that his speech later today will not be a “victory lap” nor celebration. How humble of him.
As if the news of America retreating from Iraq could be construed in any manner other than a loss and defeat. A defeat that President Obama, Vice president Biden, and many Democrats ensured via their votes of no confidence and public statements years ago.
Only 3 years later, after a successful surge action plan, under the guidance of Democrats that have been scheming to withdraw from Iraq for years, Harry Reid is finally correct. I’m sure he, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the far-left must be proud.
In all honesty, the best outcome probably is that American troops (except for the 50,000 troops that will be staying long-term as Sen. McCain mentioned in his 2008 campaign that President Obama scoffed at) leave Iraq. The motivation of Democrats was to lose. The mindset of the President was that it was a war that could not be won. Under those conditions, it is far better to retreat than allow another American soldier to die in a fight the Commander-n-Chief does not support.
Yes of course. Iraq will love America, just like North Viet Nam does. In leaving Iraq, under retreat, we leave a nation without stable government and likely to be instilled with the views of nations (Iran) that wish to see the presence of America – under any President – removed off the face of the Earth. In many ways leaving Iraq in defeat may result in an aftermath similar to that in Viet Nam. The unspoken aftermath in Viet Nam was that some 1 – 3 million people were murdered in the years after we left Saigon. Imagine what things might be like in Iraq in 10 years with Iran and the Taliban whispering in Iraqs ears.
The truth is that whatever work America was going to do in Iraq ended the day President Obama was elected. The truth is that our partnership with Iraq ended the day we signalled our retreat – allowing any and every force against us and a new government there the time to gather strength and support. The truth is that President Obama wants a nice clean exit to hang his hat on and preserve votes in the mid-term and 2012 elections. None of these are likely to be a benefit to anyone long-term.
President Obama will speak tonight of leaving Iraq. He will word this as best he can. He will acknowledge the obvious and outstanding efforts of our Armed Forces. He will imply the wrong-headedness of past presidents. He will seek to add a footnote in history about Iraq with his name on it, and an end of the conflict. Not a victory tour, but a political caviate.
I do not blame a single soldier, a single member of the Armed Forces that served in or during our time in Iraq – or ever for that matter. Our success or failure was never in thier hands because politicians on both sides of the spectrum never allowed our troops to do the job they were capable of. Our Armed Forces did everything that was asked of them, under the most limiting restrictions that some could devise to ensure a loss, and they exceeded all expecations. Any success that can be attributed to Iraq belongs to our troops alone, no politician past or present deserves any credit for that.
If there is anything to be taken away from what has happened with Iraq, it is that we must trust our troops and allow them to do what they are more than capable of in Afghanistan. That is, in the limited time they have left before America once again calls them home in retreat. Not because they have done anything wrong, but because of politicians short-sighted lack of faith.
Somehow, I doubt if any of this will be in President Obama’s speech tonight. But we will see.
Michael Vass interviews Art Garrison – New York State Assembly candidate – taxes, Health Care Reform
Michael Vass interviewed Art Garrison, who is running for the 126th seat on the New York State Assembly – currently held by Donna Lupardo (Democrat). The interview took place at the business of Mr. Garrison, Family Hobby and Crafts in Vestal, New York.
The interview delves into the background of Mr. Garrison, his motivation to run for elected office, plans to deal with the State deficit, term limits, reaction to the Health Care Reform, comments on the 9/11 mosque and proposals by Gov. Paterson dealing with the cigarette tax and Native American Indians, among other issues.
Several of the questions covered in this interview are in response to the Open Letter to candidates and incumbents for New York elected office posed by Michael Vass previously.
Note – M V Consulting, Inc. does not advocate any candidate or incumbent for any elected office at the local, State, or Federal level. We have not recieved any payment for any interview with a political candidate or incumbent. The interviews, present, past, and future, are intended to allow voters the chance to learn about the candidates and the issues such that an informed decision can be made in the election booth.
The following is the third part of a multi-part interview:
