Grchan to hold fundraiser tonight
Sheriff Mike Grchan has sent out an invitation to a fundraiser with the heading "R.I. County Democratic Office Holders Support Their Sheriff"
Listed at the top of the list is State Centeral Committeeman Don Johnston, State Senator Mike Jacobs, and State Rep. Pat Verschoore
Under these names are listed Recorder Pat Veronda, Circuit Clerk Lisa Bierman, States Attorney Jeff Terronez, Coroner Sharon Anderson, Clerk Dick Leibovitz, Treasurer LuAnn Kerr, Auditor Diana Robinson, Superintendant of Schools Joe Vermiere, and County Board Chairman James Bohnsack.
Below these is a list of all county board members.
It invites all to "join our office holders" for a pork sandwich dinner from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 28th at the Moline American Legion 1623 15th Street in Moline.
Cost is $6.00 per person, $25 sponsor, and $100 dinner host.
There has been at least one commenter here loudly maintaining that some of these people listed on the invite, namely Jacobs and Terronez, were supposedly angry because they don't support Grchan and did not agree to be listed as supporters.
As this commenter put it, (typed in all caps.. ugh!) "It (the invitation) claims that among other elected official, that R.I. County States Attorney Jeff Terronez and State Sen. Mike Jacobs suppports Sheriff Grchan in his attempt to get realected [sic] as Sheriff. This is not true. How do I know this? I have been in contact with someone who has contacted both men and they are extremely upset that Grchan used there [sic] names."
An anonymous source citing a twice removed subject... being in contact with someone who was in contact with ... just doesn't cut it as far as reliability.
Short of hearing this from Jacobs or Terronez, it's impossible to say if the allegations are true or not.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 2/28/2006
16 comments
16 Comments:
You say this, "An anonymous source citing a twice removed subject... being in contact with someone who was in contact with ... just doesn't cut it as far as reliability.",
However you make a post out of it.
You like to ask the question when did you stop beating your wife. Knowing that the damage has been done and there is no way of answering it. You play these games and act as if others are the enemy.
You are a very divisive person. What is your grudge tword Grchan. You have been doing to Jacobs for a year and now you have started on Grchan. Please refrain from these dirty tricks.
Interesting.
I'm not divisive. I didn't make up the comments, nor did I write the invitation. Sorry, but don't blame the messenger.
The reason I didn't post it in comments were because the information is unreliable.
I mention it here because it's a fact that a commenter has been disputed these endorsements and I presented it in context for people to judge how seriously to take the charges one way or another.
I made it clear that the allegations should be taken with a large grain of salt, yet you act as if they'r fact, and don't dispute them at all, which strikes me as curious.
If what the commenter alleges isn't true, I expected someone to refute it.
Instead I get you accusing me of attacking Grchan unfairly, saying that now the damage has been done, etc. But what's interesting and kind of sad is that you didn't dispute the allegations of the commenter.
Are they true or not? Sorry, but this isn't the same as asking when did you stop beating your wife.
Either Terronez and Jacobs endorse Grchan or they don't. What's so tricky about that?
If the commenter's contentions are true, then how is repeating them as unproven allegations a "dirty trick"?
And if they're not, then why aren't you disputing them?
But I'm not bashing Grchan. If you had any clue as to how many extremely negative anti-Grchan comments which went over the line and weren't posted, perhaps you wouldn't have your opinion.
The fact is that, as I've stated in an earlier comment, I like Grchan a lot and support him over Huff and have supported him for many years now. Even so, I feel the the blog should remain neutral.
I publish an announcement for his fundraiser, yet you still feel I'm attacking Grchan? I'm sorry for that and even more sorry that you neglected to dispute the allegations.
Perhaps someone else can.
Do you think more people read stories or comments. Stories hands down. You take a comment and make it a post that people are upset with Grchan But I don't find it reliable so I took it and made it a feature story.
That is asking when did you stop beating your wife. Why don't you make this a feature story. A negative against the great dope. I think not.
I'm afraid I simply have to disagree. A "When did you stop beating your wife" question is a trick quesion for which there is no good answer.
Mentioning that one commenter has maintained that Terronez and Jacobs were miffed about being listed as supporters on Grchan's invite isn't remotely the same.
There's only two responses. It's either true that neither wanted to be formally listed on the invite, or it's not true, and both have no problem with being listed.
One response is good for Grchan, the other not as good, but still not the end of the world.
It is clearly NOT a setup or some trick question for which there is no good answer.
And again, simply mentioning an allegation, and noting that it should be taken for what it's worth while noting that it's third hand information, doesn't exactly amount to suggesting it's fact.
Anyone is free to refute it.
I'm hoping to attend the fundraiser tonight myself, and certainly don't have any ill-will towards Grchan and never have.
I seriously doubt that any of the sponsors to the fundraiser don't support Grchan. Everyone you listed above gave donation checks in support. That shows strong support of Grchan. If they did not want to support him, they would not have written checks......
Yes, I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing, and yet another attempt by Huff partisans to stir up some trouble for Grchan.
Don Johnston put out Grchan's invite. I don't think he'd list people if they had any objection to having their names there.
This blog site is most definately biased toward Grchan. Dope, you don't post legitimate claims of Grchan's wrong doings. You havn't posted the last one that I had sent you. With concrete info.
Its your blog, do with it what you will. Don't think many people look at it anyway. Not the real voters anyway.
We will see how everyone feels on the eve of March 21.
I must be doing something right. In one thread, I'm accused of being slanted both anti-Grchan by one person and pro-Grchan by another.
And anon above, surely you know that if you want to know why any comment isn't published, you can contact me via e-mail and I'll be happy to explain.
Were you the one that wrote lenghty comments attacking Grchan and providing supposed facts and then blew it by going into personal attacks?
Or were you one of the others?
It's really not tough to get your comment published. Just read the FAQ and follow the rules.
And if you can't read, then just remember the golden rule: no bullshit and no personal attacks.
If you want to take the low road, do it on your guy's website.
Dope, I looked at Huff's web site and it's pretty low.....
Tom, I will vote for you, but to blame the printer on an invite is a little bit of a stretch. Nice job on the speach though. Need to find a way to get it out to the people however. I am suprised the Dope let this pandering out without some odd comment. He must like you or be you or something like that.
I didn't comment because I knew you thought my comments were "odd" and I'm all about pleasing you.
And now you bitch anyway. Sheesh. Some people!
And not to put too fine a point on it, but Benson's comment wasn't "pandering" to anyone.
But seriously, I posted it primarily because Benson signed it and stands behind it.
And it wasn't full of vile smears and/or personal attacks, and wasn't way over the top and full of exagerations, distortions, and B.S.
I'm willing to give Benson the benefit of the doubt on whether what he says is accurate, and again, since he was willing to sign his name and take responsibility for his statement, it's perfectly OK to publish it.
I realize that your comment questions the fact that I even published Benson's comment, and that you're not disputing the contents of his comment, so the following is addressed to all commenters in general.
As I tire of reminding people over and over and over and over again, everyone and anyone has the opportunity to dispute, disagree, dismiss, or disprove any post of comment they read here.
Benson stands behind what he writes and has a perfect right to state his views. If you have a dispute or disagree with anything he writes, you're free to say your piece.
If you have a comment on Benson's comment, or any comment, address it to the person who wrote it, not me.
And for the 59th time, if you have a problem with a comment being published or not published, tell me about it via e-mail, DO NOT waste comment space on it as it only leads to this sort of long explanation, and the actual subject or topic gets lost.
Anything to do with the blog in general, questioning why something is done or not done, suggestions, complaints, or any questions directed to me directly DO NOT belong in comments. Period.
If they are sent as comments, they won't appear and will be ignored. OK? I sincerely hope people get the message.
Rather than writing snarky comments complaining about what you read, if you think it's wrong, then say so and show us why. That's the whole idea. I think it's called debate.
Otherwise, your criticism is just criticism for critisism's sake. If you can't dispute it, why bother complaining?
And yes, aside from whatever my personal views may be on either candidate for 17th District Democratic State Central Committeeman, (the world's longest title for an office), I am inclined to give a break to anyone who is willing to take on someone as firmly entrenched as Johnston.
Another point in Benson's favor is that at least he occasionally participates and contributes here. (though to be fair, Johnston might also, though unless he uses his actual name, I wouldn't know it.)
As far as your thinking Benson must like me, I think that wouldn't be unusual, as aside from the usual handful of grumblers and whiners, who also happen to be the most vocal, the majority of readers absolutely adore me.
And after all, that's what I'm all about, trying desperately to get people to like me. -cough-
You're also more than welcome to think I'm him, though Benson may take exception to that.
But you're absolutely correct in being surprised that I published a campaign piece in general. If it had been from "anonymous" or someone other than the candidate himself, I wouldn't have.
I won't publish "Vote Quimby" sort of stuff unless it's from the candidate him or herself.
That way, they must take responsibility for what they say and deal with any objections.
What's up dope? It seems that Grchan really has a lot of people fooled. Why would Jeff Terronez endorse Grchan, let alone give him money after Grchan openly backed Herb Schultz in the State's Attorney race. I can't speak for the other people listed on Grchan's invitation, but I know for a fact that Terronez is not happy about being listed on Grchan's invitation-he has been to at least one Mike Huff fundraiser!
First of all, all this deal about endorsements is a big load of nothing.
Who cares, aside from a handful of people, whether Terronez endorses Grchan or not? Or Jacobs for that matter?
It sure won't affect my vote, and I suggest that not only would it not affect the vast majority of voters, that the vast majority of voters don't know and don't care about this non-issue.
Just my take on the matter.
Dope, Youe don't think endorsements matter? That is what you just said. I think Jeff Terronez would beg to differ. He didn't get elected all by himself. He had the support of Lane Evans, Denny Jacobs, among many others. People whom respect and like the aformentioned persons would reasonably be expected to support someone they are touting to be a good person for any certain elected position. They feel those people wouldn't steer them wrong.
I'm aware of the importance of endorsements. In general they're considered positive and give people an idea of where someone stands, etc.
But I'm saying that in this race, Terronez's endorsement isn't worth a lot, other than to the few people who are big Terronez followers.
All things considered, it's not all that important, and certainly couldn't be considered a deciding factor in the results.
I doubt if Grchan loses, anyone will blame it on Terronez not supporting him, and on the other hand, if he wins, they won't say it was because Terronez's name was on some invitation.
It's not nearly as big of a deal as you've tried so hard to make it.
The endorsement itself is not that huge of a deal, and that I agree with you on. But the fact that Grchan would lie, or maybe it was Don Johnston who falsified the info is just wrong. Very unethical. Don't you agree with me?
They must think it is a big deal to falsely represent someone else. I think he is slipping.
Post a Comment
<< Home