Did NYT Just Implode Clinton's Campaign?

NYT's Salaciously Titled Slam Fest

By Thornton Crowe

Well, by now, you've all heard the news that the New York Times got some of Donald Trump's tax returns and now touts he hasn't paid taxes in almost two decades.

As damning as this may appear on the surface for Trump, it's only damning to the status quo candidate - Hillary Clinton!

Why you ask?  We'll let's see...

First, Trump has repeatedly complained on the campaign trail and in primary debates that the IRS has audited him for the same length of time. Furthermore, he proposes to cut out the tax loopholes he has taken advantage of over the years as a wealthy business owner. So, to say he hasn't been honest is absolutely absurd. They just proved he's been above board with the American voters. And his taxes actually validates his reason for promising to eliminate loophole. Furthermore, given these audits, we know this is perfectly legal; therefore, any inference of criminal behavior or tax evasion is also equally absurd.

Second, may I remind you folks to the following: Who was president during the Nineties? Bill Clinton. And who was the previous two presidents? George W. Bush and Barack Obama. These loopholes were perfectly legal under these two presidents, too. So what does this tell you about the candidate whose going to continue this status quo? Explanation not needed as the logic here is as clear as the nose on your face.

Third, the Clinton Foundation pay to play money laundering racket masquerading as a 'charity' is currently being investigated by the IRS for dodging taxes for many years as charities enjoy tax-free status. Apparently, the Clintons haven't been paying their fair share through illegal means not the use of tax regulation loopholes.

To say the NYT's big moment is now being flooded in mud is an understatement as many other news outlets are questioning if this was such a brilliant move of their part. This exposure is only making the Democrats and their gal pal look worse, not better.

So before the Democrats start doing their happy dances and high fives, perhaps they should keep the above in mind because, rest assured, informed voters are seeing through the Liberal Media's Magical Purple Haze.  All this really did was also further marginalize the once-regarded newspaper as its clear they're just another arm of the Clinton campaign!

Aren't you getting a little tired of the media's biased spin?

How say you.

The O Show

By Thornton Crowe

A pointed response to Mike Lewis's comments.

While I'm certainly no fan of Mike Lewis, a lot of what he says is true about Obama. It's pretty clear the Obama administration and Democrats are radicalize and trafficking hate in America - not just towards law enforcement but our society in general.

In his blind hatred, he and the whole Democrat party elites have vilified Trump for daring to love our country along with demonizing organizations like the Tea Party whom only seek to restore our Constitutional Rights and preserve our sovereignty.

It's time people grasp the vast difference between the Democrats today verses the party they knew thirty years ago. They're not of the same ideology -- no where close! Now, they profit from divisive speech which incites, no, demands violent exchanges that goes to disrupt and tear apart our societal fabric. Like a virus, they have tried to alter our perceptions to our own demise!

Simply put, we need to end this insidious romanticizing of the Left as some social justice warrior group and realize they are demonstratively hypocritical.

How ironic is it that Clinton comes out about racism in America - citing the system treats blacks unfairly when she, herself, was just given a pass for her criminality for the moment. She prospered (albeit temporarily) from this double standard justice that has the black men in jail while she gets to run for president and make such platitudes and frivolous promises to her 'masses.'

Open your eyes, my friends, the Democrat party has become a self-serving and self-interest only panderer that wants votes to retain their entitlements of power and money. There's not altruistic motus operandi (*CHARITABLE INTENT*) here.

Don't be fooled by the feel good, feigned social justice moments. It's all a charade designed to get your vote only. 

Obama has never had America's best interest at heart and his actions have betrayed his words. Even our GDP being less than 3% for his entire presidency is indicative of his apathy for our financial well-being. Furthermore, his incendiary speeches about violence and meetings with hate groups like BLM demonstrate a complete disregard for our personal safety. His denial of reality is to make you deny right along with him. Don't be fooled, he knows why the Dallas sniper gunned down police officers from an elevated perch. He also knows the perpetrator's criminal intent and the fact it was a well-thought out act of violence.

In short, Obama is still scamming Americans. After 7-1/2 years of this insane puppet show, when is it going to sink in, you've been duped every way imaginable! Wake up America.

How say you?

BOOK REVIEW: The Clinton Cash Machine

If anyone wants to venture into the international underbelly of corruptions, bribes and nefariously questionable transactions of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Peter Schweizer's, Clinton Cash, can take you on such a jaunt.

The book firmly lays out a case for any jury to indict based on Congressman Trey Gowdy's, faults exculpatory statements as the facts and figures provides a cohesiveness lacking in many other books of this nature.  Furthermore, for anyone who has ever remotely questioned the Clintons' motives and 'intent,' it, certainly satiates any quest to understand the true motivation behind their thirst - or rather lust - for power and influence.

The author brilliantly provides the public (and FBI investigators) a well-investigated blueprint of criminality that is riveting and, quite frankly, deeply disgusting for any American citizen as we see just how much the Clintons have abused America over the course of their entire public and political lives.

Here We Go... Again!

By Thornton Crowe

Well, it seems Hillary Clinton is now working diligently to romance Bernie's kids with promises of sugar plums fairies and free tuition dancing in their heads. Even with Sanders falling back, the meme is still ringing like a loud bell! And millennials may or may not fall for it.

Are you going to be seduced by the fancy new prizes and tons of freebies? Let's just go on a little walk of reality. I know, those momentary fleeting seconds of reality are always "Debbie Downers" but seriously, the promise of Nirvana is usually a bait and switch that are simply illegal in the really real world but in political circles, the ruse is perfectly acceptable. Is she sincere? Given our recent revelations regarding her credibility, I would be highly suspicious, if not, downright cynical!

Old adage: It's never, ever truly free...

Free college is never free and someone always pay. I recall when France raised their taxation on their 'rich' the wealthy simply moved out of the country. Will they do the same here? We don't know...

As for Clinton's promises to her new victims, her history call it all hogwash! When has Clinton ever kept her promises and where are all these 'achievements' I keep hearing about but never see any proof or specifics? Her latest advert on the boob tube toots her child insurance plans from her tenure as First Lady. Where are these plans and, if they do exist, why did we need Obamacare for all if she already did this initiative successfully?

Wait, was this the same scandal from the Nineties where there was a huge misstep by her committee that ended in disaster? How Democrats can re-frame things is just stunning to witness. However, she's convinced millennials and their parents are too stupid to realize the big ruse.

Is she laughing at us? 

Sure, why not. We've proven to her, some will still vote for her regardless of the lies, scandals, mishandling and nonsense! She has every reason to laugh. We deserve it.

All promises and no action is just the abbreviate slogan Donald  Trump states, but it's not a pithy saying. There's real meat behind it. People can't even answer Sean Hannity's Friday Jeopardy when he asks his left-leaning talking head guests to name even one of her accomplishments. Why do they labor for an answer? Because there are no answers.

Yet, the Left loves more than honey to tell us that Clinton will be pitching for the team. I call fowl! She's never pitched for anything but self-enrichment for eons, why change her horse now?

So before you start applying to Harvard or Stanford, looking for Uncle Sam to pay your big bill, know this: most, if not all the Clintons' campaign bravado has all come to nothing. They don't have any intention (pesky word) of every following through with any of her big campaign talk. In fact, sadly, if you look at her record as a politician verses Trump's record as just a mere commoner, he's done more for his communities than Clinton.

When the media has had their rare moments of honesty, they have relayed Trump's good deeds to many in this country, but the non-existent deeds of Clinton have now become almost urban legend.

If you don't believe me, I encourage you to go see for yourself... Clinton's got a big mouth but her history ain't so hot! If I were a betting person, I'd say she'll be laughing at the millennials all the way to voting day without ever letting them know she a big scam! 

How say you?

In District 1 – Cynthia Polk

The Salisbury District 1 council race is the toughest to examine.  Rightly or wrongly, many District 1 voters consider themselves the red-headed stepchild of Salisbury government.  For eight years they have been represented by Shanie Shields.  For eight years, little has been accomplished for the citizens which she is supposed to represent.
In an unusual twist, Shields has two opponents in the general election.  Cynthia Polk (who lost to Shields by one vote four years ago) and April Jackson tied in the primary.  This all but assures Shields of re-election, and District 1 residents of at least another 2 1/2 years of poor representation.
None here at SBYNews have been afforded the opportunity to hear all three candidates very often in this race.  The candidate forums have been a poor venue because candidates are given little time to respond to questions and usually fall back to platitudes.
Shields should not be re-elected.  Her record has been one of more strongly representing a few special-interests than in representing her constituents.  She has been almost hostile towards the city’s police department.  Her worst offense has been to claim that she wants civility on council.  She seldom hesitates to attack fellow council members Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen or Tim Spies when they disagree with her.  It was Shields who actually shared the soapbox with mayor Jim Ireton to imply that the council majority were “racists” because they would not agree to building quarter million dollar apartments in one of the city’s worst neighborhoods (councilwoman Laura Mitchell simply stood in the crowd and applauded).  Shields even suggested that residents should engage in a racially-motivated riot.
That leaves voters with a choice between Polk and Jackson.  Admittedly, we have seen neither diverge on the core issues facing Salisbury.  Polk is a small business owner and we would expect her to be more business friendly.  Given that Salisbury needs to change its public face in dealing with business in order to improve the city overall, District 1 voters should rally behind Mrs. Polk.  Another 2 1/2 years of Shanie Shields on the city council is neither good for Salisbury nor for the good people of District 1.  Cynthia Polk affords District 1 AND Salisbury a chance to move towards a better future.

Daily Times–Where’s the Beef?

Yesterday Salisbury mayoral candidate Joe Albero issued a press release claiming that the Daily Times was planning an “October surprise” for Sunday’s edition.  It appears that the article ran this morning.  For the informed voter, little new information was published; but begs us to ask the leadership of the paper – Where’s the beef?

DT reporter Cox obviously devoted much time to researching about the two mayoral candidates personal lives.  So what?

Imagine the service the Daily Times could have done for voters and the city it CLAIMS to love if the same amount of time had been dedicated examining Albero’s plan to revitalize the local economy or council candidate Jake Day’s plan for the city.  Sadly, the DT doesn’t want informed voters.  The great unwashed asking too many questions would spoil their narrative.

Albero asks the right question:

Who cares that Jake Day has a heavy foot, or that our three District 1 candidates have met with personal financial misfortune, or that both my opponent and I have had some minor brushes with the legal system? Why does the Daily Times think that these things take precedence over my plan to bring jobs to Salisbury, Jim Ireton’s repeated attempts to raise our taxes, or Jake Day’s plan to use our tax dollars to subsidize residential development in the city?

We may be wrong.  Maybe voters do care more about trivia and less about creating jobs or improving the city.  … At least that’s what the Daily Times hopes.

Daily Times Prepares “October Surprise”

 

 

Contact: G. A. Harrison                                            FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: 410-713-4005
Email: AlberoForMayor@gmail.com                                             March 28, 2013

DAILY TIMES PREPARES “OCTOBER SURPRISE”
What Happened to “Stick to the Issues”?

Salisbury’s Daily Times is planning its own version of the “October Surprise” for this Sunday’s edition. According to Daily Times city reporter Jeremy Cox, the paper plans to run a front page “expose” outlining the past legal difficulties of incumbent mayor Jim Ireton and his opponent, businessman Joe Albero.
“I’m really disgusted with the entire approach taken by our local newspaper”, stated Albero. “It’s small wonder that they’ve had to put their building up for lease. People just don’t want to read a paper that is one step above the National Enquirer. Who cares that Jake Day has a heavy foot, or that our three District 1 candidates have met with personal financial misfortune, or that both my opponent and I have had some minor brushes with the legal system? Why does the Daily Times think that these things take precedence over my plan to bring jobs to Salisbury, Jim Ireton’s repeated attempts to raise our taxes, or Jake Day’s plan to use our tax dollars to subsidize residential development in the city?”
Albero also noted that early in the campaign the Daily Times stated that they wanted to ONLY report on issues. “Throughout this campaign I have focused on how to make Salisbury a better place to work and to live. It’s unfortunate that they have gone back on their word and chosen to take this path. What have we seen from our local paper during this campaign? Most of the articles we’ve seen this election season have been thinly disguised attack pieces. Any discussion of real issues has been little more than fluff. I don’t believe that reporter Jeremy Cox is either lazy or a bad reporter. I can only conclude that publisher Tom Claybaugh and editor Michael Kilian believe that they can gin up advertising sales from certain business segments or somehow increase readership by attempting to use Gannett’s assets to impact a local election with salacious stories that have no real impact on Salisbury’s residents and businesses.”
Albero’s publication, SBYNews will print a response (written by a named contributor) after the Daily Times runs its piece.

Rep. Andy Harris and Sheriff Mike Lewis Host Town Hall Meeting on Gun Rights

Monday evening a crowd of over 500 people showed up at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center to hear some of their elected officials discuss current federal and state initiatives to curtail Marylanders’ right to keep and bear arms.  The meeting, hosted by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) and Wicomico Sheriff Mike Lewis featured the two hosts, Del. Mike McDermott (R-38B), Wicomico State’s Attorney Matt Maciarello, Worcester Sheriff Reggie Mason as well as Sheriff’s (and their representatives) from around the state.

Each speaker emphasized the individual’s God-given right to bear arms, not just for hunting and sporting purposes, but for the protection of one’s person, family and community.  Another common theme was the fact that pending federal and state legislation do nothing to stop gun crime, but will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

Wicomico Sheriff Mike Lewis spoke and acted as the moderator for the evening’s event.  He emphasized the importance of our second amendment rights.  He was obviously torn over the potential consequences of pending state legislation.  Lewis noted that he swears an oath to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States, the state of Maryland and to enforce the laws of the state;  given that most county Sheriff’s believe that this legislation strips Marylanders of their rights to keep and bear arms.  Lewis provided an excellent analogy from the infamous Dred Scott decision - Slaves could not bear arms, because they are not citizens.

Congressman Harris made a moving argument regarding the consequences of attempts to strip citizens of their guns:

“Many of you already know my story.  My parents escaped from communism in the Ukraine right after World War II.  In communist regimes, the first thing they do is disarm the citizens.”

Harris also demonstrated the hypocrisy of claims that more gun control is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals:

“In 2011, over 76,000 people were caught lying on their ATF form stating that they could legally purchase a firearm.  How many were actually prosecuted?  62! … Prosecute people who break the law!”

While every speaker received a standing ovation from the enthusiastic crowd, Del. Mike McDermott was probably the most impassioned speaker among many impassioned speakers.  McDermott emphasized that pending state legislation calls for registration of firearms and will require gun owners to go through a background check (with fingerprint) and could cost each law-abiding gun owner over $200.  This is on top of the other tax and fee increases already heaped on citizens just in this session.

“This legislation does NOTHING to stop criminals.  However, on November 1st it will make a criminal out of many of YOU.”

State’s Attorney Matt Maciarello gave examples of current cases his office is working on:

“Before I came over here tonight, I was in my office looking at some pending cases – burglary, armed robbery, murder, attempted murder.  Everyone involved a gun.  NONE of those crimes was committed with a LEGALLY OBTAINED firearm!”

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.  This article was originally posted at the DelMarVa Observer.

Voters Learn More from Candidates at Camden Neighbor Forum

Salisbury voters had one more chance to see the candidates for Salisbury mayor and city council at last Thursday’s Camden Neighborhood Association candidate forum.  Last week’s forum was a bit different than previous outings – incumbent councilwoman Debbie Campbell brought her “A” game and mayor Jim Ireton acted like a petulant three year old.

One of the highlights of the CNA  forum was Ireton making a little sign reading “WRONG” and placing it on the table when his opponent was speaking.  It was challenger Joe Albero who looked mayoral, as he fielded questions and continued to emphasize his plan for improving the city’s quality of life by improving the city’s local economy and bringing more high quality jobs to Salisbury.  When not speaking or making signs, Ireton spent much of the evening engaged in a texting conversation with some supporters in the back of the room.
Campbell showed her neighbors some of the old fighting spirit.  In addition to answering questions, she finally called out challenger Jake Day on his plan – Our Vision for Salisbury.  (While no longer available on Day’s website, you can READ IT HERE.)  Campbell gave a laundry list of Day’s proposals, but asked how they would be paid for.  While Day has claimed that he won’t vote to raise taxes, the projects he supports will require spending AND borrowing millions of dollars – which will have to be paid back with …. TAXES.
Tonight voters will have an opportunity to see Salisbury’s mayoral and council candidates for the last time in a debate setting.  The Salisbury Chamber / PACE forum will be at 7PM this evening at Salisbury University Guerrieri Center, Wicomico Room.
G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.

Daily Times Shows SBY Election Bias

The Daily Times seems hell bent on queering this year’s Salisbury mayoral / council elections just like they’ve tried every other time in recent memory.  Will they be successful?  We’ll know next week.

After a series of scandals destroyed what little credibility remained at Salisbury’s Daily Times, new publisher Tom Claybaugh and managing editor Michael Kilian faced a tough choice.  Change the paper’s ways or simply try to move down the same biased path that has cost them subscribers and readers.

All the News That We WANT to Print

To most of us, changing the paper’s ways is obviously the best path.  In an industry that appears to be dying, regaining credibility amongst readers is a good place to start if you want to rebuild.  The Daily Times can claim some good young reporters.  They’ve shown that, when allowed, they can provide good, accurate coverage of local news.  Alas, Claybaugh and Kilian have decided on a darker path.  Rather than report all of the news, the DT seems determined to only run stories which aid their preferred candidates.
How can I make such a claim?  Haven’t they run stories critical of Jim Ireton?  One!  Haven’t they run stories critical of Jake Day?  Less than one.  Who really cares that Day has a heavy foot?  I’m not claiming that the DT has savaged Joe Albero or Debbie Campbell.  They haven’t.  That’s the Daily Times of old.  Besides, like Katherine Crowell four years ago, I don’t believe that Jeremy Cox would allow his name to be put on pieces that are riddled with lies and innuendo.  No, the DT is playing the stealth game.
Where is the story on Joe Albero’s economic development plan?  Where is a thoughtful analysis of Jake Day’s slick manifesto (which you can’t even download from his site anymore)?  Where is an analysis of Jim Ireton’s attempt to raise taxes (more than once) while he claims that he never raised your taxes (technically accurate, but worth at least four Pinnochio’s over at the WaPo)?  Where is the story about Ireton and Day’s lack of basic math skills (how do to add 500 residential units downtown, plus commercial space when you have less than 100 available parking spots (after you have sold off all of the riverfront lots – which has merit – plus Lot 1 between the library and the plaza?).  WHERE is the story about national real estate interests doing a mailing for Jake Day?
They’re no where to be found.  Why?  Mr. Kilian doesn’t want the public to learn too much about the candidates running for office.  If they did, the DT’s favored candidates wouldn’t stand much of a chance.  Unfortunately, things are worse on the op-ed side of the shop thanks to Mr. Claybaugh and op-ed editor Susan Parker.

WE Decide the News, WE Decide YOUR Opinion

Have you bothered to ask yourself why there haven’t been many letters to the editor in support of Joe Albero or Debbie Campbell?  The answer is simple … the Daily Times won’t print them. 
I’ve only been sent letters regarding Mrs. Campbell’s race, but it seems that they are (almost) all too long, too short, too critical of Jim Ireton, too critical of Barrie Tilghman, too critical of other council members, too critical of the weather, printed on the wrong color paper or using the wrong type of ink.  NOW (from Monday’s paper) …

In other words, we will print your letter to editor IF it doesn’t talk about ANY issue other than the issues WE (the DT) deem worthy of having an opinion about.  Now, it’s the op-ed page.  They certainly have a right to print whatever they want.  Just don’t claim to be the voice of the community.
So… here’s what you can expect between now and Friday:

Dear Editor,
I’ve known Jake Day since he was at James M. Bennett HS.  He planted a garden.  He’s a good guy.  He went to some fancy schools.  He’s in the Army.  He’s a nice guy.  He has lots of ideas but I can’t talk about them because Jake doesn’t want the voters asking too many questions about the cost.
Signed – Someone who probably doesn’t live in Salisbury.

Messrs. Claybaugh and Kilian can be very proud of the business they are running into the ground.
G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.  This article was excerpted from his Media Monday column.

Is Jim Ireton REALLY a Part-Time Mayor?

Yesterday we highlighted Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton’s interview on Delmarva Public Radio.  In addition to being scarily anti-business in his rhetoric, Ireton also made the following comment:

I get up every day and barrel at 110%.

Really Jim?  What do you “barrel” at?

For the moment, let’s ignore the debate as to whether a “part-time” mayor can successfully operate a $51 million enterprise (I believe the record indicates a big NO on that one).  Let’s ask two other questions:

1. Is Jim Ireton really a part-time mayor?
2. Is Jim Ireton really devoting the time he supposedly spends as mayor to making Salisbury a better place to live and to work?

If your definition of being “part-time” is spending one second or more per week, month, etc. to the job of being mayor I’d have to give Ireton a free pass.  However, IF (like me) you define the term as spending 20 – 30 hours per week at a task then the answer is clearly no.  This ties directly in to question two.

For four years, and particularly during the last two, Jim Ireton has spent a fair piece of his “mayor time” engaged in political grandstanding, partisan politics, and pushing an agenda that is not even tangentially connected to making Salisbury a better place to live and to work.

In August, 2011 Ireton took time out of his supposedly busy day to picket the Salisbury office of Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD).  He has time to picket, but not to sit down with city council and engage in civil, honest discussion of issues facing our city?  Did this make Salisbury a better place to live and to work?

In June, 2011 Ireton called a press conference to attack the city council majority for not backing his planned luxury apartment project at “The Bricks”.  In his press conference Ireton implies that council members Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, and Tim Spies are racists (sound familiar?) and intimates that racial discord could follow (with councilwomen Laura Mitchell and Shanie Shields cheering him on).  Ireton’s rantings before the press are numerous, and (sadly) legendary.  Do any of these things make Salisbury a better place to live and to work?

Ireton has travelled to Annapolis to lobby for issues such as gay marriage.  Unless Ireton has some undisclosed plan to make Salisbury a mecca for gay marriage (with the tourism dollars that would follow) we have to ask - Do any of these things make Salisbury a better place to live and to work?

Ireton has lent his name and the prestige of his office to a campaign to strip gun rights from our citizens.  Do any of these things make Salisbury a better place to live and to work? (Criminals will still get guns.  C’mon … They’re CRIMINALS)

So … what’s your definition of “part-time”.

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.  This article was originally posted at the DelMarVa Observer.

Chicago Comes to the ‘Bury

Imagine you lived in a city carved up into little wards or districts.  Then imagine that your city council members are given “discretionary” funds to dole out for “projects” or to fix potholes and street lights.  It sounds like Chicago, New York, or Washington, D.C.  Well if Jake Day is elected to the Salisbury City Council, this is what he has in store for you.

Rotten Boroughs

Across the sea in Great Britain, they used to have “rotten” or “pocket” boroughs.  These were parliamentary constituencies (districts to us Yanks) that were, in effect, controlled by one person (or a small group of people).  The British wisely changed their election practices in the 19th century.

At last month’s Democrat Club meeting Mr. Day announced that if he was elected he (along with councilwomen Laura Mitchell and Shanie Shields) would re-visit re-districting and change the council to a seven member body elected from individual districts.  He had previously announced at the Salisbury Chamber / PACE forum that he supported a seven member council.  (NOTE:  this would occur REGARDLESS of who is elected mayor as charter changes cannot be vetoed.)

What’s wrong with that?  If you divide Salisbury into seven districts which are roughly equal by population you will have created FOUR rotten boroughs.  Think about it.  Salisbury would be governed by AT LEAST four districts where the total votes cast to elect the majority of council would be less than half (probably less than a third) of the votes cast to elect the other seats.

The facts are simple.  The current District 1 simply doesn’t show up to vote in city elections.  Neighborhoods such as Church Street / Doverdale, the Presidents and Princeton Homes don’t show up to vote in city elections.  Residents of Camden, the Park area, the neighborhoods along North and South Schumaker Drives – they show up to vote.  Yet – they will be effectively disenfranchised when it comes to city council representation.  It is easily conceivable that you will have council members (from a majority of districts) elected with fewer than 100 votes.  Some could be elected with fewer than 50!

Bottom line – a group like SAPOA could literally buy a majority of the city council ON THE CHEAP!  Is this YOUR vision for a better Salisbury?

Slush Funds

Day also wishes to give council members access to “discretionary funds”.  If you have ever lived in cities where this practice is used you know that this breeds corruption.  These funds are used to, in effect, buy votes.  In some extreme cases the funds are funneled to “projects” that do not provide service to residents but actually give the council member of piece of your tax dollars in excess of their salary.

Since coming out with this proposal at the Democrat Club he has been busy trying to put a little lipstick on this pig.  According to his Facebook page, he now claims:

Neighborhood Budget Prioritization

In writing the City’s operating budget and Capital Improvement Plan, 10% of Community Promotions, Neighborhood Services, Streets, Street Lighting, Sanitation and Parks should be allotted by number of households to each neighborhood of the City. At a community meeting held in each neighborhood, citizens will discuss and vote on priorities in the budget to be spent in their neighborhood. This process should determine how the apportioned funds are spent. Annual review can determine if the overall share to neighborhoods should be increased if this program proves popular.

While this sounds slightly better than advocating a slush fund for council members, Day is still calling for very small groups of people (imagine how many people will actually turn up at these “community meetings”) to determine where YOUR tax dollars are being spent.  In effect, Day proposes Balkanizing Salisbury.

The spending of your tax dollars will be determined by people who have no incentive to do what is best for the city as a whole.  Instead, we can expect horse trading for votes to spend money on projects that are only meaningful to a select few.  AGAIN – Is this your vision for a better Salisbury?

Making a Bad Situation Worse

Please don’t believe for one moment that this is an endorsement of the re-districting plan recently enacted by the city council.  I believe that their plan wasn’t particularly good for the city either.  Unfortunately, faced with threats of litigation from the ACLU I do understand why they came up with their plan.  It is my opinion that five seats, three by district and two at-large, was the best solution.  Unfortunately, that didn’t come to pass.

Compared to Day’s vision for the Federated Balkan Wards of Salisbury, the recently enacted plan looks almost perfect.  If Mr. Day sincerely believes that this type of governance is a good thing, might I suggest that he move to Chicago.

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.  This article was originally posted at the DelMarVa Observer.

Business Through the Eyes of Jim Ireton

Last week, Don Rush of Delmarva Public Radio interviewed both candidates for mayor of Salisbury.  The contrast was startling.  While this was not candidate (and SBYNews publisher) Joe Albero’s best interview, he was relaxed and discussed the issues facing the city.  Incumbent mayor Jim Ireton was agitated, sarcastic, interrupted Rush numerous times, and let the world know that Salisbury is NOT a business-friendly community.

See the interviews below.  Ireton’s starts at about 29 minutes in.

Ireton claims great accomplishment.  Nothing is his fault.  If something didn’t happen it was because of the city council, specifically Debbie Campbell.  If businesses believe that Salisbury isn’t business-friendly, it’s THEIR fault, not the city’s.  Oh … and he PLANS to do lots of things IF he’s re-elected.

For every ten people that come to the city, five feel they’ve been treated OK. – Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton

What is most disturbing is Ireton’s attitude towards business.  If you make a profit, you need to pay more.  If the police have to come to your business TWICE in TWO YEARS, the city (NOT a judge) should be able to shut you down.  If you appeal, you have to appeal to the same person who already decided to close your doors.

If you are a businessperson looking to move to Salisbury and you hear the mayor sarcastically asking questions like, “Who made that profit?” or “Somebody’s making money somewhere.” do you think that Salisbury is a great place to do business?

Ireton states, “For every ten people that come to the city, five feel they’ve been treated OK.”  Ireton thinks that’s acceptable!  Do you deal with businesses who take the attitude that they only need to satisfy 50% of their customers?  If you are a business do you want to move to a city that takes this attitude?  If you are a businessperson in Salisbury, do you want to expand in a city that takes this attitude?

You don’t have to give away the store to attract businesses.  You don’t have to make Salisbury unsafe to encourage businesses to expand.  You do need a sea change in attitude.  Satisfying 50% of your customers is NOT acceptable.  Making Salisbury “more progressive” isn’t going to attract business.

Thanks to PAC-14 for providing the video.

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.

Joe Albero Announces Economic Development Plan

ALBERO RELEASES PLAN TO GROW SALISBURY’S ECONOMY
Salisbury Cannot Tax Its Way Out of Current Fiscal Problems

SALISBURY, MD – Salisbury mayoral candidate Joe Albero has released his plan to revitalize Salisbury’s stagnant economy. By attracting new businesses, and encouraging existing businesses to expand, Salisbury’s local economy can become a job creation engine which positively impacts the city’s overall quality of life by increasing home ownership, reducing crime, and providing needed revenue to improve the city’s infrastructure and to improve the level of service delivery.

Albero stated, “Today I have release a detailed outline for improving Salisbury’s local economy. Some may view this plan as broad; and it is. Unlike our current mayor, and his predecessor, I refuse to take a ‘my way or the highway’ approach to policy. While I have outlined the direction I believe Salisbury needs to move, I will ask for input from all relevant stakeholders. This includes the business community and the members of the next city council.

“From the day I declared my candidacy for mayor, I have talked about the need to improve the city’s attitude toward and our reputation with the business community. Successive administrations have had a schizophrenic attitude towards business. Some businesses receive direct taxpayer subsidies while others are viewed as entities to be taxed, fined, and charged fees.

“This view ends on the first day of an Albero administration. Successful businesses deliver superior customer service. The city of Salisbury, and its employees, need to view the city’s businesses and residents as valued customers. Our motto needs to be, ‘How can we help you?’, NOT ‘Write us a check and we’ll get around to it when we can.’ Permitting and requests to public works must be carried out in a timely fashion. Doing business in the city needs to be predictable. Bureaucratic red tape can be hallmarks of communities we compete with but cannot be tolerated here if we are serious about growing Salisbury’s economy.”

Albero is challenging incumbent mayor Jim Ireton. Salisbury voters will choose which direction they wish the city to move towards on April 2^nd.
VIEW THE COMPLETE PLAN HERE

By authority of Luke Rommel Treasurer

Ireton Takes Credit for (Lack of) Rain

No one in the history of local politics can grandstand like Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton.  At a Friday press conference Ireton claimed credit for a “cleaner” Wicomico River.  There’s just one problem – the cause for a marginally cleaner river was last year’s drought.

The report, prepared by Judith Stribling of Wicomico Creekwatchers, cites last year’s lack of rain for improved numbers:

City of Salisbury-led efforts to reduce polluted runoff may have contributed to the reduction, but the biggest cause was almost certainly last year’s drought, said Judith Stribling, a Salisbury University researcher and supervisor of the Creekwatchers program.

Ireton still tried to spin the report, which usually isn’t issued until June, and take credit for a slightly cleaner River:

Dr. Stribling said it right,” Mayor Jim Ireton chimed in. “It’s not just a lack of rain, but it’s also some of the things we’re doing.

That’s NOT what Stribling said.  We should also question whether or not the report’s being issued in the spring also impacted the numbers.  If the readings were not taken at approximately the same time of year, with water temperatures at the same general levels, any conclusions of the report could be invalid.
The report also provided numbers for fecal coliform levels for the first time.  Stribling speculated that coliform levels downstream were the the result of septic tanks.  However, she cited no evidence to back up her speculation versus the possibility that coliform levels downstream were due to a previous spill from the city’s wastewater treatment plant.

Jim Ireton's Respect for the Salisbury Taxpayer - Part 1

Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton LOVES to spend money – OTHER PEOPLE’s MONEY.  Being a lifelong government employee, Ireton sees nothing wrong with doling our cash because, in his mind, there is ALWAYS MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

Today’s example – Salisbury’s Thrift Travel Inn

This infamous haven for hookers and drug dealers, Salisbury’s poster child for rent-by-the-hour, no-tell lodging luxury was finally demolished last November.

That’s a good thing, right?  In the end it was; but not if the city had done it “Jimmy’s Way”.
Ireton brought a proposal to the city council calling for the hardworking people of Salisbury to pay for the demolition.  Why not?  It’s other people’s money.  The evil, obstructionist council, led by Debbie Campbell, said NO!

Why would they do that?  Those mean, nasty people on city council thought that it was more appropriate for the property’s owners to pay for it.  Shame on you Debbie Campbell!  You took away another opportunity for Jimmy to call a press conference!

Of course, this hasn’t prevented Ireton from taking all of the credit during his campaign for re-election.  I wonder if this is another of Jake Day’s examples that the “mayor needs a partner”.

If Salisbury has any hope of revitalizing its economy, it deserves a Mayor AND a Council that respects the hardworking people and businesses of Salisbury.  These are the folks who pay the bills.

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a regular contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.
This article was originally printed in the DelMarVa Observer.

Thanks Jim!

I guess that Joe Albero and SBYNews should view the Daily Times’ front page article yesterday as an example of the old adage: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.  I doubt that Salisbury’s incumbent mayor will view it the same way.

While Sunday’s flagship article, an excellent piece by Jeremy Cox, has surprising similarities to an SBYNews post just a few days before, there’s one thing missing – any discussion of Jim Ireton’s involvement in this mess!

No, we don’t blame Ireton for the state of the national economy, but the national economy isn’t in the same shape as Salisbury’s either.  While Ireton has held lots of press conferences attacking others during his nearly four years as mayor, what has he done to attract any jobs to Salisbury?
While Ireton claims that he has “revitalized” downtown, just take a stroll down the plaza.  Notice that Ireton never discusses the REST of the city.  THAT’s where the jobs are!

For almost four years Ireton has “borrowed” ideas from others in the city and claimed them as his own.  Since Joe Albero declared as a candidate it’s ironic that NOW Ireton wants to streamline the city’s permitting process and finally start to treat businesses as something other than people to be TAXED, FINED, or charged FEES.  Naturally, we question his sincerity because he’s had FOUR YEARS to accomplish some rather COMMON SENSE tasks.

If Salisbury’s economy was growing rather than BLEEDING JOBS, it wouldn’t be experiencing such a high vacancy rate.
Thanks Jim!

Help Decide Salisbury's Future - VOTE TODAY!

Today is the primary election for the District 1 and District 2 Salisbury City Council seats currently held by Shanie Shields and Debbie Campbell.  Your vote today can help determine the future of Salisbury.

DISTRICT 1 - Cynthia Polk

Four years ago Cynthia Polk lost to incumbent Shanie Shields by one vote.  We can only imagine the difference in Salisbury if Polk, a local entrepreneur, had been the winner rather than SAPOA's chosen candidate.  Voters in District 1 now have a chance to fix that error.

The District 1 race has been low key, with little media attention.  Neither candidate has been receiving much attention outside of the district, which is a shame.  Neither candidate is taking a public stance on issues which is greatly different from their opponents'.  This makes an informed decision more difficult and reduces this race to one based more on personalities than on issues.

We believe that Polk would be the best choice for District 1, and for Salisbury.  With jobs and economic revitalization the apparent top issues in this year's election, it makes sense that people should vote for a small business person.  The third candidate, April Jackson, appears to be running on the strength of her family name and the support of the local Rudy Cane machine.  Cane's endorsement implies that Jackson would take the same high tax, big government approach to city government that her supporter takes to state government.  Salisbury needs innovative solutions to solve its problems, not simply a higher tax bill.

Shields certainly doesn't deserve a second term.  While the official line of the Daily Times and the city's special interests is that the current council majority is the disruptive factor in city politics, anyone who bothers to attend legislative or work sessions of the council knows that it is Shields and her ally, Laura Mitchell, who have stymied progress.  Shields has even gone so far as to advocate riots in the streets when she and her allies did not get their way over "The Bricks" project.  Salisbury, and the people of District 1, deserve better.

DISTRICT 2 - Debbie Campbell

For eight years the groups which have historically controlled Salisbury government have attacked Debbie Campbell, usually through the pages of the Daily Times.  For eight years Campbell has quietly went about the business of trying to make Salisbury a better place to live and work.  Unfortunately for Salisbury, Campbell has only been able to accomplish much during the last two years.  This was due to the election of Tim Spies and the formation of a working council majority that refused to simply show up and rubber stamp the proposals of the mayor.

We haven't agreed with Campbell on every issue.  We don't need to.  The fact that she will listen to a reasoned argument, and place the best interests of her constituents ahead of a handful of developers and landlords speaks volumes.

While incumbent mayor Jim Ireton likes to label Campbell and the council majority "The Party of No", almost every accomplishment Ireton claims in his quest for a second term is a direct result of the hard work of Campbell, councilwoman Terry Cohen, and Spies:

• Campbell, et al, prevented Ireton's proposed property tax hike without cutting city services.

• Campbell's work on the Crime Task Force, along with Cohen's bringing forward the Safe Streets initiative were the catalyst to a reduction in Part I crime.

• Campbell saved taxpayers over $1 million in the last year alone by cutting wasteful or unnecessary spending.

IF the "Dream Team" council had paid any attention to Campbell's questions, it is likely that Salisbury would not be having to pay TWICE for the failed waste water treatment plant.

There is no evidence that either of Campbell's opponents would be the type of council member that can move Salisbury forward.  Jack Heath is a nice guy, who has refused to take a solid stance on any issue of consequence.  He's basically running to be a "rubber stamp" councilman.  The mess of high crime and massive debt left by the Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, Lynn Cathcart "Dream Team" should turn off any concerned Salisbury voter.

We understand the appeal of Jake Day, particularly to any voter that gets his or her information from within the pages of the DT.  Day has something to appeal to everybody.  Why not, he has taken multiple stances on every major issue to date.

Salisbury deserves the hard work and honesty of Campbell.

The Letter the Daily Times DOESN'T Want You to Read

Tomorrow is Salisbury's council primaries.  It's little surprise that the Daily Times has, as in the past, refused to publish some letters in support of incumbent councilwoman Debbie Campbell.  What is (a little) surprising is their refusal to print a letter critical of the Salisbury city council ... unless the letter was critical of councilwomen Laura Mitchell and Shanie Shields.

That is exactly what has occurred.  Earlier we published a letter from Salisbury resident Kay Gibson.  Gibson originally submitted her letter to the DT.  Editorial page editor Susan Parker doesn't want you to read it before Tuesday's election.  Her boss, GM Tom Claybaugh agrees.  God forbid that YOU be allowed to make up your own mind:

Mitchell, Shields Stage Destructive Performance

If anyone wants to know the real source of conflict on Salisbury’s city council, they need only look at the two members who complain the loudest about “civility,” Laura Mitchell and Shanie Shields.  Listen to the audio of last Tuesday’s work session on the city’s website, www.ci.salisbury.md.us

Mitchell stationed a tape recorder on the table to capture what was obviously a staged performance.  She and Shields disrupted the meeting for a solid hour or more, shouting, interrupting, berating, accusing and more, even trying to goad the council leadership into fights and into shutting down the meeting.  Neither Terry Cohen nor Debbie Campbell took that bait, and both stayed focused on the work.

Mitchell literally bullied the city attorney, attacked me by name and made misrepresentations about the proposed business disclosure ordinance under discussion.  Later that night at the candidate forum at Salisbury University, candidate Jake Day pretty much parroted what Mitchell said about the proposal.  Was this the purpose of the tape recorder?

Shields admitted that night that she “lost it” at the meeting.  Mitchell’s behavior was just as destructive, done in front of state agency representatives and the general public.  Mitchell’s conduct at the last legislative meeting was thoroughly unprofessional, too.

As a frequent attendee at council meetings, I’ve seen these two be anything but civil for nearly two years.  This was no spirited debate of viewpoints on their part.  It was one of the most disgusting displays of behavior for political purposes I have ever seen.

Mary Kay Gibson
Salisbury, MD

Remember, this letter is only tangentially related to the current city elections.  However, we can't let the hoi polloi find out that councilwoman Laura Mitchell is feeding candidate Jake Day his talking points anymore than we can allow the public to find out that Day doesn't hesitate to take as many different stances on a given issue as there are audiences.  For a more detailed analysis of the DT's actions, see my Media Monday column.

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of SBYNews and a current contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.

A Tale of Two Stories - Part III

Accuracy of Reporting
Doesn't Equate to Fairness

Sunday we examined Jeremy Cox's front page piece on Salisbury mayoral candidate (and SBYNews publisher) Joe Albero.  Yesterday we looked at its companion piece on incumbent mayor Jim Ireton and his penchant for control.  As we noted in Part I, Cox's Albero piece was accurate but lacked fairness.  We admit that fairness is, at best, a highly subjective concept.  We also admit that IF a reader looks at both articles (Albero HERE, Ireton HERE) IN THEIR ENTIRETY he or she would not believe that the Daily Times had hacked Albero to ribbons while publishing a puff piece on Ireton.  However, it is the middle ground, where you examine tone and what was left out that is a subject for concern.  We also live in the real world and know that not all readers examine an article in its entirety or read critically.

Mirror Images

Look at the titles of the two articles:

ALBERO: Candidate haunted by past blog posts

vs.

Ireton: Incumbent says he speaks for city

Look at the leads for both articles:

From birther conspiracies to local blurbs attributed to the likes of “men in trench coat-like jackets,” Salisbury News has distinguished itself as a safe haven for mainstream-eschewing news and viewpoints.

vs.

Serving as the unofficial spokesman and public face of the municipality is one of the most important, if unwritten, functions of the mayor in any city. Think Rudy Giuliani in New York City or Cory Booker in Newark, N.J.

What's YOUR impression?  My view is that it appears you are about to be reading something negative about Albero and the Ireton article is positive.  In reality, both pieces are negative.  They just happen to be mirror images.  The Albero article starts off with a negative tone while the Ireton piece starts off positively.

Just as I argued that there are a few suspect facts and a glaring omission in the Albero piece, there are even more glaring omissions in the Ireton piece.  Nowhere is there any mention of Ireton's repeated attempts to influence media coverage (remember the DT sending reporter Sarah Lake to take part in a private political strategy session) and his refusing to allow the city council access to staff is barely glossed over.  Let's not forget that the reason the council changed the charter to put the city attorney under the council was because Ireton prohibited the city attorney from meeting with the council.

Less Than Perfect Reporting OR Excessive Editorial Influence?

You don't need to lie or even misreport facts to be biased.  The two previous posts provide ample evidence that tone and choosing what facts to OMIT can change an objectively neutral article into one that is PERCEIVED as positive or negative.

I know that Cox did a fair amount of research for these two articles.  Therefore I have to ask - were these omissions, and the tone of each article deliberate on the part of Mr. Cox or was it the result of heavy handed work by his editor(s)?   Four years ago, a DT reporter took the unusual step of demanding that their byline be removed if editors continued to change the tone of certain articles written during the last mayoral election.  While all of the editors involved no longer work for either Gannett or the Daily Times, we know that the precedent does exist.

We can only hope that coverage of city politics and government will improve during this election.  Mr. Cox is doing a far better job than his two immediate predecessors.  Yet, I think the voters of Salisbury deserve more over the coming weeks.

Part I

Part II

G. A. Harrison is a former editor of Salisbury News and a guest contributor.  He also writes at the DelMarVa Observer.