8 Comments

1. Robert Harding says:

   July 23, 2007 at 7:37 pm

   Pundit,

   Yes. When James (Boyce) showed me his project, I was impressed. It started just last week and I will be contributing frequently to the site.
2. steve says:

   July 24, 2007 at 9:26 am

   How clever is a site like that, really? Couldn’t someone with an ax to grind put up such a site about any office holder? Or candidate for office?

   Reynolds’ time is probably – and deservedly – just about up, mostly of his own making. But a quick read of the site left me with this question — if Louise Slaughter or Chuck Shumer had shown up with $199-k to rebuild a road in Orleans County, would the site’s owner still have called “oink?”
3. Robert HardingRobert Harding says:

   July 24, 2007 at 8:46 pm

   I was actually the author of that article. I’m from Orleans County, which probably makes me more well-qualified to discuss issues there than you.

   I mentioned in the opening of my write-up that I think funding is great, but Reynolds keeps claiming he’s “delivering” this money. In other words, he’s bringing home the bacon. It’s called pork no matter what party it is.

   Louise Slaughter secured nearly a half million dollars to the Village of Lyndonville (for updated water treatment and different projects) recently. She didn’t come to Orleans County for a photo op (Reynolds did for his announcement of the $199,999) and she didn’t claim she “delivered” this money. In fact, it went under the radar until the Mayor of Lyndonville mentioned it while discussing other local issues!

   So your “theory” has been debunked. Reynolds, in classic “Bushie” fashion, loves photo ops. Slaughter would rather bring in federal funding without such a “ceremony.” It seems funny to me that since November, I can’t name one time when Reynolds was in Orleans County. In June, Jon Powers declared his candidacy. A month later, Reynolds shows up to say he’s “delivering” this money.

   Put two and two together. He’s using the pork for political purposes.
4. steve says:

   July 25, 2007 at 8:51 am

   Let me see if this shorter version works since my initial effort to reply to Robert seems to have disappeared.

   1. I’m neither a “Bushie” or a Reynolds accolyte. I’m a moderate Republican who thinks Bush is an embarrassment to the party and who thinks Reynolds is probably toast.

   2. My “theory” as you call it was simply a question.

   3. Pork comes in many varieties, and is consumed equally both major parties. Louise is not beyond reproach on this subject, since the Lyndonville money you mentioned is the subject a press release she issued and still has on her website. I live in her district, receive her mailings and thus have seen plenty of examples where she is taking credit for “securing funding.” By the way, she is fond of the over-sized fake check from the U.S. Treasury for her pressers — as evidenced by the photo gallery on her web site.

   4. Kind of you to tell me what Slaughter “would rather” do, but there is nothing unique or particularly surprising in what Reynolds did. He faces perhaps the race of his life, and will show up where ever he can to press the flesh. She would do no different if she faced a tough challenge.

   Hate Reynolds all you want, but lose the sanctimony about it. This is not a DEM/GOP thing. If it is, I expect to see you contributing to a Spitzer Watch page real soon. See yesterday’s Buffalo News front page for details.
5. Robert Harding says:

   July 25, 2007 at 11:40 am

   “1. I’m neither a “Bushie” or a Reynolds accolyte. I’m a moderate Republican who thinks Bush is an embarrassment to the party and who thinks Reynolds is probably toast.”

   When did I say you were? I called Reynolds a “Bushie.” I never referred to you as one. I think some people, instead of pointless comments, should comprehend what they read. I never referred to you as any of that. I merely defended my posting regarding Reynolds.

   “2. My “theory” as you call it was simply a question.”

   It was a theory and a question. You argue that you could start this about anyone. Of course you could. But how much substance would it have? Reynolds has plenty of issues to worry about and to talk about. Other reps don’t have nearly as much baggage as Reynolds. So I guess you could start a web page like that, but it probably would dry out. But if you started one about Reynolds, you could run it until Nov. 2008 and have enough info.

   “3. Pork comes in many varieties, and is consumed equally both major parties. Louise is not beyond reproach on this subject, since the Lyndonville money you mentioned is the subject a press release she issued and still has on her website. I live in her district, receive her mailings and thus have seen plenty of examples where she is taking credit for “securing funding.” By the way, she is fond of the over-sized fake check from the U.S. Treasury for her pressers — as evidenced by the photo gallery on her web site.”

   I never said one party gives pork and another doesn’t. Both parties are guilty of it. But I think in the case of Reynolds, Orleans County hadn’t seen the guy since he won in November 2006. I heard of other appearances on the news of him in WNY, but never in Orleans. Then, all of a sudden, he shows up to get his picture taken because he’s “delivering” a check. He didn’t deliver anything. It was from USDA Rural Development, not the Bank of Tom Reynolds.

   By the way, the word “securing” is a heck of a lot different than “delivering.” You can secure funds in any bill. That we all know. But it’s another thing to say you’re “delivering” those funds and come back to your district for a photo op, then head back to Washington.

   “4. Kind of you to tell me what Slaughter “would rather” do, but there is nothing unique or particularly surprising in what Reynolds did. He faces perhaps the race of his life, and will show up where ever he can to press the flesh. She would do no different if she faced a tough challenge.”

   He already had the race of his life. He won. And he won thanks to a storm that made him look like some type of savior, which he wasn’t. Jon Powers will give Reynolds a run for his money, but we’re over a year away from that. But you practically admitted to this fact: If Powers hadn’t declared, would Reynolds come around claiming he’s “delivering” this money? I don’t know. But somehow I doubt that.

   “Hate Reynolds all you want, but lose the sanctimony about it. This is not a DEM/GOP thing. If it is, I expect to see you contributing to a Spitzer Watch page real soon. See yesterday’s Buffalo News front page for details.”

   The sanctimony? Okay. This isn’t a Dem or GOP “thing.” This is a Tom Reynolds thing. Do I like some of the things Spitzer has done? No. Do I like some of the things Hillary has done? No. But overall, no one has voted against MY best interests like Tom Reynolds has. There’s a reason why I despise him so much and it goes back to an issue with my dad’s Social Security. My dad was seeking some help with his benefits and Reynolds’ office told him (verbatim) “we gotcha buddy!” They never called back. There’s also been plenty of bills that I support that Reynolds has voted against. That’s the reason I’m writing for that site. There’s been other sites about other reps and politicians. So why dismiss this one as just a partisan attack? It’s more than that for me. It’s more about politics. If a Democrat did that to my father (which they haven’t, because John LaFalce previously assisted my dad whenever he had trouble) I would be just as angry and disappointed.

   Sorry, it’s more than politics. It’s personal.
6. steve says:

   July 25, 2007 at 12:15 pm

   Robert –

   That this is a very personal thing with you adds some perspective to your posts. (btw – sorry about the issue with your Dad. Shouldn’t happen to anyone.)

   But let’s be clear, in your response to my original post you presumed to tell me what Louise Slaughter would prefer to do regarding pork and publicity, and I called bullsh*t because I know, first hand, that she is not above the very same tactics you deride Reynolds for using. It wouldn’t matter if it were Louise, or Boy Wonder Brian, or most any of them. It is a well-tested political tactic that must have some impact because most of them still do it.

   Is there more fodder for an anti-Reynolds web site vs. anyone else? Probably. Read my original post to BP’s post. Again, I didn’t find anything original or clever about the Reynolds Watch web page. Still don’t. But, flame away if it makes you feel better. He probably deserves it.
7. Robert Harding says:

   July 25, 2007 at 2:31 pm

   “But let’s be clear, in your response to my original post you presumed to tell me what Louise Slaughter would prefer to do regarding pork and publicity, and I called bullsh*t because I know, first hand, that she is not above the very same tactics you deride Reynolds for using. It wouldn’t matter if it were Louise, or Boy Wonder Brian, or most any of them. It is a well-tested political tactic that must have some impact because most of them still do it.”

   I live about 5-10 minutes away from Lyndonville. I spoke to their mayor on the phone yesterday regarding a separate issue when he mentioned the money the village received due to Slaughter’s work. That’s a pretty substantial amount of money. She didn’t come home to some press conference and announce this. That’s a fact.

   In all her press releases involving grants for local use and so on, it says she secured the funds. That’s true. She did. It also tells how she did it or in what bill. Reynolds tries to take all the credit for the money he brings home, as if it came out of his own pocket or something. He tries to portray himself to the people as, for the lack of a better phrase, bringing home the bacon.

   By the way, Slaughter’s election results say a lot about her character. She’s received the praise of many in both parties that I’ve talked to. Reynolds, on the other hand, is a polarizing figure.

   As for not finding anything “clever” with the Reynolds Watch site, I think you should take a look around the World Wide Web. There’s more sites out there like it… so it’s not like this site is a “rarity” or a “breakthrough” web page. But it is, at least from what I’ve seen, the first of its kind that is anti-Reynolds. And so what? This is America, isn’t it?
8. steve says:

   July 25, 2007 at 3:37 pm

   Your Slaughter/Reynolds “methods of obtaining and promoting federal funding” comparison is a difference without distinction. Why? While Louise may use different language, she most definitely wants voters to know who got that money for them. If she didn’t, why would she even bother with a press release? If she didn’t, why is her constituent newsletter regularly full of such announcements? She certainly wouldn’t go to the trouble of having her staff mock up the enlarged fake check, would she? I don’t mean to pick on Louise, because I sort of like her. But, c’mon bringing home the bacon is the name of the game for incumbents of all size, shape, color, religious demonination and political affiliation.

   There as so many substantive things to hammer Reynolds on. This particular one just struck me as silly.

   As for the rest, I was simply reacting to Pundit saying something like “is there anything better than a site called Reynolds Watch?” Ummm, yes, lots of things. But, thank God you reminded me that this is America.

   You’re right, Robert, so what? A modestly interesting debate in an otherwise slow day. From my end, the debate has run its course. Greetings to all my neighbors in Orleans County.