It should surprise no one that the Herald-Standard newspaper did its level best to put a good face on the failed candidacy of Republican commission candidate Dave Lohr. After all, the newspaper did all it could to hoist Lohr into office over incumbent Republican Angela Zimmerlink.
The newspaper's rooting interest for Lohr shamefully transcended its editorial endorsement of him. On the eve of the November election, it let one reporter publish a story in which a known Zimmerink foe accused her of using a county computer to post things on the Internet, without any attempt at verifying that fact. It then let another reporter -- who wound up working a poll for Lohr -- publish an eight-day-old story about the Fayette County Conservation District board (which the paper never covers) that cast Zimmerlink in a negative light.
The newspaper also ran full-page color ads, "Paid for by Dave Lohr," that showed him shaking hands with former Republican Commissioner Joe Hardy. The text in those ads included the words, "In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community."
That sitting Republican commissioner, of course, was and is Zimmerlink. We will leave it to you if that sounds like negative advertising -- but it sure does to us.
Our little analysis of the post-election editorial, "So close: Lohr ends historic race with concession" (Herald-Standard, Dec. 23, 2011) begins with this line: In addition to his gracious concession, he (Lohr) also deserves credit for running a hard but clean campaign, which came so tantalizingly close to victory.
Is the author of that editorial capable of reading? If so, does he think that the full-page Lohr ad that accused Zimmerlink of seeking to "slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community" is evidence of "a hard but clean campaign"?
And the use of the phrase "tantalizingly close" to describe Lohr's 18-vote loss leads us to ask, "For whom?" For Lohr and his supporters, that part is definitely true. And it is probably true for the newspaper that did all it could to help Lohr, even if that meant permiting cheap and unethical shots at Zimmerlink.
Only an intellectual Tom Thumb would make some of the other comments in the Dec. 23 editorial:
We would be remiss if we did not first commend Lohr on graciously conceding defeat and not dragging the process out any futher.
Graciously conceding defeat? Was the Herald-Standard referring to the part of Lohr's concession where he told the Tribune-Review that he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him, and said that, "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature"? In conceding defeat, Lohr was far from gracious; he was still throwing barbs at unnamed opponents.
Not dragging the process out any further? Lohr's attempts to erase Zimmerlink's lead resulted in Fayette County being the last of Pennsylvania's 67 counties to certify the results of the Nov. 8 election. It prevented all school boards in the county from reorganizing in early December. (And the last time we checked, the county's school boards are facing some pretty stiff challenges of their own.)
This oh-so-close election should give Fayette County voters peace of mind ... After challenges and recounts, no real problems were discovered.
Huh? We learned that some absentee ballots were ostensibly left to languish at the Uniontown Post Office, that other absentees were delivered to the election bureau but unopened on Election Day, that at least one voter voted at the polls and by an absentee ballot (which was yanked during the challenge/recount process). And after ALL of this scrutiny, we learned during Lohr's last stand -- a challenge of the paper ballots cast at five of the county's 98 voting precincts -- that Democrat Al Ambrosini picked up two additional votes, while Democrat Vince Zapotosky picked up one.
Pardon us for thinking out loud -- or logically -- but shouldn't the recount numbers for Ambrosini and Zapotosky have remained the same, in order for anyone to promote the concept that Fayette County voters should have "peace of mind"?
The process was conducted out in the open and without any chicanery or cloak-and-dagger mischief.
Does that include any chicanery and cloak-and-dagger mischief in the realm of newspaper coverage of the election and the challenge/recount process?
Showing posts with label Dave Lohr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dave Lohr. Show all posts
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The guy in the high chair doesn't want to appear childish
Only in Fayette County can the guy sitting in the figurative high chair, wearing a bib and sporting a face smeared with Gerber's, make the claim that, "I don't want to drag this out to where it looks childish in nature."
That quote came from Dave Lohr in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Lohr concedes Fayette County commissioners race to Zimmerlink."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_772905.html
Lohr has spent the past two months making things look childish in nature. Refusing to accept the official count of the Fayette County Election Board, he first challenged in court a bundle of absentee ballots that didn't arrive in that office by the deadline, hoping that they might give him a chance to overcome the 18-vote margin Angela M. Zimmerlink held over him for the third and final commissioner spot.
Rebuffed in that effort by Judge Ralph Warman, an even more desperate Lohr climbed back up in his high chair and threw some food against the wall, in the form of a second challenge to the work of the Fayette County Election Bureau and its Election Board, in the form of a challenge to recount paper ballots cast at five -- and only five -- of the county's 98 voting precincts.
After that effort -- which continued to delay the officical certification of Fayette County's vote count -- did nothing to dent Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead, Lohr climbed out of his high chair, removed his bib, wiped off his face, and proclaimed that did not want to appear childish.
There was more in the Tribune-Review story that left us here in the patch scratching our heads. Like these two paragraphs:
Lohr thanked his supporters and the (election) bureau. The bureau, he said, was unfairly criticized over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process.
"A lot of rumors were around, that it was rigged, or they would do unscrupulous things," Lohr said. "But those people are top-notch. They would never do anything illegal."
Lohr needs only to look in the mirror to see which candidate was most responsible for launching any criticism of the election bureau over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process. It wasn't Zimmerlink or Democrat candidates Al Ambrosini or Vince Zapotosky who twice went to court trying to find a way to change the outcome of this election.
And if Lohr truly believes that the election bureau employees are "top-notch," why was he the one challenging their handling of absentee ballots and veracity of their official vote count that had him losing by 18 ballots?
It gets even better in the Tribune-Review story, which also contains these two paragraphs:
Although he is out of the race, Lohr said he will monitor the commissioners' actions over the next four years. In particular, he said, he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him.
"There are things that happened after the election, threats that were made, to businesses and individuals who supported me," said Lohr. "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature, and these elected officials need to get to the heart of the people, and not their personal goals."
That assessment is, of course, a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. If Lohr wants to find people "of a vindictive nature" who put "their personal goals" first, he might want to start by looking at some of his own backers.
To its credit, the Trib story at least attempted to pin Lohr down a bit. It noted: Lohr declined to go into specifics regarding the allegations.
When making such a serious accusations, Lohr should be willing to state, on the record, exactly which people he was talking about, so that they could be contacted for their comments. Because he refused to name names, we all have to take Lohr's accusation with a huge grain of salt.
Here in the patch, we all have a pretty good idea of whom he was speaking. And yes, his way of casting this accusatory stone seems pretty childish to us.
Since it's Christmas, we have a little reminder to everyone from one of our favorite Top Ten lists (and it's not one from Letterman):
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
That quote came from Dave Lohr in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Lohr concedes Fayette County commissioners race to Zimmerlink."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_772905.html
Lohr has spent the past two months making things look childish in nature. Refusing to accept the official count of the Fayette County Election Board, he first challenged in court a bundle of absentee ballots that didn't arrive in that office by the deadline, hoping that they might give him a chance to overcome the 18-vote margin Angela M. Zimmerlink held over him for the third and final commissioner spot.
Rebuffed in that effort by Judge Ralph Warman, an even more desperate Lohr climbed back up in his high chair and threw some food against the wall, in the form of a second challenge to the work of the Fayette County Election Bureau and its Election Board, in the form of a challenge to recount paper ballots cast at five -- and only five -- of the county's 98 voting precincts.
After that effort -- which continued to delay the officical certification of Fayette County's vote count -- did nothing to dent Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead, Lohr climbed out of his high chair, removed his bib, wiped off his face, and proclaimed that did not want to appear childish.
There was more in the Tribune-Review story that left us here in the patch scratching our heads. Like these two paragraphs:
Lohr thanked his supporters and the (election) bureau. The bureau, he said, was unfairly criticized over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process.
"A lot of rumors were around, that it was rigged, or they would do unscrupulous things," Lohr said. "But those people are top-notch. They would never do anything illegal."
Lohr needs only to look in the mirror to see which candidate was most responsible for launching any criticism of the election bureau over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process. It wasn't Zimmerlink or Democrat candidates Al Ambrosini or Vince Zapotosky who twice went to court trying to find a way to change the outcome of this election.
And if Lohr truly believes that the election bureau employees are "top-notch," why was he the one challenging their handling of absentee ballots and veracity of their official vote count that had him losing by 18 ballots?
It gets even better in the Tribune-Review story, which also contains these two paragraphs:
Although he is out of the race, Lohr said he will monitor the commissioners' actions over the next four years. In particular, he said, he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him.
"There are things that happened after the election, threats that were made, to businesses and individuals who supported me," said Lohr. "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature, and these elected officials need to get to the heart of the people, and not their personal goals."
That assessment is, of course, a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. If Lohr wants to find people "of a vindictive nature" who put "their personal goals" first, he might want to start by looking at some of his own backers.
To its credit, the Trib story at least attempted to pin Lohr down a bit. It noted: Lohr declined to go into specifics regarding the allegations.
When making such a serious accusations, Lohr should be willing to state, on the record, exactly which people he was talking about, so that they could be contacted for their comments. Because he refused to name names, we all have to take Lohr's accusation with a huge grain of salt.
Here in the patch, we all have a pretty good idea of whom he was speaking. And yes, his way of casting this accusatory stone seems pretty childish to us.
Since it's Christmas, we have a little reminder to everyone from one of our favorite Top Ten lists (and it's not one from Letterman):
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Why five, not all 98?
Here in the patch, we find it extremely interesting to watch Dave Lohr's attempt to cherry-pick his way to the third and final spot as Fayette County commissioner. The effort raises some interesting questions that are flying below the radar.
You'll recall that on election night, Lohr's fellow Republican (and incumbent commissioner) Angela M. Zimmerlink was 10, 11 or 12 votes ahead of Lohr, depending on what number the election bureau was using and/or what number the particular media outlet was reporting.
After a painstaking and supposedly thorough process regarding the counting of absentee ballots -- a saga that involved scrutizining postmarks and the post office and a judge's ruling -- Zimmerlink was still the winner, only by then her margin had swelled to 18 votes (that's one-third greater than it was on election night).
Case closed? Not for Lohr, who apparently does not want to go down in the county's political history books as the only person to ever be a four-time loser in the quest to become a comissioner that dates back to his initial run in 1995.
No, Lohr and his attorney sought -- and have won -- a recount in five of the county's voting precincts. Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman has agreed with their argument that votes should be recounted in Bullskin Township 1 and 2, South Union Township 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5.
According to court papers filed by Lohr attorney David Montgomery, as reported by Herald-Standard,com, "It is submitted that the closeness of the race among Ms. Zimmerlink and Mr. Lohr requires a recount and a recanvass of the ballots cast in the Nov. 8, 2011 election, as there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots."
(It is also possible that additional absentee ballots delivered in time by carrier pigeon were deposited in the courthouse clock tower. Although that possibility is miniscule, perhaps someone should check, just in case.)
Here's the problem, as we see it: If Lohr and his attorney believe, and if Warman agrees, that "there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots," wouldn't that possibility exist for all 98 of the county's voting precincts?
Of course it would. But the Lohr camp is only seeking to recount the vote (or more accurately, a partial vote, using only paper ballots and not those registered by machine) in five precincts. The question everyone should be asking is, "Why just those five?"
In his court papers, attorney Montgomery is reported to have said that, "... based on information believed to be reliable, that fraud or error, although not manifest in the general return of votes made from the subject election district, was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots cast in the race for county commissioner."
Really? It seems to us that if attorney Montgomery and/or his client Lohr have "information believed to be reliable" that proves "fraud or error ... was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots," they should be asking for an investigation by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks or state Attorney General Linda Kelly.
But we digress. Back to those five precincts: What happens, hypothetically, if the recount of Bullskin 1 and 2, South Union 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5, magically erases Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead and puts Lohr up by five votes?
Is that result set in stone, because Lohr and his attorney picked those five before the deadline for filing such a request passed? No one from the media has asked or answered that question, to our knowledge. But it should be asked and answered.
Our little hypothetical scenario poses quite a dilemma for Lohr: If the recount does put him up by five votes -- or 50 or 500 or 1, it really doesn't matter -- will he then ask that five more precints be recounted? Or all 98? (Assuming that the law allows for additional requests to be made.)
Or does Lohr say, "No, it took a while, but I'm finally satisfied with the election results. The people have spoken. Thank you, and good night."
You can bet the farm, including all Marcellus gas rights, that if the recount of only five precincts changes the outcome of this race, and if the opportunity to recount the other 93 precincts has already passed, some judicious cherry-picking did the trick.
You'll recall that on election night, Lohr's fellow Republican (and incumbent commissioner) Angela M. Zimmerlink was 10, 11 or 12 votes ahead of Lohr, depending on what number the election bureau was using and/or what number the particular media outlet was reporting.
After a painstaking and supposedly thorough process regarding the counting of absentee ballots -- a saga that involved scrutizining postmarks and the post office and a judge's ruling -- Zimmerlink was still the winner, only by then her margin had swelled to 18 votes (that's one-third greater than it was on election night).
Case closed? Not for Lohr, who apparently does not want to go down in the county's political history books as the only person to ever be a four-time loser in the quest to become a comissioner that dates back to his initial run in 1995.
No, Lohr and his attorney sought -- and have won -- a recount in five of the county's voting precincts. Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman has agreed with their argument that votes should be recounted in Bullskin Township 1 and 2, South Union Township 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5.
According to court papers filed by Lohr attorney David Montgomery, as reported by Herald-Standard,com, "It is submitted that the closeness of the race among Ms. Zimmerlink and Mr. Lohr requires a recount and a recanvass of the ballots cast in the Nov. 8, 2011 election, as there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots."
(It is also possible that additional absentee ballots delivered in time by carrier pigeon were deposited in the courthouse clock tower. Although that possibility is miniscule, perhaps someone should check, just in case.)
Here's the problem, as we see it: If Lohr and his attorney believe, and if Warman agrees, that "there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots," wouldn't that possibility exist for all 98 of the county's voting precincts?
Of course it would. But the Lohr camp is only seeking to recount the vote (or more accurately, a partial vote, using only paper ballots and not those registered by machine) in five precincts. The question everyone should be asking is, "Why just those five?"
In his court papers, attorney Montgomery is reported to have said that, "... based on information believed to be reliable, that fraud or error, although not manifest in the general return of votes made from the subject election district, was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots cast in the race for county commissioner."
Really? It seems to us that if attorney Montgomery and/or his client Lohr have "information believed to be reliable" that proves "fraud or error ... was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots," they should be asking for an investigation by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks or state Attorney General Linda Kelly.
But we digress. Back to those five precincts: What happens, hypothetically, if the recount of Bullskin 1 and 2, South Union 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5, magically erases Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead and puts Lohr up by five votes?
Is that result set in stone, because Lohr and his attorney picked those five before the deadline for filing such a request passed? No one from the media has asked or answered that question, to our knowledge. But it should be asked and answered.
Our little hypothetical scenario poses quite a dilemma for Lohr: If the recount does put him up by five votes -- or 50 or 500 or 1, it really doesn't matter -- will he then ask that five more precints be recounted? Or all 98? (Assuming that the law allows for additional requests to be made.)
Or does Lohr say, "No, it took a while, but I'm finally satisfied with the election results. The people have spoken. Thank you, and good night."
You can bet the farm, including all Marcellus gas rights, that if the recount of only five precincts changes the outcome of this race, and if the opportunity to recount the other 93 precincts has already passed, some judicious cherry-picking did the trick.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Why no GOP 'united front'?
Here in the patch, where not a single person has voted for a Republican since FDR became president, folks figure that the Fayette County Republican Party has got to be scratching its head as much as we are.
That’s because for years and years and years, Republicans here have said one of the reasons Fayette lags so far behind other counties is because of the dominance of the Democratic Party. In their collective view, Fayette gets nothing from the Democrats because they take the county vote for granted, and Fayette gets nothing from the Republicans because they write the county off as a place where they’ll never win.
The real story in the general election held Nov. 8 is not that the two Democrat candidates for county commissioner, Al Ambrosini and incumbent Vince Zapotosky, finished first and second, respectively. The real story is not even the closeness of the vote for the third and final commissioner spot, where incumbent Republican Angela Zimmerlink unofficially bested Republican Dave Lohr by 11 votes. (But this is Fayette County, so you shouldn’t be surprised if something new and previously unheard of to arise during the official vote count that begins this week.)
No, the real story is how close the two Republicans came to beating Zapotosky. Zapotosky finished with 25 percent of the vote, while Zimmerlink and Lohr each finished with 22 percent. That put each of them roughly 1,300 votes behind Zapotosky, which clearly put both Republican candidates within striking distance of the Number 2 Democrat. (For the record, Ambrosini captured 30 percent of the vote.)
The question that we would love to see a news reporter ask the Republican Party honchos is, “Given the closeness of this race, how do you feel about Lohr running a campaign, not aimed at the two Democrats, but at fellow Republican Zimmerlink?”
Make no mistake: Lohr was taking on Zimmerlink more than Ambrosini and Zapotosky combined. Any doubt can be erased by looking at Lohr’s full-page, color political advertisement in the Herald-Standard of Nov. 2 (yeah, the one where he’s once again shaking hands with Joe Hardy.)
The ad, which was “Paid for by Dave Lohr,” creatively poses as a letter from Hardy, who notes, “In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community.” (That’s not true, obviously, and we predict that as time unfolds, more and more Fayette County residents will come to appreciate Zimmerlink’s effort to form an informational Marcellus Shale Task Force.)
Back to the ad: The way it was structured gives Lohr cover to say, “Hey, it wasn’t me who said that -- it was Joe Hardy.” It’s a classic example of using someone else to say something bad about your opponent, so you won’t have to. We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that little trick is the mark of an honest person. Or an independent one.
There’s another basic and longstanding theory of Fayette County politics, which holds that the Republican Party is merely an extension of the Democratic Party. This theory holds that the county’s political structure is monolithic, and that a true two-party system is a myth because they are in collusion.
In the just-concluded primary election for county commissioner, where two Democrats and two Republicans were running for three spots, can you name us one other county where a candidate took aim at the other candidate from his or her own party, instead of taking aim at the two candidates from the other party?
In this election, Republicans may have had a golden opportunity to recapture control of the county, by winning two of the three seats. We don’t expect HeraldStandard.com to pursue a story along those lines, or one that would delve into Lohr’s unorthodox use of a primary election strategy in a general election.
No, the newspaper appears quite content to do a follow-up story on the closeness of the race between Zimmerlink and Lohr, two Republicans, by contacting the chairman of the Democratic Party, Fred L. Lebder.
Lebder is a political legend whose insights are worth seeking on any topic. But the real story here involves Republicans and the county Republican Party. Someone should give them a call.
That’s because for years and years and years, Republicans here have said one of the reasons Fayette lags so far behind other counties is because of the dominance of the Democratic Party. In their collective view, Fayette gets nothing from the Democrats because they take the county vote for granted, and Fayette gets nothing from the Republicans because they write the county off as a place where they’ll never win.
The real story in the general election held Nov. 8 is not that the two Democrat candidates for county commissioner, Al Ambrosini and incumbent Vince Zapotosky, finished first and second, respectively. The real story is not even the closeness of the vote for the third and final commissioner spot, where incumbent Republican Angela Zimmerlink unofficially bested Republican Dave Lohr by 11 votes. (But this is Fayette County, so you shouldn’t be surprised if something new and previously unheard of to arise during the official vote count that begins this week.)
No, the real story is how close the two Republicans came to beating Zapotosky. Zapotosky finished with 25 percent of the vote, while Zimmerlink and Lohr each finished with 22 percent. That put each of them roughly 1,300 votes behind Zapotosky, which clearly put both Republican candidates within striking distance of the Number 2 Democrat. (For the record, Ambrosini captured 30 percent of the vote.)
The question that we would love to see a news reporter ask the Republican Party honchos is, “Given the closeness of this race, how do you feel about Lohr running a campaign, not aimed at the two Democrats, but at fellow Republican Zimmerlink?”
Make no mistake: Lohr was taking on Zimmerlink more than Ambrosini and Zapotosky combined. Any doubt can be erased by looking at Lohr’s full-page, color political advertisement in the Herald-Standard of Nov. 2 (yeah, the one where he’s once again shaking hands with Joe Hardy.)
The ad, which was “Paid for by Dave Lohr,” creatively poses as a letter from Hardy, who notes, “In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community.” (That’s not true, obviously, and we predict that as time unfolds, more and more Fayette County residents will come to appreciate Zimmerlink’s effort to form an informational Marcellus Shale Task Force.)
Back to the ad: The way it was structured gives Lohr cover to say, “Hey, it wasn’t me who said that -- it was Joe Hardy.” It’s a classic example of using someone else to say something bad about your opponent, so you won’t have to. We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that little trick is the mark of an honest person. Or an independent one.
There’s another basic and longstanding theory of Fayette County politics, which holds that the Republican Party is merely an extension of the Democratic Party. This theory holds that the county’s political structure is monolithic, and that a true two-party system is a myth because they are in collusion.
In the just-concluded primary election for county commissioner, where two Democrats and two Republicans were running for three spots, can you name us one other county where a candidate took aim at the other candidate from his or her own party, instead of taking aim at the two candidates from the other party?
In this election, Republicans may have had a golden opportunity to recapture control of the county, by winning two of the three seats. We don’t expect HeraldStandard.com to pursue a story along those lines, or one that would delve into Lohr’s unorthodox use of a primary election strategy in a general election.
No, the newspaper appears quite content to do a follow-up story on the closeness of the race between Zimmerlink and Lohr, two Republicans, by contacting the chairman of the Democratic Party, Fred L. Lebder.
Lebder is a political legend whose insights are worth seeking on any topic. But the real story here involves Republicans and the county Republican Party. Someone should give them a call.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The case for Angela Zimmerlink
In Tuesday’s election for Fayette County commissioner, only one candidate can lay undisputed claim to owing no one anything -- and that candidate is Republican Angela Zimmerlink.
That’s because Zimmerlink’s only campaign contributions have come from herself and her husband Tom. In an age where money matters immensely in politics, Zimmerlink has never accepted any campaign cash from outside her immediate family.
She’s won twice doing it that way -- and here in the patch, we think that her refusal to accept campaign cash is a powerful reason to keep Zimmerlink in office. This policy allows her to make decisions in the best interest of the county, without regard to politics. You can bet she won’t get any phone calls from someone seeking to cash in some chips, in terms of a board appointment, a contract, a hire, or any other sort of favorable treatment.
Let’s be brutally frank here: Does anyone think that campaign contributions -- especially hefty ones -- do not come with invisible strings attached? Do campaign contributors throw thousands of dollars your way because they think you’re a good guy?
However noble, Zimmerlink’s policy places her at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to such things as advertising and paying poll workers, two staples of the Fayette County political dynamic. Still, voters have twice elected her to the commissioners office -- and we hope they have the wisdom to do it again.
According to the Herald-Standard.com story, “$70,000 spent on Fayette’s race for commissioner,” of Nov. 3, 2011, Democrat Vince Zapotosky was the big kahuna when it comes to raking in other peoples’ money. Zapotosky pulled in $24,717 in the reporting period that ended Oct. 28.
Democrat Al Ambrosini got $17,600 in new contributions, and Republican Dave Lohr received $11,750.
Zimmerlink and her husband contributed $1,310 to her campaign. In the reporting period, Zapotosky raised nearly 19 times as much money as Zimmerlink, Ambrosini 13.4 times as much, and Lohr nearly 9 times as much. (That gross imbalance is likely to get worse when the candidates file their post-election reports, which cover campaign contributions raised and spent AFTER Oct. 28.)
In analyzing Lohr’s numbers, what popped out at us was this: Of the $11,750 he raised according to HeraldStandard.com, $5,500 came from two people named Terrance Shallenberger, another $4,800 came Lohr’s way from Sean Miller of Washington Security Group, and yet another $3,400 was put into Lohr’s campaign by Neil Brown of Acme.
(In the “Can you trust what you read?” department, we think someone ought to buy HeraldStandard.com a calculator, or give its reporters a refresher course in basic math, because the Shallenbergers, Miller and Brown contributions alone add up to $13,700, which is $2,000 more than the $11,750 the newspaper reported that Lohr raised. In any case, those three contributors provided the backbone of Lohr‘s campaign financing.)
Inaccurate numbers aside, would this happen to be the same Terrance Shallenberger who is a member of the Fayette County Airport Authority, or whose company is heavily involved in the Marcellus gas industry operating here (think “frackwater treatment plant, Masontown Borough“)? Would this happen to be the same Sean Miller whose company is embroiled in a zoning dispute over a shooting range near Laurel Mall? Would this be the same Neil Brown who is a member of the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board?
According to Herald-Standard.com, Zapotosky received $1,000 each from John and Justin Garlow of Uniontown (would this be the same John Garlow who owns Ford Business Machines, which has the county copy machine contract?), $1,100 from Fred and Rhonda Zeigler of Uniontown (the same couple who are trying to purchase Great Meadows Amphitheater property from the county?), and $3,500 from Terrance Shallenberger.
Ambrosini also got $2,000 from Terrance Shallenberger and $1,000 from John Garlow, in addition to $1,000 each from Robert W. Sleighter of Uniontown and Terry E. McMillan of Uniontown (who are each affiliated with engineering firms, if memory serves us correctly.)
There is nothing wrong or improper with any of these contributions, which are allowable by law. But if and when the county commissioners ever have to make a decision involving these or any other contributors, or any of the interests they represent, the fact that they contributed money could be interpreted, well, as a contributing factor in those outcomes.
That will never be an issue, real or imagined, with Zimmerlink. And we like that very much.
That’s because Zimmerlink’s only campaign contributions have come from herself and her husband Tom. In an age where money matters immensely in politics, Zimmerlink has never accepted any campaign cash from outside her immediate family.
She’s won twice doing it that way -- and here in the patch, we think that her refusal to accept campaign cash is a powerful reason to keep Zimmerlink in office. This policy allows her to make decisions in the best interest of the county, without regard to politics. You can bet she won’t get any phone calls from someone seeking to cash in some chips, in terms of a board appointment, a contract, a hire, or any other sort of favorable treatment.
Let’s be brutally frank here: Does anyone think that campaign contributions -- especially hefty ones -- do not come with invisible strings attached? Do campaign contributors throw thousands of dollars your way because they think you’re a good guy?
However noble, Zimmerlink’s policy places her at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to such things as advertising and paying poll workers, two staples of the Fayette County political dynamic. Still, voters have twice elected her to the commissioners office -- and we hope they have the wisdom to do it again.
According to the Herald-Standard.com story, “$70,000 spent on Fayette’s race for commissioner,” of Nov. 3, 2011, Democrat Vince Zapotosky was the big kahuna when it comes to raking in other peoples’ money. Zapotosky pulled in $24,717 in the reporting period that ended Oct. 28.
Democrat Al Ambrosini got $17,600 in new contributions, and Republican Dave Lohr received $11,750.
Zimmerlink and her husband contributed $1,310 to her campaign. In the reporting period, Zapotosky raised nearly 19 times as much money as Zimmerlink, Ambrosini 13.4 times as much, and Lohr nearly 9 times as much. (That gross imbalance is likely to get worse when the candidates file their post-election reports, which cover campaign contributions raised and spent AFTER Oct. 28.)
In analyzing Lohr’s numbers, what popped out at us was this: Of the $11,750 he raised according to HeraldStandard.com, $5,500 came from two people named Terrance Shallenberger, another $4,800 came Lohr’s way from Sean Miller of Washington Security Group, and yet another $3,400 was put into Lohr’s campaign by Neil Brown of Acme.
(In the “Can you trust what you read?” department, we think someone ought to buy HeraldStandard.com a calculator, or give its reporters a refresher course in basic math, because the Shallenbergers, Miller and Brown contributions alone add up to $13,700, which is $2,000 more than the $11,750 the newspaper reported that Lohr raised. In any case, those three contributors provided the backbone of Lohr‘s campaign financing.)
Inaccurate numbers aside, would this happen to be the same Terrance Shallenberger who is a member of the Fayette County Airport Authority, or whose company is heavily involved in the Marcellus gas industry operating here (think “frackwater treatment plant, Masontown Borough“)? Would this happen to be the same Sean Miller whose company is embroiled in a zoning dispute over a shooting range near Laurel Mall? Would this be the same Neil Brown who is a member of the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board?
According to Herald-Standard.com, Zapotosky received $1,000 each from John and Justin Garlow of Uniontown (would this be the same John Garlow who owns Ford Business Machines, which has the county copy machine contract?), $1,100 from Fred and Rhonda Zeigler of Uniontown (the same couple who are trying to purchase Great Meadows Amphitheater property from the county?), and $3,500 from Terrance Shallenberger.
Ambrosini also got $2,000 from Terrance Shallenberger and $1,000 from John Garlow, in addition to $1,000 each from Robert W. Sleighter of Uniontown and Terry E. McMillan of Uniontown (who are each affiliated with engineering firms, if memory serves us correctly.)
There is nothing wrong or improper with any of these contributions, which are allowable by law. But if and when the county commissioners ever have to make a decision involving these or any other contributors, or any of the interests they represent, the fact that they contributed money could be interpreted, well, as a contributing factor in those outcomes.
That will never be an issue, real or imagined, with Zimmerlink. And we like that very much.
Friday, November 4, 2011
What do you mean by a 'united front'?
There's a paragraph in the Herald-Standard.com election preview story, "Candidates running own campaigns," (Amy Revak, Oct. 16, 2011) that we really wish the newspaper had followed up on.
It reads:
Lohr said the three commissioners on the board need to present a united front, even if they despise each other personally.
Given the propensity for government entities to have meetings before the real meetings, to cut deals away from the public spotlight and, especially in Fayette County, to tamp down or eliminate dissension (which can also mean tamp down or eliminate opposition), we wonder what Lohr means -- and what this approach would mean for the concept of open government.
For example, if there is an issue on which he disagrees with the other commissioners, would Lohr be prone to say, "You know, I disagree with you 100 percent on this matter -- so much so that I despise you personally. Now let's get out there in the public meeting and present a united front!"
We certainly hope that would not be the case, because if it were, the public would end up being the big loser. There's a reason the system is structured so that one minority party commissioner is elected, and that reason is to prevent complete one-party dominance. The minority voice can be very effective in policy debate -- but only if that voice is raised. In public.
We wonder how Lohr's stated philosophy would have played back in the late 1990s, when he felt that voter fraud at personal care homes had contributed to his 1995 election loss and was a blight that needed eradicated. Lohr took a great personal interest in the voter fraud investigation matter, which at the time was being single-handidily pushed by Democrat commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who most certainly was not presenting a "united front" with fellow commissioners Harry Albert (Republican) and Vince Vicites (Democrat).
In short, without a county commissioner who was more interested in seeing justice done than in presenting a united front, there would not have been any uncovering of absentee ballot voter fraud at a large personal care home. Lohr was very much in Cavanagh's corner on that one, and Cavanagh's two terms as county commissioner are very much the antithesis of any "united front."
It would have been great if Herald-Standard.com, which champions the need for open government, had asked for, and provided to, its readers a fuller explanation of Lohr's "united front" comment. On face value, it's a pretty strong statement about how one intends to approach the job. And in our view, not a very good one.
It reads:
Lohr said the three commissioners on the board need to present a united front, even if they despise each other personally.
Given the propensity for government entities to have meetings before the real meetings, to cut deals away from the public spotlight and, especially in Fayette County, to tamp down or eliminate dissension (which can also mean tamp down or eliminate opposition), we wonder what Lohr means -- and what this approach would mean for the concept of open government.
For example, if there is an issue on which he disagrees with the other commissioners, would Lohr be prone to say, "You know, I disagree with you 100 percent on this matter -- so much so that I despise you personally. Now let's get out there in the public meeting and present a united front!"
We certainly hope that would not be the case, because if it were, the public would end up being the big loser. There's a reason the system is structured so that one minority party commissioner is elected, and that reason is to prevent complete one-party dominance. The minority voice can be very effective in policy debate -- but only if that voice is raised. In public.
We wonder how Lohr's stated philosophy would have played back in the late 1990s, when he felt that voter fraud at personal care homes had contributed to his 1995 election loss and was a blight that needed eradicated. Lohr took a great personal interest in the voter fraud investigation matter, which at the time was being single-handidily pushed by Democrat commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who most certainly was not presenting a "united front" with fellow commissioners Harry Albert (Republican) and Vince Vicites (Democrat).
In short, without a county commissioner who was more interested in seeing justice done than in presenting a united front, there would not have been any uncovering of absentee ballot voter fraud at a large personal care home. Lohr was very much in Cavanagh's corner on that one, and Cavanagh's two terms as county commissioner are very much the antithesis of any "united front."
It would have been great if Herald-Standard.com, which champions the need for open government, had asked for, and provided to, its readers a fuller explanation of Lohr's "united front" comment. On face value, it's a pretty strong statement about how one intends to approach the job. And in our view, not a very good one.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Why Zapotosky would prefer Lohr
In the race for Fayette County commissioner, two candidates (Democrat Vince Zapotosky and Republican Angela Zimmerlink) are known quantities, while the other two (Democrat Al Ambrosini and Republican Dave Lohr) are unknown quantities.
Zapotosky and Zimmerlink are incumbents, so those who vote for them on Nov. 8 are pretty sure what they are getting. Zapotosky has been commission chairman the past four years, during which he and his primary election running mate, Democrat Vince Vicites, ran county government as they saw fit.
Zimmerlink has completed two terms in office, and formerly served on the board of the Fayette County Housing Authority, although in the past four years she's been relegated to a minority voice in the commissioners' suite as Zapotosky and Vicites ran the show.
Generally speaking, with Zapotosky and Zimmerlink, you have a pretty good idea what they're going to be like if returned to office. More importantly, each of them has a pretty good idea of what they're getting if returned to office with the other. (Remember that point, because we'll be revisiting it shortly.)
Ambrosini is a newcomer to elected office, but the fact that he was top vote-getter in the Democratic primary speaks volumes about what Democrats felt about the direction Zapotosky and Vicites had taken the county. Given that Zapotosky and Vicites ran as a team, it's a pretty fair assumption that since Vicites got the boot and Ambrosini got the most votes, Democrats wanted a change in direction, and pinned their hopes on Ambrosini to deliver it.
Lohr, who also has never held elected office, got the fewest number of votes of the four primary election survivors, but it was enough to keep him in the game. Lohr's unsuccessfully tried for this office three times before; the closest he came was in 1999, when he formed an independent team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh. That year, it was the long coattails of Cavanagh that Lohr nearly rode into office.
Here in the patch, we've heard the scuttlebutt about Zapotosky and Lohr running a shadow campaign as silent partners, a theory that bears watching given the preponderance of their campaign signs placed side-by-side throughout the county.
So we placed a few calls to our political friends in other patches, trying to find out the answer to one simple question: Why would Zapotosky want to see Lohr elected?
The answer came back in two parts. The more obvious one is that Zapotosky would like to be rid of Zimmerlink, who is among the most informed and savvy commissioners in recent history. She has been, and will continue to be, a formidable voice on policies that she agrees or disagrees with -- which might not always be the same policies that Zapotosky agrees or disagrees with.
But the second answer is one we felt compelled to share with our readers, because even we hadn't thought of it: If Zapotosky can lay claim to having helped Lohr get elected, or even if Lohr believes Zapotosky had something to do with it, guess who becomes the main power broker and likely chairman of the commission? Zapotosky.
If Zimmerlink is elected instead of Lohr, it keeps Zapotosky, at best, the junior partner in a Democratic alliance with Ambrosini; at worst, Zapotosky becomes the minority commissioner on some issues, such as appointments to boards and authorities. In short, in an Ambrosini-Zapotosky-Zimmerlink administration, Zapotosky could end up as the odd man out.
But if Lohr is elected instead of Zimmerlink, especially if he is elected with the help of Zapotosky and/or his Democratic supporters, or he thinks he was, Lohr becomes Bob Jones to Zapotosky's Fred Lebder, and Ambrosini becomes the possible odd man out even if he is the top vote getter Nov. 8.
Don't ya just love all this inside baseball?
Zapotosky and Zimmerlink are incumbents, so those who vote for them on Nov. 8 are pretty sure what they are getting. Zapotosky has been commission chairman the past four years, during which he and his primary election running mate, Democrat Vince Vicites, ran county government as they saw fit.
Zimmerlink has completed two terms in office, and formerly served on the board of the Fayette County Housing Authority, although in the past four years she's been relegated to a minority voice in the commissioners' suite as Zapotosky and Vicites ran the show.
Generally speaking, with Zapotosky and Zimmerlink, you have a pretty good idea what they're going to be like if returned to office. More importantly, each of them has a pretty good idea of what they're getting if returned to office with the other. (Remember that point, because we'll be revisiting it shortly.)
Ambrosini is a newcomer to elected office, but the fact that he was top vote-getter in the Democratic primary speaks volumes about what Democrats felt about the direction Zapotosky and Vicites had taken the county. Given that Zapotosky and Vicites ran as a team, it's a pretty fair assumption that since Vicites got the boot and Ambrosini got the most votes, Democrats wanted a change in direction, and pinned their hopes on Ambrosini to deliver it.
Lohr, who also has never held elected office, got the fewest number of votes of the four primary election survivors, but it was enough to keep him in the game. Lohr's unsuccessfully tried for this office three times before; the closest he came was in 1999, when he formed an independent team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh. That year, it was the long coattails of Cavanagh that Lohr nearly rode into office.
Here in the patch, we've heard the scuttlebutt about Zapotosky and Lohr running a shadow campaign as silent partners, a theory that bears watching given the preponderance of their campaign signs placed side-by-side throughout the county.
So we placed a few calls to our political friends in other patches, trying to find out the answer to one simple question: Why would Zapotosky want to see Lohr elected?
The answer came back in two parts. The more obvious one is that Zapotosky would like to be rid of Zimmerlink, who is among the most informed and savvy commissioners in recent history. She has been, and will continue to be, a formidable voice on policies that she agrees or disagrees with -- which might not always be the same policies that Zapotosky agrees or disagrees with.
But the second answer is one we felt compelled to share with our readers, because even we hadn't thought of it: If Zapotosky can lay claim to having helped Lohr get elected, or even if Lohr believes Zapotosky had something to do with it, guess who becomes the main power broker and likely chairman of the commission? Zapotosky.
If Zimmerlink is elected instead of Lohr, it keeps Zapotosky, at best, the junior partner in a Democratic alliance with Ambrosini; at worst, Zapotosky becomes the minority commissioner on some issues, such as appointments to boards and authorities. In short, in an Ambrosini-Zapotosky-Zimmerlink administration, Zapotosky could end up as the odd man out.
But if Lohr is elected instead of Zimmerlink, especially if he is elected with the help of Zapotosky and/or his Democratic supporters, or he thinks he was, Lohr becomes Bob Jones to Zapotosky's Fred Lebder, and Ambrosini becomes the possible odd man out even if he is the top vote getter Nov. 8.
Don't ya just love all this inside baseball?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The new Harry Albert
The question everyone here in the patch is asking themselves -- and one we hope you are asking, too -- is this: Why is Republican challenger Dave Lohr running against fellow Republican incumbent Angela Zimmerlink for Fayette County commissioner, instead of against Democrats Vincent Zapotosky or Al Ambrosini?
The only plausible answer, of course, is that Lohr recognizes that given the Democrats' huge voter registration edge, there's only room for one Republican to sit at the Fayette County commissioner table. And the independent insurance salesman Lohr, who's failed in three previous attempts to secure the job, has no problem casting party unity aside if it finally benefits his ascension to the office.
Here in the patch, where we pride ourselves on having a little bit of political insight, it's plain to see that Lohr is quite willing to suit up as the new Harry Albert, the former Republican commissioner who was often the subject of Lohr's ire, back in the days when Lohr was railing against the county establishment rather than snuggling up to it.
Back in 2003, when Lohr was wearing his own clothes, he said this about then-competitor Joe Hardy: "I'm going to beat him," says Lohr, 46, who ran for commissioner in 1995 and 1999. "He can bring his money to the table all he wants, but this election's going to be won by sweat and hard work by the candidates."
The same primary election story that appeared in the Herald-Standard on March 26, 2003, entitled, "GOP hopes for political rebound in May primary," contains these continguous paragraphs:
Lohr also believes that Hardy was put in the race to "to knock me out," because back in 1995 he told the county political powers that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate. Lohr predicts that if Hardy were elected, he would resign shortly thereafter, paving the way for appointment of a "hand-picked puppet" who would do the bidding of the old-guard political establishment.
Lohr also believes that Hardy was inserted into the race as a complement to one of the Democrat challengers, with hopes that electing both of them would return political power to the old guard.
It was Dave Lohr who once proclaimed that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate, Dave Lohr who scoffed at Hardy for bringing all his money to the table, and Dave Lohr who warned against a "hand-picked puppet" and of a Republican running as a complement to a Democrat in order for the old guard to retain power.
With that curriculum vitae, it makes perfect sense that Dave Lohr, version 2011, would choose to unveil billboards and newspaper advertisements that show him shaking hands with ... Joe Hardy?
My, how the worm has turned. If Hardy is such a strong supporter of Lohr, why didn't they roll out this ad campaign back in 2003, instead of running against each other? Back then Lohr, based on his comments, wasn't too interested in shaking Hardy's hand, unless he intended to squeeze it hard enough for old Joe to reveal the name of his "hand-picked puppet."
Hardy certainly wasn't interested in shaking Lohr's hand in 2003, or in either of the other two times Lohr ran for commissioner and lost. If Hardy were interested in pressing the flesh with Lohr, he would have decorated the county's FACT buses with the handshake photo, instead of those garish historical scenes and painted-over windows.
As for Lohr's 2003 warning that Hardy was in the commissioners' race as a complement to a Democrat, we think that same trend is relevant today. And it's not Zimmerlink that we're concerned about.
Before anyone goes all ga-ga over Hardy's visual endorsement of Lohr, it is important to ask one question: What is a Hardy-endorsed Lohr going to do for Fayette County that Hardy himself could not do in four years as county commissioner? Hardy was swept into office with high hopes that he would use his business acumen and connections to turn the county around, at least economically.
That never happened. Not even close.
The biggest thing remaining from Hardy's tenure as a county commissioner is the controversial renaming of the county airport to the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
Perhaps Lohr can build on that legacy, and they can change the name again, this time to the Dave Lohr/Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
The only plausible answer, of course, is that Lohr recognizes that given the Democrats' huge voter registration edge, there's only room for one Republican to sit at the Fayette County commissioner table. And the independent insurance salesman Lohr, who's failed in three previous attempts to secure the job, has no problem casting party unity aside if it finally benefits his ascension to the office.
Here in the patch, where we pride ourselves on having a little bit of political insight, it's plain to see that Lohr is quite willing to suit up as the new Harry Albert, the former Republican commissioner who was often the subject of Lohr's ire, back in the days when Lohr was railing against the county establishment rather than snuggling up to it.
Back in 2003, when Lohr was wearing his own clothes, he said this about then-competitor Joe Hardy: "I'm going to beat him," says Lohr, 46, who ran for commissioner in 1995 and 1999. "He can bring his money to the table all he wants, but this election's going to be won by sweat and hard work by the candidates."
The same primary election story that appeared in the Herald-Standard on March 26, 2003, entitled, "GOP hopes for political rebound in May primary," contains these continguous paragraphs:
Lohr also believes that Hardy was put in the race to "to knock me out," because back in 1995 he told the county political powers that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate. Lohr predicts that if Hardy were elected, he would resign shortly thereafter, paving the way for appointment of a "hand-picked puppet" who would do the bidding of the old-guard political establishment.
Lohr also believes that Hardy was inserted into the race as a complement to one of the Democrat challengers, with hopes that electing both of them would return political power to the old guard.
It was Dave Lohr who once proclaimed that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate, Dave Lohr who scoffed at Hardy for bringing all his money to the table, and Dave Lohr who warned against a "hand-picked puppet" and of a Republican running as a complement to a Democrat in order for the old guard to retain power.
With that curriculum vitae, it makes perfect sense that Dave Lohr, version 2011, would choose to unveil billboards and newspaper advertisements that show him shaking hands with ... Joe Hardy?
My, how the worm has turned. If Hardy is such a strong supporter of Lohr, why didn't they roll out this ad campaign back in 2003, instead of running against each other? Back then Lohr, based on his comments, wasn't too interested in shaking Hardy's hand, unless he intended to squeeze it hard enough for old Joe to reveal the name of his "hand-picked puppet."
Hardy certainly wasn't interested in shaking Lohr's hand in 2003, or in either of the other two times Lohr ran for commissioner and lost. If Hardy were interested in pressing the flesh with Lohr, he would have decorated the county's FACT buses with the handshake photo, instead of those garish historical scenes and painted-over windows.
As for Lohr's 2003 warning that Hardy was in the commissioners' race as a complement to a Democrat, we think that same trend is relevant today. And it's not Zimmerlink that we're concerned about.
Before anyone goes all ga-ga over Hardy's visual endorsement of Lohr, it is important to ask one question: What is a Hardy-endorsed Lohr going to do for Fayette County that Hardy himself could not do in four years as county commissioner? Hardy was swept into office with high hopes that he would use his business acumen and connections to turn the county around, at least economically.
That never happened. Not even close.
The biggest thing remaining from Hardy's tenure as a county commissioner is the controversial renaming of the county airport to the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
Perhaps Lohr can build on that legacy, and they can change the name again, this time to the Dave Lohr/Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
Monday, October 24, 2011
When did Lohr turn this corner?
Here in the patch, we decided to take a trip in the time machine (they store it in the fire hall, in front of the new pumper truck) after reading "Candidates running own campaigns," a pre-election story by Herald-Standard.com on Oct. 16.
This supposed "news" of this story was that none of the four candidates for Fayette County commissioner in the Nov. 8 election -- Democrats Al Ambrosini and Vince Zapotosky, and Republicans Angela Zimmerlink and Dave Lohr -- had created a cross-party alliance with any other.
The implication of an Ambrosini-Zimmerlink alliance, which represents dirty politics at its best, dates back to the primary election, when it became readily apparent that Ambrosini's nascent first-time candidacy was going to knock off one of the two Democratic incumbents, Zapotosky or his running mate Vincent Vicites. (In the patch, we always ask ourselves, "Who had the most to gain?" when trying to figure out where political rumors get started.)
After we cruised down Route 119 and the median looked like someone had planted "Lohr" and "Zapotosky" signs instead of trees and flowers, it seemed pretty logical to ask them about the alliance question, too.
All four candidates denied forming any team, but Lohr's explanation in particular caused us to tilt out head sideways and let out a long, "Hmmmmm."
Here's the passage:
While Lohr, a self-employed insurance and investment agent, said there was a recent sign blitz placing his signs with Zapotosky's, that was the decision of the people placing the signs.
"Different people like different candidates," Lohr said.
In the same story, HeraldStandard.com also reported this little tidbit:
Lohr said the three commissioners on the board need to present a united front, even if they despise each other personally.
Let's get this straight: The same Dave Lohr who relentlessly pounded former Republican Commissioner Harry Albert over the voter fraud issue after Albert beat him in 1995 is now preaching that a "united front" is needed in that offfice?
The same Dave Lohr who ran an an independent team for commissioner in 1999, forming a bonafide alliance with rock'em, sock'em incumbent commissioner Sean Cavanagh, now extolls the virtues of a "united front" among the three folks guiding the county?
Our trip in the wayback machine led us to March 26, 2003, when Lohr, then mounting his third unsuccessful candidacy for county commissioner, was saying some quite different things in a Herald-Standard story called, "GOP hopes for political rebound in May primary."
That was the year resident gazilllionaire Joe Hardy came down from the mountain, literally, to run for county commissioner as the odds-on-favorite Republican. Interestingly, Lohr did not have such a doe-eyed view of county politics back then. Here's what he was saying:
... "I'm going to beat him," says Lohr, 46, who ran for commissioner in 1995 and 1999. "He can bring his money to the table all he wants, but this election's going to be won by sweat and hard work by the candidates."
Lohr also believes that Hardy was put in the race to "to knock me out," because back in 1995 he told the county political powers that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate. Lohr predicts that if Hardy were elected, he would resign shortly thereafter, paving the way for appointment of a "hand-picked puppet" who would do the bidding of the old-guard political establishment.
Lohr also believes that Hardy was inserted into the race as a complement to one of the Democrat challengers, with hopes that electing both of them would return political power to the old guard.
Prognostications aside -- Lohr not only didn't beat Hardy, he didn't beat Zimmerlink, either -- he was at least displaying a keener insight into how things really are done in the county.
At least back then he wasn't mouthing inanities like, "Different people like different candidates."
If you expect us to believe that one, we've got some working beehive coke ovens to sell you.
This supposed "news" of this story was that none of the four candidates for Fayette County commissioner in the Nov. 8 election -- Democrats Al Ambrosini and Vince Zapotosky, and Republicans Angela Zimmerlink and Dave Lohr -- had created a cross-party alliance with any other.
The implication of an Ambrosini-Zimmerlink alliance, which represents dirty politics at its best, dates back to the primary election, when it became readily apparent that Ambrosini's nascent first-time candidacy was going to knock off one of the two Democratic incumbents, Zapotosky or his running mate Vincent Vicites. (In the patch, we always ask ourselves, "Who had the most to gain?" when trying to figure out where political rumors get started.)
After we cruised down Route 119 and the median looked like someone had planted "Lohr" and "Zapotosky" signs instead of trees and flowers, it seemed pretty logical to ask them about the alliance question, too.
All four candidates denied forming any team, but Lohr's explanation in particular caused us to tilt out head sideways and let out a long, "Hmmmmm."
Here's the passage:
While Lohr, a self-employed insurance and investment agent, said there was a recent sign blitz placing his signs with Zapotosky's, that was the decision of the people placing the signs.
"Different people like different candidates," Lohr said.
In the same story, HeraldStandard.com also reported this little tidbit:
Lohr said the three commissioners on the board need to present a united front, even if they despise each other personally.
Let's get this straight: The same Dave Lohr who relentlessly pounded former Republican Commissioner Harry Albert over the voter fraud issue after Albert beat him in 1995 is now preaching that a "united front" is needed in that offfice?
The same Dave Lohr who ran an an independent team for commissioner in 1999, forming a bonafide alliance with rock'em, sock'em incumbent commissioner Sean Cavanagh, now extolls the virtues of a "united front" among the three folks guiding the county?
Our trip in the wayback machine led us to March 26, 2003, when Lohr, then mounting his third unsuccessful candidacy for county commissioner, was saying some quite different things in a Herald-Standard story called, "GOP hopes for political rebound in May primary."
That was the year resident gazilllionaire Joe Hardy came down from the mountain, literally, to run for county commissioner as the odds-on-favorite Republican. Interestingly, Lohr did not have such a doe-eyed view of county politics back then. Here's what he was saying:
... "I'm going to beat him," says Lohr, 46, who ran for commissioner in 1995 and 1999. "He can bring his money to the table all he wants, but this election's going to be won by sweat and hard work by the candidates."
Lohr also believes that Hardy was put in the race to "to knock me out," because back in 1995 he told the county political powers that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate. Lohr predicts that if Hardy were elected, he would resign shortly thereafter, paving the way for appointment of a "hand-picked puppet" who would do the bidding of the old-guard political establishment.
Lohr also believes that Hardy was inserted into the race as a complement to one of the Democrat challengers, with hopes that electing both of them would return political power to the old guard.
Prognostications aside -- Lohr not only didn't beat Hardy, he didn't beat Zimmerlink, either -- he was at least displaying a keener insight into how things really are done in the county.
At least back then he wasn't mouthing inanities like, "Different people like different candidates."
If you expect us to believe that one, we've got some working beehive coke ovens to sell you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)