The Candidates' Debate by Pesty

               
                                             (Photo courtesy of M. Chinn)


April 1-IUS Campus.  The four  Democratic party candidates were gathered for a debate.   Incumbent Tom Galligan,  Current County Council President Kevin Vissing,  Former Mayor Rob Waiz (pronounced Waze if you please) and old hand newcomer Teresa Bottorff Perkins all dressed up and looking their 'executive best'.  Tom even had on a beautiful yellow silk tie.


The Master of ceremonies was Prof. Tom Wolf (an obvious popular figure who couldn't resist  lecturing a little).  The candidates fielded questions from Cary Stemle,  a perky Adam Dicky and  the cool and competent Nancy Palmquist.

If you came in hopes of seeing fireworks or personality clashes you would have been dissappointed.  Even Mayor Galligan, famous for his fiery temper,  maintained  a gentlemanly and positive decorum even when it appeared some barbs, first from Rob Waiz and later from  Kevin V  were launched his direction.   Many of the night's answers were predictable and not much of an aid to the attentive  pol watcher....but some issues were highlighted:

The Canal project:  Galligan and Vissing: For it.   Waiz: Against it.   Perkins:  For meeting the EPA mandate but envisioning the canal as a strictly economic development project that is not  properly on the table ...yet.
The canal project emerged later in the debate when posed as a question of whether  the election would be a de facto referendum on the Canal project and, by implication,  the Galligan administration.   To this there was uniform agreement. But, refreshingly and positively,  Galligan himself totally owned it....he stated that he hope it was a referendum on the canal project and claimed that the election would determine whether Jeffersonville would rise above mediocrity and become a 'great' destination or not.

Bridge Tolls were asked about.  All the candidates are in favor of the East End Bridge and  were 'willing to accept' a toll on it.   Vissing,  Galligan and Perkins were against a toll on a downtown bridge....Teresa adamantly so.  Only Rob Waiz, while being positive did not actually answer his position on tolls.
You have to hand it to Galligan.  He acknowledged his reputation as a 'get'r done guy'.  He also outlined his vision of taking Jeffersonville higher.  His imagination and dream is very attractive and while he is not an eloquent man, the passion of his vision carries the day and you can see ....if only  we could make his vision come true.   Magnificent!

But,  too,  as the debate wore on,  and  Waiz, Vissing and even Perkins with their talk of  fiscal responsiblity, cost cutting, budget constraints....it just becomes difficult indeed to sustain Tom's grand dream.
Then,  one looked over and saw Mike Moore there present in the audience. Silent. Watching and apparently enjoying himself with his wife. (Beautiful classy looking lady!)  And you kept thinking how these folks would fair  in the fall.   Nancy Palmquist underscored this lingering worry and brought it front and center with her question, "What makes you the best candidate to defeat our known Republican opponent in the Fall?"   Galligan had to fall back to, "My dream, my plan, my accomplishments."  Vissing simply restated his opening statement. Waiz likewise just explained he was a good mayor and would be a good mayor....dodging the question.   But Teresa Perkins,  a little gayly and slyly said, "Demographics.  I can beat him.  My gender is in my favor and, forgive me, (indicating her Primary Election opponents)  but I am not an incumbent politician.  Last Fall  showed it's not a good time to be an incumbent anything."    Straight answer that you may not like....but it was  a good straight answer.
**********************************************************************************Briefly:
----Waiz  criticized Galligan indirectly (for the most part) but who would have expected an attack from Kevin Vissing.
-----Waiz is earnest....but that VOICE! My god!  He sounded like a squeaky rabbit! At least  in this venue.
-----A bit of a kerfluffle at the beginning as a 'offer' was made and then hastily withdrawn. It seems Mike Moore's ex-wife had proposed to match contributions to Democratic candidates in donations she would make to April Abuse Awareness Month.  Her not so subtle slam at her ex.  IUS declined to participate in the 'offer'.
___Many Republicans were there, in fact,  to the shame of the Democratic party, it looked like  1/4 of those in attendance may have been Republicans.  You have to admire the Republican's  enthusiasm for the process.
___The professor managed to lecture the crowd on the correct nomenclature..."Its the DemocraTIC party....Not the DemoCRAT party!"

HERE IS THE DEBATE:
Part one:

YOUTUBE VIDEO"S COURTESY OF The Hard hitting journalist at the IUS Horizon

Comments

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
Goliath's reporting is excellent.
Anonymous said…
___The professor ( aka Tom Wolf) managed to lecture the crowd on the correct nomenclature..."Its the DemocraTIC party....Not the DemoCRAT party!"

Please.

Pathetic.

This is an insult to our intelligence.

It has NEVER been the "Democratic" Party. It IS the DEMOCRAT Party. My party.

This is a media "cheap trick", just like the "Liberals" have attempted to re-brand themselves as "Progressives".
Anonymous said…
Yes, Goliath is way cool.

Wolf is an "atavistic joke"
that attempts to brainwash 18 year old children with our tax money.

Lecturing the audience indeed.
Matthew said…
Wow. Really?

At any rate it was great to everyone come out.
Anonymous said…
"It seems Mike Moore's ex-wife had proposed to match contributions to Democratic candidates in donations she would make to April Abuse Awareness Month."

How did MM's ex get into the mix? That has to be awkward.......
Anonymous said…
Who is April?
Goliath, a point of order.

Back in journalism school they teach you "Who, What, When, Why, Where and How".
That is lesson one.

Then they teach "You don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle."
That is lesson two.

The "ex-spouse thing" sells media better that the "issues thing".

The Golaith media conglomerate is excelling.
Ergo,
a "debate", including a slaw raslin' segement, among ALL of the ex-spouses of the 33 candidates,
could be sold by Goliath as a "Reality TV Series" much better than the oh sooo totally boring and out of date IUS debate format.

Please
make a note, big guy!
Goliath said…
Goliath send Pesty and GAW SCOOP all other news and media outlets.

Sorry the big story not "SIN sational enought" for some Tastes.

This here just the work of amateurs trys to compete with Grace Schneider and Matt Thacker etc., ....you know, pros.
kerfluffle:
noun.
a disturbance or hubbub; a small scale disturbance. an upsetting event
Anonymous said…
The story is told that Mayor Galligan said to the stalker morphed Paparazzi NSBHM:
"You couldn't carry my jock strap!"

I read about this Tom Wolf professor guy at IUS.

In keeping with a theme of this year's election, it might be said that:

"Tom Wolf Couldn't Carry Goliath's Jock Strap!"

Synonymous II
Goliath said…
The CJ did not mention Tom Galligan's Yellow silk tie. Thats the kind of attention to detail that make GAW a cut above the rest.
Anonymous said…
Assessories are important!

Did Goliath read the updates on the informative Goliath Colliseum Forum?
Goliaseum!

Draino!
Goliath said…
Very good comments from Synon and JK
Anonymous said…
Pesty, you and
Goliath might recall
what the famous ,
bow tie wearing,
distinguished
Stephen D. Beardsley, Attorney at Law,
once told a Leadership Southern Indiana class:

"In New Albany, we avoid claims of nepotism quite simply.

I, as an office holder hire YOUR relatives,
and you,
as another office holder,
hire MY relatives."

Synonymous II
Anonymous said…
Pesty: Oops, correction.
The distinguished New Albany Attorney is
Stephen
J.
Beardsley.

Synonymous II
Anonymous said…
Dr. Wolf is a saint!

Shame on anyone who says otherwise as well as those who don't know the correct name of their own lame party. All debate attendees are very fortunate to have received a free lecture from Dr. Wolf.

kay
Matthew said…
He is a great guy.
And member of the best party. :P
Goliath said…
The Great Democratic Party
Anonymous said…
"Wolf is a saint".....and .....Shame ...who don't know the correct name of their own lame party."
...saint...and lame....conflicted

Ha!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
Political observers, riddle me this:
A Democrat can be Democratic and can be a member of the Democratic Party.
A member of the Democratic Party can be a Democrat and they can be Democratic, but they can't BE a Democratic.
So, really you are not a Democratic, you are a Democrat.

You can be a Republican and also be a member of the Republican Party. You can be a Republican, but you can't be a republic.

Our form of government is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. Some have wisely called it a democratic Republic.

The fifty United States form a voluntary union, which is
our "more perfect union" and a Republic.
They don't form a democratic, but the citizens can be democratic.

You are a citizen of the sovereign state wherein your reside. Declared legal residence and if the meet the criteria for citizen ship status. The duties and obligations thing.

Each sovereign state voluntarily belongs to the union of the various states.
Each citizen can be a Republican or a Democrat if they so choose.

Closing question: Is it the "most correct" English langage usage to refer to the United States in the singular, or in the plural?

"You Betcha!"
Anonymous said…
The reference to the dif between "Democratic/Democrat" by the learned Dr. Wolf, is in in reference to a "concept and usage argument". It has regional and vunacular usages variations and acceptance.

Some claim that Dr, Wolf is somewhat "left of center' in his political beliefs.
He IS being paid by tax dollars to teach.
Some feel that he should teach fairly and objectively, so that young minds can form their own opinions.
Some say that professors/educators "on the public dime" should teach even handedly so as to not to improperly influence youthful minds.

Wikipedia tells us:
"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1]
Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply "they are the only true adherents of democracy."

"NPR has banned the use of "Democrat" as an adjective."
(NPR is supported substantially by taxes paid by citizens of all 50 states.)

"The term "Democrat Party" was in common use with no negative connotations by Democrats in some localities during the 1950s.[9] The Dictionary of "American Regional English gives numerous examples of "Democrat" being used as an adjective in everyday speech, especially in the Northeast.

The history of the term has been traced by scholars.[2][9][11][12] The earliest reported use of the term, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, came in 1890: "Whether a little farmer from South Carolina named Tillman is going to rule the Democrat Party in America – yet it is this, and not output, on which the proximate value of silver depends."

President George W. Bush has even joked about the Democrat/Democratic issue by talking about his leadership of the "Republic Party".

Additionally there are linguistic changes occurring that impact the varieties of usage: "Some grammarians believe that the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective is ungrammatical.[32] However, the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun.The use of nouns as adjectives is part of a broader linguistic trend, according to language expert Ruth Walker, She says, "We're losing our inflections – the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There's a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective."Democrat has been used as an adjective by USA Today.[30]

" In Indiana there are several legally incorporated organizations with "Democrat" as part of their official name, such as the "Indianapolis, 17th Ward Democrat Club Inc." and the "Andrew Jackson Democrat Club Of Tippecanoe County."

"You Betcha!"
Anonymous said…
The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving.


REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

SUMMARY

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated.
This is sourced from www.williampmeyers.org


"You Betcha!"
Anonymous said…
The United States of America is a Republic

More specifically, a constitutional federal republic. However, this government is operated as a representative democracy by a congress. The important distinction is that the USA is not operated democratically, but rather by representatives who come to power by democractic process. This was an essential and subtle fundamental of the constitution: we are not a true democracy which could amount to mob rule, but a representative democracy in which our leaders act in our interests.

Sourced from Wikipedia

"You Betcha!"
Dr. Wolf
was displaying a similarly narcissistic pattern of behavior as that displayed by HSBHM.

My personal opinion is that he tried to "insert himself into the limelight"
to gain attention and adulation for himself.
In short, he wanted to become part of the story.

The correct/incorrect or local colloquial usage of the term "Democratic Party" or "Democrat Party" was not pertinent to the discussion of the issues concerning the Primary Election of the candidates assembled.

A good moderator or a panelist asking questions, should conduct themselves in a manner in which they are essentially invisible.

The behavior was totally unprofessional.
A competent journalist of the "old school" would have scrupulously avoided such a grandstanding remark.
If Dr. Wolf was acting as a moderator, it would have been better to not have a partisan political person in that role.
If he was acting as questioning journalist, panelist, or partisan member of a political party, it was still not germane in any way to the discussion.

It was untoward and childish.

You can draw your own conclusions as to the depth of the psychological motivation.

Popular Posts