Reynolds Hides
Ugh.
State Sen. Tom Reynolds is taking a pass on a debate scheduled with his Democratic opponent in a Brookfield church Wednesday after learning there may be non-media video cameras present.
“I was trying to kind of clean up these debates and not have these groups filming their attack ads there,” said Reynolds, who believes that his opponents would be capturing material for later use in a TV ad.
This is ridiculous. Reynolds is going to a public event. If he’s worried about people using what he says for attack ads, then he should just watch his mouth. Reynolds is a public figure and an elected representative. He should act like it.
Weak excuse. The ship is sinking. Perhaps Blonien’s apparent lies about not orchestrating the double vote accusations have them defensive. Vukmir or Fraley should have gotten in the race. For Republicans to lose a Senate seat that includes Elm Grove, Wauwatosa and West Allis is going to be a major embarassment for the party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2006 at 1934 hrs
Could not have said it better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2006 at 2006 hrs
This is what happens when the GOP is willing to support crazy people just because of their socially conservative beliefs. Sadly, he now epitomizes the party.
Posted by kinda cranky on August 22, 2006 at 2129 hrs
Owen nails it - if you are afraid your words can be turned to attack you, then don’t say them in the first place.
This is chicken shit, and I’m absolutely embarassed to have him as my representative in Madison.
So begins a write-in campaign…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2006 at 2205 hrs
This is absolutely pathetic and unparalleded in the recent history of political debates.
It would appear that the 5th district has been represented by a chicken sh*t excuse of a senator.
Go figure…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2006 at 2227 hrs
Okay, and this is news to…who?
It’s an old saw, “I’ll stop telling lies about you if you’ll stop telling the truth about me.”
There are a lot of people who recognized that Reynolds isn’t a leader but because of his regressive views on a few points he got himself elected.
Try to not make the same mistake again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 0600 hrs
I might add that the original reason I began searching for a Reynolds opponent to support had nothing to do with ideology, policy or stories of his off-beat behavior…it was because neither he nor his staff would ever respond to an email or phone call from me (and I was always polite), nor (for a period of more than two years) mail me any information about what he’s doing or where I could see him at a public listening session.
Though I vote for more Democrats than Republicans, I don’t think Reynolds’ lack of connection to his constituents is indicative of the Republican Party overall. A fiscally conservative, socially liberal (sane, open-minded, intelligent) Republican always has a good chance to get my vote. The Republican Party doesn’t have to give me the kind of Republican I like, but it would be nice if they put up someone in my Senate district whom I could think about for a couple of weeks rather than a guy who’s easily dismissed in under two seconds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 0855 hrs
This was a complete setup. The liberals had decided to lure Tom in with the promises of an open forum, then were working to load in up with the far left, signs and a very antagonistic audeince. No one with any brains goes into a situation like that.
Did Bush go to the NAACP when Bond was calling himWHitler?
Will Sullivan go before the NRA? Doyle? Tom has gone before every possible type of audience including homosexuals and sat down and discussed his beliefs.
When you know you are being set up, you are foolish to go in.Posted by Dohnal on August 23, 2006 at 1000 hrs
How can a debate in a church, set up by that congregation, be considered a setup. What world do you live in Dohnal? My guess is Reynolds did not want anyone questioning him about the slanderous attack his campaign orchestrated on Sullivan last week.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1015 hrs
Hello… Bob… is there anyone home?
Reynolds’s got himself into this one. He was stupid to agree to this debate in the first place. To claim that he was ‘set up’ is ridiculous. He did it to himself.
Which one of you let go of the leash? Who is responsible for him? You or JJ? Tom is logically challenged – perhaps it’s a reaction to the ink he uses, but I am at a loss to find a rational explanation for you Bob.
To stand here now and defend the idiot for running away like a pussy is completely out of line.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1022 hrs
The liberals had decided to lure Tom in with the promises of an open forum, then were working to load in up with the far left, signs and a very antagonistic audeince. No one with any brains goes into a situation like that.
Ummmm…Bob, weren’t you guys doing the same on behalf of Reynolds? If not, why not? A campaign team is supposed to get as many supporters as possible to attend a debate. With the rules as outlined (moderator reading up to 10 written questions submitted from the audience) every attendee has a equal chance to get their question read (that is, if their question makes sense). How is that a set up?
You and J.J. and the rest of the Reynolds team better figure out how to run a campaign really fast or you’ll be lucky to see Reynolds crack the 40% mark in November.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1030 hrs
Oooooh, those Unitarians are terrifying folks.
And they’re in just the place to “lure” all those far leftie liboorals in Brookfield, armed to their teeth with those fearsome weapons that subvert democracy—SIGNS. After all, a concealed-carry law can’t help if they’re BIG signs, too BIG to hide and right out there where everyone can see them.
Maybe even big enough to be caught on those other infernal weapons subverting democracy: cameras. C’mon, your guy isn’t that weird looking. Or is it the audio that worries you? Maybe your guy ought to avoid tape recorders, too. And notebooks in which those evildoers might write down what he says. And pencils and pens, too. That’ll stop ‘em.
Please, please, Mr. Dohnal, come back and ‘splain it all some more. You’re a funny guy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1038 hrs
Dohnal:
You and Reynolds have given a whole new meaning to “Chicken Burn.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1043 hrs
I’ve met with the Senator. I have talked to the Senator. I have asked questions of the Senator in public forums. My conclusion has been that “thinking one his feet” is not one of the Senator’s strong suits.
If I had to guess, chickening-out of the debate is bad, but not as damaging as appearing at the debate and opening his mouth.
Better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought of as a fool, rather than opening one’s mouth and confirming it.
Bottom line, the Senator’s absence from a debate of any sort is a sign of weakness. He’s either getting the worst advice possible from his handlers or he truly is spineless.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1139 hrs
Turk, why must it be a dichotomy? Seems to me that he’s taking bad advice from his handlers AND he truly is spineless.
Not to mention that a man who needs “handlers” better not be making major decisions for his state or constituents, unless his “handlers” can sit next to him on the senate floor and whisper into his ear about what to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1152 hrs
Reynolds surfed in on a wave of conservative victories in which even moderate Republicans were purged. Now, he’s barely keeping his head above water.
The thing is, people have had a chance to catch their breath and see that the culturally backward Reynolds, Dohnal and Blonien are simply too weird.
I agree with PatrickR ... I hope that Sullivan wins, but do not find fiscally conservative, moderate Republicans to be offensive.
Posted by Tim on August 23, 2006 at 1523 hrs
I heard it was because someone told Reynolds it was going to be held in a round room and was afraid someone was going to tell him to sit in the corner.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1525 hrs
Reynold is just precious. Between the three of these idiots (Reynolds, Donhal and J.J.) I’m amazed he handed in enough nomination papers. To Reynolds I say this “Keep on truckin’ your antics certainly make me laugh!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1604 hrs
If there’s any coherent theme that’s emerged from Reynolds’s actions over the past four plus years, it’s that he seems to impose his ego and personality on aspects of public life in instances when doing so is completely inappropriate. Almost without fail, the basis for the policies he’s sought to advance and his official actions has had to do with one of his personal hang-ups.
Whether it’s raising the speed limit, going after gay constituents, doing away with directed verdicts after he was subject to one, creating a home school tax credit (he himself is a home-school parent), proposing the “conscience clause” to help Dohnal, his conservative retired pharmacist pal, or this latest instance of camera-shy paranoia, Reynolds just seems to do what he wants based on personal whim/hang-ups without any sense of civic ethic or of the public good.
That brand of unprofessionalism makes him completely unique among legislators, Democrat or Republican. And for it, he deserves to go.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1729 hrs
He who laughs last laughs best. Reynolds wins 60/40.
Sullivan gets blown out by double voting, pushing to put taxes on churches, schools, etc. Ruining the environment in the Menomonee River Valley and praising Tom Ament and David Jasenskis’ actions on the pension vote.
Yeah!!!!Posted by Dohnal on August 23, 2006 at 1741 hrs
“Oooooh, those Unitarians are terrifying folks.”
The Unitarian Church IS very liberal, and the debate was pretty much a set-up, but Reynolds should never have agreed to it in the first place and looks bad for pulling out.
That said, he wins 55-45.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1831 hrs
Tom will eek it out - 51%
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1839 hrs
Reynolds wins 60/40??? Are you kidding? I have more faith in the people of his district; they are not all as thick as you are Dohnal. I see you are still trying to allege that Sullivan double voted when you don’t have proof of it and it was already thrown out by the DA. There is NO question in my mind that you folks brought up the allegation against Sullivan on purpose as a smear campaign. Looks like you are a slow learner or hankering for a lawsuit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1904 hrs
So, it’s past 7:30 and I’m sitting here at the Unitarian Church. The hall is packed with folks standing.
There isn’t a sign in sight.
The white-haired ladys (represented in large numbers) don’t seem the least bit antagonistic.
The moderator is a polite Baptist minister from Texas.
The Senator is AWOL. His absence is evidence of his scorn and contempt for the good and decent folks he represents.
Reynolds is a coward and a disgrace to the Senate.
In a word - LOSER.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1935 hrs
Mr. Dohnal, if I hear anything from you again about double voting, you won’t have to wait for Mr. Sullivan to sue you. I WILL.
If Mr. Reynolds is unwilling to accept the decision that was made, he is even more of a fool than he seems (and that’s saying something). The district attorney determined that Whitefish Bay had made a mistake—or, to take it down to the polls where it happened, one of the wonderful little-old-lady volunteer poll workers checked off Mr. Sullivan’s name instead of his father’s, which is almost the same.
I think that all of us voters have seen how hard the poll workers work and, at a busy suburban polling place, how easily this could happen. (It almost happened to me once, in a neighboring suburb, as someone living nearby me had the same last name.)
So accept the decision of our DA and move on. You have so much else to explain about your candidates’ actions, not those of his opponents.
Or I’ll sue you, I swear that I will, if that’s what it takes to get you and your candidate to start talking about the issues that matter to his constituents, for once.
(p.s. to Tookus: Thanks for the other laugh of the day, with your spelling—or lack thereof. “Eek” is the term for your candidate!)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1943 hrs
Turkey, terrific reporting up close and personal from the scene of Reynolds’ crime against his constituents by not showing up.
If you’re reading this there, we can’t wait for an update. It’s time for live debate blogging!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 1958 hrs
Greg,
Doesnt Reynolds represent ALL his constituents liberal-moderate-conservative?
Are you saying he shouldnt have agreed to a debate because of the location? What logic is that? My mom and dad are members of UU West and pay a butt load of local and state taxes while living in Tosa. They deserve representation that is open and honest, not cowardly and dishonest. You are not doing your candidate any favors by making excuses, he’s a big boy, bring on the debate!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2006 at 2030 hrs
Sue away gang, letter goes into OLR this week and the state election commission.
Posted by Dohnal on August 23, 2006 at 2113 hrs
Kachoo,
You don’t have standing to sue for Dohnal’s allegedly defamatory statements against another person.
You’ll just be wasting your money (filing fee + no less than $25,000 in attorney’s fees), and opening yourself up to having to pay his attorney’s fees, too.
Posted by Jed on August 24, 2006 at 0629 hrs
Does anyone else find it hilarious that Dohnal is the editor of some half assed newsletter, and can’t even consistently string together words so they form a sentence? Does he have a drinking problem?
Posted by kindacrankiy on August 24, 2006 at 0918 hrs
Jed—that’s not what a lawyer friend tells me, as there is some basis in law other than slander, libel, etc., which is what you’re talking about. But thanks!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2006 at 0936 hrs
Having attended last night’s “debate”, I can echo Turk’s sentiments that the hall was packed and everyone was polite.
I saw a couple of video cameras and a couple of digital cameras.
A couple of other observations:
1) Sullivan was a bit nervous, but got more comfortable as the “debate” went on and can score points with humor.
2) Sullivan positioned himself in opening introductions as a moderate in the mold of Rosensweig and Barrett, but appeared solidly liberal in most of his answers. Frankly, Reynolds would have benefited by being at the debate and taking the opportunity to label Sullivan a liberal after many of the Sullivan responses.
3) For obvious reasons, the hall was packed with Sullivan supporters, but also many “undecideds”—a few who didn’t know in advance that Reynolds wouldn’t be there. Reynolds’ decision was not perceived well among the crowd—even among non-committed donors.
4) Half of the questions seemed to be very detailed and pre-prepared by members of the sponsoring organizations—which I found disappointing. I would have preferred that all of the questions come from the audience and written out on the spot.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2006 at 0939 hrs
Kachoo,
What would your claim be, then?
I’d also love to see a copy of the petition once you’ve filed it, if you don’t mind. (And if you do, Dohnal, can you set me up?)
Just for educational purposes, of course.
Posted by Jed on August 24, 2006 at 1005 hrs
I stumbled-across the following article from CNI Newspapers. Just curious, how does this play into to Dohnal’s complaint to the Office of Lawyer Regulation:
City clerk: Vote claim against Sullivan false
Records show Senate candidate didn’t vote in Tosa in 1998
By Janice Kayser
Staff Writer
Posted: Aug. 23, 2006
The city clerk shared evidence this week that state Senate candidate and Wauwatosa Alderman James Sullivan did not vote in Wauwatosa in the September 1998 election.Supporters of Sullivan’s opponent in the District 5 race, incumbent Sen. Tom Reynolds, had accused Sullivan of voter fraud. Last week, Wauwatosa resident Stan Zurawski Sr., a member of Tosans for Responsible Government, circulated a letter to media outlets claiming that Sullivan voted twice in 1996 — once in Whitefish Bay and once in Wauwatosa. The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office dismissed those claims in 2000 due to unreliable voter records in Whitefish Bay.
This week Zurawski and Bob Dohnal, publisher of the Wisconsin Conservative Digest, admitted that “it is conceivable” that Sullivan did not vote twice in 1996, but released new claims that he voted twice — again, once in Whitefish Bay, once in Wauwatosa — on Sept. 8, 1998.
A letter from Wauwatosa City Clerk Carla Ledesma dated March 27, 2000, however, indicates that after a review of city voting records, it was clear Sullivan did not vote in Wauwatosa in September 1998. Ledesma gave Sullivan a copy of the letter at the time of the investigation into his voting record in 2000, and provided a copy of that letter to the News-Times this week.
As proof, Ledesma produced the poll list from that election, clearly showing Sullivan never voted in Wauwatosa. There is no voter number next to his name as there is for another person on the same page. That is how poll workers indicate that someone voted, she said.
This information was previously shared in 2000, she said, after the group originally made its claims against Sullivan that he voted twice in two communities.
“I feel very comfortable saying he (Sullivan) did not vote in the September 1998 primary in Wauwatosa because I have a copy of the original poll list used by the poll workers at that time, showing he did not vote in that election,” she said.
Sullivan confirmed her account.
“I have never voted in two municipalities (at the same time) and did not vote in Wauwatosa in 1998,” Sullivan said.
The city clerk’s office realized the voting history and registration software system in place was malfunctioning in 2001, when poll workers, who knew they had registered voters the year before, would see those same voters at the polling locations but not find their names on the list.
Ledesma said the registration system could have been logging errors as far back as 1998.
After discovering the glitch in the registration records, the clerk’s office replaced the voting equipment, which was in place in time for the September 2002 election.
Zurawski did not return calls for comment by press time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2006 at 1015 hrs
I’m curious why Dohnal thinks it’s more believable that Sullivan voted twice than that there was a mix-up between a vote by “James O. Sullivan” of Whitefish Bay (his father) and a vote by “James O. Sullivan” of Wauwatosa (himself)?
I heard that the D.A. looked into this and determined that there was nothing to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2006 at 1209 hrs
Perhaps Messrs. Reynolds, Blonien, Zurawski and Dohnal should review Wis. Stats. Sec. 12.05 entitled “False representations affecting elections” which provides: “No person may knowingly make or publish, or cause to be made or published, a false representation pertaining to a candidate or referendum which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.”
Besides the political fallout of a District Attorney investigation, the penalties include serving up to six months in prison and a $1,000.00 fine for each offense.
Just ask former State Representative Becky Weber about the outcome of her 2004 reelection bid after she falsely accused her opponent of not paying his taxes and the ensuing Sec. 12.05 DA investigation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2006 at 1824 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 04:58 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).