Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The LuLac Edition #988, Oct. 28th, 2009



The Citizen's Voice endorsed the Judicial candidates on Monday. The paper like its neighbor the Times Leader tabbed Richard Hughes and Tina Polachek Gartley as winners of their endorsement. We can debate whether endorsements are deal breakers in a political race. But Exhibit A should be Attorney Michael Blazick who was endorsed by both papers in the spring primary and finished deep down in the electoral pack. The Voice endorsement seems to damn Amesbury with very faint praise. Here's what they said, Amesbury would be a good fit for the court of the past, not the new, more transparent, more accountable court we believe Polachek Gartley and Hughes can help create. In my estimation this is pretty unfair. Amesbury won the dual nominations not because of political connections but because of his power base in Wilkes Barre, the lack of Wilkes Barre candidates to compete against him and the fact that he worked his butt off this entire campaign. Amesbury is not from a political family, held very few if any public positions and is well rounded in terms of his work experience. Plus he took on the O'Donnell political dynasty in 2001 when he won his Magisterial seat to defeat the Ridge appointee Kathleen O'Donnell. To say that he would fit the court of the past is a misrepresentation and an insult. I understand what the Voice is trying to say but I think they might have used different verbs to express their opinion. Amesbury has won dual nominations but because of the touch screen voting, there will be only three candidates in line when the ballot appears.


Nothing new occurred yesterday at the WVIA TV debate. All three candidates, Richard Hughes, Tina Polachek Gartley and William Amesbury presented their credentials, expressed their qualifications for the job and tout their areas of experience. WVIA was scrupulous in putting the effort together but because of that, it took the spontaneity and audience participation out of the event. It might have helped too if the debate moderator could pronounce the names of the candidates. But it served the purpose and gave the candidates an opportunity to get elongated valuable TV time. Earlier in the day I saw candidate Polachek Gartley at another event and she said that when she was on 44 the hour just flew by. Might have been that way for the candidates but not for the viewers. That said, kudos to WVIA for the effort and zealous attention to detail.


At 1:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last night's (long) show wasn't really a debate at all ... or did I miss something? Actually, I thought since judicial candidates could not take official sides on issues or create laws calling the show a "debate" was kind of silly. But, all candidates got some free air time, which was good. It was a nice service provided by WVIA but it was more to the benefit of the candidates, not the viewers. In other words, I didn't really learn anything new.

At 1:57 PM, Anonymous Your friend and political sparing partner said...

WVIA "debate", it was informative, but it was not a debate. The candidates all pretty much agreed on every topic. Huges really impressed me. He actually answered the questions. Tina was good, but was focused on getting out certain key words. Amesbury had me distracted in his attempts to smile.

At 11:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again the experts were right.
No way the Phils could beat the Yanks tonight. CC, they said is a better pitcher than Cliff Lee and the NY lineup just too much! Just like the political pundits the ex-
perts were wrong wrong wrong! The
great Yankees were never in the game.

At 12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The debate was a real snooze fest. But I think Bill Amesbury seemed the most down to earth and sincere.


Post a Comment

<< Home