Friday, January 29, 2010

Chamber Of Commerce Candidate Forum Too Self Serving

We wonder if most of the audience left the Hilton Ballroom for the C of C Candidate Forum because they were bored as the same questions were asked in 3 different formats, or just because they heard enough.

Moderator Mark Evans, at one point felt compelled to say; "Don't blame me, I didn't write the questions."

As a supporter of Dr. Don Emmons, it was disappointing to know he would not make the forum. Mark only noted he was absent, but failed to note the reason. Dr. Don is a DVM and he missed the first forum in order to be with his brother, who was in intensive care in Orlando, the result of being broadsided by a drunken driver. Last night, as the chief surgeon, Don had to be working.

We know how he would have answered the questions, and we also know the voters would have liked to hear him & see him, but it wasn't to be.

As for the forum, the questions basically were, are you for the sign code or against it? Are you for funding outside organizations such as TREO & MTCVB? Are you for or against a Property Tax? What about the Bed Tax?

Our take on the candidates?

The winners were Mike Zinkin for mayor ("NO EARMARKS & NO PROPERTY TAX") and young Matt Rabb newcomer Mark Finchem both of who pretty much agreed with Zinkin.

The losers: KC Carter who answered almost every question by saying the council is looking into it.

Mayor Loomis, who needed a script to give an opening & closing remarks and was so pro business, it was laughable.

Satish Hiremath--personable and nice, but could only repeat that he is a businessman.

Lou Waters seemed nice, but kept reminding us he didn't know too much and was a reporter, not a politician.

Joe Hornat & Mary Snider both were for everything the Chamber would have wanted, which was no surprise.

Conclusion--- If you're concerned more about doing what is best for the people, you have only ONE CHOICE for Mayor---Mike Zinkin.

The best candidates for Council? We still believe Dr. Don Emmons is a wise choice, but Matt Rabb & Mark Finchem are certainly more "citizen centric.


Victorian Cowgirl said...

Some info on Lou Waters:

He was a news anchor on CNN for 21 years (1980-2001). He covered five presidential elections, aging in America, the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger and the San Francisco earthquake. Waters is the recipient of many awards including a Cable ACE for "Inside Politics."

He seemed very likable, very civil, and someone who would be easy to work with. I didn't see any ego.

I still need to know more about where he (and the others) stand on a variety of issues. Unfortunately, the questions posed were all about business.

We still don't know anyone's stand on environmental issues, wildlife protection, etc.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC....I would only submit that the positions(environmental issues, wildlife protection) of all candidates for a local town election are well down my priority list. I say that not because I think they are unimportant but an individual serving on the OV Town Council has very little impact on both.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Did anyone expect a forum sponsored by a chamber of commrce would not be business centric?

Zev Cywan said...

The questions posed by the 'business community' were rather hollow and without substance as were most of the 'answers' given by the candidates. What can you expect when 'business' can't get a grasp on itself? Organizational this, that, or whatever doesn't amount to much when it's components don't (or can't) even introspectively examine and realistically come up with an analysis of their own failings.

Thinker, you are right when you ask the question [what did you expect?]. This was a forum perpetrated by 'business' and thus was the subject matter. I look forward to those forums which are designed to focus on a broader base and the questions be designed by the 'people'. VC, that is when WE will have our chance.

As to one of the major questions of the evening relative to whether or not the TOV should partner with various 'promotional' entities, while Mr. Zinkin and a couple of other candidates expressed the
need for a 'cost vs benefit' consideration, it is my contention that it should be a requirement that, before any organization and/or non-profit is to be considered for taxpayer monies, an absolute certified and itemized disclosure of income and expenditures be demanded by Town in order to reveal, in whole, how much of the 'donated' money is going to executive salaries, trips, etc. vs the actual utilitarian application of funds. 'Non-profits' have a tendency to 'load up' on executive salaries and perks while leaving a comparable pittance to the actual performance they are supposed to
be engaging.

As to the opinions expressed in the opening statement of this stream relative to an analysis of the candidates, I would suggest that perhaps the LOVE 'proprietor' could perhaps delve a bit deeper into the realities of ALL of the candidates rather than simply attempt to pin an inferred negative label on some of them. AND, on the other hand while I can emphatically sympathize with the situation that involves candidate Emmons, I cannot accept that the details of his absence should have
been revealed nor can I simply accept that we should take Mr. Segal's word that Dr. Emmons [is a wise choice]. Maybe he is but HE is going to have to prove it.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


I disagree that the council has little impact on environmental or wildlife issues. Someone who cares about those two issues is someone who is going to stand up to developers who don't care about those issues. Council members involved in the Arroyo Grande development will have input on those issues, for example.

I did realize that most of the questions would be business oriented since it was put on by the CofC, but still it would have been nice if they'd thrown the rest of us a bone or two. After all, the audience wasn't filled with just members of the business community. It was filled with ordinary citizens who want to know what these candidates will do for US.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

My thoughts on some of the other candidates:

MARY SNIDER: She wants to give our tax dollars away to any organization that comes looking for a hand-out, and THIS while we're already in a budget crisis. Yet she claims to be for fiscal responsibility. If she votes to give our money to other organizations, you can bet she will try to offset this by voting to put a property tax measure on the ballot. I will not be voting for MARY TAX AND SPEND SNIDER.

JOE HORNAT: Comes across as an arrogant tough guy. I do not see him being able to work effectively with other council members.

MARK FINCHEM: I still need to know more, but he got my attention when he said that while it was great that Oro Valley is getting some new hotels, he said that unfortunately the tourists that come here are NOT going to shop here and we are not going to get their sales tax dollars. What I heard was that he thinks what I think...that Oro Valley "leaders" had absolutely NO VISION with respect to tourism. They bring us hotels and then they bring us chain stores and Wal-Mart. Where are the Southwest shops selling unique items found only here in the Southwest? They're all in Tucson and Tubac, that's where. And that exactly where I take my out-of-town visitors to shop. Oro Valley has never made a dime in sale tax revenue from ANY of my friends or family who have visited me.

So I know that on THIS issue anyway, Mark Finchem "gets its." He connected the dots from "if we have this, then we should also have this." Meanwhile, Loomis and his cronies connected the dots from tourism to Wal-Mart and then exclaimed, "We've hit a home run!"

Zev Cywan said...

VC, your last paragraph gives pointed insight as to why a large portion of the audience got up and left the forum; the 'business' aspect, dominating the agenda as presented, shallow in creativity, ultimately became an inglorious bore.

Zev Cywan said...

VC, my last post was written prior to your last post but kind of relates to the last paragraph in your last post, too.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Zev....I cannot disagree with you on your request for 'full disclosure' when it comes to non-profits. However where we may disagree is with organizations like TREO and MTCVB. Those organizations provide us with a well documented ROI especially MTCVB. TREO's return is a bit more difficult to track unless you require them to do so much finite record keeping that that alone eats up any financial support. It is organizations like them that should receive funding from a bed tax or even a small cut of sales tax revenue because that's where the ROI typically goes.

As for you comments regarding the analysis of candidates, I would only add that the 'phantom Mr Emmons'has missed every forum to date. This begs the question of how much time does he have to devote to being a Town Council person. Ms. Abbott's record of attendance was pityful and we certainly don't was a replay of that song and dance.

As for your 'proprietor' comment, I would take it one step further and state that this is the typical MO of the LOVE staff. There is, in my opinion, little objective vetting of candidates or most other issues for that matter.


The footprint of Oro Valley is but a miniature dot on a pinhead as it relates to the enviornmental quality of our life or wildlife protection. And just as a side note I don't know any developers who have demonstrated a lack of concern for the enviornment or wildlife issues. If you do please let us know who they are so we can also voice our displeasure.

"Where are the Southwest shops selling unique items found only here in the Southwest? They're all in Tucson and Tubac, that's where."

And I would submit that if there was a sufficient number of people wanting to and willing to purchase such items in this geographic area that would support opening a business, paying the very high fees we charge, not being allowed to market their business during winter nightime hours because of the light restrictions they too would be here. There aren't.

And I would simply throw this out to all readers of the LOVE blog.

Without the financial support of a healthy and prosperous business community Oro Valley will be forced to tax YOU to exist to the point that you will scream. It is their revenue that keeps this Town running. I have said before and I will say it again, sales tax is the single highest source of revenue we receive and it is the one area that we can positively impact.

As for your individual candidate description, I would submit that sufficient homework has not been accomplished to make such definitive statements regarding any of them.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


A miniature dot on a pinhead sounds like nothing, just as one drop of water is nothing...but keep adding more drops of water and pretty soon you have a flood! MOST developers have no concern for the environment or wildlife. Their only concern is their bottom line. If they cared about the environment or the wildlife that live there, they wouldn't bulldoze every living thing in site. They clear-cut because it's cheaper for them to do so.

I find it hard to believe that there are more people in Tubac who are "willing to purchase such items" than there are here in OV. The shops at Tubac Village aren't catering to the locals. They're catering to tourists who drive all the way down there from Tucson. They're also selling to people who live right here in OV who also drive all the way to Tubac for the "unique" shopping they offer.

Why do OTHER businesses open here even though they can't have 24-hour lighted signage?

I've been listening to the sales tax argument for years. We need businesses to provide sales tax revenue so we won't have to institute a property tax. And so we build an ugly strip mall here and an ugly big box store there and a run-of-the-mill shopping mall over there. And THEN what are we told after we've destroyed all those desert vistas and brought in more traffic? We're told that it isn't working and we may need a property tax after all. So much for the great vision of our so-called leaders.

I've said THIS before and I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it. I would have been happy to pay a property tax to keep Oro Valley the beautiful, peaceful community it was when I moved here. But to replace what we had with chain stores, road widening, and traffic lights and to THEN come back and ask for a property tax...well, all of this happened under Loomis' "leadership" and that's why he must go!

I would also say that I did do my homework on the candidates before commenting on them. I attended both forums, so I did get to hear where they stand on the least on the issues that have been discussed thus far.

On the other hand, I noticed that you were not at either forum! I know that you interviewed the candidates as a member of the CofC, but you didn't see how they handled themselves in a public forum.

Just an average Joe said...

I attended both forums. A few observations:
K.C.- I was amused at his "moonwalk" on his vote to suspend funding to TREO and MTVCB making the following statement "I was half drugged up..". When asked specific questions, his response typically was "we're gonna have to look at it" if he has not already had multiple chances to look at it and provide a direct answer to a question. He has had a long successful run.
Now, it's time for him to go.
Satish - Repeatedly stated, in both forums, that that issues could easily be resolved by referencing to the strategic plan. Touted promotion of more "arts" events as a solution to our budget issues (first forum). Very closely aligned with TREO and MCTVB. This guy is too much of a spender to gain my support in these tough times. Using the strategic plan as a backstop leaves him plenty of room to "spend" to achieve it's various "feel good" goals, when, we should be tightening our belts, for now.
Joe H. - I'm just not sure about him yet. Seems well intentioned. Has a quick wit and some glib answers. My jury is still out.
Paul L.- Too much baggage at this point. Not the right guy given the tough times we are in. He is a career bureaucrat. I'm inclined to think that he would default to a property tax as opposed to cutting spending sufficient to address current budget issues.
Lou W.- Smooth talker, but has not done his homework on town issues. Why vote for him when we have others who are better qualified?
Matthew R. - Too young and inexperienced given our other choices.
Mary S. - Very well polished. Sells herself as a consensus builder. She has a great track record during a time when we were rolling in money. She, like Satish, spoke enthusiastically in the first forum, about her support of the arts community. Aligned with former governor Janet "I've never met a dollar I couldn't spend" Napalitano. Will not point to specific budget cuts. While she speaks of a tax increase as a "last resort", I think that she, and Paul, and Satish, would prefer to steer voters to a property tax, in lieu of cutting expenses. Her website suggests she very much wants to get the Naranja Park built and that means spending quite a bit of money.
Mike Z.- Was better prepared for this forum than the first, where he expressed limited factual knowledge. He has no problem attacking Paul Loomis. I think that both he and Mark F. would be most likely to hold the line on spending. I am concerned about a statement that Mike has made several times. Mike said "As a mayor, I'm no more than a facilitator of what your(the voting public's)decisions are." That, in my humble opinion, is a leadership "cop out". He can quickly fault other's for their lack of leadership, but where will he stand on his own accountability issues?
Mark F. - Seems like a level headed, pragmatic businessman. along with Mike Z. he would probably guard my wallet better than the rest (and there ain't much left in my wallet). Mark probably is best equipped to increase business development in our town, but don't count on him to spend money on more artwork, or more parks than we currently have. I did not see Mark taking any cheap shots at other candidates and seems have the least amount of "ego" on the line.

None of the candidates were willing to point to a specific area in the current budget that they would clearly cut.

artmarth said...

"Average Joe"---Thanks for your first comment (as far as I know) on our blog. How refreshing to read an analytical analysis expressing your impression of the candidates in a straightforward unbiased manner.

My interpretation of your words leads me to believe you think the most viable choice for mayor is Mike Zinkin, and Mark Finchem for council.

I agree pretty much with your total assessment, but would add two thoughts.

1) Don't hold his relatively young age against Matt Rabb. Forget his age. How about his views? He sounded like a viable choice for me.

Unfortunately, as I noted, Dr. Don Emmons had a family emergency and the necessity of being called to work, so he missed both forums. If you (and everyone else) get a chance, read Dr. Don's brief resume on the top left of our blog. I think many will like what he stands for----and we need to elect three council people.

Thanks again, and welcome.


OV Objective Thinker said...


Ibelieve you know where I was during the Library forum and this last week I was in Louisiana.

Not only have I interviewed all of he candidates who were forthcoming enough to present themselves at the C of C interviews, but as I have previously mentioned, I have talked with all of the candidates one-on-one with the exception of Rabb and the phantom candidate. That's how I do my homework and how I gather what I would consider to be 'inside' information on each of them. I have a very good gut when it comes to people and I have a pretty high accuracy rate when it comes to being able to see through the facade and understanding if the individual is attempting to sell me a bill of goods or is the real deal.

So I understand that Mr. Zinkin was more appropriately dressed in this last gathering. I rest my case on that point.

Dan H. said...

After throwing my name in the hat for the Town Council vacancy now held by Ms. Spoerl, I particularly agree with one of your sentiments, Art--we shouldn't hold a candidate like Matt Rabb's youthful age against him.

I know some comments were made regarding my (young) age at the time, and I know there are far more important criteria by which we can measure the viability of a candidate than age.

Candidates should be judged by their views, perspectives, and experiences, regardless of age--young or old.

Great comment, Art!

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Average Joe mentioned Mary Snider's strong desire to build the Naranja Park. I noticed at the first forum that she made one comment about how she would advocate for whatever the voters told her they wanted, but later in the same forum she said that she wanted to keep the Naranja Park idea "alive." She made this statement despite the fact that the citizens voted it DOWN! So my impression is that she will advocate for anything the citizens want if SHE also wants it, but if she wants something they DON'T want...well then she'll just ignore the wishes of the citizens.

drdon said...

OV Thinker,
I would be very happy to discuss anything you would like. I did miss the library forum due to a family emergency. I was called out of town on Jan 12th. I was not able to return until Sun the 17th.
Where I work is at an emergency veterinary hospital. I have a rotating shift from 7 aam until 3 pm or from 3 pm until midnight.
I understand that my missing two forums look bad, however I take my responsibilities very seriously, as I also take family very seriously.
There has been some issues at work that have required me to be there more than usual, but the issues at work are resolving, so I am getting some more time. The issues involve a co-worker and her husband, more detail I cannot give without invading their privacy and that I will not do. But, the need for me to work extra hours is coming to an end.
I can be reached at Send me an email and I will respond to get with you either in person or by phone.
I am planning on being at upcoming forums to make my presence and stnds known.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC.....Once again you are putting your spin on a comment rather than taking it at face value. I, too, want to keep the Naranja Park alive because I recognize the severe need for additional park space. I know Ms. Snider has that same recognition. Right now the Town simply cannot afford to spend money on park expansion and that is what Ms. Snider said. Your spin is nothing more than another example of what you WANTED to here.
Not unlike your interpretation of the timeliness of the AZ Supreme Court decision and the lawsuits against OV you have difficulty, at times, accepting essential facts without adding the 'VC garnish' to the plate.

drdon....I will be in touch and thanks for the invite.

I am in complete agreement with Danh AND ART. Age should not be an issue. Having said that Mr. Rabb would be better served if he came to the table with more knowledge and experience on a board or commission or some working knowledge of Oro Valley Town governance. These are difficult times and I am not sure that I want to elect someone to make critical decisions who has never been involved (to the best of my knowledge) in our Town at all. Mr. Rabb is a highly intelligent young man who states that he wants to serve his community and shows great promise. I am not sure a Town Council position is the appropriate entry level.

Zev Cywan said...

These are difficult times! It is my belief that within the next few years the substance of Oro Valley will, in fact, be determined. This future cannot be be mired in delusionary narcissism and consensus must be built NOT prefabricated. It is thus that I welcome diversity in the makeup of my Council. A stationary pendulum within a clock does not allow for forward movement; only when it can swing back and forth can 'time' move ahead.

There are several attributes that I look for in a candidate the least of which is simply and blindly conforming to those beliefs I might hold.
Unfortunately, there are several in this community who believe that it MUST be 'their way or the highway'.

I have personally interacted with, researched, and/or have been in the company of each and every one of the candidates with the exception of Dr. Hiremath; I would suggest that not always what you see is what you get nor are the proponents of one candidate or another necessarily realistic or without prejudice.

Though I have disagreed with Thinker many times and in many ways, within this stream he has
enunciated some excellent points (as have others).

You see, these posts have demonstrated well how varying opinions can be discussed without contentiousness; THAT IS HOW I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR COUNCIL OPERATE!

Just an average Joe said...

I am leaning to Mike for Mayor and Mark F. for council. With regard to Mr. Rabb's youth and inexperience: I understand that it's probably unfair to dismiss him outright based on his youth. I will try to be open minded. I have however managed degreed manager's for over 20 years and look back at all the manager's I have had work for me in his age range, and... recall the rash decisions, with un-intended consequences, that I've had to unwind over the years. Youth and inexperience has it's risks. (lol) And, while this is a "non-partisan" election, I would have hoped that he came from a more conservative background. His service on behalf of Edward Kennedy, and his families involvement with G. Giffords and "Never met a buck I wouldn't spend" Napalitano are a bit concerning to me. I would like to learn a bit more about Don E. and Joe, before I decide on my third choice.

Just an average Joe said...

Zev - I don't understand your clock analogy, nor your somewhat extreme statements about "delusionary narcissism", "simply and blindly conforming" (??) and "their way, or the highway" (??). Can you elaborate please?. Personally, I've never seen a clock go anywhere, precisely because of the back and forth movement of a pendulum. I'd much rather get to my destination in a mechanical contrivance that has multiple wheels, all turning in the same direction. We can debate what direction we should be heading, but a city council that is balanced at both extremes may not accomplish anything, other than marking time. Hey, maybe I do understand you analogy! I just don't understand why you would want to stand still and mark time. (lol)

Zev Cywan said...

Average Joe

My analogy with the 'pendulum' was designed to mean that back and forth discussion of non-conforming opinions leads to progress whereas conforming stagnation leads to nowhere. Now, interestingly enough you state that [all wheels going in the same direction leads to movement]. Perhaps, but does single directional movement equal actual progress? Hmmm,a good subject for philosophical discussion.

As to my "extremist" descriptives:

There are some in this community who have, for example, attempted to convey Oro Valley as the 'cat's meow' as a future biotech hub. Demographic research will disprove that potential for a variety of reasons and will designate 7 other areas in the Country as THE hubs of biotechnology and those reasons why (there IS an 8th coming on strong - the State of Alabama). My take is that those who do believe we are THE place are in a state of delusion and base their wishful thinking on a bit of narcissism.

Perhaps I could have iterated that better however I simply meant that just because a person doesn't believe in an issue or general vision as I might does not mean that I cannot support them or consider them as a viable candidate.

C'mon, Joe, you have got to know that there are several (many?) in this community who base absolutely their choices on conformity to their own narrow 'definitions' and, if you do not adhere to their mindset(s), you are without merit, period.

I don't think I am an extremist; sometimes I might use 'poetic license' in order to proffer a point, but an extremist,I DON'T THINK SO!

If you or anyone wishes to discuss my posts or meaning therein, feel free to call me - I'm listed.

Just an average Joe said...

Lighten up Zev. I used the term "somewhat extreme statements" because they are exactly that. I'm not ready to brand you personally as an extremist, although your CAPITAL LETTER "SHOUTING" and liberal use of exclamation points might suggest such. That would be unfair. I think we need a more fiscally conservative, and business friendly, mayor and town council. Just as we have multiple cities that are "defense hubs" , I believe that we can grow a healthy biotech center here in spite of the fact that there are other cities that are doing the same thing. Lastly, I have not yet met anybody in the arena of Oro Valley politics that fit your description of "narrow definitions". I'm sure they are out there, but I have not encountered them to the extent that I let it color my political discourse. HOW BOUT THOSE APPLES!!

(Hey, I sorta like ending a post that way. lol. I will make this my last posting in this string, so as not to belabor the point.)

Victorian Cowgirl said...


Regarding Snider, I said, "my impression" is...which you claim is putting my "spin" on her comment. I'm allowed to have my impressions. Aren't the things you believe also your "impressions?"

Example: When Zinkin used a sports analogy to explain his ability to make decisions under pressure, your "impression" was that he thinks politics is a "game." That was how you decided to SPIN what he said rather than taking his comment "at face value."

So my impressions are SPINS and your impressions are FACTS. Of course you know what that means, don't you? It means that whenever I agree with you on something, you must be wrong! :)

You said that you "want to keep the Naranja Park alive because I recognize the severe need for additional park space." But what YOU (and Snider) want and what YOU (and Snider) recognize is obviously different from what the voters wanted and recognized. Many people actually WANTED a park, but they RECOGNIZED that it was too expensive and voted NO.

There is a double-standard here in that when the voters vote YES on something that I didn't want, and I continue to discuss it, I'm told by you and those who voted for it, "You lost. Get over it!" But when the citizens vote NO on something that YOU and some others wanted, you and the others don't follow your own dictates and "get over it!" When the vote doesn't go YOUR way, you want to "keep it alive."

You admit that "the Town simply cannot afford to spend money on park expansion" and you claim that Snider agreed with that. Yet she voted FOR the park! That was my point and that's why I called her Tax and Spend Snider.

AZCactus1 said...

Average Joe:

Regarding your comment on Matt Rabb: with all due respect, Rabb is an attorney--not some worker in mid-level management that you describe managing for over 20 years.

I'm sure we all can conjure up attorney jokes, but in all seriousness, Rabb has garnered great insight and experience in his law school education and his subsequent career experience. That's what law school does--instructs how to navigate the legal and political system (something I can say I value in a candidate).

While I agree youth has its risks, Rabb is merely running for a town council seat, and not the U.S. Senate! If we as voters can't all open our minds to consider candidates of all ages, then we will be the lesser for it.

Under the line of logic that only older, more experienced candidates should win office, even at the lower levels, we would never have seasoned politicians in office, as the only "viable" candidates would be those who entered public life in their 40s.

By no means am I endorsing Matt Rabb, as I don't know him, nor have I tried to learn much of his views, but this talk of disregarding a candidate because of his age is absolutely ridiculous.

Zev Cywan said...

Joe, you asked me to elaborate - I did. My use of caps and explanation points - that's my way of highlighting a point just as if I were doing so in conversation. That you haven't met anyone that is embedded in 'narrow definitions' - where have you been? Methinks your apples are a little green - LOL!

As for leaving the stream, okay, but I find your posts gratifying and entertaining (in a good way); so, please, continue with joining in some of the others.

Just an average Joe said...

AZCactus1- Your points are valid. I know when to admit I'm wrong on the issue of youth and inexperience.
Zev- I'm glad to see you have a sense of humor.

I enjoy the discourse. I learn from it. It helps shape my understanding of issues and people.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Average Joe:

I hate the term "conservative". As a former Republican, now Independent, I can say that conservatives spend just as much money as Democrats. A pox on both parties. We need disciplined leaders who spend each tax payer dime as if it were the last dime in their pocket.


Just an average Joe said...


I hate the term "independent"(I also hate the terms "co-joined, "febrile", and "me'lange". As a former supporter of several independent candidates, now Republican, I can say that independents spend just as much money as Democrats.....Well, actually I can't say that because our electoral process seldom allows independents to actually get elected. A pox on all parties. We need disciplined leaders who spend each tax payer dime as if it were the last dime in their pocket.

We are in total agreement on the spending issue.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Nombe and Joe...

With all this "hate", it's hard to feel the "LOVE" in here!!!! :-)

Nombe Watanabe said...


You have felt more hate than most on this blog. I, however, being Independent, have alway maintained that without your sometimes\somewhat wacky comments we would have nothing to write about.

We need more like you to keep the pot hot.


OV Objective Thinker said...


I beg to differ with your assessment my comments. None of them are hateful. But I do not waste words and am not politically correct. Political correctness got 14 great American soldiers killed at Fort Hood, Texas.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Nomber....Just re-read your comment and misread it the first time. I thought your statement was that I have left "more hate" than most. I sit corrected. You are correct....I have felt (been the recepient of) more hate than most.