Friday, October 31, 2014

CCR 10-31-14: Bogus-gate Reviewed

the   Controversial  Committee   Report
“We don’t raise sacred cows...we just butcher them.”

Bogus-gate Reviewed

TO:  CCR Tweet-less 
Here’s what you recently missed by not following
Dylan Westie  @DylanWestie1  on Twit-er.

Sorry, the RPT "apology" mailing today for Anderson’s dirty trick/bogus "complaint" mailer doesn’t wash the sleaze off of his actions.

"Clerical error?""Fax machine problem?" Anderson’s credibility is as solid as his
excuses for early voting dirty trick/bogus complaint mailing.

FB apologist for Anderson’s early voting dirty trick/bogus complaint mailer believe:
he’s honest, has integrity and character. SNICKER?

Yes, Anderson has character…the predatory character of a political weasel. Earth
stops when dirty trick/bogus complaint mailer truth emerges

Where's "apology" from Anderson’s chief "strategist" (consultant) C. Casteel for
misleading (intentionally?) DMN reporter on Bogus-gate Complaint.

Voter appreciation and kudos to DMN for staying on story ( Bogus-gate Complaint)
of Anderson’s dirty trick/bogus complaint early voting mailer scheme.

Complaint should be filed against Anderson for early voter fraud. His actions
undermine the entire voting process. Line forms here to join…

Anderson should have to pay a fine for filing bogus complaint with US Office of
Special Counsel. $2.5M campaign cash sound OK? No checks!


PostScript:  Again, staff of the CCR has to apologize for Dylan’s Twit-er rampage on October 30th.  Not only did he find the new location for the craft beer stash, but he went ballistic when: 1) He read the "apology" by Rodney Anderson to his FaceBook Flying Harpies; and 2) He received the "apology" mailing from the Republican Party of Texas for their participation and funding of the apparent Anderson dirty trick/bogus "complaint" mailer.

   Realistically, none of the flimsy excuses offered, by any of the parties who touched this early voting campaign mailing, pass the smell test.  First, Anderson’s chief "strategist" (campaign consultant) blames a clerical error on the US Office of Special Counsel as not receiving the "complaint."  This is followed by Anderson claiming issues with a fax machine not working properly caused the problem.  And finally, the Republican Party of Texas Republican believed "in good faith" the mailers were true when they mailed them. Seriously, folks?  

   (Side note:  The RPT used ‘good faith’ to make serious and severe political campaign decisions for Anderson?  Where is the separation of church and state here?)

   Regardless, that’s three excuses which should cause anyones eyes to roll considering how significant the matter was.  The Anderson early voter mailer and the later aftermath of discovery clearly indicates the intent was to diminish, bombard and bury their opponent giving little time for factual responses, or pointing out the bogus/erroneous items voters received in the mailing.

   Of course, had the initial questions not been asked of the US Special Counsel by the Dallas Morning News reporter, then what is now a serious issue would not have been uncovered.  Thanks, DMN.

   And when the apparent cheap and dirty trick/bogus "complaint" scam was uncovered, all of the Anderson parties went into defensive mode to either cover up the poisoning of early voter minds with a bogus item, or blame inconsequential issues for the "processes" not being followed through properly.  Doesn’t all the Anderson rhetoric sound extremely lame and typical when someone is discovered with their hand in the toxic political dirty trick jar? 

   Let’s start from scratch and see if there might be a way to determine what actually happened and what hasn’t been addressed by Rodney Anderson.  What conclusions would you draw from the following?  Would a more honest light shine on this sordid affair if these answers were known?

*  Who first had the idea to invoke the Hatch Act as a slam against Susan Motley?
*  Why wasn’t this considered early on in the campaign if it was so important?  Why wait until early voting?
*  Who wrote the campaign mailer copy, and when was the final draft completed and approved?
*  Who approved the final wording for the campaign mailer and when?
*  When was the completed mailer-proof submitted to the printer for production?
*  When was the printed mailer delivered to the Anderson campaign?
*  Who was responsible for posting the mailer and what date was scheduled?
*  Who approved the legal language (weasel words) on the mailer and when?
*  Who was responsible for determining the legality of the complaint regarding the Hatch Act?
*  When was the legality of the complaint approved by Anderson’s campaign and by whom?
*  Who communicated with the responsible party handling the mailing that the mailer was approved and could be mailed?
*  Who was responsible for ensuring the complaint was properly filed with the US Special Counsel?
*  What means was used to initially file the complaint with the US Special Counsel and when?
*  What means was used when the US Special Counsel stated they had not received the complaint and it had to be "re-sent?"
*  What basis did Anderson’s campaign "strategist" (consultant) have to determine the US Special Counsel’s staff was involved in a "clerical error" of not receiving the complaint?
*  Who was responsible to ensure the complaint was properly filed and received by the US Special Counsel?
*  Was any action taken for the personnel responsible for this gross handling of a strategic political bombshell filing?
*  Why wasn’t the actual non-filing of the official bogus "complaint" discovered before the Dallas Morning News determined the mailers were in voter’s mailboxes while the actual complaint was languishing in someones ‘In Box’ awaiting discovery?
*  If the Anderson campaign provided the media with copies of the bogus "complaint," were they hoping no one would check with the US Special Council’s office to determine the status of the issue?
*  Wouldn’t a prudent person (not a political weasel) want to ensure the complaint actually had "legs" with the US Special Counsel before attempting to sway voters with a legal accusation?  (OK, we know the answer to this one!)
How much has the RPT donated in cash, or provided in-kind to the Anderson campaign for mailers (including the bogus "complaint" mailer)?
*  When did Rodney Anderson know the complaint was not filed and had not been received by the US Special Counsel?  Was he aware his political "strategist" (consultant) had not actually ensured the complaint was received by the feds?  When was Rodney Anderson made aware the dirty trick/bogus "complaint" mailer would be posted to voters?  Actually, what did Rodney Anderson really know and when did he know this issue was unraveling?

   Sorry, staff of the CCR doesn’t have answers to these questions.  And apparently, Rodney Anderson and all of his Tea sipping followers involved in this fiasco haven’t provided answers either.  Otherwise, if Anderson really wanted to come clean on this dastardly political sham, he would have asked for a complete and thorough investigation, by an independent organization, to inform the public immediately and answer the pertinent points noted above.  This would be the right and honest thing to do considering what is at stake.  Voters deserve to know if "complaints" are valid, or merely figments of the politicos imagination just to garner a vote.

   Instead, Irving voters have only received tepid excuses for a potential gross early voting scheme which, in all probability, corrupted the entire early voting process.  When the mailer hit Irving mailboxes, the damage was done, a cloud of doubt was floated over Susan Motley’s efforts to run a positive campaign, and the Anderson team felt they were sliding into home plate with a home run strategy.  

   (If Anderson wins, there will have to be an asterisk placed by his name to reflect the use of political performance enhancement drugs being used.)     

   Many folks know how the political game is played.  And they know this type of an 11th hour political bomb is used to sway voters and place clouds of doubt on the opposition.  The problem with Anderson’s "bogus" bomb is that it actually bombed.  Not only was the complaint ruled invalid and not factual, but the sequence of events leading to the early voting mailer reads like a cheap Richard Nixon Watergate caper.

   (The Washington Post required two reporters to unearth Nixon’s Watergate — Woodward and Bernstein.  The Dallas Morning News managed to need only one reporter, Avi Selk, to uncover the Bogus-gate "Complaint.")

   Well, Rodney Anderson might achieve what he was after, but all at the expense of  duping early voters and creating the Bogus-gate "Complaint" which, hopefully, will haunt his political career for any future political endeavors.

CCR:  Irving Voter Advisory
   The last chance you will have to possibly remedy the apparent dirty trick/bogus "complaint" of an early voting scheme by the Rodney Anderson campaign will be Tuesday, November 4, 2014.  If you have not already voted, this is your opportunity to send a strong and vital message: Irving does not need sleazy politics or politicos representing their interest in Austin.  We have enough of that going on in Irving now.  Enough already!

   If any voting clarification, information or differing opinions are required for anything noted here, you might want to call: (469) 648-8315.  Maybe it’s time you considered voting for someone with character, not a character.

   The only aspect of a Rodney Anderson win in the District 105 race at this stage, for the CCR, is Dylan will have two years to follow the scent of political skullduggery and events occurring in Austin.  Do you really want to read about Anderson’s blockheaded escapades for two years?

……………………Mark Holbrook

DMN, Avi Selk, 10-30-14: