Just like old times, Buffalo Geek and yours truly will join Professor Hardwick during the first hour of Hardline this coming Sunday at 10am.

Incidentally, 2nd hour in-studio guest is NYS Assembly candidate Jane Corwin (facing Mike Cole in the Republican primary).

10am on Sunday on WBEN AM-930, or online at WBEN dot COM

Some of the Republican bloggers talking about the 26th race, (who evidently have little to write about when it comes to Chris Lee), have linked to me with respect to the “Jack Davis is a former Republican” post. They thrillingly write what can be summed up as: aha! Jon Powers was a Republican too! Alice Kryzan gave money to Tom Reynolds!

Well, no shit sherlock(s). Reeding komprehenshun. Not yours.

As I wrote yesterday, I, too, am a former Republican. The point of the post had little to do with former Republicanism and more to do with…

Jack Davis is now saying that other candidates are flawed because they accept PAC funds. Yet he himself proves his charge to be untrue. After all, even after giving all those thousands to conservative candidates and PACs, Dick Cheney still refused to give Jack Davis the time of day when he came to Buffalo in 2002. Davis’ first run for congress was an anti-Cheney temper tantrum.

In the end, it’s all about the money to Jack Davis. If his money can’t get conservatives to listen to him, he’ll use it on himself. His misguided anti-Powers temper tantrum has everything to do with the fact that Powers is trying to take what Jack things is rightfully his. After all, he bought and paid for it.

Just like Jack Davis tried to buy himself the IP line by basically paying off Tony Orsini’s wife’s do-nothing Florida corporation or the resigned-in-disgrace Blanca Semidey-Colon.

But there is something to point out to my Republican blogging friends that’s also pretty interesting. They’re all former Republicans. I wonder why?

Eight years of what amounts to a pathetic attempt by government-despising Republicans to govern has turned loads of people off to that particular political party. They’ve taken borrowing and spending to new, hitherto-unseen heights. They have divided and conquered. They have lined up American troops at the border of a sovereign nation and invaded and occupied it based on a flimsy-at-best and false-at-worse pretext. They have sanctioned and approved the use of torture against people locked up without charge (so we can’t really determine just how bad they are or might be) so as to obtain oftentimes useless information given more in an effort to make it stop than actual truthiness. Those are just a few reasons why there are loads of ex-Republicans out there. It’s become a fundamentally un-conservative party. Except maybe when it comes to letting gay people marry.

Oh, and yesterday it was revealed that the Justice Department, which is supposed to - above all - uphold the law and, one hopes, be a meritocracy, promoted and demoted people based on a political purity test rather than experience and merit. It is American tradition that loyalty is not due the head of state, rather to our flag and constitution.

So, yes, Virginia, there are many ex-Republicans out there, and chances are many of them live in the NY-26. Maybe they haven’t switched affiliation yet, but I’d be willing to bet that, at a bare minimum, the foundering economy makes their zeal for the GOP somewhat diminished. Which means that no matter who is the Democratic nominee come September, they will more likely identify with and support the young vet and teacher from Clarence, or the doddering old industrialist from Akron rather than the unemployed millionaire heir who helped sell out the company to out-of-towners. I’m sure Lee will do well in with his base. The Democrat, too, will have his or her base. But the enrollment advantage that a generic Republican might otherwise have in the 26th is, I think, a mirage.

While this blogger characterizes voters in two blocs - liberal and conservative - I think the average American can’t be pigeonholed like that. Most regular general election voters don’t fit perfectly into either box. They’re a little of both. And that’s where the Republicans, and their pseudo-Collins choice, have, I think, made an error.

Say what you want about Tom Reynolds, he comes across as a regular guy who speaks plainly and matter-of-factly. There’s nothing flashy about him, and he’s a guy who was a Realtor and insurance agent before he started his long political ascent. Chris Lee?

Bruce Jackson doesn’t return emails. The Wendt Foundation doesn’t return phone calls. We are mere peons who do not merit a response, as we are little more than reactionary online purveyors of rumor, defamation, and innuendo. The only person who has put himself out there to speak on behalf of casino foes is Joel Rose, who appeared on Bauerle’s show with Kevin Hardwick today.

So far, what we’ve learned is that:

I am not an expert on any of this, but it would seem to me that if money is being paid from a non-profit, tax exempt organization to a non-profit but not tax exempt organization, there may be an issue there. At what point, if any, does the money become taxable? Where did the money go once it left the Network for Religious Communities?

As WNYMind said, every time the Wendt Foundation gets to keep, tax-free, its capital gains, it derives a public subsidy. We have a right to ask these questions, and we have a right know the answers, without regard to whether or not we are anti-casino, pro-casino, or otherwise.

Also see what Buffalo Geek has to say about his call to Joel Rose on Hardwick today.

Nothing like a bit of smug self-righteousness from self-important Buffalo power elites to get Buffalo Geek to lock & load.

I heard Jesse “the Body” Ventura on Stern yesterday, and he read this quote:

Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

He used it to describe what Bush and the neocons pulled off with respect to Iraq.

Click here to see who actually said it.

People leaving, energy prices staggering, taxes higher than average, and it’s only now - at the doors of a crisis - that action is going to be taken. Governor Paterson estimates a $6.4 billion deficit for 2009 - 2010, and in the middle of an election year, he’s calling the state legislature back in mid-August to take a break from chicken BBQs and do some work.

Not just any work, but the kind of work that New York legislators are loath to do. They’re going to have to make extraordinarily tough choices with respect to spending and borrowing - the sorts of choices that piss of a great many of their special interest constituents.

But what I’d like our legislature to remember is that they work for all of us. Not for SEIU, not for NYSUT, not for CSEA, but for every single New Yorker. They work for you and me, and they have hitherto tended to abandoned their responsibility to the population at-large in favor of the big donors and powerful lobbies. Lax oversight and regulation of lobbying means that Joe Bruno can go to work as a lobbyist - he can’t lobby the legislature, but the governor’s door is open.

So, I don’t want to hear that such-and-such special interest is going to go ballistic over cuts that are desperately needed to fix what’s broken. I want to hear that these people who keep getting re-elected over and over again are making the hard choices and decisions that they supposedly get elected to make.

From the Buffalo News comes this update to a story you read here first.

The chairman of the Monroe County Independence Party has resigned after his wife accepted $5,000 in what party officials call “bribe money” from the campaign of Democratic congressional candidate Jack Davis.

Rafael Colon, a Rochester resident who works in a Batavia factory, quit his local and state positions after Monroe County Independence Party officials confronted him over the payment, according to Walter Schiemann, interim chairman.

“It’s all about what we call the bribe money from Jack Davis,” Schiemann said. “I’m not going to let this party fall into hands like that.”

The Buffalo News reported July 18 that Colon’s wife had received $5,000 from Davis under her maiden name for “campaign consulting.” The wife of Anthony L. Orsini, chairman of the Erie County Independence Party, also received $5,000 from Davis for “campaign consulting” through a firm she established in the couple’s Florida mobile home earlier this year.

Colon and Orsini are the party’s two most influential chairmen in the 26th Congressional District, now represented by the retiring Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence. The party has nominated Anthony A. Fumerelle, a Kenmore attorney and Orsini’s godson, as its candidate for the post.

How is it that Colon is gone, but Orsini’s not? Is he Teflon, or what?

Schiemann said Monday that Colon evaded party officials for eight days as they attempted to discuss the situation. When he finally returned his call, Schiemann said, he told Colon he had done wrong and needed to resign.

“We can’t get them out of the party,” he said of the Colons, “but we can keep them from having any power.”

He also said the fact that the payments were made to Colon’s wife under her maiden name of Blanca Semidey underscored the party’s concerns over their questionable nature.

“It’s definitely a bribe — absolutely,” Schiemann said, adding that the resignation may satisfy party officials and preclude further discussions with the Monroe County district attorney.

But BP, you ask, don’t other candidates give to Orsini, too?

Ah yes, dear reader, they most certainly do. But there is a world of difference between giving a donation to “Friends of Tony Orsini” or “Friends of Rafael Colon” and giving to “Coastal Consulting” and “Blanca Semidey” in an effort to evade detection of the payment.

Courtesy of “Say No to Jack Davis” comes these revelations:

In 2006, Jack Davis had no problem accepting over $64,000 in PAC money.

In 2001, Jack Davis gave to the Conservative Leadership PAC. And also in October and November 2001. He gave money to a PAC promoting a conservative White House.

Jack Davis donated thrice to Bill Paxon’s PAC.

Jack Davis gave Phil Gramm $1,000 in 1995.
Jack Davis gave Ron Paul $1,000 in 1997.
Jack Davis gave George W. Bush $1,000 in 1999.

Best of all,

Jack Davis gave Tom Reynolds $1,000 in 1999.

Now, some might say, but BP, you were once a Republican, too!

Ah, true, my dear and detail-oriented reader. However, Jack Davis is now saying that other candidates are flawed because they accept PAC funds. Yet he himself proves his charge to be untrue. After all, even after giving all those thousands to conservative candidates and PACs, Dick Cheney still refused to give Jack Davis the time of day when he came to Buffalo in 2002. Davis’ first run for congress was an anti-Cheney temper tantrum.

In the end, it’s all about the money to Jack Davis. If his money can’t get conservatives to listen to him, he’ll use it on himself. His misguided anti-Powers temper tantrum has everything to do with the fact that Powers is trying to take what Jack things is rightfully his. After all, he bought and paid for it.

John McCain had a biopsy done of some skin cells from his cheek. McCain has a history of melanoma from sun exposure when he was a POW.

McCain urged people to stay out of the sun and to wear sunscreen, particularly during the summer.

“If you ever have any slight discoloration please go to your dermatologist or your doctor and get it checked out as soon as possible,” he said.

Asked if his doctor was confident the problem was nothing serious, McCain replied, “Sure, sure.”

McCain might want to have a word with the Dan the Tan Man for Congress campaign, which has festooned several “Tanning Bed” vans with “Humiston for Congress” banners. I wonder if Humiston echoes this “chaching goes the cancer council” sentiment?

Question: Does my inquiry into the spending of Wendt Foundation money somehow magically make me a supporter of the Seneca’s Buffalo Creek Casino?

Answer: Of course not.

Here is my record on the issue of the Seneca Casino.

Here is what I wrote earlier this month concerning my current indifference to the Seneca Casino in light of Skretny’s ruling:

I have to say that my thinking on the casino downtown has morphed from ignorance to opposition to indifference … So, I’m now indifferent. If it’s blocked, great. If it goes up, great. Either way, my day won’t change. But if I’m leaning in any one direction, I’d say build the damn thing already. Build it nice, build it big, and build it in such a way so as to maximize pedestrian entry and egress from the property. By cooperating with the Senecas, we can help make it a project that is integrated into its surroundings, rather than an island surrounded by a sea of useless parking.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, wouldn’t you say?

Here is what I wrote in my original “swiftboating” post about the Wendt Foundation:

The Wendt Foundation paid $2 million to fund the legal fees for the casino half-sorta-victory last week. Two million dollars. That’s a lot of scratch, and frankly I had thought that the lawyers had donated their time towards this effort. I’m taken aback that there was an expenditure for this….

…Imagine if $2 million had gone towards an actual charitable cause that actually helps the underprivileged. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that a sovereign exclave should not be carved out of Buffalo’s downtown to facilitate gambling that can’t be subject to state or local taxes, I don’t care about the morality of this, and I don’t care whether it’s a “good” or “bad” deal for the city any more than I care whether the heavily subsidized, money-losing Hyatt is a “good” or “bad” deal.

But this interview between Bruce Jackson and Joel Rose pretty much underscores the fact that the whole “sovereignty” issue is a technicality that stands in the place of “we know so much better than you”. And they got $2 mill from a local charity to pay legal fees rather than an actual charitable effort.

Oh, well.

You see, for me the sovereignty and exclave was what I was most opposed to, because I thought it was a cynical work-around the state constitution.

Casino opponents? They equate criticism and questions about Wendt with casino support. My 2 year old comes up with less facile conclusions than that. Their reaction has taken many forms, but all of them have one central underlying theme, which can be summarized as:

STFU! How dare you question the Wendt Foundation?

I will tell you one thing. Through all of this, I’ve lost a great deal of respect for casino opponents and their George Bushian “not with us, you’re against us” mentality.

With apologies to Mad Magazine and Al Jaffee.

I’ve been watching the new version of The Mole on ABC - I was a big fan of the original version with Anderson Cooper hosting, but refused to watch the “Celebrity Mole”. The new version is pretty good, and the show in general is sort of like the Amazing Race (great locations) with the twist that one of the players is working for the producers to sabotage the game as the players attempt to earn money for the ultimate pot of winnings.

This season, it’s become quite obvious that Nicole is the Mole. She is a horrible actress and has done too many obvious things to reveal herself.

On the other hand, if she’s not the Mole, then whoever is, is the best Mole ever.

The interviews recorded will be kept in the Library of Congress, and may be played on NPR.

The New York Post is reporting that Governor Paterson has “passion” of his own. He’s set to scare the holy bejeezus out of a lot of us with this:

Gov. Paterson, convinced the state faces its worst fiscal crisis since the mid-1970s, will deliver the grim news in an unprecedented special address to New Yorkers as soon as tomorrow night, The Post has learned.

The governor’s address - which his aides hope will be televised by public and cable news stations - will say that plunging state revenues will force painful cuts in state services, necessitate a reduction in the state work force, possibly through layoffs, and require other difficult economic measures, source said.

Paterson is also expected to announce that he’s ordered state agencies to slash spending beyond the relatively modest 3.3 percent cuts he ordered in late spring.

He may also call a special session of the Legislature to propose reducing some of the record-high levels of spending that were approved as part of the state’s new budget in April.

“The situation is worse than anyone realizes,” said a source close to Paterson.

“The governor has said he’s tired of the state going from deficit to deficit, spending like it has a credit card that never has to be paid, and that he’s prepared to take action,” the source said.

Paterson in recent days has huddled with budget planning officials from the administrations of former Govs. Mario Cuomo and Hugh Carey “to get their ideas on how to manage a fiscal crisis,” the source said.

It would have been better had cuts been able to be done in a systematic, planned fashion, rather than as a panicky reaction to reality, but I give Paterson credit for this:

The governor has said he’s tired of the state going from deficit to deficit, spending like it has a credit card that never has to be paid, and that he’s prepared to take action

Those just might be the most profound words said by a New York State politician in the last decade or generation. I’m wishing the governor a lot of luck with this.

The Daily Gotham revealed the other day that Jack Davis has set up a fake version of Jon Powers’ website, mimicking almost exactly its layout, design, photographs, and logos. The Daily Gotham likens the whole thing to phishing scam sites that are made to look like PayPal, but actually are used to steal your identity. Here, from top to bottom, is a screenshot of Powers’ actual site, and below it is a shot from Davis’ scam site.

And indeed, it so closely resembles Powers’ real website, and uses a URL (which I’m not going to post or link to) that would lead a casual observer to believe, mistakenly, that it was a Powers-sanctioned site. Only the “Paid for by Davis for Congress” in what appears to be 6 point type at the bottom of the page reveals its true author.

First off, it’s not a parody site because it’s not funny. Seconly, it’s not protected by the fair use doctrine because it’s not using mere excerpts of Powers’ work product, but has completely mimicked his site in an effort to confuse and trick the reader. Everything right down to the logo, the font, the layout, and even the portrait, originally shot by Clarence photographer Chuck Eckert.

All of these items are protected by automatic copyright held by Mr. Powers. We all expected Jack Davis to use his millions to smear Powers. None of us expected him to do it by breaking the law and deliberately tricking prospective voters.

Instead, let’s focus on the real Jack Davis. The Jack Davis who says he’ll go to congress to battle the Democrats. The Jack Davis who is so anti-immigrant (really, anti-foreigner), he’s willing to completely disregard the needs of local farmers in his own district. The Jack Davis who ran in 2004 and lost. The Jack Davis who ran against a politically mortally wounded Tom Reynolds and lost. The Jack Davis who said in 2006 that he was “relieved” not to be going to Washington.

Oh, and the fact that Jack Davis is about as much a Democrat as Pat Buchanan. Davis just crossed a line from campaigning to outright fraud.

(Photo by itsjustkelly via Flickr)

If I was to start from scratch and do a hyperlocal site, it would look a lot like The Batavian, which features this great piece from Russ Stresing about that old curmudgeon millionaire, Jack Davis, whom he likens to Ross Perot’s running mate from 1992, James Stockdale. The GLOW (rural) counties of NY-26 have problems that are unique when compared with the more suburban parts. Any blog post that answers this question in the affirmative is alright in my book: “Is Jack Davis completely out of touch with reality?”

Here’s what he’s promoting on his own website. “The farmers claim they need more foreign labor to pick those crops and some have asked for more visas for immigrant farm workers. But with our high unemployment, how can we justify hiring someone other than our own unemployed to do this work?” Its obvious Jack hasn’t heard any of the problems the local growers have had in recent years. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491778/ Does Jack really want to add to the risks that farmers already brave every year? Or was he that clueless about where he was when he made that statement? As rarely as he goes out on the trail, it might’ve made sense for him to do a little background research on the GLOW region. Agriculture is the backbone of our local economy. Now, Jack says he wants to deny our local farmers the labor force they depend on to get their crops out of the fields or orchards and onto our tables.

Jack Davis. It’s his way or the highway. He’s a one-man special interest who was “relieved” he lost in 2006.

Seriously, though - what “price” are casino foes paying for “telling the truth”? That people disagree with them? That their funding is being scrutinized?

The litany of negatives that go along with a casino development in Buffalo are often weighed against the positives, and the ultimate balance is somewhat subjective. Even Esmonde acknowledges some positives from a casino project. But what’s often repeated by opponents is how the money will be taken out of the community. Really?

Aren’t the Senecas part of the “community”? Don’t they spend their money in the same places as you or I? Aren’t they Western New Yorkers just as much as Stan from Lancaster or Johnny from Niagara Falls? Haven’t the Senecas been just as economically downtrodden as any other minority?

The Senecas and their defenders don’t promote the casino as being the savior of Buffalo, so opponents’ arguments to the contrary are beside the point.

There are myriad businesses in existence in this community that are probably a net drain on society and the economy. This may just be another added to the list. So?

One of my biggest problems with the whole Seneca casino deal is that there was no public input. I’d much prefer that the state constitution is amended to permit legal, tightly regulated, taxed class III gaming in New York State. At the end of the day, however, we elected the politicians who cut this deal with the Senecas. No one elected its opponents.

The Citizens for Better Buffalo’s website has been unearthed. And here is the site for the Network of Religious Communities.

There’s been a lot of defense and pushback and, in some cases, venom thrown our way in the last couple of days over all of this, so let me pose a question.

Why, exactly, is it wrong to ask questions about the organizations and charities behind the effort to block the casino? Why is it so offensive to ask them to explain the interpersonal and inter-entity relationships, and their status and programs? All three Wendt Foundation trustees belong to (or have leadership positions) in the Citizens for a Better Buffalo. One Wendt Foundation trustee is a member of the Preservation Coalition. Funds for the battle against the casino are funneled through the Network of Religious Communities.

All we’re asking is who, why, how much, and to whom.

We all know how the Senecas get their money and why they fight.

We all know how the federal government gets its money.

This is a matter of public concern and interest, and these not-for-profit organizations and charitable foundations can’t just do whatever they want, willy-nilly, without transparency.

As a personal aside, the funniest part of all this for me is that I never would have followed up on my original post had Jackson not called me out.

Jay Tokasz did a story on the Wendt Foundation imbroglio today, and got people to call him back, evidently.

The foundation bought the Harrah’s shares in 2003 for $2.8 million, according to its 2007 tax return. The stock was sold in May 2006 for a total of $4.9 million — a 75 percent return in less than three years.

Wendt’s three trustees agreed to finance the lawsuit in January 2006, and the foundation so far has funneled $1.9 million through the Network of Religious Communities, one of the plaintiffs, for legal expenses.

The trustees were unaware of the Harrah’s investment until a periodic review following their decision to fund the suit, said trustee Robert J. Kresse.

Investment advisers, Groesbeck Investment Management, based in New Jersey, determined the investment choices. The trustees decided to sell because the holdings were “inconsistent” with their position on gambling in the City of Buffalo, Kresse said.

Some people were resorting to unfounded attacks on the foundation because the U. S. District Court determined the casino is illegal, as many anti-gambling opponents have argued all along, he added.

The Rev. G. Stanford Bratton, executive director of the Network of Religious Communities, said he was unaware of Wendt’s investment in Harrah’s, but he downplayed its significance.

“Most folks who have a retirement plan may well be invested in a casino,” said Bratton. “It’s hard for almost any of us to be pure in that sense.”

The foundation’s mission is to assist the Western New York region and confront what is harmful, and it shouldn’t be limited in those aims simply because it holds stock in a company that promotes gambling, Bratton said.

“That would say to many of us that we can never speak out,” he said.

It’s akin to a peace protester accused of hypocrisy because he pays his income taxes, which help fund a war effort. “How far do you draw this?” said Bratton.

Besides, casinos and federal agencies have huge amounts of money to invest in lawsuits, while “the people opposed have peanuts,” he said.

Without the Wendt money, opponents of the downtown casino probably would not have been able to press forward in their case against the U. S. Secretary of the Interior and the National Indian Gaming Commission.

The three trustees of the foundation, who are paid six figures for 140 hours of work per year, were unaware of the three-year investment in a casino conglomerate? That stretches credulity. Chris states in comments:

If the trustees of the Wendt Foundation who earn ~$144K per year for ~140 hours of work are unaware as to where the assets of the $120MM foundation are invested, they have patently vacated their fiduciary responsibilities to the trust and should step down.

As to your query about my investment portfolio, I have no investments in pharmaceutical interests as I advised my financial planner to focus my money on defense and telecom stock while dabbling in foreign currencies, muni bonds, and commodities. I am active in the maintenance of my portfolio as anyone with an ounce of financial expertise should be.

Managing the foundation and its investments is half of the trustees’ job. The other half is deciding whom to give it to.

Also, I have no idea who makes up CACGEC or Citizens for Better Buffalo, or other groups involved, so how am I to know what their ability is to fund this lawsuit? There’s no transparency there whatsoever. The Senecas, at least, have to file all sorts of stuff with the government so there’s transparency on their part.

It’s akin to a peace protester accused of hypocrisy because he pays his income taxes, which help fund a war effort. “How far do you draw this?” said Bratton.

No, it’s not. You have a legal obligation to pay your income taxes and can be prosecuted by the federal government if you don’t. Wendt has no legal obligation to invest in Harrah’s over a three-year period, and most certainly could have informed its investment advisors that it did not want to invest in industries that run counter to its mission.

Wendt’s money was paid to the Network of Religious Communities. I think the people are entitled to see exactly to whom, and how much money from the Wendt Foundation was paid to fund this lawsuit.

The foundation has an endowment of more than $140 million and gives away about $6 million per year, mostly to support the local arts and culture, and the needs of the poor, elderly and disadvantaged.

That amount, Kresse said, will only grow as the foundation matures, unlike the casino deal, which will never contribute to the city’s tax base and will end up draining the local economy and taking money from those who can least afford it.

“We haven’t destroyed lives in the process,” he added. “We have helped people.”

Has Wendt audited where its money has been spent? There’s no question that Wendt has helped people throughout WNY during its 50+ year existence. The question here is, why are high-priced Albany lawyers receiving this money, who else is receiving it, and how much?

Oh, and Channel 2? You’re dead to me.