The Podcast of the only debate between Barney Frank’s 2010 Republican Challengers will be available for podcast here: Jeff Katz, Rush Radio today.
Abridge version of the final moments of the debate follows: *With Commentary
Both candidates towards the end of the debate were asked a series of questions by Jeff Katz, both Bielat and Sholley shared the same or similar opinions on the issues.
Beilats answers were short without delving too deeply into any specific issues, while Sholley answered in depth, with historic and constitutional references.
On the Birth Question:
Sholley – This is a Red Herring, some people think this is a good way to get rid of this President, I think there are other areas where he has abused the constitution, I would call for his impeachment on other areas. I want to be the Freedom Czar when I get down to Washington.
Bielat – I would not call for impeachment – I don’t think impeachment is appropriate, I think it’s a silly issue – I don’t understand why the White House doesn’t release his birth certificate. I do think all candidates should be required to produce a certificate.
On Electability:
Sean: you have talked about Earl’s arrest or time in jail – would it make it impossible for you to support him? – I’m doing everything to do to win in the primary – avoids direct answer and is pushed by Katz to respond
Sean – I’d have some serious questions I’d need to be answered
Earl: On his arrests: We live in the most corrupt state in America, and I stood up to the system, as a parent - I stood up to the state, I disciplined my daughter, which, by the way, I did not go to jail for – I’ve been an activist and a fighter for the past 50 years.
Katz: I’m hearing the ads in my head, any questions which would be put towards Barney Frank – and a photo of your arrest record,
Earl: Barany Frank has a lot of issues as well, and those are important issues, and those are abuses of his involvement in politics. My problems pale in comparison to Mr. Franks.
If Bielat is successful in the primary would you support him?
Sholley: Absolutely, I am a team player, and remember this incident happened 15 years ago; these issues have been gone over many times.
Katz: Sean you’ve been charged with being a moderate and a Rhino
Bielat: We see that on the left all the time one of the games on the far right, we’ll you’re not a conservative – I think people can draw there own conclusions – on myself, this guy communities the issues.
Closing Statements:
Sholley: I would ask for everyone’s votes and thanks for listening, I have many common sense solutions, I have the experience, courage and integrity to get the job done in Washington, please go to our website, www.sholleyforcongress.us I don’t’ want to retire Frank, I want to defeat, investigate, indict and incarcerate him.
Bielat: I’ve got thousand of volunteers, go to Sean Bielat.com this is the year we are going to send Barney home.
In conclusion, Mr. Sholley appeared most knowledgeable and willing to discuss the issues; he met the allegations about his “issues” head on, and delivered a debate that was based on then issues. He also has a keen wit and sense of humor. When asked if he would support Mr. Beilat should he win, he was most gracious in his answer. Sholley has grown as a candidate and would be a solid opponent to defeat Barney Frank in the district.
Mr. Biel at also answers the questions, but with less authority than Mr. Sholley – The basic answers were short, but to the point. It may be a question of style, or a lack of experience in the debate arena, something that would be crucial to winning this particular district.
In addition, Mr. Beilat was not as gracious as Mr. Sholley when asked if he would support Mr. Sholley should Sholley best him in the primary – that comes down to individual choices, I found that particular remark to be someone disingenuous, since it was Mr. Beilats campaign that put out videos outlining all of Mr. Shelley’s legal documents, and allegations that we not necessarily true, then hastily pulled from his website and moved to one page blogs.
The full debate will be posted here as soon as available. It is imperative that individuals choose a candidate, going into the September 14th primary and form that point, regardless of which of these candidates win the primary – work to ensure that they have every advantage available to change the course of the 4th District and the nation by defeating Barney Frank. The 4th District is in play and one of these candidates needs to be supported, both financially and through volunteerism. In each debate, every individual distaining draws their conclusions as to who may have won, or who may not have performed as well. This blogs follows:
It goes without saying that, that as one writer put it, this blog feels that, despite any issues and or baggage, Mr. Sholley would be the best “old codger” to run a strong race against Barney Frank. He is strong in debates, his baggage is as old as Frank’s and frankly, not as egregious, he has extensive knowledge of both the district and the Constitution, and although he has run and lost before, it does by no wise disqualify him from seeking office and winning a public office. Best example: Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican Standard bearer. As to Mr. Beliat his performance as adequate, however, he may lack the necessary experience necessary to run a solid campaign against Barney Frank – Let the Old War Horses fight this one out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I thought that the debate between Sholley and Bielat was a good one. Both are nice guys and are like minded on the issues. But there are several comments that Earl Sholley made that bothered me. First of all he stated that the Muslim religion was a cult. A comment like this is not appropriate for someone running for public office, as they will be representing Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. If I were a Muslim I would worry about having someone like this in office. Also, Earl did not explain his arrest record very well, it left doubts in my mind about his competence to be in Congress. Essentially Earl portrays himself as a victim, taking no responsibility for any of his prior actions. This lack of remorse bothers me.
Earl Sholley stated he would vote for Ron Paul,. this calls into question Earl foreign policy stance. Earl stated that we are not the worlds policeman, this is a Ron Paul quote and is not a conservative foreign policy view.
All in all it was a good debate, but Sholley to me was the loser. He showed himself to be an intolerant extremist with rigid unbendable views, who would have a really hard time winning in this liberal district of Massachusetts. I though Sean Bielat came off as level-headed, well educated and certainly not a polarizing like Sholley. I also like Sean's solid foreign policy views and his good business sense.
Winner- Bielat!
I listened to the replay online and I believe you are intentionally misquoting Sean Bielat because you support Earl Sholley. I thought both men did a good job on the show, but I support Sean Bielat because he is a Marine, a patriot, a successful businessman and the ONLY viable candidate in this race.
Sean's website, by the way, is http://www.retirebarney.com or http://www.seanbielat.org
Welcome Anonymous and John,
John, first, to offer you some enlightenment - in the beginning of the “quotes” it is clearly designated as “abridged”, meaning that it was “shortened” or “condensed” and links to the actual podcast are clearly noted – you’re assertion that I deliberately misrepresented Mr. Beilat as I support Mr. Sholley is ludicrous. If you were a regular reader of this blog, you would find equal articles regarding both men, frankly speaking, I don’t have a “horse” in this race, as I am not voting in the district, and as stated in other posts made regarding the primary, I would actively support either candidate that wins the primary. Additionally, Mr. Beilat’s links are all over this blog – (I urge you to do a “search” – should Mr. Sholley have a few more links dropped, or a few more blogs, it is due to the fact that he was in the race first – nothing more or nothing less) - don’t be so paranoid, but do be a good supporter (and you obviously are). Both Mr. Beilat and Mr. Sholley served or are serving this country – I take it you are also a Marine – A little rivalry and pride in one’s branch of the service is also a good thing.
It was my point of view that Sholley won the debate, mostly at the end (as explained in the abridged version, one can listen to the podcast to review) – his answers may be a bit “nutty” to some (Anonymous), and not necessarily “liberal” enough for Massachusetts, however, are they any more or less “nutty” than the current occupant of the 4th Districts Congressional seat? Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and a brilliant man, who has spent years in the Congress, and yet, regardless of the fact that Republicans or Democrats controlled the house, has not had any significant input into foreign policy – neither Congressman Paul, nor Earl Sholley is a candidate (foreseeable) for Secretary of State, so it is hardly an issue. As to Mr. Sholley’s “baggage”, if he does not appear to be repentant enough to you, perhaps you should petition for another debate, so that more time could be devoted to the man’s personal life, and incidents that happened over a decade ago. Both Sholley and Beilat appeared rushed (due to timing and perhaps the time) although, Sholley, to my p.o.v less rushed. Is he a flawed candidate, absolutely, however, in technical points, in this debate, I felt that he was stronger in the debate forum. I agree that Mr. Beilat is well-educated, but I would have liked to hear more from him – I would like to see him more assertive, especially if he does win this particular race, and goes on to debate Barney Frank (and show a bit more humor). I felt he could have taken more time – overall, I urge you to listen to the podcast (available at rushradio.com link in this post) and the closing – which is what swayed me in the end to give points to Mr. Sholley.
I take it both of you are able to vote in the 4th district for Mr. Bielat, however, one has to ask, regardless of the outcome, would you support either candidate against Barney Frank? – That is the most important and where, honestly, Mr. Sholley received a point over Mr. Bielat. Review both men’s answers to that question. The primary is supposed to be rough and tumble, it prepares candidates for long race – divided however, we fail and we fall.
I do think that the "baggage" matters, unfortunately Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats. Sholley isn't some cape crusader who broke the law to do good. He did not follow the law because he felt it did not apply to him. We already have enough people in Congress who feel they are above the law.
Hello Anonymous (i.e. Nope Not Sholley) - No one said "baggage doesn't matter" - and Candidates from all political parties should be held to the same standards. Did you read the case on Findlaw? - (Links also in articles on this site) - Therefore, from what you are implying, no one who has been charged with any criminal offense, convicted or not, should be allowed to hold office, regardless of the length of time that has passed - In which case, I applaud your point of view.
Unfortunately, in politics as in life, one must make a choice between the "lesser of two evils" so to speak - taking that into consideration, should Mr. Sholley face Mr. Frank in the general election - would you, morally, not vote? In my point of view and statistically, that would in effect, give a vote to Mr. Frank.
Please post links to articles and/or evidence of the fact that Mr. Sholley held himself to be above the law. I have not found anything substantive on that particular charge. I appreciate the links - not innuendos.
http://www.decideforyourself.org/
As the site say's decide for yourself. This site contains pure fact, no commentary. Mr. Sholley was ordered by a judge to complete a batters program, he felt that he didn't need it, so he did not attend the program. He was incarcerated for not obeying the judges order. Don't you think disobeying a judge and not doing what is ordered is holding oneself above the law? I know I would do whatever a judge ordered me to do, as would most law abiding Americans.
To the Anonymous Poster: I asked for links and you provided a link to decideforyourself.org - which has been dropped in more than one place in support of a particular candidate.
In review:
The first link under time line: 1993-2001 is to an op-ed piece defending Barney Frank - followed by more links to the Boston Globe - and, there are some disturbing documents available on other links - what, perhaps, is most the link to his Answer to Complaint to Divorce, in which Mr. Sholley speaks, through his attorney, one might find that rather heartbreaking to say the least. It is a salacious blog, with no known author - and, although, it does indeed bring up some questions, the problem is it smacks of dirty politics and desperation - Personal documents are available on websites for a fee, which ranges from $9.99 and upward - and although "available to the public" it is not without some little expense. The request for additional information by the FEC can be found on the FEC website for every single candidate, with asked and answers - that hinges on slander - (The video, which contains the information was on a campaign website as well and was removed)
This is not Frank's style, by the by, but it sure would help him in the event Mr. Sholley wins the election. (Give Congressman Frank his due, he did not go to these lengths when Mr. Sholley ran against him in 2008 - (which, historically, to lose political races would not be considered a set-back, as one can point to Abraham Lincoln's history). Right or wrong, it is my opinion that this type of blog stating facts and then linking to op-eds, as well as official documents in links that "bring up questions" without anyone "owning" the blog is suspect - the first time I had personally seen this type of "campaigning" was in 2008 and used against Govenor Mike Huckabee in the primary. Again, although raising some questions, I feel it could be done with a bit more "class", (leaving out the op-eds, and suggesting that one might have questions regarding claims made by a candidate if one went to X website, put up the cash and bought documents. I will not remove the post from Anonymous as it is a lesson to anyone who might, say, have missed a car payment, fallen behind on bills during hard times, had a divorce, had a child put into foster care after they had left their home and the child was in someone else's custody, and did service, to one's country,(but not for a long enough period to "appease" the opposition.) and might even remotely entertain the idea of running for office. This does nothing but call into question character, on all sides.
You failed to address my last statement about Mr. Sholley acting as if he was above the law. You went on a rant about the horrors of this website and did not address the criminal issue. Agreed that people have problems in life but if you are running for public office EXPECT that all the dirt will be out there for the public to see. The public has a right to make an informed decision. Are the issues that Mr. Sholley went through heartbreaking? Of course, but many of the problems were self made, which calls into question his judgement and business sense. America and the 4th district are facing some tough economic times, someone needs to replace Barney Frank who can help fix this mess. Should a candidate be voted in who consistently has trouble managing his own personal finances? I do believe you are running on emotion and are not looking at the entire picture, which is: Who Can Beat Barney Frank. You and Earl Sholley need to toughen up, if he gets the nomination, a website housing public documents is going to be the least of Sholley's issues. Can you see the commercials Barney Frank will create? Sholley being the nominee just means 2 more years of Barney Frank. This is the point!!
First, “Susie Sunshine, Anonymous or Nope Not Sholley” (same ISP’s) – 1. I was not on a “Rant”, however, definitely saddened by the depths one campaign feels it must sink to in order to win (as stated). Further, It is obvious that you are deeply attached to the Bielat campaign, or you would not bother to continue to post away additional problems you may have with Mr. Sholley – as noted in one answer, I would suggest you ask for another debate, perhaps that way you could get Mr. Sholley’s first hand response. I do not speak for Mr. Sholley, nor for Mr. Bielat. The purpose of the blog was to rate the debate from a technical standpoint – and from a technical standpoint, not an emotional standpoint, I found Mr. Sholley more capable in the closing than Mr. Beilat. Again, as also stated, time and again, regardless of which one of these individuals wins the primary, I will blog to support that person. The problem with blind support for one candidate over anther in the primary and going to these great lengths to berate the “completion” on some minor blog – is that that one loses sight of the bigger picture, which is the general election. It is united we stand - divided we fall and we fail. So, from what I gather, Susie, Anonymous, or what have you – you would not support Mr. Sholley, if, for some reason he wins the primary – again, as stated, that’s a vote for Frank.
Tina you said re: Sholley going negative on his opponents..
--"This is not Frank's style, by the by, but it sure would help him in the event Mr. Sholley wins the election. (Give Congressman Frank his due, he did not go to these lengths when Mr. Sholley ran against him in 2008"--
I supported Earl in 2008, he got about 25% of the vote. What amazes me is you appear to be genuinely unaware that is the Sholley campaign who began the smear campaign. Which started the minute Mr. Bielat announced his candidacy.
During his 2008 campaign he barely attacked barney at all his style was overly passive he made very vague broad & non-descript accusations about barney's involvement in the banking scandal.
If you go to his website right now you'll find he hardly mentions the scandals Mr. Frank is at the heart of.
With all the vicious & nasty Mr. Sholley & his supporters have shown towards his fellow GOP opponent, I'm wondering where the passion was for Mr. Frank back in 2008?
&
For you to imply Mr. Sholley's legal woes are a minor matter is not only laughable for it's ignorance of the local media bias', but a gross mischaractierization, the progressive media which controls the narrative in this district will crucify Mr. Sholley with this information should he ever get within 10%age pts. of Mr. Frank in the Polls.
They didn't use it in 2008 because they didn't have to, because Earl never got within 30%age pts. in 2008.
Trust me the fact that he threatened an Oklahoma City Style bombing of the Quincy Courthouse will be news worthy if Mr. Sholley even remotely appears to have a chance.
He may be a nice guy & perhaps he's even genuinely conservative, (though I have doubts about that after hearing him advocate The Center for American Progress' talking point of the single state solution in Israel), but he is unelectable. & that is what matter at the end of the day.
Hi Ellis, Do tell - I did not find any reference on FindLaw regarding any threat re: an Oklahoma City Style Bombing made by Mr. Sholley- if you have the link, send it along - or post it here - I based my opinion on what I could find Find-law (linked to by the way on this site) and Lexis Nexis - could there be more out there as you allege, certainly - but I haven't seen it - nor is it contained in all the "legal" documents that the opposition site has linked to: (decide for yourself) including newspaper articles from the 2008 race - if you've got it, post it - or email me (I do get a lot of those that I check on races across the country - and use those as sources)
I am encouraging anyone who makes claims to back them up -
Also,regarding who did what to whom first - (high school anyone?) Apparently, the Sholley campagin didn't send me that press release bashing Mr. Beilat, rather releases on issues and/or announcments.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info - forums are not really "sources" - and posts made on other blogs are not "sources" either - I do quote them sometimes for amusement, but again, they are not "proof" -
If you've got something that you can post, and or email me (contact info form right on the blog)I appreciate that type of information, - go ahead and I'll scan and post it. If you have an opinion and prefer one candidate over another, on issues and substance, I’d love to read it - so would others - however, this form of "campaigning" (i.e. posting accusations to blogs that are clearly marked as op-ed, and ones opinion that one candidate won a debate over another on technical’s -) is just childish.
Anonymous (and those who just open blank profiles to post), back up your statements of fact or just mark it as a difference of opinion.
COMMONWEALTH vs. EARL SHOLLEY.
SJC-08295
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
432 Mass. 721; 739 N.E.2d 236; 2000 Mass. LEXIS 710
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=ebTU.eHKa.aadj.ebKc&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
--"Once outside the court house, Sholley began passing out his group's literature. He approached a court employee who was outside on her break and insisted that she take the materials he was handing out. When she refused, he said, "Remember what happened in Oklahoma. This is a bomb ready to explode." The employee was frightened by Sholley's remark."--
Tina you seemed rather sure of yourself, When commenting to Ellis Wyatt. Condescending I think would be more like it. Then when you receive EXACTLY what you insinuated didn't exist you abandon this particular stream?
Perhaps you're waiting on Earl or one of his Sherpa's to correct the narrative. Trust me there is no way to spin this.
For the life of me I can't figure out how to post on your site under anything but anonymous.
so I'll sign off right here
Bob Grant
To Anonymous,
Thank you for the link – I did not see that in my research, which, stands corrected – I have the original complain linked, I did not find this link – and I appreciate the post – it helps readers go to the source document and make their own determinations from there.
Mr. Grant, I was not being condescending – rather frustrated when commenter’s post as “anonymous” and then fail to link to a credible source.
Look, the original blog post was my opinion on the outcome of the debate – which I scored based on rhetorical debate –
The balance was based on my opinion of what I knew of both candidates – If I appear defensive, perhaps I am, as my opinion of the outcome of a debate somehow “morphed” into support for one candidate over another, (mind you, I have opinions on races across the country on this blog, and have never seen such an outpouring of support for a candidate such as Mr. Beilat has received here – specifically targeting me for my opinion) however, if you read through the thread, I continued to ask for edification regarding specifics that I might not be aware of as well as noting I did not have a horse in this particular race – I have continually stated that I will support the candidate that wins the primary and additionally, I have, I believe been unbiased as far as all posts regarding this particular race and the candidates involved (including Barney Frank, and that is where I have an ideological bias).
I stand by my opinion on the debate outcome, by the way – I believe Mr. Beliat could have been stronger in the closing – which is where debates are won or lost in my opinion.
However, I will yield on the additional research - and have already thanked the anonymous provider for the link - The remarks made by Mr. Sholley (and conduct as stated in this documents link), was obviously misguided – off base, and made in anger - in 1996 – which my point on almost every blog post detailing Mr. Sholley as a candidate - and continues to be that a) he is a flawed candidate, b) he has issues (links to Find law and the original complaint) c) this happened over a decade ago, and Mr. Sholley should not be held to a higher standard than Mr. Frank.
Again, my opinion, and it would stand for any and all candidates for office (read my bio – that may give you a hint of where I’m coming from.)
Based on what research I had personally found (and invested in finding) – the document did not name any other person as feeling threatened in or reporting a threat besides District Attorney Cahill – (referring to the altercation in the stairwell) – I have that particular article link to this blog in another post .)
We can politely agree to disagree regarding my opinion. However, I now ask, if Mr. Beilat does not, for some reason, win the primary and Mr. Sholley is the candidate, for whom you would vote, or would you not vote at all. I know, personally, that I have favored one candidate over another in past races (and in this one in my district where I am able to vote.) however, once the primary is past, I get behind the least egregious candidate.) This is a serious question – consider it a poll.
Sorry about the condescending snipe Tina.
&
I hope my email gave you a better understanding of the lay of the land up here.
Keep up the good fight.
Bob Grant
Hi Bob, No worries, it is what it is – I welcome a good debate, and will always ask for opinions that are contrary to my own – it is how we grow – (and I’d call it the lay of the land out east – being contrary and due west – just south of Amherst (see Cambridge) and north of Connecticut – when I can learn from an individual who posts a link or offers a different point of view (not absurd accusations with no merit or grounds) or agree to disagree (which is where I generally am with my left of center (and left of left) friends and or commenter’s) then all is well – feel free to continue to post, as I will be adding information on this race as received - (usually in the form of a press release) – if you get a chance check out the debate between Frank and Brown.
Post a Comment