Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Hasse Supporter Demands Blind Support

(This is today's second post)
(I am posting a comment from the Texas Constitution. This process is at least two years because it will take a constitutional amendment.)
This guy whose post I did publish through today only proves my point of how we keep on electing the same bad people over and over again. The issue is not whether or not we should eliminate the position of County Treasurer. As my response indicates, I oppose electing people to positions which require highly qualified skills. There should be one office which handles all of the county's finances, and it should not be an elected position.

This is not the issue - the issue is, is Hasse running a dishonest or incompetent campaign? Today Hasse can demand that every commissioner on commissioners court vote to eliminate the position effected January 1, 2011. This will make the election moot. Commissioners court can do this next week. If the people truly want this and support it, they will get behind the vote now and not after Hasse has served at the expense of the people for 4 years.

I will support anyone who calls for an immediate vote. My entire issue is, let's put people on record now. For this I am a terrible person. Politics is what it is - and only fools blindly support a candidate based on a promise without looking behind the promise.

If Wood wants to beat TreviƱo - all he needs to do is put this on the agenda next week - let's see what happens. Cascos can take the lead on the issue and win the hearts of the people by putting this issue on the agenda next week. The fact neither of these candidates are doing the obvious tells me there is either no support for Hasse's promise or it is soft.

For now, here is Hasse's join link so anyone who wants to can ask him how he intends to eliminate the office of County Treasurer and who among the current candidates and those on the County Commission support his desire to eliminate the position of County Treasurer. I will go one step further - his supporters need to demand he release the e-mail to the candidates and sitting commissioners wherein he is making the request. He also needs to include in his request that the current commission immediately put on the agenda a vote to eliminate the position effective January 1, 2011. Why this date? - [1] I am fairly certain commissioners court cannot vote to unelect someone without their participation; and [2] it provides time for an orderly transition.

You can e-mail cascos and demand he put the issue on the agenda
You can e-mail Woods and demand he put it on the agenda.
If Commissioners Court is going to support the elimination of the Office of County Treasurer there is no reason to wait for an election. They need to take the vote now. If they are unwilling to take the vote now, then that should tell us something about whether or not Hasse's promise is anything more than pie in the sky wishful thinking.
If they do take the vote now and vote to eliminate the position effective January 1, 2011, then it is fair to say Hasse will have something of substance to stand on if he chooses to seek other elective office.
And for the record I know which campaigns are monitoring BV. I know for example that the IP address for Rene Oliviera's law office is I know someone in his office loves to post anti-gay comments which are quite vulgar.
I know that I have readers today who are in Australia, Argentina (very jealous - eat a good rib eye for me), and Nicaragua (weird one because they are researching Otis Powers). I know the FBI has read my blog today. I know I have readers all over the US. Do I monitor every IP address no. On rare occasion I do the research. Sometimes I do not have to do the research because it is noted in my summaries that the person who viewed my web page connected to BV from their campaign page.
One question - should a candidate have a duty to not aid in copyright infringement? I am not saying anyone is engaged in copyright infringement. I really have no way of knowing. There is a ton of free pictures on the internet for use by bloggers. But the second a blogger takes money to allow for advertising on his/her blog, copyright becomes an issue. BV does not advertise for anyone or accepts money. This allows BV to avoid any claim of copyright infringement.
Google takes this matter seriously. Candidates need to make sure they are not advertising on any blog anywhere subject to US copyright laws. I have actually cautioned Bill White and Farouk Shami on this issue.


If you are running for public office and pay a blogger to advertise - you're an idiot. The readership of the blogs is not high enough to justify paying for advertising. This week I will get a link up so every candidate's web page can be seen for free. Community first - profit last.

Second every candidate has a duty to ask the blogger if they are using unpaid for copyrighted material on their blog. If you cannot follow the law where you place your ads why should I trust you as a candidate?

Again I am not accusing anyone of copyright infringement. I am simply saying, candidates better be mindful of this issue.

Now back to finishing the RICO. My doctor has me on painkillers until they can do another caudal racz - I am on a waiting list for an emergency procedure. I do not know why but painkillers act as a stimulant for me. My pain management doctor tells me this is common among people with ADD and ADHD - who knows. As far as I know I have neither. basically I am having a good day - tomorrow will be bad because I cannot handle the nightmares the painkillers give me.


BobbyWC said...

here is an interesting debate on the issue.


I was checking to see if a constitutional amendment is needed to eliminate the office. I could not find anything - if some type vote is required in Austin then we are talking a year or more before the first real step.

If a constitutional Amendment is needed we are talking maybe nearly two years.

I am willing to post any research anyone can find on the issue.

But this is Hasse's job - does he even know what needs to get done. It is not that the idea is bad - what is evident is hasse has not really done his research

Bobby WC

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

FINALLY YOU GET IT, sort of. The first real step is getting someone in the office willing to abolish the office through our vote in March. THAT is the first step. That person is then entrusted with the support of the people with forcing the issue. That is the difference between Hasse and Betancourt. One wants another four-year paid vacation signing checks. The other wants to save us money and in the process show the people want crystal clear change.

It cannot be done only by the local Commissioners' Court as you so eloquently demanded. Why? Because like other county positions the job of County Treasurer is a constitutional office. So you demanding Hasse go to Commissioners' Court and have them put on the agenda is moot. It isn't like the County Surveyor position which could be done by their vote.

For the record, you must add this as an update to your readers. It is evident it cannot be done locally. Hasse knows this or I'm sure he would have done so already when he came up with the idea. Don't spam the commissioners or the county judge. You should provide some sort of retraction to this what is evident is hasse has not really done his research.

If you notice Bobby, on Hasse's website, it says he will involve local and state officials to get this done. Furthermore, and here's the kicker, how else would he know 9 other counties did it if he didn't know it involves a constitutional amendment? How else would he get the number or are you questioning the accuracy of that number? You need to stop implying through your "question" does he even know what needs to get done that Hasse is this naive and doesn't know this. He has obviously done the research.

It is a long campaign. You can't snap your fingers and expect to get all your questions answered. Life doesn't work this way. However, I'm glad to see you took the time to do the research yourself.

For the record, Rene Oliviera's law office isn't running for anything. It should be separate from his campaign. You do not have proof that Hasse has ever visited your site or knows about your question. I called your bluff to ask Hasse yourself but rather than do that you originally wanted other people to contact him for you. But again, kudos for you in finding out about what other counties in the state have tried to do. The next step for you and your people is to try and work with Hasse to get this done. It could very well be the first step to getting reform and professionalism in the county and the state.

BobbyWC said...

before your post about the constitutional amendment I posted the correction. My posts are marked with times so my readers can see i am not posting my daily comments and then going in a posting anony comments - this is actually done elsewhere

everything is time marked and recorded in my system.

So I did make the correction before your post

and you are 100% wrong about commissioners court - you are drinking some very hard kool aide if you think Oliviera, Lucio Jr, and Lucio III are going to push for the constitutional amendment without a vote first asking for same from commissioners court.

Again it is not my job to run Hasse's campaign - he is not telling us about support from Commissioners Court, the current candidates for country judge and the commission and Oliveira and Lucio Jr., and Lucio III because if it comes out there is no support for his promise it is an empty promise.

This is dishonest -

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Bobby, there is no kool-aid to drink because my only point was a vote is not legally necessary and their vote will not abolish the office which was your belief.

As to your supposed updates before my post, you cannot prove it. You do not have a post date of your update before my comment. I only see 1 something and well that was well after I commented and it sure didn't say anything about the constitution. It is a convoluted edit job to try and make it look like you actually did something before I corrected you. You sound like a whiny four year old saying "I thought about it first."

Why does a candidate who is not elected yet suppose to start lobbying for something from elected officials or candidates? Is it not more powerful to convince the people, the voters? Is it not likely that those candidates who support the idea will be asked at forums and debates or by the press? You keep saying it is not your job to do Hasse's job. Well why don't you go do your job as an alleged watchdog? Start demanding the candidates give their opinion on this issue and maybe someone will start taking you seriously as a reporter and not some loon with a keyboard. You bore me Bobby. You really do. With as many comments as you get I'm sure others are getting bored of you as well. Time to move on.

BobbyWC said...

For someone who finds the BV of no value why do you spend so much time reading it and posting stupid comments.

I think you know how the process works but you are so determined to insult me you fail to think out the ramifications of your comments.

If I read your comments and assume you actually know what you are saying, you are saying it will take Hasse 4 years to get what he wants and in the process will spend 1 million dollars of the taxpayers money.

First again you are drinking something very powerful if you thing that without a vote from commissioners court Oliveira and the two Lucios are going to put this before the state legislature to have put on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

to go back to your own words - Hasse has to get elected first before he starts to lobby on this issue - if this is true then it will take 4 years to accomplish - actual knowledge of the process does matter.

If Hasse waits until january 2011 to start lobbying the right people there is no way the Lucios and Oliviera will get the matter before the state legislature for a vote in 2011. Thousands of Bills fail every two years because people wait until the last minute. Hasse needs ot have Oliveira nd the Lucios on board by August 2010 if he has any chance of them getting this filed and heard during the very short 2011 legislative session. A session which I am sure will be dominated by redistricting.

This means the next available date will by 2013 with a constitutional vote in November 2013.

Pretty good con job - the game plan is to take 4 years to get rid of the Office of the Treasuser

Also his web page says "The duties of the Treasurer have been absorbed by the Texas
Auditors Department for a long time"

think about it.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Tad never said it would take a short time. He will essentially be elected on March 2nd. He can start lobbying with the people behind him then.

Con? Give it a rest will ya? So you're saying NO amendments will voted on in 2011 because of redistricting? Dude you're smoking something. It's not safe under your condition. There are always amendments on the ballot after a session. I hate to tell you, but you're talking out of your ass.

BobbyWC said...

I did not say there will be no amendments - I said the focus will be on redistricting thereby making it harder to get heard on other issues especially if you try and get you matter in at the last minute.

There are already people pushing Amendments. Theirs will get a chance to get heard because they are already lobbying for the Amendment.

Just keep on digging the hole deeper for Hasse. If he can lobby in March why then can he not lobby now and tell us who supports him?

YOu have no answer - plain and simple. he is making a promise without any knowledge as to whether or not he can keep it and that is what angers me and not the issue of whether or not we should get rid of the position. Again I am 100% in support of ending the election of country treasurers.

Bobby Wc

Anonymous said...

If he can lobby in March why then can he not lobby now and tell us who supports him?

He will have the Democratic nomination in March. He is trying to get that far obviously. When that happens, he will be able to use that to the people's advantage.

I did not say there will be no amendments

Thanks for the modification. But you did say, "This means the next available date will by 2013 with a constitutional vote in November 2013." Doesn't that mean there is no available date before hand?

Honestly Bobby, I think what angers you is that you didn't think of the idea yourself. That you aren't there to coach him. You could still have a seat at the table if you only took the bull by the horns and offer to him help personally. If you knew Tad, you would know he is a genius. He is also smart enough that he needs other smart people around him, but you won't give him the opportunity because you would rather let him sink than swim. You would rather throw stones at him from across the street than meet a genuinely good person in the middle.

That is what bothers me. That is what eats inside of you. You just can't stand it can you? I was going to give it a rest, but I just couldn't sit by and watch you try and burn a man you don't even know. I am not going to let you do that to an honest individual. He is the kind of guy we want in politics, but you just refuse to see it. You refuse to even try and contact him. You refuse because you are so thickheaded and blind. Either that or you just want this place to continue to fail so you can go, see I told you so.

You really do sound more and more like Rush Limbaugh everyday.

BobbyWC said...

Dude you just do not get it - Isimply raise the question that people need to ask if the promise made by a politician, in this case, eliminating the office of country treasurer is doable before they vote for the guy on the promise. For this heinous question you attack me. It is a question I would apply to Betancourt and everyone else if they were making such bold promises which on the surface appear overly seductive.

Your argument that Hasse does not need to tell us now who supports him on the promise is mind-numbing. If I believe in the promise as a voter then I want to voter for everyone who will get behind the promise.

How smart can Tad be if he needs a commentator to point out the obvious.

It is my job to get people to think about campaign promises and not to do the job for any candidate. I have not said a kind word about Betancourt. I have set out my standard for whom I am going to vote. Neither candidate has met that standard. My readers who are trying to be objective can see I will be voting for neither candidate because neither candidate is willing to denounce the corruption within the Cameron County Democratic Party, or call for the resignation of Juliet Garcia.

As to the 2013 date - I cannot help the law. Our Legislature meets only once ever 2 years from January to June. Legislators are already working the process for Constitutional Amendments they will try and introduce during the 2011 session, for a November 2011 vote. If Hasse misses this date the next date by law will be in 2013.

Bobby WC