Thursday, August 20, 2009

Anne Giddings (Council, at-large) on the 09/10 Capital Budget

Anne is well-spoken and comes prepared. You can't see it well on the video, but Anne's sign had two comments. One comment read "pool spending." This was on the top half, when the sign was partly "in the red." And I forget what the bottom half read... though she describes it in the video. Regardless, she made a great presentation. I'm expecting the same valuable thoughts and comments to continue when she joins the Council in December.

Also, if you watch the five minute video you'll hear her mention her bicycle. That reminded me of a comment made to me by my mom recently. My mom said that when she first met Anne, thirty years ago, Anne used to ride her bike from her home (next to Boulder Knoll) to Mixville everyday to act as a camp councilor. My point? She doesn't just talk about protecting the environment and living healthy and all these other good causes... her life has been a model for them.

And on a somewhat related note... Anne's brother-in-law, John Ashcroft, will be the honored guest at an evening event in Cheshire on September 17. If you'd like more details, please contact RTC Chair Marilyn Bartoli.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

She has my vote.

Anonymous said...

Very well spoken...she has my vote too.

Anonymous said...

Well I am not sure she has mine, or Tim's too for that matter.

Tim, your favorite guy is not too big on your party's special guest?

Anonymous said...

Where is the tranparency? If bringing Ashcroft into Town is such a glorious event, why is it a so private and covert. Isn't the AG a man of the people that can be see by commoners?

Anonymous said...

Question for candidate Anne: How does your career as an educator jive with Councilman White's votes on BoE matters since he's been on the Council?

tim white said...

"why is it a so private and covert"

huh? I mentioned it here. Why is it "covert?"

10:54 PM

Anne seems to be happy to answer questions here, but the questions really ought to be more specific than your question. Furthermore, if you look at some previous posts you'll see that Anne has already addressed some education-related questions.

The reality is that the main role of the Council is to vote on a dollar amount and that's the amount of money given to the schools.

Anonymous said...

Wow, How in the world did Mr. Hall go against council rules and allow this angry mobster more than the allotted three minutes of public comment time? I remember that Mr. Hall and Mr. Ecke would hold a stop watch when I tried to voice a comment. I guess times have changed and rules are no longer followed, just like our Constitution.


Anonymous said...

Well then, where will the AG be so we can say hello to him without having to make a donation?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mr. Ashcroft should answer the accusations that are now surrounding him concerning the intentional raising of the terror threat level when the Bush campaign needed a boost in the polls?

Scaring the pubic to death to raise Bush's numbers was IMHO done several times. Not only was this an immoral act it also costs the tax payers millions of dollars every time it was raised.

I'm pretty sure President Reagan would not stoop this low to win an election. I think Ms. Giddings will do just fine without this Bush puppet and the skeletons in his closet:

Cam Simpson reports on homeland security.

We haven’t seen a copy for ourselves yet, but a forthcoming memoir by Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security secretary, makes at least one headline-grabbing claim.

According to Ridge’s publisher, Thomas Dunne Books, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, tried to get Ridge to raise the terror-alert level on the eve of the 2004 presidential election. The publisher said the request from Ashcroft and Rumsfeld was a sort of final straw for Ridge, who wrote that he refused. “After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector,” Ridge is quoted as saying.

Ridge, you might recall, became Homeland Security secretary after the department was cobbled together following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The agency was given the responsibility for stopping the next terrorist attack but got none of the investigative or intelligence authorities to carry out that task; those belong to the FBI, the CIA and others.

The book is entitled “The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege and How We Can be Safe Again.” That reminds us of how Ridge famously urged Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to keep safe from a chemical or biological attack.

Ashcroft’s Washington consulting firm referred calls to Mark Corallo, Ashcroft’s spokesman at the Justice Department. Corallo said the episode “didn’t happen,” and added, “Now would be a good time for Mr. Ridge to use his emergency duct tape.”

Rumsfeld spokesman Keith M. Urbahn was similarly pointed: “The storyline advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense.” He recalled that in the fall of 2004, Osama bin Laden was threatening further attacks. “Given those facts, it would seem reasonable for senior administration officials to discuss the threat level,” Urbahn said. “Indeed, it would have been irresponsible had that discussion not taken place.”

Think about it!


Tim White said...

where will the AG be so we can say hello to him without having to make a donation?

Probably at Marilyn's house or at Cugino's. We've had almost all RTC fundraisers at either of those two locations over the past few years.

Why though? Are you planning to attend to protest? There's a lot of it nowadays. I support the 1st amendment. But I also ask you a very sincere question...

What's the precedent on protesting former officials? I mean, he's not in office. And there have been no rumors of him running for POTUS. So is it appropriate to protest?

As for whether you're planning to protest... it just struck me that way when you were talking about a "covert" fundraiser.

Tim White said...

btw, if you are seriously concerned about Ashcroft's actions while in office (and I know some people are)... then simply ask President Obama to investigate. Or if you live in Cheshire, ask Congressman Murphy to ask President Obama.

To me, that seems like a more appropriate course of action... rather than what appears to be you wanting to personally confront someone who has left the public domain.

Have you already written to the President and Congressman (whoever it is) and gotten unsatisfactory responses?

Anonymous said...


I really think you need to respond to Ron Paul's critism of Ashcroft in the 6:09PM post.

You have gone bannana's when there was a chance about having to publicize all emails between TC members and the public.

Now you have Ashcroft coming who was a major supporter of the Patriot Act to the fundraiser.

And please do not even go there and try to claim there is some kind of difference between the town and what Ashcroft supported in the patriot act. There is not one. It is the same: liberties, freedoms and the constitution.

You are turning the blind eye. You are walking away from what you stand for. IF you do not think so please do the necessary research about Ashcroft.

And BTW having Ashcroft for the fundraiser is a bad move. Why do you think Obama and the democrats won? Because they were so great? No because people were tired of Bush and his cronies; and ASHCROFT IS ONE OF THEM!!

And in my opinion you are being evasive and smug with you responses to the poster of the Tom Ridge info.

You really have left me down.

tim white said...

I really think you need to respond to Ron Paul's critism of Ashcroft in the 6:09PM post.

As usual, Ron Paul is plain-spoken and makes sense. Frankly, I never followed Ashcroft's career much after he became AG. I followed his Senate term. Only significant memory I have of him as AG was when he picked up Padilla in Detroit. And considering I don't agree with people being held indefinitely, I looked up that history on Wikipedia. Basically, it said Padilla got transferred from Ashcroft's custody to Gitmo after a month. So I'm comfortable with Ashcroft's action in the Padilla case. And that was as far as I ever investigated Ashcroft's actions as AG. But I did research the one issue that I knew had crossed his path. And I was comfortable with that... though Wikipedia is an imperfect source.

As for Ron Paul's concerns with the Patriot Act, I'd really need to investigate it in depth. I mean, was Ashcroft doing what he believed... or was he following orders? And where do I draw the line? In general, Bush was wrong about the Patriot Act... and Ashcroft was too, if he truly believed it. It went too far in many respects, as the good doctor notes. But to a certain extent, Chief Executives all seem to have this theory that they need to protect the world from every possible danger. And in that regard, I have a bigger problem with the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress that failed to ask any critical questions and simply fulfilled their namesake.

As for the stuff put forward by MJR about Ridge... I wasn't trying to be evasive... heck, I simply didn't address the comment. Those are accusations. Ugly accusations? Yes, but I'd have to hear the other two sides of the story to make a judgment. And frankly, I think it is a responsibility for someone like Ashcroft (or maybe it should have been Mueller) to vet the various information they have and to always consider the situation. And while it would be horrible, if it happened for political purposes... those discussions should be had on an ongoing basis... during the first week of November... and every other week of the year. But then, I never even liked the idea of the multi-colored alert system. I'm a believer that we need to look at history, particularly the interactions between the US and Iran governments, to begin to address many of the problems faced by America today.

If you have more specific examples that you want me discuss, I'll take a look (I'm not reading hundreds of pages for this). But I'm not about to go research his record beyond the research that I did a few weeks ago (before you mentioned this) when this first came up. At that time, I was wondering about his post-Senate career and briefly researched the one issue (Padilla) that had been a concern to me.

Anonymous said...

glad to see that Anne is not leaning to the right

Anonymous said...


You are so cherry picking information. Look at your August 5post where you claim Ashcroft a defender of the constitution. How can you make that claim when you just said you did not follow his AG career? It is a baseless claim on your part. Not because your claim is correct or incorrect, it is because you did not research it. You claim Ashcroft talks the talk and walks the walk; well you cannot be for the Constitution and for the Patriot Act.

Again my post is not about Ashcroft or a rubber stamp Congress, it is about you, and what you stand for. You began this when you twice posted on your blog about this special and honary guest.

You always seemed to be part of the new republican party (Ron Paul), not the old one represented by Bush.

I will dig up some more information on AG Ashcroft for your review.

Breachway said...

I would agree that Ashcroft is the wrong choice to help promote your run for a Republican, i want to get away from these guys....

Anonymous said...


I have provided some examples that you said you would look at in your last post.

Please read this article:

No comments on it being from the "World Socialist Web Site". I am no proponent of socialism. However the article does nicely summarize what happenened to Padilla under Ashcroft's justice department and that the reason why he went to military prison. Are you for due process, because is was Ashcroft's Justice Department's that ignored Padilla's right to it.

Now let's move on a bit to what I think you call Cheshire's Golden Elite or something. I am pretty sure this is the group, whoever they maybe where I am assuming politicians grant favor to the public; like that builder who got something for $10, easement I think. Well Mr Ashcroft belongs to the same ilk:

Now lets go to Ashcroft's speaking tour supporting the Patriot Act, the one where he was met with at times as many protestors as people attending the events. YOu can read more at

Let me know if you need more information, we still have to cover Sibel Edmonds and torturing.

I am still counting on you to come through and see the light.

Anonymous said...

I am a Republican but Ashcroft was bad for the Party and the Country. Not sure why he would be speaking for a candidate for the TC. Cheshire RTC needs to stick to local issues....not sure the Chairwoman gets it.

tim white said...

not sure if I'll get to your comments tonight, but intend to get to them.

Anonymous said...

I love the fact that Obama sent the liberals howling by upholding key parts of the Patriot Act, and foot dragging on closing Gitmo.

A large number of Gitmo detainees who've been released have returned to active terrorism. Surprise! They're really not innocent boy scouts!

Now that Obama is president and is actually responsible for public security, he's had to ignore the reactionary left and do the right things on these issues.

Tim White said...

You are so cherry picking information. Look at your August 5post where you claim Ashcroft a defender of the constitution. How can you make that claim when you just said you did not follow his AG career?

No intentional cherry picking on my part. Just think back to 2001 - 2005... who in the Bush cabinet got headlines? Colin Powell and Don Rumsfeld. At least that's how I remember it.

I have memories of Ashcroft as a Senator. I remember hearing (in December 2000) the MSM say that Bush finally named someone to his cabinet who would satisfy conservatives. Even RPs LewRockwell piece suggests that he defended the Constitution while in the Senate.

Beyond that, I have one glaring memory of Ashcroft while in office - when he stood before the cameras (in Russia, no less... I recall the grainy video) and announced the arrest of Padilla.

And as I previously mentioned, I did a cursory review of the aftermath of the arrest and it seemed reasonable. Don't get me wrong... imprisoning Padilla without any sort of indictment for four years was very, very wrong. But he wasn't in Ashcroft's custody. And while I'll try to read your links soon, I haven't yet. And on the surface, one month in custody... for someone who was ultimately convicted... seems bad to me... but 24 hours is widely accepted... so obviously some incarceration is acceptable... and the weight of the crimes seems relevant to me... though I don't understand why they didn't just tail him with 24 hr surveillance. Risk of escape, I'm sure.

That really was my only memory of Ashcroft during the 01-05 period. But since then, as I mentioned in the post you mentioned... while in his hospital bed, he told the POTUS "no." I don't think that's an easy thing to do.

So to address your question... I based my claim on two separate issues... both of which seemed to very much be defending the Constitution... as well as the headlines he got while in the Senate.

Having said all that, you gave me some links. I'll take a look at them. But in the meantime, at the risk of being accused of moving goalposts... do you have links to any MSM articles? I mean, I don't see any reason to trust the World Socialist Website any more than NBD though. I ought to be able to find keywords and find relevant articles in the MSM.

Oh... and as for Ridge, I googled him. He's still in the running for POTUS in 2012. Ashcroft is not. IMO, one must view Ridge's assertions through a political lens... that is, he may still be looking for headlines. Ashcroft is not. He's coming here because of family... not because he's running for President.

I'll try to read some of that stuff soon... but wanted to give you some response in the meantime.

Anonymous said...


I do not need or want a response in the meantime. Even in this response you are side stepping. You are asking for MSM articles to begin to discredit what I have already provided.

Again I think the commments made by Ron Paul and the ariticles I provided should make you question your beliefs. The choice is yours. Again this is about you and what you believe. The things Ashcroft stands for as I have pointed out run counter to your beliefs.

Bill said...

The idea to bring Ashcroft to Town is for fundraising right? If you provide the amount of dollars you intend to raise by bringing him here, then maybe real Republicans will pledge to double that amount if he does not show up. Bringing a worthless past member of the Bush administration to town to raise money for a local election just demonstrates how desperate the "R's" are to win. Do yourself a favor and he rest of us, tell him he clear his calendar on that day for some other worthless political public meeting.

Tim White said...

This one:

sounds pretty bad... particularly about the guy who was held for eight months without being charged. As I've said before, holding Padilla for four years without charging him was terrible... and frankly made the gov't look incredibly stupid since he was convicted after the finally charged him.

Tim White said...

This one:

looks bad too... and I don't see any way that this deal should have been accepted by Ashcroft. But it seems to me that the real problem here is Christopher Christie, the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey... not the former AG.

Btw, is this contract still in force? It's dated Jan 2008. I'm wondering if Holder has already reviewed this and concluded that it was a raw deal for the taxpayers... or if the former AGs firm was the only firm capable of performing this function?

Tim White said...

This one:

is too long to read right now. But in general, I don't like the Patriot Act. At best, it should've been given a 12 mos sunset clause and vigorously debated before it expired... to determine if it should have been changed / renewed. I don't recall any real debate happening on the PA until years later.

Anonymous said...


Very sad that you are not doing the right thing here and seeing Ashcroft for what he is. I have provided a sampling of the information about Ashcroft; there is so much more.

My examples of Ashcroft's behavior go directly against what you rant about on this blog. I think that you want to beat the democrats so bad you will do whatever is necessary and not make waves in your party.

You may talk the talk, but you do not walk the walk.

tim white said...

What is your concern or question? The only question I recall from the above comments is:

How can you make that claim when you just said you did not follow his AG career?

I explained that my claim was based on his Senate career, his appointment as AG and two particular points in his AG career.

I went on to say that the issues you mentioned look bad. (Btw, SPTimes is MSM IMO. I just didn't recognize it based on the URL)

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm simply at a loss as to your point. Do you want me to say that Ashcroft is a terrible person? I wouldn't say that. Do you want me to say that he's wrong on some issues? If so, I agree.

But FWIW, I normally try to avoid painting anyone as good or bad because of one particular issue. I'm no fan of Chris Dodd... but in the past year I've defended him when I felt he was right (warrantless wiretaps... the same high profile issue on which I said I supported Ashcroft).

As for me just wanting "to beat the Democrats," I don't see it that way. Frankly, I think the GOP will probably win a Council majority without any party fundraising. And I'm not raising any money. I've had people ask me (just this weekend even) and I've refused it.

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I really don't see what you're getting at.

Anonymous said...

Bull Biscuits!

I normally try to avoid painting anyone good or bad because of one particular issue ...

Here are you own words: "Ashcroft is a good person who I believe not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. I respect that."

Here is the problem, when Altieri and Ecke and Hall, do stuff, you go on and on about how sick or fed up you are. However when Ashcroft has done the same things (and on a much larger scale), you nonchalantly indicate that you do not agree with him.

I just don't get it.

But anyway I am still going to vote for you. I hope the Democrats don't use this Ashcroft thing to tie you Republicans to the Bush administration; it may backfire on you. And Marty Cobern if you are reading this please do not write another editorial to the Herald about this; I may just have to cancel my subscription.

Good luck!!