Monica Wallace and Assembly Bill 1748

[mark blazejewski]

This is from a Monica Wallace Campaign mailer in 2016:




Is this what you REALLY want?

[Greg Sojka]

Lancaster resident and 143rd assemblywoman Monica Wallace is really a disappointment as she acts as a bystander to sexual harassment in Erie County social services, Erie County Water Authority patronage hirings , and voting yes on bill# 1748. A true champion would speak out about these injustices. Monica Wallace must tow the democrat line to PAYBACK her democrat donors that invested so much in her election. It would be refreshing to have an elected official do the right thing regardless of political affiliation. I believe good people from all parties exist but are not endorsed because they will not cater to the establishment politicians or chairmen.

[shortstuff]

This is from a Monica Wallace Campaign mailer in 2016:




Is this what you REALLY want?

She will be a one term politician over this platform.

[mark blazejewski]

She will be a one term politician over this platform.

More than a platform Shortstuff, it appears to be the dutiful assertion of her values and point of view, IMHO. You may be right on the one-term thingy.

[mark blazejewski]

Lancaster resident and 143rd assemblywoman Monica Wallace is really a disappointment as she acts as a bystander to sexual harassment in Erie County social services, Erie County Water Authority patronage hirings , and voting yes on bill# 1748. A true champion would speak out about these injustices. Monica Wallace must tow the democrat line to PAYBACK her democrat donors that invested so much in her election. It would be refreshing to have an elected official do the right thing regardless of political affiliation. I believe good people from all parties exist but are not endorsed because they will not cater to the establishment politicians or chairmen.

You are totally correct on this Greg. I doubt that it is a coincidence that many of these "ethics-minded" citizens-turned-politicians-turned-elected leaders, seem to act in synchronicity with the principles and philosophies of their party label(s).

She had a huge war chest in 2016. Much of that money seemed, IMHO, to come from teacher unions, major law firms, and other special interest groups.

Turns out going to the NYS Assembly is not like going to law school on a Tilden Scholarship. It is more like being in debt and struggling to pay back a college loan.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Greg Sojka:
It would be refreshing to have an elected official do the right thing regardless of political affiliation.

At least, North Tonawanda democrat assemblyman Schimminger has a conscience and voted no.

[grump]

Robin Schimminger is one of the few Democrats, hell, the only Democrat west of Syracuse, with the stones to vote against the party line. He’s been all over Il Douche’s bogus, criminal “economic development” scams, a fact barely reported upon by the shoe shine rag and the Democratic Party public relations operation locally known as Ch 2 news.

[mark blazejewski]

Robin Schimminger is one of the few Democrats, hell, the only Democrat west of Syracuse, with the stones to vote against the party line. He’s been all over Il Douche’s bogus, criminal “economic development” scams, a fact barely reported upon by the shoe shine rag and the Democratic Party public relations operation locally known as Ch 2 news.

When Hawley and DiPietro are on the same page as Schimminger, it suggests that she is out of touch with mainstream WNY values.

I posted this on someone's FB page:

" In 2016, she ran as a "blank slate;" a political unknown, appealing to the faith-based, hard working people of the 143rd. During that campaign, she related the compelling story of her single-parent mom, touching and admirable, and how she was now raising her own family with those learned values. (But after all, I believe that she did teach a seminar in "Story Telling," or simply put, how to construct a compelling narrative by exploiting facts.)

Well, we all can now fill in one of the "blanks" on the "slate." She appears to be an ultra-liberal, who voted for 1748, a Bill, which, IMHO, is outside of the mainstream of WNY values and thinking. (Schimminger, Hawley in 2017 and 2018, and in 2017, Kearns all voted "No" on 1748.)

My goodness, one would think that since the vote carried by more than two votes, she could have cast a vote against this abomination, which, I think, would have more accurately reflected what I perceive to be, a core-value of the faith-based people of the 143rd that she represents, perhaps to the exclusion her own viewpoint.

Apparently, SHE FEELS VERY STRONGLY about the "virtues" FULL TERM ABORTION."

Need to keep an eye on the Supreme Court concerning this case Grump. If the Court rules against Pro-Life groups on this one, we know where Wallace would fall on such a law for New York:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-court/555887/

[mark blazejewski]

Let's also remember the saying "You are the company you keep."

In giving:

JACZEWSKI, DAWN
182 CENTRAL AVE
LANCASTER, NY 14086

70.00 28-JUN-16 FRIENDS OF MONICA WALLACE 2016 July Periodic A Member of Assembly

And receiving:

WALLACE, MONICA P
47 REHM ROAD
LANCASTER, NY 14086

125.00 02-JUN-17 FRIENDS OF JOHN BRUSO 2017 July Periodic A County Legislator

[Lee Chowaniec]

I am surprised that someone could be shocked and or disappointed in the performance of Monica Wallace. She usurped the campaign message of ethical reform espoused by her opponent a few years back – an opponent who had already introduced a policy of ethical reform when a Trustee in the Village of Lancaster.

Monica followed up her false narrative with disingenuous campaign language/literature regarding her scholastic accomplishments. In office now she has become the prototypical lap dog of the progressive/liberal Democratic Party.

Voting ‘yes’ on this bill flies in the face of the values of the residents in the municipalities she represents. She should have known better and should have at least abstained from the voting process.

I disagree with the Bruso guilt by association analogy. Party players all support one another. Then again Republican Party candidate Russell Sugg could have used more support from his Party.

Straight line voting by party affiliation has consequences. Here is a prime example.

[mark blazejewski]

QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec

I disagree with the Bruso guilt by association analogy. Party players all support one another.

To be honest with you Lee, if the Democrats did not constantly play that game, I would tend to agree with your comment. BUT, and that is a very big BUT, the Democrats chronically have played that game, especially in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

In fact, the Democrats have been known to publicly condemn PRIVATE citizens for donations to opposing political causes. These citizens seek not elective or appointed office, or any form of patronage. It seems to me that those who do seek office, such as Legislator Bruso and the distinguished Council Member, should necessarily be held to an even higher standard.

To the Democrats: "...for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.""

Then again Republican Party candidate Russell Sugg could have used more support from his Party.

Suffice it to say, you are correct, as you usually are.

[mark blazejewski]

=Lee Chowaniec;

I disagree with the Bruso guilt by association analogy. Party players all support one another.

Lee, having struggled with the concept of fairness concerning your bracketed comments, let me refine post #11. While I still feel that Mr. Bruso should be held accountable for his association, as the Democrats would do to a Republican in kind, let me offer this distinction:

The Catholic Church teaches that there are two types of sin: Venial and Mortal.

Legislator Bruso is a Democrat "Party player," and received support from a campaign contribution from Ms. Wallace. As such, I can understand where fair-minded people would hold that he is not entirely responsible for the subsequent acts of a supporter. Ergo, the level of political sin may be considered to be "Venial."

Regarding the Council Member that I understand to be a "Conservative," and not a typical Democrat Party player, I should think that any support given to a candidate, who voted for a Bill which would effectively vacate a law restricting abortion limited to the Second Trimester, and extending that time period to the full nine months, would seemingly have committed "Mortal Sin" against classic Conservative doctrine and belief.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Mark, the new normal in politics to defeat one’s opponent is by using any means to destroy his or her character, their integrity, and even their spirit - most of the time through slander, unsubstantiated claims, mean-spirited personal attacks and or ‘guilt by association’ claims.

Because the Lancaster Democratic Party used those tactics so well in the last few elections does not mean it should be fair game for the Republican and other parties to use like practices.- especially when a a candidate gets elected into office.

Bruso has only been in office less than three months and has been active in working with the Town of Lancaster (especially with Highway Superintendent Amatura) in getting the County delayed transfer of ownership, operation and maintenance of Penora Street – and likewise working on making the same arrangement on Lake Avenue. He has been charged by the county to address traffic and traffic safety issues on several of the county’s roads in the town.

The job of a politician is to listen to his or hers constituents and act in the best interest of the community. If you saw Bruso sitting and talking with someone you considered despicable (for whatever reason) would that influence your opinion of the man’s ability to govern? Would you hold him guilty of something just because he communicated with someone you held a bad opinion of?

Bruso has yet to prove himself. Wallace has had two years.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Because the Lancaster Democratic Party used those tactics so well in the last few elections does not mean it should be fair game for the Republican and other parties to use like practices.- especially when a a candidate gets elected into office.

I beg to differ, Lee. In the most recent election, it was the Republicans who used unsubstantiated claims by posting the wrong budget numbers for 2008-2012 to give the impression of a 99.72% tax levy increase in 10 years.



The factual numbers
2008 - $17,398,567
2009 - $17,960,974
2010 - $18,625,139
2011 - $20,650,622
2012 - $20,797,167
2013 - $20,628,427
2014 - $20,398,956
2015 - $20,338,329
2016 - $20,826,862
2017 - $21,400,593
2018 - $22,416,476

28.8% is an increase but it is not near 99.72% as the Republicans alleged. Just my 2¢

[mark blazejewski]

I beg to differ, Lee. In the most recent election, it was the Republicans who used unsubstantiated claims by posting the wrong budget numbers for 2008-2012 to give the impression of a 99.72% tax levy increase in 10 years.



The factual numbers
2008 - $17,398,567
2009 - $17,960,974
2010 - $18,625,139
2011 - $20,650,622
2012 - $20,797,167
2013 - $20,628,427
2014 - $20,398,956
2015 - $20,338,329
2016 - $20,826,862
2017 - $21,400,593
2018 - $22,416,476

28.8% is an increase but it is not near 99.72% as the Republicans alleged. Just my 2¢

Statistics and language in any campaign are slanted by both sides. It seems that there was one Democrat candidate in 2017 who was really misleading throughout the entire year, seemingly going back on his word in the post-November 7 world.

On your posting Georgia, you may be right, you may be wrong; that is in the eye of the interpreter. However, that mailer dealt with an issue, not with exaggerated, perceived or contrived personal frailties. That kind of nonsense destroys personal lives. Sorry Georgia, those 2015 Democrat tactics, in the world of sleaze and lies, dwarfs the run of the mill twists and distortions of facts that some, such as yourself, may considered to have been unjustified hyperbolic advocacy in 2017. That tactic, in my world, has always been, is, and will remain, just politics.

In fact, it was the Democrats, throughout the 2015 campaign, that repeatedly used intimidation, and vicious personal attacks, all leading to what I believe to have been a staged Election Day, made-for-tv and radio show. I'm sorry, but that entire fandango, seemed to many to be a contrived, high drama soap opera, complete with seemingly pre-planned, if not pre-recorded robo-calls, IMHO, and attendant encore media performances.

If the Republicans were able to make their point in some way in 2017, it showed the development of some political campaign skill, which has been lacking for almost sixty years.

If your observations are correct, GOOD, the Democrats finally got a little of what they have always given.