Darrell McGraw vrs. Wimpy Legislators

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Do you really believe that some $50,000 AG staff lawyer with maybe one secretary can compete against corporate law firms with virtually unlimited resorces at their disposal?

The lawyer's not the question. If he can't do the job then he shouldn't have the job. That's simple. The support staff is the question. You can contract a hell of a lot of paralegals and support staff for a hell of a lot less then

3.3 FREAKING MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

With guys like you running our government for the past 70+ years, it's no wonder we're in the mess we are!!!

HA, and who is silly enough to believe that an AG Staff Lawyer only makes $50,000.

Aaron, I remember reading in the Gazette long time back that there was something like 270+- Lawyers working for the State.

And that "3.3 FREAKING MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!" isn't very much when it comes to "contracting Legal work".

GEEEZE, the WVEDA "bonding work" on the last "go around" that included monies for Cabella's up Jimmy's way ......... netted the "selected Lawyer(s)" about $5 FREAKING MILLION DOLLARS.

And that was just for doing the "paperwork", ..... no depositions, no discovery, no investigations, no trial, no accusing and no defense.

And that is what the State does with all such "bonding", including the SBA "bonding" to build all the new and consolidated Schools.

I consider all such as "legal political payback" using taxpayer money.

But what the hell, .......... the Democrats make the Laws.

They enacted the Dog Racing Laws, didn't they? And the "selected breeders" skim off MILLION$ each year.

.

ohio county wrote:He's spread the joy around and in every case, the appointees are his campaign contributors.

Are you sure? All that those Chamber of Commerce and WV Business & Industry Council ads say is that he "split it with his trial lawyer friends" or similar generic words and phrases that imply some impropriety, but actually say nothing. What evidence is there that McGraw sought out and appointed specifc campaign contributors to the exclusion of other trial lawyers who were not his campaign contributors?

Just lumping all "trial lawyers" together as a generic catagory of professionals is not evidence of impropriety.

ziggy wrote:

ohio county wrote:He's spread the joy around and in every case, the appointees are his campaign contributors.

Are you sure? All that those Chamber of Commerce and WV Business & Industry Council ads say is that he "split it with his trial lawyer friends" or similar generic words and phrases that imply some impropriety, but actually say nothing. What evidence is there that McGraw sought out and appointed specifc campaign contributors to the exclusion of other trial lawyers who were not his campaign contributors?

Just lumping all "trial lawyers" together as a generic catagory of professionals is not evidence of impropriety.

Forgive me, but aren't you the one spouting off about how our legislatures are the ones being bought by campaign contributors and that donations like those should be outlawed?

By McGraw doing state business with the very same people he's taking campaign contributions from, how is what he's doing any different?

Aaron wrote:Forgive me, but aren't you the one spouting off about how our legislatures are the ones being bought by campaign contributors and that donations like those should be outlawed?

Yes, absoultely. I do believe that public financing of political campaigns should exist in lieu of private campaign contributions- which should be oultlawed when and as public campaign financing is instituted.

By McGraw doing state business with the very same people he's taking campaign contributions from, how is what he's doing any different?

First, I am trying to establish with Jimmy that McGraw is actually doing state business with his campaign contributors to the deliberate exclusion of others.

But either way, the campaign laws are what they are. Until the campaign laws are changed for everyone, why should McGraw's political opponents- in the legislature example you cite, for example- go by one set of campaign rules, but McGraw himself be expected to go by another?

Oh, I see. First, it's not that McGraw is doing business with contributors, he has to be doing business with them exclusively and second, so long as the laws are what they are then ole Darrell’s got every right…

Talk about spouting out both sides of your a$$...



Seriously dude, you do know what a hypocrite is, don't you!!!

Aaron wrote:Seriously dude, you do know what a hypocrite is, don't you!!!

Yes. It is one who expects politicians he agrees with to go by one set of rules, and those he disagrees with to go by another. And that's what you are doing right here.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Seriously dude, you do know what a hypocrite is, don't you!!!

Yes. It is one who expects politicians he agrees with to go by one set of rules, and those he disagrees with to go by another. And that's what you are doing right here.

Just out of curiousity, what rule are you specifically talking about that McGraw is or isn't going by that I disagree with that makes me a hypocrite?

And exactly what is it that I do not agree with when it comes to McGraw?

Seems to me that if you're going to accuse me of being a hypocrite you could at least make an attempt to show how I am one. Proof of how you are would be nice, but at least make an attempt.

And for the record, you would be wrong. Of all the conversations you and I have had, I can recall one where I was wrong and you were right but for the life of me, I can't remember what it was about. Don't you ever get tired of it? You're problem is, you don't like it that I've been right all but one time which makes you wrong all but one time so whenever I take a stance, you pretty much automatically take the opposite side. It's had you, at times, arguing against your own previous stances. You (Stephanie should try this as well) really need to try and address topics based on what you think instead of trying to argue against me.

Aaron wrote:Just out of curiousity, what rule are you specifically talking about that McGraw is or isn't going by that I disagree with that makes me a hypocrite?

And exactly what is it that I do not agree with when it comes to McGraw?

Have you forgotten already? As you told Stephanie just yesterday, read your previous posts.

How are things down there in Florida? I hope the weather is great and that you enjoy your trip. You may be a little flaky- maybe sometimes even a little flakier than I am even- but you still deserve to enjoy your trip south in mid-February.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Just out of curiousity, what rule are you specifically talking about that McGraw is or isn't going by that I disagree with that makes me a hypocrite?

And exactly what is it that I do not agree with when it comes to McGraw?

Have you forgotten already? As you told Stephanie just yesterday, read your previous posts.

How are things down there in Florida? I hope the weather is great and that you enjoy your trip. You may be a little flaky- maybe sometimes even a little flakier than I am even- but you still deserve to enjoy your trip south in mid-February.

Nice and warm heer.

As I told Stephanine and you previously, my complaint was with McGraw giving government work out on a contigency basis. So what rules are you talking about?

Aaron wrote:Nice and warm heer.

As I told Stephanine and you previously, my complaint was with McGraw giving government work out on a contigency basis. So what rules are you talking about?

The same rules you were talking about when you started the "hypocrite" talk, Aaron. You so soon forget even your own posts. Is it Alzheimer's? Or a bad reaction to Geritol?

Are you sure? All that those Chamber of Commerce and WV Business & Industry Council ads say is that he "split it with his trial lawyer friends" or similar generic words and phrases that imply some impropriety, but actually say nothing. What evidence is there that McGraw sought out and appointed specifc campaign contributors to the exclusion of other trial lawyers who were not his campaign contributors?

I was here last night. But I wasn't born last night.

I don't have a whole lot of time (social gadfly and all) but here is the beginning. This is only relevant to Purdue Pharma. The hired guns are listed here:

http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/calendar/sept22_05m.htm

You will find Marvin Masters and a whole host of his associates at DiTrapano Barrett and DiPiero here:

http://www.wvsos.com/elections/PDF/Candidates/004507243.pdf

Eric Frankovitch is also listed. So is Carl Frankovitch.

Remember this is one of four reporting cycles in 2004. There's lots more, I just don't have time to do all the leg work right now.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Nice and warm heer.

As I told Stephanine and you previously, my complaint was with McGraw giving government work out on a contigency basis. So what rules are you talking about?

The same rules you were talking about when you started the "hypocrite" talk, Aaron. You so soon forget even your own posts. Is it Alzheimer's? Or a bad reaction to Geritol?

I never said a candidate shouldn't do busiess with a campaign contributor. I merely pointed out that you've said that in the past and that you are now contridicting that stance, which is hypocritical on your part. When you talk out both sides of your a$$ as you are here, that is hypocritical, don't you agree!!!

So what rule have I taken both sides of the issue on? This is like the 3rd time I've ask.

The WV Record through a Freedom of Information Act was able to list:

Troy Giatras Capitol One & other credit card companies/Marsh McLennan and AIG
Joseph N. Kravec " " " " " " "
John C. Evans " " " " " " "
DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPiero Purdue Pharma
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll " "
G. David Burnfield " "
Law Office of William Druckman " "
Robert Fitzsimmons Marsh & McLennan and AIG
Marvin Masters " " " "
Edward S. Cook " " " "
Robert A. Goldberg Risperdal (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen)
Barry Hill " and Duragesic
Teresa Toriseva VISA USA and Mastercard
Timothy C. Bailey " " " "
Guy R. Bucci " " " "

All or most of those folks can be found as contributors on one or another of these:

http://www.wvsos.com/elections/PDF/Candidates/004723494.pdf

http://www.wvsos.com/elections/PDF/Candidates/004507243.pdf

*NOTE: when they want to make it really confusing, they print it sideways.

I think what really galls these guys is they pay all that money out to buy the Governorship and elect their own guys to all these offfices so they can get a free ride and then McGraw nails them thru the back door and makes them pay their fair share.

Life can be so cruel sometimes OC.

shermangeneral wrote:I think what really galls these guys is they pay all that money out to buy the Governorship and elect their own guys to all these offfices so they can get a free ride and then McGraw nails them thru the back door and makes them pay their fair share.

Life can be so cruel sometimes OC.

What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Aaron wrote:I never said a candidate shouldn't do busiess with a campaign contributor. I merely pointed out that you've said that in the past and that you are now contridicting that stance, which is hypocritical on your part. When you talk out both sides of your a$$ as you are here, that is hypocritical, don't you agree!!!

It is not hypocritical to point out that the campaign finance rules are what they are, and that they should apply to everyone equally until they are changed.

So what rule have I taken both sides of the issue on? This is like the 3rd time I've ask

You suggested that Mcgraw should be held to one set of campaihgn finance rules, and that legislators should be held to another, to wit:

Aaron wrote:Forgive me, but aren't you the one spouting off about how our legislatures are the ones being bought by campaign contributors and that donations like those should be outlawed?

By McGraw doing state business with the very same people he's taking campaign contributions from, how is what he's doing any different?

You are trying to put words in my mouth, again. I did not say that it was any different. But unless and until the campaign finance rules are changed, it would be inconsistent to hold McGraw or anyone else to one set of campaign finance rules while legislators are allowed a different set of such rules. You can't have it both ways at once.

We can either live with the current rules for everyone, or we can support different rules. But unless and until the law is changed, we cannot support one set of campaign finance rules for some, but another set of campaign finance rules for everyone else. Well, maybe you could- but not the rest of us.

ziggy wrote:
You suggested that Mcgraw should be held to one set of campaihgn finance rules, and that legislators should be held to another, to wit:
You are trying to put words in my mouth, again. I did not say that it was any different. But unless and until the campaign finance rules are changed, it would be inconsistent to hold McGraw or anyone else to one set of campaign finance rules while legislators are allowed a different set of such rules. You can't have it both ways at once.

No sir, I suggested no such thing and for you to imply that I did is at best, deceiving, in all actuality closer to a flat out lie. You were the one that in discussing campaign contributions with Jimmy stated it was perfectly ok for McGraw to accept campaign contributions from individuals he conducts state business with. I merely pointed out that in the past you have said the exact opposite (albeit it with someone you do not support) and just how hypocritical you were.

ziggy wrote:We can either live with the current rules for everyone, or we can support different rules. But unless and until the law is changed, we cannot support one set of campaign finance rules for some, but another set of campaign finance rules for everyone else. Well, maybe you could- but not the rest of us.

That's the third side of this issue you've been on. Can't you make up your mind?

Aaron wrote:No sir, I suggested no such thing and for you to imply that I did is at best, deceiving, in all actuality closer to a flat out lie. You were the one that in discussing campaign contributions with Jimmy stated it was perfectly ok for McGraw to accept campaign contributions from individuals he conducts state business with. I merely pointed out that in the past you have said the exact opposite (albeit it with someone you do not support) and just how hypocritical you were.

No, you are just spinning again. I support laws that would allow public financing for all campaigns for public office- and a prohibition against all private canpaign contributions- for all candidates- whether I support them or not. And I have never said otherwise. The bankruoptcy of your argument is constantly illustrated by your need to habitually misrepresent what I have andhave not said.

ziggy wrote:We can either live with the current rules for everyone, or we can support different rules. But unless and until the law is changed, we cannot support one set of campaign finance rules for some, but another set of campaign finance rules for everyone else. Well, maybe you could- but not the rest of us.

(Aaron)-That's the third side of this issue you've been on. Can't you make up your mind?

I have been consistent all along in supporting laws that would allow public campaign financing in lieu of private campaign financing. You cannot show even one sentence where I have said that I don't support this kind of change in election laws. That you don't support it does not give you license to misrepresent what I have said.

So you want to do away with public campaign financing but you don't have a problem with those that have donated millions to McGraw receiving government contracts worth billions. I'm losing count as to how many sides you've been on this issue. I think that's four now. Can't you make up your mind dude!!!

Aaron wrote:So you want to do away with public campaign financing .............

No. That is precisely opposite of what I have been saying all day and all year, Aaron. This is Sunday evening. Are you still on your Saturday might drunk?

but you don't have a problem with those that have donated millions to McGraw receiving government contracts worth billions.

I do have a problem with that- if that's what happened- and I have a problem with any other politicians who do business with their campaign contributors. And that's why I want to see a change in election campaign finance laws allowing public campaign financing and disallowing private campaign contributions.

I'm losing count as to how many sides you've been on this issue. I think that's four now. Can't you make up your mind dude!!

You are losing count because you keep manufacturing more phony "sides" than you can keep up with. If you'd just tell the truth, Aaron, you wouldn't have to keep "count" of anything.

ziggy wrote:

but you don't have a problem with those that have donated millions to McGraw receiving government contracts worth billions.

I do have a problem with that- if that's what happened- and I have a problem with any other politicians who do business with their campaign contributors. And that's why I want to see a change in election campaign finance laws allowing public campaign financing and disallowing private campaign contributions.

First it's not if, it's a fact. Jimmy has posted how many links. Open them up and read man.

You know what Mcgraw is doing but you support it because you support McGraw.

Back to my original statement. That's hypocritical.

Life can be so cruel sometimes OC.

Not really. You do what you can. Look at some of the links. Maybe you'll be surprised. Maybe life is cruel. You been supporting a crook. Deal with it.

Aaron wrote:First it's not if, it's a fact. Jimmy has posted how many links. Open them up and read man.

Well, Jimmy is a hell of a lot more honest and credible than you are. And so if Jimmy says it's so, maybe it deserves another look at- although we've about beaten taht horse to death here already.

You know what Mcgraw is doing but you support it because you support McGraw. Back to my original statement. That's hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because it is not true. Even if that's what McGraw is doing, it is what the campaign finance laws allow him to do. And that's why I want the campaign financed laws changed. You are the one who appears to support the campaign finance law status quo- which allows what you are bitching about. So who is really being "hypocritical"?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:First it's not if, it's a fact. Jimmy has posted how many links. Open them up and read man.

Well, Jimmy is a hell of a lot more honest and credible than you are. And so if Jimmy says it's so, maybe it deserves another look at- although we've about beaten taht horse to death here already.

You know what Mcgraw is doing but you support it because you support McGraw. Back to my original statement. That's hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because it is not true. Even if that's what McGraw is doing, it is what the campaign finance laws allow him to do. And that's why I want the campaign financed laws changed. You are the one who appears to support the campaign finance law status quo- which allows what you are bitching about. So who is really being "hypocritical"?

You didn't even look at the links Jimmy posted, did you!!!

If you did, you wouldn't keep saying ' if ' when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not if, it's true.