Author: Randy Seaver

Randy Seaver is a veteran journalist who has been covering news and politics in the city of Biddeford, Maine for nearly three decades. He may be contacted at randy@randyseaver.com

The Outsiders

~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

outsidersUp until two months ago, most political consultants within the DC Beltway would tell you that you need a “moderate” candidate in order to win an election. That candidate, the consultants would tell you, should be a centrist, an establishment-type, someone who makes most people safe and secure. Someone predictable.

Outsiders, consultants explain, are unknown quantities; unable to steal votes from the sacred independent, middle-of-the-road voters who often carry much weight in so-called purple states like Ohio.

Conventional wisdom dictates that in order to win the general election, the primary candidate has to draw from the middle to outpace his/her opponent.

This presidential race is unlike many other races in recent history, for both the Democrats and the Republicans. But is there any truth in the theory that moderate candidates are effective for either party?

The establishment didn’t work for the GOP

Republicans bristle at the idea of an “establishment” centrist candidate. They point to the last 20 years, in which they have won only two presidential elections after unsuccessfully nominating Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

In each of those Republican primaries, anti-establishment outsiders were quickly sent packing. Sam Brownback, Jim Gimore and Tom Trancedo were all anti-establishment outsiders in the 2008 GOP race. Rick Santorum, Buddy Roema, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry were all anti-establishment, political outsiders. Where are they today?

The establishment rarely works for Democrats

In 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton’s star was shining brightly. She seemed to be the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination. She was, by definition, a Washington insider and portrayed herself in the same mold as her husband: a pragmatic moderate who could get things done.

But a war-weary electorate was looking for something fresh. They rejected all the insiders (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson), instead rolling the dice on a virtual poltical unknown with almost no experience in Washington DC.

But the election of Barack Obama was an anomaly in politics. It defied conventional wisdom. Clinton’s campaign consultants wound up with egg on their faces.

In 2000, the Democrats took the safe bet with Al Gore, who is about as establishment as they come. Of course, we all know that Gore came within inches of winning that election, and that he was able to sway independent voters. But still, it was not enough.

Four years later, John Kerry, another insider and establishment type fended off political outsiders such as Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. He also beat other insiders Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich.

When outsiders make a splash

Many Republicans still blame billionaire Ross Perot for handing Democrat Bill Clinton a victory over President George HW Bush in 1992; and Democrats still seethe when they speculate about the damage that Ralph Nader played in 2000, supposedly stealing very critical votes from Al Gore.

This campaign cycle, both the Democratic Party and Republicans have their hands filled with so-called outsiders.

I don’t know how you describe Bernie Sanders as an “outsider” because he’s been a part of Washington’s infrastructure for nearly 16 years. But he is most certainly not an “establishment,” middle of the road candidate. He is a self-described socialist, but his poll numbers look good in both Iowa and New Hamshire. He will likely get crushed in South Carolina, but are Democrats fired up enough to “feel the bern” past Nevada?

And then there’s Donald Trump, a candidate who is all over the map. Trump defies every ounce of campaign logic known to man.

The establishment is beside itself. The National Review and Rich Lowry can’t stop him or slow him down. His off-the-cuff remarks about immigrants, Muslims and even war heroes only makes him more popular.

He is an egomaniac who has filed for bankruptcy four times. Yet, he describes himself as a fiscal conservative who can make “America Great Again.” (He’s just short on specifics)

So maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when Republican voters tell the consultants to just stuff it.

Gimme back my bullets

~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

rs gunThere is a good article in today’s Portland Press Herald: Maine boosts reporting to FBI database to prevent gun purchases by mentally ill.

As an advocate of both mentally ill people and the Second Amendment, I was pleased to see that the newspaper approached the issue is such a comprehensive manner.

During gun control debates, the subject of mental illness is often raised as a red herring. While none of us wants to see dangerous people have access to firearms, we too often lump all mentally ill people into a convenient one-size-fits-all category. Simply having a mental illness does not make you de facto dangerous.

On the other hand, there are some seriously ill people who should not be allowed to purchase firearms. The same could be said for convicted felons and those charged with domestic violence.

There are distinctions to mental illness. For example, someone who suffers from mild depression should not necessarily be barred from hunting. However, someone who has been court-ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment is in another category.

Look at it this way: If a Vietnam veteran is seeking counseling, is that the same as someone who suffers from schizophrenia and refuses to take medication? Of course not.

The article points out that distinction when it comes to federal reporting of mental health records.

“Anyone who voluntarily seeks treatment for mental illness or checks themselves into a mental health institution would not be prohibited from owning a gun.”

According to the Press Herald report, Maine has submitted 3,022 records to the FBI regarding 1,750 people who are prohibited by federal law from buying guns because they were involuntarily committed to a mental health institution by a court. Other records sent  include individuals who have been deemed by Maine courts to be mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.

These are important distinctions because mental illness (like every other illness) presents itself in various degrees and levels of severity.

I have been very open and honest about my own struggles with mental illness.

I have been hospitalized several times.  I also don’t own guns.

While I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, the truth is that I don’t like guns. They actually make me a bit nervous. And because of my own history, I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to have access to firearms. But before this new law went into effect, I was able to purchase hunting rifles for my sons.

My boys enjoy hunting with my father-in-law. (I hate hunting, and most other outdoor activities). Those hunting rifles were always stored in a gun safe at my father-in-law’s home because I don’t want firearms in my home.

Now let’s take a step back. On Mother’s Day, my oldest adult son came home so that we could all go to dinner. He also wanted to show off a used AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that he purchased.

We all took turns holding the unloaded weapon in a series of goofy photos. In one of those photos, I put on a fedora, posed in front of my pickup truck and made sure to have a cigarette dangling from my mouth.  Laura posed barefoot with the AR-15 in front of my son’s Jeep. Just a bunch of rednecks having fun on a Sunday afternoon.

I posted one of those pictures on Facebook and the reaction was mixed. People have strong reactions to firearms, and that’s understandable.

But it’s also to remember that a firearm is no more dangerous than the person holding it.

Would I pose with a gun for a funny picture? Sure. Why not?

Should I be able to purchase or own an AR-15 or any other kind of firearm? Probably not, even though my mental illness is well-managed and I continue voluntarily seeking treatment.

I made my own decision when it comes to owning a firearm. But my mental illness is not the same as another person’s mental illness.

There should be clear lines when discussing who should be able to purchase a firearm and who should not. And we should all remember that mental illness does not fit in a convenient, easy-to-understand package.

She’s a maniac

~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

417378_312880335428347_172657476117301_793753_1590329846_nEarlier this week, I sensed a disturbance in the force, and sure enough there was significant shift taking place in the city of Biddeford’s political landscape.

On Thursday afternoon, State Senator David Dutremble, a Democrat from Biddeford, announced that he will not seek a third consecutive term in the Maine Legislature.  Within 30 minutes of Dutremble’s announcement, Joanne Twomey, a former state legislator and mayor, announced that she would seek Dutremble’s seat.

Oh, happy day.

And to think I was wondering about the subject of my next blog post.

My phone began ringing off the hook. “What are we going to do?” people asked. “We can’t let this happen.”

Republicans began salivating about the potential of capturing the District 32 seat for the first time in 30 years.

After all, Twomey has lost her last four bids for elected office. She embarrassed herself on the state and national stage by lobbing a jar of Vaseline at Governor Paul LePage during an event in Saco. She was carried out of the room, kicking and screaming.

The woolly mammoth was weakened, and the cavemen fetched their spears.

Over the years, I have watched Twomey closely. She considers me a mortal enemy. She has publicly referred to me as “the Darth Vader of Biddeford.”

Even I toyed with the idea of running for the seat, which brought an almost immediate response from Twomey on Facebook: Look forward to running against a Republican Randy Seaver, nothing would make me happier.

Crazy like a fox

I’m a pretty cynical guy, but even I fell for Joanne Twomey’s self-described narrative of being a champion for the downtrodden.

During her first term as a state representative in 1998, I was working as the editor of the Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier, and I penned a glowing column about Twomey, describing her “a champion of the people, a fearless advocate for those with no voice within the political power structure.”

She liked me then, and she invited me to her home for a second interview in her back yard, serving fresh fruit, sandwiches and cookies. I threw journalistic ethics out the window and devoured those cookies. (They were awesome)

But as the weeks and months wore on, and as I heard other stories about Twomey and her stint as a city councilor in the early 1990s, my perception changed. I learned that she kept a political enemies list. Once I criticized her for something, my name found its way to that list.

In reality, there is only one thing Twomey cares about: her own political ambition. She refuses to be pragmatic in order to achieve goals. Instead, she conducts herself like a petulant child, stubbornly digging in her heels and shrieking that she is “principled above all else.”

While Twomey tells you that she is principled and fighting the good fight on the side of the angels, take a look at her actual track record.

1.) In 2003, she testified against a proposed casino. In her testimony before the Biddeford City Council, she said: “In my Christmas village, there is no casino.” Seven years later, when she was the mayor and facing a budget pinch because of a new school, she  suddenly flipped and quickly became a cheerleader for a another proposed casino in Biddeford.

Principled? Really?

2.) Twomey built her political career on the backs of criticizing the owners of the MERC waste-to-energy facility. In 2009, while seeking a second term as mayor, she held a press conference and was hugging the company’s owners in front of news cameras just two weeks before the election. She said they had come to terms on a solution.

Two weeks later, after securing her re-election bid, she once again reversed her position. Principled? Really?

3.) During Biddeford’s Democratic caucus in 2012, Twomey said the city needed a “real Democrat” in Augusta, failing to mention that she encouraged Democrat State Rep. Paulette Beaudoin to run for her former legislative seat.

But is she a viable candidate?

In the early 1990s, Twomey was removed by police from City Hall, following another hissy fit, when once again her rage trumped manners and decorum.  As a state representative, she cried on the House floor when she did not get her way. She is a professional victim and the consummate hypocrite.

But remember this: she has a political base of support in Biddeford. She was elected to four consecutive terms in the Maine House of Representatives. During her last two terms, she beat her Republican challenger by a 2-1 margin. Okay, so…Biddeford rarely elects Republicans and the other candidate was not much of a candidate to begin with.

She made her political comeback in 2007 by winning the mayor’s seat, but it was hardly a mandate. It was a three-way race that included two city councilors: John McCurry and Ken Farley. A mere 38 percent of the city’s voters cast ballots. Twomey won with 1,742 votes. Farley was close behind with 1,573 votes and McCurry finished with 1,052 votes.

Essentially, McCurry and Farley split the moderate vote and let Twomey slide in to office with fewer than 2,000 votes.

Her biggest political victory came two years later, when she sought a second term as mayor. In a four way race, Twomey walked away with 4,100 votes, easily outpacing second-place candidate David Flood (2,640).

Twomey seemed unstoppable. She was a political force to be reckoned with.

The Fall From Grace

In the summer of 2011, I and some other Biddeford residents decided that our city needed a change, and we rallied around another former legislator, Alan Casavant, when he decided to seek the mayor’s seat.

Casavant had also served many years on the city council and was also elected to four consecutive terms in the Maine House of Representatives. But unlike Twomey, he never cried on the State House floor. He never screamed or shrieked when he did not get his way. He is professional, mild-mannered and responsive. He was just what Biddeford needed to clean up its tarnished image.

A lot of people told us we were nuts. They said Twomey could not be defeated. Ethan Strimling chided me for mounting a campaign against a seemingly invincible candidate. Many people in Biddeford, led by Twomey, were advocating for a casino during tough economic times. They saw no other way forward for the city. Casavant had his doubts.

By any measure, Casavant’s campaign was the proverbial long shot. But guess what happened?

Casavant won that election with more than 63 percent of the vote, beating Twomey, 4,165-2,504 with a turnout of 53 percent of voters. Casavant not only beat her, he surpassed even Twomey’s best election result in 2009.

Twomey was stunned and cried before television news cameras.

In 2012, she tried to claim back her state house seat from incumbent Paulette Beaudoin. She lost that primary challenge.

In 2013, she tried to make a comeback as the city’s mayor. Again, Casavant beat her: 2,377-1043.

And last year, she gave up on the mayor’s seat and instead sought one of two at-large seats on the city council. In that five way race, Twomey came in third (1,080), well behind second-place finisher Laura Seaver (1,790)

What does the future hold?

Over the last 18 years, Twomey holds a 6-4 election record. Not that shabby, really.

By contrast, (during the same time period) Casavant holds a 7-1 record.

It remains to be seen who else will run for Dutremble’s seat. It’s a tough job that demands incredible flexibility and a tremendous amount of time with virtually no way to rival a regular income. Twomey, retired, is in a perfect position for that job.

Speaking just for me, Twomey will be a tough candidate to beat. That said, someone sent me a design of her campaign sign this morning, This sign was allegedly designed by Perry Aberle. As a professional campaign consultant, I can tell you that this one of the most horrid and ineffective campaign signs I have ever seen.

But what do I know? I’m just the Darth Vader of Biddeford.

Come to the dark side.

JT sign

Maine Satire: The good and the bad

~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

welcome-to-maineThere has been a lot of talk lately about satire in Maine. Much of that discussion was prompted by a recent post on GQ magazine’s web site, Maine: Do we really need it?

I’m not a regular GQ reader. Hell, I don’t even consider myself a “gentleman,” so why should I be bothered, irked or flustered by the ramblings of a snot-nosed punk who knows nothing more about my home state than the four years he attended at Colby College?

But I was bothered. So, as I do so often, I took to Facebook with my frustrations. It seems as if many of my friends had a similar reaction to Drew Magary’s sophomoric attempt at humor and satire. In summary, I think Mr. Magary’s parents should ask Colby for a tuition refund. He didn’t learn to write, and his miserable attempt at humor was nothing more than a monologue that showcases his profound sense of elitism.

It was nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation that ridiculed more than one million people and the place they call home.

The other side of the coin

Now, if you want to see some really good Maine-based satire, you should check out The Sardine Report: Maine’s fishiest news source.

The Sardine Report is one of my favorite blogs. It pokes fun at all things Maine, from politics that includes jabs at both LePage and Baldacci, to maple syrup harvesting and tourists with RVs. It is a spoof “news” source that features crisp writing and laugh-your-ass-off wit.

I don’t know who is behind the Sardine Report, but I have a simple request for them: Bring it back.

It appears that the last blog entry on the Sardine Report was posted on July 13, 2013. And that is a shame because our state could really use some more good satire. The kind of satire that makes you chuckle. The kind of satire that makes you think. The kind of satire that Jonathan Swift would like to read.

Here’s just a nugget from The Sardine Report’s most recent blog post about tourists and their RVs.

 Their 2012 Fleetwood Expedition 40x has a full-sized kitchen, with six-foot refrigerator-freezer, range oven, microwave oven, and more cabinet space than you’d find in an average suburban home.  This $200,000 vehicle is fully-furnished, with large-screen TV, full bathroom, queen-sized bed, 45,000 BTU furnace, ping-pong table, live-in massage therapist, jacuzzi, fold-out awning and landscaping, and indoor tennis court.

“We just find it very relaxing to surround ourselves with everything we would have in our house, only crammed into a much tighter space,” explains Beth, 56.  “It’s just such an adventure.”

Maine is a beautiful state, but it’s not easy to live here. The weather can be harsh, poverty is rampant and don’t even get me started about the potholes.

We also have a lot to be proud of in Maine. It’s just that those of us who live here often forget our blessings.

I submit to you that Maine is missing only one thing: an update from the Sardine Report.

But on the upside; at least Drew Magary left Maine, and that’s worth celebrating with a shot or two of Allen’s coffee brandy.

Space Oddity

~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

DSCN4034On Tuesday, the new Biddeford City Council voted 8-1 (Mike Ready) to reduce the public comment portion of its municipal officers’ meetings from five minutes to three minutes.

The reaction from some members of the public would make you think that the council had just approved a trade agreement with North Korea.

Now mind you, this particular portion of the council meeting (Public Addressing the Council) has existed since the mid 1990s, but lately it has become a free-for-all hodgepodge of bitching, whining and moaning about things that the mayor and council have no control over.

Despite the new rule, any member of the public is still able to comment on any action item before the council before the council begins discussion on that topic among its members.

The Public Addressing the Council concept was adopted as sort of a bonus round, allowing citizens to speak about items that are not on the council’s agenda.

Some cities and towns, including Maine’s largest cities of Portland and Bangor, also have a portion of their council meetings set aside for public commentary about non-agenda items. Other towns and cities throughout Maine do not have such an accommodation for the public.

The city of Biddeford is not restricting public speech. They could have easily done away with the Public Addressing the Council portion of the meeting. Instead, the city is working diligently to restore civility and decorum in the Council Chambers.

After all, as Shakespeare wrote: “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

Or consider this: President Abraham Lincoln delivered the 272-word Gettysburg Address in less than three minutes, so if you can’t get your point across in three minutes, then you need to learn how to focus.

If you have a problem with the city’s snowplow service, or if you think ambulance rates are too high you should be able to deliver that message succinctly, and three minutes is plenty of time.

If three minutes was enough time for Abraham Lincoln to deliver a historic, landmark address to the nation, then it’s an ample amount of time for raising your gripe with the city council.

NOTE: Four members of the council, including Michael Ready and Laura Seaver, voted in favor an amendment to the overall order that would have kept the time limit at five minutes That amendment, however, failed.

Disclosure: I am married to Biddeford City Councilor Laura Seaver, and I want her home in enough time to massage my feet and fetch my dinner before bedtime.

Who’s your daddy? Student loans, step parents & the government

~ Randy Seaver ~ 3 Comments

Brady BunchI sometimes wonder if it would have been better for my youngest son if I had not married Laura.

Well, technically speaking, he is not my son. His biological father lives somewhere in Aroostook County and is averse to both work and financial responsibility.

For more than 15 years, I have consistently treated Tim and Matthew as my own sons. I attended the parent teacher conferences. I brag about their accomplishments. I lay awake at night worrying that they will not make the right decisions. I helped with the homework. I taught them to drive and how to kayak. I tell them that I love them. I scold them and discipline them. I never hesitate to give my time, money or other resources to ensure that they are okay.

But they are not my children, and while that may seem cold and misguided, it is a reality that I must accept in order to avoid resentment. It is reality, and at all costs, I must cling to reality as much as possible.

Sometimes I like to fantasize that I live in a different reality. In most ways, our family ignores the fact that we are a “blended family.” The kids call me Dad.

For all intents and purposes, our family functions no differently than any other nuclear family, where both biological parents live in a house with their own children.

But real life is rarely like the Brady Bunch. There are some distinct disadvantages to being a step-parent.

If I could go back in time, I would not change a thing. And before we proceed any further it’s important to remember that our family is not unique. In fact, so-called traditional families are being out-paced by non-traditional families.

Using data from the American Community Survey and the Census Bureau, analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 46 percent of children under 18 live in households headed by two heterosexual parents in their first marriage, compared to 1960 when 73 percent of children fit that description, and in 1980, when 61 percent did.

Translation: more than 50 percent of American families are non-traditional. The new normal.

A double standard: the step-parent trap

Stack Of CashBecause my youngest son chose not to be adopted or carry my last name (it was always their choice), there are some distinct disadvantages to being a step-parent. For example, I cannot sign any legal documents for them. I cannot authorize medical treatments. I have no custodial rights. When it comes to making many critical decisions, my approval is not necessary.  The government, for the most part, considers me a non-entity, and those things are reserved for biological parents.

But there is one notable exception, when the government is only more than happy to give full weight to my role as a step-parent.

And for those of you with college-age children, you can probably guess what that exception is: eligibility determination for federal student financial aid.

While I understand it must be increasingly difficult for the US Department of Education to determine the eligibility status for a growing number of unique family situations, I still think it is unfair that the government insists on considering my financial earnings and records to determine how much student aid Matthew can receive.

If the government were to adhere to recognizing only the legal parents, Matthew would qualify for considerably more financial aid.

A quick search on Google reveals that there are hundreds of stories out there about FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) and its unfairness to blended families.

A 2006 story in the New York Times reveals many of the complexities that non-traditional families face when attempting to secure financial aid for their household children.

“Which parent is responsible for college? What about stepparents’ income? Child support? Just because you think of your family one way doesn’t mean a college will agree. Each sets its own rules on how to define the family, and those definitions have substantial impact on how much money a student can get.”

Theoretically, if I divorced Laura in 2014 (but still lived with her in the same house), Matthew would qualify for more financial aid. The government looks at married couples, not roommates.

Thus, we have set up dysfunctional system that practically begs step parents to cheat, or more likely to avoid becoming step-parents altogether.

Matthew is 18 years old. If I married his mother last year, my income would count. Thus, if you a marry a woman with children that the government considers adults (old enough to sign legal documents, get married and register for the Selective Service) then the government assumes you are prepared to kick-in for their college education.

Does that make sense to you?

Now here’s the part that will make me seem like a cold, heartless bastard. I will not pay for Matthew’s college tuition. This was a conversation Laura and I had before we were married.

I will, however, help Matthew go to college. He can live at home completely rent free during the entire time he is registered as a full-time student. I will feed him and give him money for books, transportation costs, etc. This would greatly reduce the cost of his education if he were to attend the University of New England, the University of Southern Maine or Southern Maine Community College.

But if Matthew chooses a school beyond the logistical realities of living at home, it is up to him to find a way to swing those costs: student loans, grants, scholarships and (gasp) working.

It is my firm belief that this approach will benefit my youngest son by introducing him to the real world while providing him with a safe cushion to fall back upon.

For the record, this is the same approach I would use if I were Matthew’s father instead of his step-father.

So, in the end is Matthew better off because I married his mother so many years ago, or is he worse off?

Considering that I have supported him for most of his life and always treated him like I would my own child, I would say he is ultimately better off, even if the government will penalize him because of my income. And that, folks, is the real step-parent trap.

Money for nothing

~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments
Ben Chin (Sun Journal Photo)
Ben Chin (Sun Journal Photo)

There were a few lessons to be learned this week for campaign operatives and political junkies in Maine.

1.) A financial war chest does not necessarily win an election;

2.) Voters in small communities become weary of aggressive campaigning that lasts for more than two or three months; and

3.) Negative campaign tactics still work, despite the fact that most people will say negative campaigning is a turn-off.

Lewiston’s mayoral race, in which Robert Macdonald won a third term, garnered national media attention. Tuesday’s run-off results were reported by media outlets across the country, including NBC News and the New York Times.

Although Ben Chin, a progressive Democrat, got the most votes during a five-way race for the mayor’s seat in the November 2015 election, a runoff election was required by the city’s charter because he did not capture at least 50 percent of the vote.

Democrats tend to favor run-off elections and/or a concept known as ranked choice voting, but Tuesday’s results bit them in the ass, when Republican Macdonald came out on top, 53-47 percent over Chin.

What would have otherwise been a small community election became amplified when the campaign took an ugly turn in October.

Several signs that featured a caricature of an Asian man were hung on buildings in Lewiston. Those signs contained a blatantly racist message: “Don’t vote for Ho Chi Chin. Vote for more jobs not more welfare,” according to the Lewiston Sun Journal.

Is cash really king?

Robert Macdonald (Portland Press Herald photo)
Robert Macdonald (Portland Press Herald photo)

Because of the national attention, Chin’s campaign was able to raise a whopping $87,800. Maine Democrats wanted to send a message and large amounts of money poured in from all over Maine and across the country. Chin, the political director for the Maine People’s Alliance, was able to turn on one of the state’s biggest political machines.

In total, Chin’s campaign raised roughly 15 times more than Macdonald’s campaign, which raised $5,800.

By contrast, in the city of Biddeford, a typical mayoral campaign raises somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000. This year, however, Mayor Alan Casavant raised a paltry $1,270 and spent $818 of it to secure a third term. He got 2,494 votes at a cost of roughly 33 cents per vote.

Chin garnered 3,826 votes; spending nearly $23 per vote. Macdonald, on the other hand, garnered 4,398 votes; spending roughly $1.32 per vote.

Chin edged out second-place finisher Macdonald in November, but Macdonald won Tuesday’s runoff, despite being outspent roughly 15-1. Why?

Almost every one I speak to about this race has a different theory, but I think voters were turned off by an incredibly aggressive campaign that was raising so much cash from outside of the city.

It was a bit over the top.

Voter fatigue?

According to the city of Lewiston’s web site, 33.5 percent of the city’s registered voters cast ballots in the November election. That number dropped slightly on Tuesday, when 32 percent of the city’s voters cast ballots during the runoff election.

By contrast, slightly more than 30 percent of voters in Biddeford cast ballots in that city’s 2015 mayoral election.

Mayoral campaigns in cities like Biddeford or Lewiston usually have a shelf-life of between two or three months. Tuesday’s run-off election added another month to the process. I heard stories of voters being weary of door-knocking and incessant telephone calls.

Sometimes, too much of a good thing (grassroots campaigning and cash) can be a bad thing.

One friend of mine recently speculated that Lewiston’s voters are conservative (and perhaps just a tad racist). He failed to explain how Chin, a progressive Democrat, came out on top in November if a majority of Lewiston’s voters are bigoted or conservative.

In fact, Lewiston, which is a lot like Biddeford, has historically been a bastion for conservative, traditional Democrats (mill workers and Franco-Americans).

Macdonald, a former police detective and Vietnam War veteran, is  a blunt speaker and has a propensity for being “politically incorrect.”

When you consider all these factors, it’s no wonder that a small Maine city’s mayoral race attracted national attention.

It was a campaign that defied conventional wisdom, and it offered some lessons for all of us.

 

 

A plea to responsible gun owners

~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

Note: The following was penned by my friend and former colleague Tobey Williamson who now lives in Hawaii. It is provocative, and I thought my readers may want to consider his point of view.

police lineDear Responsible Gun Owners with Good Hearts:

I know more than a few of you, and I want you to keep your guns and buy more of them. Buy as many as you want. Keep them locked up. Safe from the [mentally ill] and from the kids. Keep them ready in case we really do one day have to organize a militia to fight against an extremist government that knows everything about its enemies and employs drones to kill us remotely. At least we’ll be able to shoot a few of those fuckers out of the sky before we run out of bullets.

In the meantime let’s teach our kids to hit a target at 1000 yards in a gale force wind with their hearts racing at 100 beats per minute. Teach them to respect these weapons, these tools of food security, these protectors of our freedom. Make sure they know never to point them at any person unless they intend to pull the trigger—and that they understand the inevitable consequences of such a decision. Bring them hunting and show them the proper reverence when the spark leaves the eye of the animal we take to sustain our own through the winter.

However, I implore you to look into your heart and consider that it is only flesh and that it beats for your loved ones. Who are themselves flesh and blood that can never be put back together once torn apart by bullets. Think of them when you begin to change the conversation we are having as a country, when you become the voice of reason that leads us away from this chaos. No one else has the credibility or the common sense that you have. Nor does anyone else shoulder the same responsibility.

Rights do come with responsibilities; at least they do in a world that makes sense. So, as a rightful owner of as much firepower as you can buy, it is your responsibility to speak out and take real action against this mayhem and senseless violence that can strike any of us at any time. This is a deadly serious issue and at the moment not only is the violence insane, but so is the conversation about it.

The vast majority of people just want to go about our business without fearing for our lives. When we hear that new laws are not the answer because we do not enforce the ones we have, or that its because we have poor mental health services we say, “ok, lets fix all of these problems.” When we hear that a person intent on killing another person will find a way with or without a gun, we say, “ok, lets make it as hard as possible for them to do that.”

When we hear that the only answer to the problem of gun violence is more guns, we are incredulous. This is the same absurd logic that created the nuclear arms race. Must we all endure escalating shootouts started by the heavily armed people everywhere in our midst who eventually draw at the slightest crooked glance? Is that when we can decide that this default strategy is not working?

Seriously, think through the scenario of the “good guys with guns” argument. It is not like the bad guys are all wearing black and white-striped jumpsuits or something. If everyone has guns out, who knows whose got a good heart then? Just imagining the situation in the comfort of your heavily armed home should give you pause. Within the chaos, will you really know who to shoot at? Are you sure the other guys packing heat would know not to shoot you? The rest of us caught in the crossfire don’t want any part of it, thanks.

End the insanity. Stand up for your rights. But for fuck’s sake, for our kids’ sake, take care of your responsibilities. Come to the table and be a part of the solution.

Sincerely,
A non gun owner who does not hate guns but hates gun violence.

Orange Crush

~ Randy Seaver ~ 7 Comments

donald-trumpThere is no doubt in my mind that this blog post is going to cost me some friends.

In fact, it may cost me some other things too, but I can’t sit here and be silent.

I am watching as my country is gripped in fear. I am watching as politicians scream about safety. I am watching and listening to heated debates among my friends about the Paris terror attacks, the Syrian refugee crisis and the role of Muslims in the United States of America.

It is like a nightmare, and I wonder: has everyone forgotten their history?

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” said philosopher George Santayana.

Yesterday

Most of us are too young to remember the horrors of WWII, when millions of Jewish refugees fled Germany during the rise of the Nazi Party.
Then, under the authority of the Third Reich, Jews were required to register with the government and to report their movements and whereabouts.
Eventually, Jews were rounded up and sent to prison camps. They were systematically executed during Hitler’s reign of terror.
How could this horror take place? What gave rise to the Nazis? How could Hitler lead an entire nation into a campaign of loathing that eventually turned into mass murder and one of the most significant atrocities in human history?
The answers are difficult to imagine, but it was an incremental process. Germany was reeling financially and on the brink of hyper-inflation fueled by crushing debt that stemmed from their obligations for reparations after World War I.
So, Germany’s economy was in rough shape. But beyond their terrible economy Germans were also concerned about the growing threat of communism in their country. They needed some scapegoats to blame this on.
Hitler came onto the political scene as a magnetic and charismatic speaker. He promised the German people safety and security. He had a stunning ability to whip up the masses with his rhetoric. He delivered scapegoats in the form of Jewish financiers who he blamed for the country’s economic woes.
Sound familiar?
The German people were complicit, either by their silence or by their support of Hitler and the Nazis.
Polls taken in 1938 and 1939 found that the majority of American citizens did not want the government to allow Jewish refugees from Europe to settle in the United States.
A couple of decades later, another gifted and charismatic speaker came onto the political scene; this time in the United States.
Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy led America through the “Red Scare” of the 1950s.
McCarthy spent nearly five years trying to expose communists and other left-wing “loyalty risks” in the U.S. government during the early 1950s, at the height of the Cold War against Russia.
Even mere insinuations of disloyalty by McCarthy were enough to convince many Americans that their government was packed with traitors and spies. McCarthy’s accusations were so intimidating that few people dared to speak out against him.
But Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a fellow Republican to McCarthy, did stand up to him with her Declaration of Conscience speech. One part of that speech that I find especially relevant today is this:
“The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny –Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear.”

Today

Donald Trump, so far the leading candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016, endorsed the idea for a database to collect information about Muslims living in the United States. At a campaign event in  Newton, Iowa, NBC asked [Trump] whether there should be a database to track Muslims. “There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems,” he said, according to The Atlantic. “We’re going to have to—we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques,” Trump added. “We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

When challenged to explain how his policy ideas differed from those used in Nazi Germany, Trump’s only response was ” You tell me. You tell me.”

What scares the bejesus outta me is that Trump’s leading poll numbers surged again this morning, fewer than 24 hours after he refused to elaborate on how his policy idea differentiated from those used by the Nazis.

What scares me more?

So many of my friends really like Trump.

“He (Trump) says what I’m thinking, but what political correctness won’t allow me to say,” said one friend, adding that safety is the most important thing a politician can do for the nation.

But should we sacrifice liberty and American ideals for safety?

I always thought this was the land of the free and of the brave, not the land of bigotry and fear.

What was it that Ben Franklin said?

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Je suis navré

~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

Over the last 24 hours, many of my Facebook friends changed their profile pictures with a backdrop of the French flag.

I did not.

I have no criticism for my friends who did this, I can only explain why I did not.

eifel

What happened in Paris last night was an outrage. Those were cowardly acts perpetrated by cowardly people. Of course, we should stand in solidarity with our fellow men, women and children in Paris. We want to show that we are united.  There is nothing wrong with that.

We are saddened. We are outraged. And yes, we are afraid that this form of terror will soon land again on own shores.

Paris was not the first attack coordinated by ISIS. The loose-knit terror organization has struck other nations, albeit not members of Western Civilization.

I did not change my Facebook profile when ISIS beheaded journalists. I did not change my Facebook profile when ISIS attacked a hotel in Tunisia. I did not change my Facebook profile when ISIS attacked a French Gas plant or when they attacked and killed people in Kobane or Hasakah in Syria; or in Libya or Egypt.

I was a newspaper editor when the 9-11 attacks on the United States took place. Shortly after those attacks, my publisher and I had a lengthy conversation about whether to place an American flag symbol on the top of the front page. Another local paper had made that move, but we decided not to. It was a difficult decision, but I think we both realized that we were dealing with raw emotion, rather than sound logic.

For example, how long would the flag symbol appear on the front page? Would it be like a Christmas tree, which should be taken down after six weeks? Were we suddenly becoming patriotic because we were attacked? Why didn’t we have the flag on the front page on September 10, 2001?

To us, it seemed like being exploitative in the days following a horrific attack on our nation.

As could have been predicted, that other newspaper stopped with printing the flag on their front page long before the end of the year.

Social media is different, however. I see nothing wrong with wanting to show solidarity. I see nothing wrong with wanting to affirm our common connection to the human experience, including its shock, grief and outrage.

I just fear that we are dealing with something so much larger than what we can comprehend; a force of evil that we cannot imagine.

Some say the United States is unable or unwilling to face this latest form of human terror. Some say we are complacent, self-absorbed and don’t have the will to fight any enemy like ISIS. Some even criticize western leaders like President Obama for being “weak” on terrorism.

To those people, I say you are wrong. The same things were said about America and her president on December 6, 1941. We proved the world wrong, if only reluctantly and waiting until we were attacked.

People have criticized Generation X, yet Armed Forces recruiting stations were filled in the days after Sept. 11, 2001.

America has what it takes to confront ISIS, but this will need to be much more than a social media campaign of altered Facebook profile pictures. This will need to be a worldwide effort, and it will require both resources and tremendous sacrifice.

I am not a foreign policy expert, and more than likely, neither are you. I do not know how to bring the world together on this issue, but I do know that it will require much more than symbolic gestures.

We stand with Paris. But we must also stand with Berlin, Tunisia, Prague, Beirut and people of every stripe across the globe, not just the ones who look like us.