Home > Uncategorized > Stacey Lawson: Knowledge is Bondage

Stacey Lawson: Knowledge is Bondage

Possibly the most, um, intriguing candidate running for our Congressional seat is Stacey Lawson.  Lawson is the wealthy candidate from Silicon Valley who, it turns out, voted only four times in the last twelve elections.  She sat out the November 2008 election in which Barack Obama became President and California voters passed Prop H8te.  Then, when it became clear there would be an open seat in our part of town, she moved from San Francisco to Marin so she could try to buy the seat be of service..

Lawson, has taken the same approach as Will from Seven-O-Heaven, making jobs the centerpiece of her campaign.  It’s a shame, then, that she was Executive Chairman of the Board of an online company manufacturing handbags in China.  (Maybe she meant Chinese jobs.)

Local radio person and blogger Tom Sebourn has some interesting information about Ms. Lawson and her relationship with Chinese handbag manufacturer Chelsea Henry.

There’s a bit more information at the blog “Down With Tyranny,” which deserves undying gratitude for discovering the one truly accurate and appropriate abbreviation for the Harvard Business School: Harvard BS.

Turns out the company didn’t pay its payroll taxes while it was on its way to bankruptcy.  Ms. Lawson explains that the job of the board is oversight, and as soon as she found out the company wasn’t paying its payroll taxes she, well, I guess she oversaw.  Problem is, she was also a major investor in the company, and it looks like she was one of the three principals.  Darn.

But there’s an even more interesting question than “why would I vote for someone who couldn’t be bothered to vote themselves, and who was the Chairman of a company that sold Chinese handbags until it filed for bankruptcy and got taken over by a creditor?”

That question is, “why would I vote for a New Age columnist who has taken down all her columns so that I can’t even read what she had to say?”  Just look here, and try following any link:  http://www.ufollow.com/authors/stacey.lawson/ .  Ms. Lawson has asked the Huffington Post to remove her writings, so you’ll have to write her directly and see if she’ll let you take a peek.

I don’t know about you, but I was really hoping to find the pearls of wisdom that must be in any column named “Knowledge is Bondage.”  Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy that Ms. Lawson doesn’t want you to know what she wrote way back in 2008?  And 2010.

Lawson has lots of money in the race.  Maybe she’ll create as many jobs in the district as she did in China, at least until her next bankruptcy and spirchal makeover.

Why is it that rich people that suddenly feel the desire to “serve” never seem to want to serve first on the local school board?

  1. Anonymous
    April 25, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    Wow. What a flame out. She has out Meg Whitmaned Meg Whitman. I feel bad for Sofia P., who has worked so hard for Lawson’s campaign in Humboldt County.

  2. Ginko B.
    April 25, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Estelle Fennell didn’t vote in the 2007 election when she had a chance to do some good for the Harbor District, which really needed it.

  3. April 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    Check out this site as well for continuously updated info: http://www.staceylawson.info

  4. Meraldo
    April 25, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    So is Mitch basically Heralso at this point? Commenting on his own stuff like a sock puppet?

  5. April 25, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    That’s your fourth handle this week, sock puppet.

  6. High Finance
    April 25, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    The fact you all are against her (especially you Heraldo) means Stacey Lawson deserves a second look.

    Maybe I’ll vote for a Democrat this fall.

  7. April 25, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    I didn’t post this, HiFi, so there. Check the byline.

  8. Just say no to Stacey
    April 25, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    You forgot to mention her whining about being “disenfranchised.” How can a rich white woman be disenfranchised when she’s a 2007 gradaute of Emerge? http://emergeca.org/

  9. skippy
    April 25, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Nice post and links, Mitch, and to Tom Sebourn and the Down with Tyranny site. In politics, does knowing a smattering of everything and a knowledge of nothing work best? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in the wrong hands.

  10. What Now
    April 25, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    She really IS the candidate for Highly Fried.
    Just check out this musing Ms. Lawson wrote for the Huffington Post:

    “We are all terrorists. Before you dismiss this out of hand, please take a closer look. The terrorist inside you wages acts of aggression on those you believe to oppress you. The dictator inside you declares martial law when it suits you. The suicide bomber martyrs you and wounds others in your attempts to be heard and to be right.”

  11. walt
    April 26, 2012 at 5:27 am

    God help me, but I’m with Stacey on this one (and [shudder!] Hi-fi). when she says “Our small daily acts of aggression may seem like nothing compared to the brutal assassination of a revered public figure. But the collective consciousness is an assimilation of each of us,” I think of how similar flame wars on this blog are to those of Glenn Blech and his buds. When the National Souffle falls, and we’re all at each others throats, we’ll need something other than “GFYs” to heal ourselves. There ARE some interesting ideas and exchanges here, but there’s also a lot of Beckyness and assholicism, and sometimes I think that’s the main draw. Cuidado, amigos. That way lies madness.

  12. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 6:15 am

    walt,

    The issue for me, at least as concerns her writing, is not what she’s said, but that she or her campaign has attempted to suppress access to what she’s said. I agree with you that the quoted material is sensible, but it disturbs me that she wants to wash herself from responsibility for what she’s said. It seems like part of the new rules that have developed in politics, where you no longer take responsibility for your behavior when you were young and stupid (like last year, or yesterday), and where, if you insult the President with a racial epithet, it’s fine if you catch yourself before the last syllable. (Did you know Santorum’s on tape calling the President a “left-wing Government nig”?) [correction: “anti-war” not “left-wing”]

    By far the larger issue for me, though, is the way purchasing elective office has become a fun makeover for bored wealthy yuppies.

    Everyone,

    I am not Heraldo. If you stop to think for a moment, you’d realize there’d be no point in Heraldo taking on the additional persona of some ridiculously frequent commenter. Heraldo has granted me the ability to post directly — you can tell when it’s a post from me by looking at the little “Posted by” at the bottom of posts on the main page.

    And no, I haven’t any more of a clue who Heraldo is/are than you do.

  13. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 6:27 am

    and walt,

    I went to the site mentioned above by “Who is Stacey Lawson?”

    I agree that there’s a lot of common sense in the quotes posted there. The problem is, it’s a lot easier to spout common sense than to act on it. (Yes, mea maxima culpa.)

    For example, here’s a quote from Lawson, ironic given her attempt, or that of her handlers, to suppress the internet availability of her very own thoughts:

    “We have denied and discarded the unsavory bits of ourselves for so long, that we can no longer clearly see how we’re creating our troubled world.:

    Exactly, Stacey. Keep listening to that guru and come back in ten or twenty years, maybe.

  14. Anonymous
    April 26, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Ask Larry Glass how many elections he voted in before he ran for office…

  15. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 8:12 am

    I’m not sure what 8:03 means. Perhaps he was searching for QED, but had a brain fart and came up with “Tee Hee He.”

    The only thing I can think of that’s more pathetic than continually commenting here is concerning oneself with who the anonymous commenters are. Given the things I say here with my name attached, and given that it’s totally straightforward to comment as “Anonymous,” why would I bother creating a continuing alternative pseudonym?

  16. Plain Jane
    April 26, 2012 at 8:57 am

    This is probably the same fool who was accusing TRA of being Heraldo and me of being someone else. It’s poor little brain is dizzy trying to grasp the fact that there are more than 4 progressives in Humboldt County.

  17. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 9:02 am

    I’ll say it again, PJ, I consider myself more “conservative” than “progressive.”

  18. Plain Jane
    April 26, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Do you think you and “anonymous” have similar definitions of “conservative,” Mitch?

  19. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Maybe not :)

    And which label I find most suitable tends to vary with my mood, which suggests the labels are a bit ridiculous.

    If I had to define conservative, I’d say this: someone who believes the primary responsibilities of the state are to keep the nation at peace, to prevent bullying of the weak by the strong, to prevent cheaters from prospering at others expense, and to ensure that no one is left hungry or without shelter or medical care.

    I think of progressives as wanting the state to do more affirmative things itself, but I think the flaw in that plan is that the state is too subject to takeover by the bullies and cheats. I’d keep its power mostly negative: primarily, the ability to enforce laws and regulations. I’m not sure what the point is in fighting to make the Scalias and Bushes more powerful.

  20. April 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    You all will have to pardon Jerry Droz as he struggles with bouts of obsession with the Humboldt Herald.

  21. Plain Jane
    April 26, 2012 at 9:40 am

    I’m chuckling, Mitch, because support or opposition to the policies required to prevent bullying of the weak, to prevent cheaters from prospering at others’ expense and ensure that no one starves or dies in the streets of disease are pretty much along progressive / liberal versus conservative lines. Keeping the nation at peace is a bit more complex, of course. Progressives are definitely more affirmative, favoring maintaining and upgrading as the need arises over status quo. Change is inevitable and can be for the better or the worse depending on who implements it and on whose behalf. Lately it seems that “conservatives” have lost all interest in working on behalf of the majority and are doing everything they can to decrease the numbers of citizens who still bother to vote. If history repeats, this doesn’t seem a likely path for a nation that wants peace.

  22. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 9:44 am

    As many, many people have said, whatever’s happened to the GOP is not a takeover by philosophical conservatives but by people who are scared they’ll be charged for the cost of running their government, rather than be allowed to bill the grandkids.

  23. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 9:49 am

    I doubt you’re ever going to find a group of people willing to stand up and publicly declare their support for bullying by the strong of the weak, cheating by cheaters against the honest, and letting their neighbors starve, sleep without shelter, and die from neglect.

    That means that both conservatives and progressives support (at least in public) the policies to accomplish what I described in my previous comment. They see different means to those ends.

    A big problem I think some progressives have is that they think their opponents are consciously standing up for bullying, cheating, etc… Nobody consciously stands up for that, not in public. Telling people they should be against bullying, cheating, etc… therefore accomplishes nothing.

  24. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Well, I forgot about HiFi, didn’t I?

  25. Plain Jane
    April 26, 2012 at 10:04 am

    LOL! HiFi wouldn’t do it publicly either but “give a man a mask..” The reason that progressives tend to think their opponents are standing up for bullying, cheating, etc. is because they do it all the time and not just anonymously on blogs. They do it on the public airwaves and the halls of congress as well as in their private conferences. They don’t CALL it standing up for bullies but their duplicitous justifications (good / bad for business) while completely ignoring or blatantly lying about the consequences to the people and the economy doesn’t change what it is. “A rose by any other name….”

  26. April 26, 2012 at 10:08 am

    This piece from Pajamas Media may be of interest to some. It’s from a conservative standpoint but deals with the question of how different political types don’t understand each other, or something along that line. I had a tough time following it, even though it’s not a very long piece:

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-asymmetry-of-ideology/

  27. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 10:11 am

    I think it’s more complicated than that, PJ, at least in my better moments. I can understand why people don’t like the idea of having the government take on additional tasks.

    But we agree that most of the support at the polls for the GOP is basically “I’ve got mine, Jack.”

    It’s the oldest cliche in the book for people to think things are falling apart as they get older, or to think that people aren’t as “good” as they used to be. But I’m guilty of both beliefs: it’s not that I don’t think people are as “good” as they used to be, but that I think the manipulation technologies have increased in power, and there’s a vicious spiral downwards once people have been set against one another.

    After the bank robbery, it’s really hard for anyone who is consciously trying to do the right thing to not feel like a patsy. The IRS was going to visit me over (I think) $72 of 2010 federal unemployment insurance taxes that I’d paid using the wrong form number. I feel like an idiot for not having paid those people under the table for their two week jobs.

  28. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Nice item, Fred. I wish more Herald commenters would read it.

    When faced with statements such as “one of the worst things one can do is to hurt a defenseless animal” or “justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.

    (They don’t.)

  29. Plain Jane
    April 26, 2012 at 10:36 am

    That must be why conservatives can’t recognize blatant corporate corruption and see nothing wrong with hunting wolves from helicopters, torturing animals in labs or confining them in cages so small they are crippled or turn cannibal if their beaks aren’t clipped, Questions like that are no more valid in assessing what someone really believes than asking them to self-label.

  30. High Finance
    April 26, 2012 at 10:37 am

    It’s sad that you (Mitch, PJ) think I stand for “bullying of the weak by the strong”.

    After 50 years and trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent the poor are more numerous and in more desperate shape than ever. The homeless are everywhere, local budgets are more strained than ever, more broken families than ever. Only a fool would say we need more of the same after 50 years of the current failed policies.

    You call it “bullying” but it’s not. It’s tough love. A weak person says to just give the poor more. More money, more free handouts. Sure that is easier than tough love but it is not kinder and you only foster more dependence and make the problem ever worse.

    Giving the homeless sleeping bags or shopping carts doesn’t solve anything. Forcing them to work will eventually.

  31. Marian the Librarian
    April 26, 2012 at 10:46 am

    From another thread;

    Thorstein Veblen says:
    April 25, 2012 at 9:55 am

    More science to piss off the unethical elite;

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/15/1083342/-Book-review-The-Republican-Brain-The-Science-of-Why-They-Deny-Science-and-Reality-

  32. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 10:49 am

    HiFi,

    Bullshit. What you call “tough love” is turning your back. It’s not the same thing. Tough love involves expenditures, emotional but ESPECIALLY financial — far larger expenditures than just offering a handout.

    When your kid is heading towards a disaster, you may refuse to support their move or assist them financially, but unless you’re abusive, you will always offer to assist them when they try to climb out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves. You learn how to provide the assistance without being an enabler. You don’t just turn your back.

    It’s the same for a nation.

    But it goes way beyond that. You have no understanding of what it means to grow up in some neighborhoods, with some parents. Sure, some people rise above their stunted backgrounds and the prejudice by which they’re surrounded. They are the exceptions, not the rule. The typical middle-income American has NO IDEA of what it’s like to grow up poor, or with couldn’t-give-a-shit parents.

  33. High Finance
    April 26, 2012 at 10:53 am

    “Bullshit” right back at you Mitch.

    Expenditures for more freebies without conditions only fosters more dependence — period.

  34. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 10:59 am

    Where do I advocate “expenditures for more freebies?” One area where we agree is that government social welfare programs have been a disaster, and repeating things that lead to failure is idiotic.

    What do you need? Well, it gets worse every day, so the needs are going to change every day. But for the absolute basic starters, you have to make sure kids have enough food that they can learn, and at least one adult who they can look up to as an adult, even when they’re not in school. For a lot of people, unfortunately, that means things like the neighborhood center you opposed.

    The problem is not that there have been too many handouts — the problem is we’ve all tried to pawn off the required tasks on government workers who all too often are more concerned with their own paychecks than with whether what they are doing is actually helping anyone or not. There are exceptions, but you can’t run a society on the exceptions. We need more money, not less, for social welfare, but it needs to be used in a completely different way than it has been. Locally, we could start by laying off the DHHS management and its enabling BoS, and distribute their paychecks to food banks.

  35. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 11:29 am

    PJ 10:36,

    You wrote:

    “That must be why conservatives can’t recognize blatant corporate corruption and see nothing wrong with hunting wolves from helicopters, torturing animals in labs or confining them in cages so small they are crippled or turn cannibal if their beaks aren’t clipped.”

    We’re stuck on semantics. You call those people conservatives. So does the media, and so do most Americans.

    I don’t view those people as conservatives, and I don’t view animal rights as falling along liberal/conservative lines. I view the people pushing what you describe as “greedy capitalists,” and the people following them as “easily manipulated fools.” Yes, they’re referred to as conservatives. That’s because Fox’s ratings would drop if they called themselves the network run by “greedy capitalists” for “easily manipulated fools.”

  36. April 26, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Ps – Poor, Heraldo…er, i mean Tra is still sore at me for telling it like it is over his endorsements of those politicians who all lost last election .

  37. What Now
    April 26, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    We’ve had 30+ years of Reaganomic’s inspired cuts, some of which were actually begun by Reagan’s predecessor, Jimmy Carter an economic moderate.
    Prior to that period, the hyper-inflation and overheated economy of Nixon and Ford wiped out the value of the blue collar workers and “firehosed cheap dollars across the globe” as one republican adviser to Reagan described it.
    Even that most incredibly dogmatic of leftist tabloids, The Wall Street Journal claimed in a 1981 front page editorial that were it not for the social safety net in place during the Nixon-Ford period, Carter would have inherited an economic situation more dire than the depression of the 1930’s.
    LBJ’s Great Society was never fully implemented nor fully funded before in began to be dismantled by the technocrats that followed him. Much of LBJ’s determination was based on Eisenhower’s contention that the U.S. would go the way of Britain if it din;t invest in it’s people through nutrition, education and infrastructure.

    We’ve NOT had 50 years of ANY “librul” giveaways to individuals. We HAVE had over 30 years of radical giveaways to corporations on behalf of blasted military and research budgets(many of which ARE NOT taxed prior to the “pass through” of profits to stockholders, as 69% of newly created corporations are structured).
    This nonsense of all corporate profits being taxed twice is old information and no longer axiomatic.

    An early republican debate in this most recent rolling circus of ideologues,liars, thieves, and advocates for feudalism featured a selected audience of true believers cheering the notion of allowing the uninsured to die and booing an active serviceman placed in a war zone for identifying himself as gay.
    THAT is the modern conservative movement; intellectually dishonest, mean spirited, closed-minded, petty, and longing for a return to a past that never existed.

    Then of course, there’s the patsies and clowns that anchor the OTHER wing of the conservative movement on behalf of investors, manufacturers, banksters, plunderers and rabid ideologues;the Democratic Party.

  38. tra
    April 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Anon 11:43 / 11:46

    LOL!

    O.K., you’re dead wrong, and making a fool of yourself, but, hey… that’s your prerogative.

  39. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    Yeah, I think What Now just about summed things up.

    (Sorry if anyone finds that agreement confusing. I just don’t associate philosophical conservatism with the modern conservative movement, just like I don’t associate modern Christianity with the teachings of that radical, arrogant, anti-wealth, anti-government rabbi living two millennia ago.)

    But back to the really important issue: who is tra and why doesn’t Heraldo just admit to being tra? And why don’t I?

  40. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    What Now mentioned Eisenhower. There’s never a bad time to watch his farewell speech. The famous lines start at 7:20.

    Eisenhower was a military man and a Republican. He was what once went by the tag “conservative.” I was three when he gave this speech, his farewell address. It’s been pretty much downhill since.

  41. suzy blah blah
    April 26, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    I was three when he gave this speech, his farewell address. It’s been pretty much downhill since.

    -sorry to hear that Mitch. Maybe you should try meditation.

  42. Anonymous
    April 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Great, now we have a “High Finance” in drag.

  43. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    I was three when he gave this speech, his farewell address. It’s been pretty much downhill since.

    -sorry to hear that Mitch. Maybe you should try meditation.

    I knew as I was writing that that I’d be dinged for it. To be clear, I deny personal responsibility for the path of the nation. My own decline I do have to accept responsibility for, but I’ve forgiven myself for the worst errors of my first ten years or so. I’m still working on my teens, and hope to have processed to at least thirty by the time I go. The twenties are going to be very hard. :)

  44. suzy blah blah
    April 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    -Mitch, i am in solidarity with you in the struggle. So here’s a little tip –sister to brother. Some of us have alleviated the societal pressure that we must pass through on our journey towards the goal by using some ancient wisdom spiritual techniques. I suggest that you try this positive uplifting walking meditation. Maybe you’d heard of it and forgot about it back in those wild 60s when you were in your zen Berkeley daze. Suzy says now is the time to renew that vibratory revolutionary means of getting there.

    Be sure to keep your feet waaaay out in front and your shoulders leaned waaaay back. Then when you are going downhill … it actually seems like youre on flat land. And when youre on flat land –WOW. Don’t try it on uphill slopes until youre more experienced though. And for a bonus kick, you can use the walking meditation technique in concordance with your “I deny personal responsibility for the path of the nation” affirmation. If more people would practice these simple meditations our country would be in a totally different situation today.

  45. April 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Stacey got half a page in the Lumberjack expounding ideas that would appeal to he C ompuer generation// Smootth???

  46. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Suzy,

    Thank you. I knew you’d come through for me.

    You’re right that that particular variant of kinhin is a bitch when going uphill — it helps to have a keisaku attached to one’s belt so as to prop oneself up. If it’s on your belt, it can’t be used against you.

    You wouldn’t happen to know how to chant “I deny responsibility for the path of the nation” in Japanese or Sino-Japanese, would you?

    Breathing in, I deny responsibility. Breathing out, I feel much relief.

    Breathing in, I deny responsibility. Breathing out, I feel much relief.

    P.S. Congratulations on learning how to do links. See, you really didn’t need help after all.

  47. Not A Native
    April 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Did H post this thread?? I don’t see a byline that indicates otherwise….

    Mitch wrote:

    “The only thing I can think of that’s more pathetic than continually commenting here is…..”

    By my count, Mitch has already posted 17 out of 46( which is 37%) comments on this thread. And I’m positive that more are coming from his keyboard. Soo, if the foo shits…..

  48. suzy blah blah
    April 26, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Congratulations on learning how to do links.

    -i learned it in my first session with the new therapist

    -but i left therapy in the middle of the second session when he wanted to introduce me to his keisaku

  49. Mitch
    April 26, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    NaN,

    Did you seriously think I didn’t get that?

  50. back in the saddle
    April 26, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    And just what does any of the above 20 comments have to do with the topic at hand? Mitch doesn’t need mediation, meditation or medication. He needs something productive to do.

  51. Mitch
    April 27, 2012 at 5:30 am

    I’m always grateful when people express concern over my productivity. Such generosity of concern is remarkable. I’m OK, though, really, now that I’ve got Suzy’s walking meditation to help me keep my balance.

    And “back in the saddle” is 110% right, my comments strayed from the path set out in the post itself. (I will engage in the requisite self-criticism with guiding brothers from the Party throughout the day.)

    My apologies, not to mention my sympathy, to any readers who couldn’t figure out how to use Page Down.

  52. April 27, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Garbage in–Garbage out\

    A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING–

    DRINK DEEP OR TASTE NOT THE PIERIAN SPRING

  53. Eric Kirk
    April 27, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Wow. Stacy Lawson has her own hate site? Do any of the other candidates have one? Somebody is obsessed!

    I did read the “we are all terrorists” piece, and while the wording of the title is probably not the best for a run for office, the content of the piece itself isn’t what is advertised. That each of us has the potential for great violence isn’t that profound a revelation, and it really shouldn’t be a serious point of contention for anyone with a reasonable level of intellectual honesty.

    I’m curious about the agenda of the website. Since I doubt any of the opposing campaigns are involved I have to wonder if it wasn’t put up by an embittered ex-boyfriend or something.

  54. Eric Kirk
    April 27, 2012 at 11:07 am

    I do have to say that the “Knowledge is Bondage” title evokes for me images of a cute librarian looking woman with horned rimmed glasses and a dominatrix leather skirt with a James Joyce book in one and and fuzzy handcuffs in another – sort of as an advertisement designed to draw teenage boys into the library.

  55. suzy blah blah
    April 27, 2012 at 11:10 am

    You wouldn’t happen to know how to chant “I deny responsibility for the path of the nation” in Japanese or Sino-Japanese, would you?

    -no, but here’s how you say it in English, “-here comes johnny singin moldy oldies be bop a lula baby what i say … here comes johnny singin boni maroni down in the town gonna make it pay”
    drink deep

  56. Anonymous
    April 27, 2012 at 11:21 am

    How about her voting record, does that bother your Eric? How about her having just moved into the district in order to run for this seat? How about her not tell the truth about her businesses?

    We’ve got at least three candidates more qualified none of which have this baggage, but it’s her ads that folks are seeing ten times a day. I’d be hesitant to defend this woman.

  57. Eric Kirk
    April 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Her low vote turnout record bothers me. Carpetbagging doesn’t bother me. I have no idea what the “truth” is about her business.

    I’m waiting until my last radio interview with the candidates to publicly state my preference in the race, but I think we could do much worse than Stacey.

  58. Eric Kirk
    April 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    However, my objection isn’t to the criticism of her. My objection is to a website dedicated to attacking her character. It seems obsessive to me, and there are candidates with much more baggage which don’t get treated this way.

  59. Mitch
    April 27, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Eric,

    Do you consider the information presented here (on this thread’s post) scurrilous? Just curious.

  60. Eric Kirk
    April 27, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Not so much Mitch. A post with information which calls into question some virtue of a candidate is fair play, and as far as I can tell the information is accurate. I would probably want to hear her side of the accounts of her business dealings before I drew any conclusions about it.

    I just question the necessity of a website dedicated solely to tearing someone down unless the person has committed horrendous acts. From what I can tell here, the basic criticism is that her commitment as a voter is questionable, her business success record is more mixed than she claims, and she has new age spiritual views that are easy to make fun of. It just doesn’t seem to warrant a website dedicated to attacking her.

  61. High Finance
    April 27, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Yes, the “information” given here is scurrilous.

  62. Jr
    April 27, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    So much for the “Stacey Surge”.

  63. April 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    half page in the Lumberrjack (not tearing \ her down–comes across very cyberwise–no mention of voting record\\And Stacey
    \was the only candidate in the Rhody Parade. Wach the PR!!!!!

  64. Travis P
    May 21, 2012 at 9:26 am

    If you’re curious about some of Lawson’s redacted HuffPo writings, most of them can be accessed via ye olde Wayback Machine, in this case presented in easily-accessible index format here:

    http://empirereport.com/2012/04/27/the-62-page-stacey-lawson-huffpo-works/

    All I care to know about this candidate, however, is that her megabucks advertising campaign has brutally spammed every single media source I actually use – my television, internet radio stations, Hulu Plus, everything. Massive saturation campaign = HUGE budget = as far removed from my own little economic world and concerns as possible. No thank you very much!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s