Vote with Complete Clarity

Submitted editorial to Superior Telegram August 5, 2014

 

Election season is upon us and there are only two ways to participate. You either vote informed or uniformed. Informed can include knowing which candidates are running, what are some of each of their stances, deciding which candidate suits your needs, and deciding which candidate is best for the nation. Being uninformed can mean finding out there are other candidates when you receive a ballot, voting party line only, not knowing anything about the candidate you vote for, or worse being told who to vote for.

Just to test yourself to see where you may fall, I'll ask "How many candidates qualified for the Gubernatorial ballot or the Congressional ballot? If you don't know, then your foot is in the doorway of being a uninformed voter. How can a person even make a valid decision without knowing what candidates stand for? The answer is you can't. It can be very disheartening and frustrating to make voting a worthwhile endeavor. It does take some time to understand, but you should validate and understand some aspects of the political differences each party is trying to lead this country before you decide to vote.

Most hard working Democrats have grit their teeth when they discuss where the president is leading this country. I think things are down right horrible and it seems to get worse by the day. Republicans have it even worse. Not only do they not care for where the President is leading the nation, but they have to suffer through John Boehner and his do nothing and challenge nothing House leadership. Why is half of the Republican's pain and suffering coming from its own party? Ask Sean Duffy, he's voted for him twice now. Ask yourself, "Do we even have representation if the Speaker doesn't bring votes to the House floor?" It's time for the political gamesmanship to end. Please go to www.votefordon.com for more information and thank you for your time and consideration.

By the way, the answer is there are five candidates in each race. I hope it stays like that until finally people start breaking away from the outside money that funds your front running choices. If you do vote this year, please settle for nothing less than complete clarity in what your candidate stands for.

Don Raihala
Superior, WI

Who's running for Congress in the 7th Congressional district of Wisconsin (WI)?

Who's running for Congress in the 7th Congressional district of Wisconsin (WI)?
This guy (with my thumbs pointing back at me) Don Raihala!

And who has to make silly web articles to make himself internet searchable because of minimal media support and an absolute ban-like boycott by search engines?  Hmmm.

Newspaper Woes

Thanks to Gannett Co. owned newspapers, up the west side of the district, for being the only media outlet thus far reporting and printing stories about my campaign and no thanks to all the other media outlets that likely prefer to keep their readers and listeners in the dark.  I suppose 'old lady who knits booties for the homeless' and '5th graders collect 10,000 pennies for trip to Chequomegon National Forest' are more news worthy than 'Former 2010 Democrat ticket Congressional Candidate to Challenge Sean Duffy'.  That may be.  However, ignoring the fact that Sean Duffy will be going to a primary and continuing to report that Kelly Westlund will face Duffy in November is just irresponsible reporting.  Is it any wonder that newspapers are going through the financial hurt that they've been experiencing in the last decade.

The Internet Blues

www.votefordon.com
www.donforcongress.com

Both will get you to the same place, but I 'm not sure why they aren't readily searchable on 'Google'.  'Bing' does a better job of placing my efforts at the forefront of searchability.  Both accounts were searchable the week before I announced, so something has taken place since then to push them back to page 5 in search results.  After my announcement, my internet host suspended my account for using some misinformation in my original application when I opened these sites over four years ago.  Why they would freeze my account now is a mystery, but since then I've been buried back on page 5 even with the most relevant search parameters.  A web story like this may even push me back another page, but at least there is a trail of bread crumbs back to the campaign site.

Plus 2 Others

There are two other guys whom have also declared their candidacies, but they also both declared for the past U.S. Senate races and did not submit any signatures to get on the ballot.  I'm not interested in help their internet searchability so I'll call them by Mob Maylor of Cumberland and Jon Chiess of Rice Lake.  I don't see Jon being on the ballot seeing that I plucked 100+ signatures easily out of his backyard of Rice Lake without hearing a peep of his name.  It was such a good haul that I'm actually going to go back for part II before the nomination signatures are due.  As for Mob, what he is doing is extremely irresponsible.  Northern Wisconsin has historically been a two party race and running as a Libertarian is only going to pull votes out of the Republican party.  So a vote for Mob Maylor is a vote for Kelly Westlund in November.

 

12 cats and dogs appreciate $2,400,000 advocate effort to bilk Superior, WI taxpayers

After watching the mayor’s March 18th fact based presentation on the proposed new animal shelter fall on deaf ears, he did the unthinkable and in his words said to the closely knit crowd of about 60 advocates, “I’m capitulating to the power of passion and the anger of the people to not make a good business decision.” No jubilation came from anyone, probably because nobody understood what was just said, but to the other 27,000 people of Superior it means you just bought yourselves a brand spanking new animal shelter for $2,400,000. Oh yeah, I almost forgot - for 12 cats and dogs.

Nobody ever said that there was only twelve animals being very well cared for in an extremely clean and appropriately sized shelter that the city owns free and clear. They didn’t, that must be an oversight. Well, if you’d have listened to the so called passion of the crowd and the councilors you’d think that these animals are living in filth, starving to death and their needs were not being adequately addressed in this existing shelter. When in fact, it’s just the opposite. The animals are well cared for, it’s the cleanest shelter I’ve ever been in, and with declining demand it's more than adequately sized for a city this large. Not only that, when I was there a very kind worker came down the row, entered each cage and hugged, scratched and loved each dog there - suggesting they all do that! What more can anyone ask of an animal shelter?

I’m obviously missing the case for a new animal shelter. Yes, it is not a huge shelter, but it does satisfy the needs of the strays in this city. Yes, there are several minuscule issues that need to eventually and easily be addressed, but it‘s nothing that our already budgeted city work force couldn‘t handle with a few thousand dollars in materials. Instead of having city crews continue the war on harmless snowbank removal, we could let the start of global warming season take care of that and they could begin the fixes immediately.

There is simply no reason to build a new animal shelter 4-5 times larger than the adequate facility on Catlin Avenue. Almost nothing in this build proposal has been rectified including the all important issue of who’s paying for the up to $320,000 annual operating costs. Judging from the motion of “let’s just go with it because a lot of people are going to work on it” it’s quite obvious, other than the severe need for the council to be educated on Robert’s Rules of Order - for effective and fair meetings, that the council doesn’t give a damn who or how any of this is going to get paid for.

Anyone could spend taxpayer money without concern on how it will be paid for. This is no achievement to feel proud about at all. In fact I’m embarrassed for the council for their lack of fiscal responsibly to the tax paying public. You’re supposed to adhere to being good stewards with our money - it’s the number one duty of being an elected official. If this is the best representation that majority Democrats in Superior habitually elect, then we are all in for a future of financial pain. Mayor Hagen thank you for doing your part, but to avoid sharing in the future consequences for this poor decision, I would ask that you put your veto powers to work and let the council own this entirely. There is simply no place in government for irresponsible spending at any level.

Don Raihala [cat owner]
Superior