You are on page 1of 4

It should also be recalled that the initial e-mail appeared to "step over the line" when it not only

decreed a
desire to have this filing withdrawn [surprisingly, because multiple prior conversations had included a strong
disclaimer that the gubernatorial race was not going to be a focus, absent "info-sharing" that the candidate had
signed Gale's petition], but it also mandated that no effort be made to probe whether others would be pursuing
this constitution-based initiative.

So that we are absolutely crystal clear, I DO NOT love that you challenged Joe Gale’s
petitions. You are Treasurer of this campaign, and whether intended or not, when you
engage in such an activity you speak for the campaign—this was done without my
knowledge, agreement or approval.

I actually signed Joe Gale’s nominating petition.

Accordingly, I am directing that the petition be WITHDRAWN immediately. I do not
want it turned over to someone else or abandoned with the assumption that it will be
dismissed in due course. WITHDRAW IT.

I do not support this challenge against Joe Gale for Lieutenant Governor, I cannot see how
it is germane to our congressional race, and I will not have my campaign associated with
any such challenge.

Please provide evidence that it has been withdrawn by the end of the day today, March 9,
2018. I am not asking for an explanation or summary of the status—I need to see that your
challenge has been withdrawn and terminated.

Thank you.


I had told him that I had to remit paperwork within a week to validate the e-filing, prompting the additional
phraseology; regardless, as of yesterday, for two reasons, this effort had been legally stalled...and the
candidate [and the campaign manager] knew this [for it was not only in-print, but it was also a brief discussion-
point this-a.m. with the latter-individual, during the one moment that oral communication had been permitted.

So, my 2 a.m. entreaty ["the
two of you have to tell me where/when......the three of us will meet
for an hour...on Saturday."] prompted the campaign-manager to direct this inquiry to the
candidate [" Dean is your schedule open for a meeting today? Saturday."]; as a result, I clarified
my request thusly @ 6:38 a.m.:

this is not a qualified query; this is a definite issue
i am in my office and will appear wherever/whenever
TODAY, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month

When nothing happened, the "invitation" was reinforced @ 10:32 ["i'm waiting"], prompting
efforts to procrastinate...
Bob: Dean and I are both busy today and tomorrow, so we cannot meet with you....

...that were rejected...

i will provide info-requested today, in-person

...yielding a more forceful reply from the campaign-manager:

Dean and I are both busy today and tomorrow, so we cannot meet with you.

In the meantime Dean and I are requesting that you, as Treasurer, please provide the following:

1) a statement of the current campaign bank account balance;

2) an itemized list of donors, with donation amounts;

3) an itemized list of expenses paid from the campaign account; and

4) account passwords and login info for the campaign bank account and for the Federal Election Commission

We will contact you this coming week to touch base.

Thank you.

I had explained - on multiple occasions - that these data hadn't been compiled [vide supra] and, thus, decided
to drop-off the entire $-file @ the home [in the mailbox] of the campaign-manager.

Here's the cherry-atop this colloquy, notwithstanding the dozens of self-motivated hours expended during the
past few months uniquely enmeshed in getting the campaign-petitions organized in a fashion that would yield a
seamless method to interact with those involved in the ground-game:

Dean and I are not available this weekend, however you cannot keep this information
hostage. Dean wants this information immediately. As stated before we will contact you after
the information is provided.



The only additional backgrounder that y'all may have noted is that the candidate remained exercised over the
FEC-delay, despite having spoken with Sandy and having been told that all the campaigns were interacting with
her to rectify filing requirements [that aren't due imminently, anyway]; what provoked this concern is perhaps best
conveyed to y'all by the candidate himself, for the campaign manager was focused upon maximizing his
productivity [as perhaps can be noted in-between-the-lines within the above e-mail string].


So, what might be the take-away observations, perhaps to become integrated with future decision-making?

1. On a superficial level, the desire to file ASAP was initially discounted because of the intent to act as if signature-
acquisition was a struggle; this paradigm was dashed when photos were uploaded onto Facebook immediately
after the notarization-party, so SOMEONE may wish to get the initial data vetted [not me] and filed @ the DoS
ASAP [lest an auto-accident transpire on filing-day, 3/20], with a supplemental filing provided after the 19th.

2. On a deeper level, the evolving negative-tone of the above e-mails seems to reflect an unjustified
ongoing/burgeoning reaction [after a no-harm-done e-mail had been remitted last night] to a sudden event that
had contradicted prior assurances; this is an issue that perhaps is due to the pressures of a campaign, but seems
to be worthy of an intervention [particularly noting how FEC-worriment inexplicably perseverated].

3. On an operational level, everyone knows what has been done and what should be done and what could be
considered to be done, per prior e-mails.

a. You have been provided a system that, had i not created it, would have unambiguously led to a disaster @
the Doylestown Library, for the alternative proffered by one of you was to have distributed dozens of copies of a
print-out of a two-year-old "Emergency" list that encompassed all ~270K that everyone could look-
up his/her area by alphabetized last-names. REMEMBER that ~100K names were distributed instantly and the
rest were available within the subsequent 48 yours [following break-neck compilation efforts], and the petitions
were provided the next-a.m. [after the DoS-staff called me FIRST, per prior chats].

b. Surprisingly, the absence of any sort of a "thank you for your unique/pivotal/self-motivated service" reflected
the ongoing poisoning of attitudes that may have presaged the reaction that transpired; alternatively, because
I'm not 100% pro-Life [another story,...based on decades of pondering law/religion/reality...details upon request],
it is possible that this was the manifestation of a negative-mindset regarding an ongoing schism in the GOP.

{In this regard, one point is in-order; the candidate considers this to be a central campaign issue and he should
be praised for acting-out his personal belief-system. Yet, per multiple conversations, including one with Ed
Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, NO ONE has yet explained where the right-to-life-at-conception appears in
the Constitution.}

4. Y'all are also invited to listen to my explanation as to why the candidate's affection for Gale is grossly-
misplaced; he is getting "in front of his skis" due to ambition-absent-achievement for inter alia he is totally
responsible for lotsa down-ticket losses in MontCo due to his egocentric bullet-ballot campaign [in one Abington
Commissioner race, by one vote].



What I had envisioned to have transpired today was a chat with the candidate and the campaign manager that
would have been framed thusly: "You have before you all the $-papers and the mandatory Commonwealth Court
paper-filing. Let's discuss which pile I take and which one remains for you to retain."

{On my way back to my office after having dropped-off all the $-data, I mailed the CC-envelope; will call the
Prothonotary regarding whether the inserted-lingo will suffice vs. whether a separate "verification" page should
be provided.}
In many respects, this is small-potatoes, for Gale is not aligned with either gubernatorial campaign; actually,
knowing Dean's tentative preference for Mango [despite his having continued to support ObamaDon'tCare's
medicaid-expansion, even after direct chats with himself and his staff, this past week], I thought that undermining
Gale would help another pro-Lifer, Diana Irey Vaughn [a spectacular and well-educated lady whom I'd met @
the West-Conshy Marriott, years ago, @ a women's event].

{If anyone plans to challenge anyone else's petitions, you have been provided the legalese that should be
included in any such filing; for reasons that should be viewed as understandable, I would prefer not being invited
to facilitate this vetting-process.}

Excess stridency may not be desirable, however, for it may detract from the authenticity
that must be projected; as much as the Dems may be tempted to run an extreme-leftie,
integrating subtlety into the presentation of the issues should undermine a strict
black/white structure.


To Summarize:

I harbor no regrets, for I have left y'all in optimal position both regarding petitions and
door-knocking; indeed, the campaign manager also has an Excel file of the Dems/Indies
that can be formatted and invoked on 5/16.

In my view, y'all recruited the armed forces, while I uniquely provided the bullets [maxed-out seed-$] and the
weapons [quality-petitions]; these efforts cannot be discounted by the no-labels crowd AND were worthy of just
a bit more recognition/respect than has overtly become manifest.

Life is short, particularly for an oncologist with newly-diagnosed malignant melanoma.

Related Interests