Will Chamberlain's Vermont

News and Commentary about Vermont from Yesteryear

Location: Vermont, United States

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Foley Continued: Part of DCCC Orchestrated Campaign

Editor's Note: The unfortunate side of politics is this game of gotcha that people play in order to tear down the other. Yet while Mr. Rogers, who you will read about in this story, who is on a campaign to "out" gay Republicans on Capitol Hill, gets away with this crusade to smear and tarnish, if conservatives were doing the same, the NY Times and Washington Post would be all over it. In fact, truth be told, their newsrooms are cheering on his efforts. And they lecture the rest of us on integrity and hypocrisy!

'Gay' activist held
info about Foley
During campaign to 'out' lawmakers
said story would break before election

Posted: October 3, 2006
5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Former Rep. Mark Foley
A radical activist on a mission to "out" conservative homosexual lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers held on to information about Rep. Mark Foley's relationships with underage male pages, suggesting the story would break at the time of mid-term elections.

Blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit points to a campaign by activist Mike Rogers who had Foley on a "target list" of 20 people and shared the information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Foley abruptly resigned Friday as reports surfaced of inappropriate e-mails with a male page. Later, ABC News released online instant messages of more salacious exchanges. Foley has issued a statement saying he checked himself into an alcohol rehabilitation program at an undisclosed location.

In July 2004, the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade reported Rogers and another activist, John Aravosis, were "loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill" ahead of the Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar same-sex marriage.

Among nearly 20 names on the "target list" provided to the Blade were Foley and Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

The paper said a spokesman for Foley declined to comment after Aravosis asserted on his website the previous week that Foley is "gay."

"Both members of Congress have long been the subject of rumors about their sexual orientation," the paper said.

Rogers – in a March 4, 2005, post on his website BlogActive.com – declared Foley to be "gay" and, therefore, a hypocrite for voting for legislation against the homosexual agenda. The post said: "MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT."

More than a year ago, in a March 2005 post, Rogers said he had thought hard about what kind of action to take and said that while none would be taken at the moment, "When we get closer to the mid-term elections, I am sure more will surface."

Rogers did his own investigation of Foley, writing that through his recorded discussions with current and former staff members he learned how the congressman "hit on" young men at the Republican convention.

In a post Sunday, Rogers wrote about his attempt to communicate with Democrat officials, saying "the good news is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is finally getting it."

Rogers said that prior to the Foley story breaking Friday, he called the DCCC's director of communications, Bill Burton, to let him know that the information about Foley – and another case – were "coming down the pike."

Burton had promised to have someone e-mail or return Rogers' call but apparently didn't follow though. Now, however, since the story broke Friday, said Rogers, "I am glad he followed up on my call and was ready on Friday to come out of the gate running."

Rogers added: "The bad new is they are still not paying enough attention. ... There are others within reach. ... If the Democrats would only fight half as hard as the Republicans."

Rogers said he posted comments about Foley on the DCCC website, but they were deleted.

In another post, Rogers admitted he had possession of the lurid Foley e-mails before they were posted on the Web.

"As people know, it's not always possible for me to disclose my role in some of the activities.
I can say this. I had the emails before they were on the net. Additionally, I had the additional emails, written by the page to a friend. The story was being written by a number of outlets and I provided additional information to reporters involved in the breaking of this story.

Was (I) the central figure in reporting on Foley’s latest scandal? Never said I was. Was my work on the case important to helping make sure it came out before the election? Yes.

Did I have any idea that the GOP leadership was engaged in a cover-up? Nope. Do I love the fact that they are trying to spin this as "naughty emails?" Yup. because it shows how out of (touch) they are about queer closet cases."

Aravosis, in his AmericaBlog, shows his anger at Foley for keeping his homosexuality hidden while backing President Bush, calling the congressman "our latest closeted gay hypocrite."

Aravosis said Foley made the target list for putting politics ahead of his own community by "whoring for an anti-gay president."

Foley, who at the time was running for the Senate, responded to the "outing" by Aravosis by holding a telephone press conference with Florida media in which he called the discussion about his sexual orientation "revolting." He refused to answer any questions about the charge and later abandoned his bid for the Senate, citing concerns over his father's health.

Blogger Hoft believes, however, Foley dropped out of the Senate race "because of pressure by Aravosis and the radical gay movement to make his life hell for being a closeted homosexual."

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Foley Story: Emperor Has No Clothes

Editor's Note: The Foley resignation represents a much deeper problem, going beyond the safety of Congressional pages, in our society. It shows that we are willing to ignore facts concerning personal shortcomings of elected officials, especially in the realm of sexual morality, if it is "politically incorrect" to draw reasonable conclusions about what risks we take in the name of "tolerance". Rep. Foley represents those risks, a risk the Boy Scouts, for example, refuses to take despite the public pressures to change their policy around adult homosexuals and boys. It seems members of Congress in charge of keeping those in their page program safe sacrificed that safety in the name of "tolerating" Rep. Foley's obvious deviant tendencies that he couldn't control. We must begin to accept the link between homosexuality in men and the sexual abuse of young boys and address this dark problem by shining the light of day on it.

Conservative Group Examines 'Real Issue' in Foley Case
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 03, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - "When a 16-year-old boy is not safe from sexual solicitation from an elected representative of the people, we should question the moral direction of our nation," a conservative advocacy group said on Monday.

The group also said Foley's behavior raises the "real issue" of homosexuality and child abuse.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins noted that so many people -- Republicans and Democrats -- are "shocked" by former Rep. Mark Foley's sexually explicit instant messages to a teenage boy -- a House page at the time.

But we shouldn't be shocked, Perkins said: "This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. If our children aren't safe in the halls of Congress, where are they safe? Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?"

Perkins said both political parties need to be more serious about protecting children from sexual predators. "We need public policy in our country that protects marriage, respects parental authority and aggressively polices boundaries around our children," he said.

Perkins also questioned what he calls the "real issue" in the Foley case - the link between homosexuality and child abuse.

Perkins noted that Foley - an unmarried 52-year-old representative - has always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation, but the release of Foley's messages to teenage male pages now makes it clear that "Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys."

"While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two," Perkins said.

"Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3 percent of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys -- and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual," Foley said.

"Ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership. They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior -- probably because they did not want to appear 'homophobic.'

"The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children," Perkins said.

Homosexual advocacy groups have not had much to say about Foley's conduct. The Miami Herald quoted Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, as saying, "It's irrelevant if he (Foley) is gay or not."

The newspaper said the Human Rights Campaign refused to discuss Foley's resignation.

Neither group addresses the Foley case on their websites.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

VT's House Race Moves Up Rankings

According to National Journal's Chuck Todd, Editor of The Hotline, Vermont's Congressional race has moved up 9 spots on their handicapping rankings of competitive House races. For more on their rankings, click on the story below.


Thursday, July 13, 2006

The Dems Double Standard

Editor's note
In an email sent out to media outlets today, Jim Barnett points out the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in the way they are all abandoning Sen. Joe Lieberman,D-CT and embracing "Independent" and self-avowed "Social Democrat" (read "Socialist") for Senate in Vermont.

VT Dems Back Independent Socialist While Abandoning Moderate Democrat Incumbent

“Democrat leaders are not even pretending to be moderate anymore. Given the opportunity, they enthusiastically work on behalf of an independent socialist against fellow Democrats, while abandoning a moderate Democrat incumbent in favor of a radical liberal. It just goes to show that thoughtful moderates are no longer welcome in today’s Democrat Party.”

-- VT Republican Party Chair Jim Barnett

VT Democrat Leaders Shun Fellow Democrats In Favor Of Independent Socialist Bernard Sanders Who In Turn Shuns Democrats.

“Vermont's Democratic Party is maneuvering to keep the Democratic candidates for the state's open US Senate seat off the November ballot, as party leaders seek to clear the way for independent Representative Bernard Sanders in his bid for the Senate. State Democratic leaders are spearheading efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat, even though Sanders has repeatedly said he would turn down the party's nomination if he wins the primary.” (Boston Globe, 7/13/06)

“Bernie Sanders has been an outstanding Congressman for the last 15 years effectively representing the interests of Vermont. I look forward to working with him in the U.S. Senate as we fight together for the needs of all Vermonters.” (Senator Patrick Leahy testimonial, Sanders for Senate 2006 website, www.bernie.org, accessed 7/13/06)

“Breaking party lines, former Gov. Howard Dean said Monday he supports Rep. Bernard Sanders' bid for the U.S. Senate, saying the Independent makes a ‘strong candidate.’ ‘A victory for Bernie Sanders is a win for Democrats,’ Dean said in a telephone interview Monday.” (Bennington Banner, 5/10/05)

But These Same Democrat Leaders Refuse To Support The Prospective Independent Candidacy Of Current Moderate Democrat Senator And 1996 Democrat Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

Sen. Leahy Strongly Opposes An Independent Run By Lieberman. “Leahy says he hasn’t been asked to endorse either candidate in the Connecticut race, but he strongly opposes Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent if Lieberman loses the August 7th primary.” (Vermont Public Radio, 7/8/06)

Ø Sen. Leahy: “I’m disappointed that he’s talking about running as an independent. He’s always run as a Democrat. ... He ought to be willing to run as a Democrat. He’ll either win or lose the nomination, but if he doesn’t win the nomination then I would fully expect the Democratic party to support whoever does win it.” (Vermont Public Radio, 7/8/06)

Howard Dean Vows To Work Against An Independent Lieberman. Dean: “[W]e allow the voters to decide who’s a Democrat, so whoever the voters choose in Connecticut is who we’re going to support.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 7/7/06)

Ø Dean: “I’m going to campaign for the Democratic nominee, and if it’s Joe Lieberman, you’ll see me along side Joe Lieberman, if it’s Ned Lamont, you’re going to see me along side Ned Lamont.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 7/7/06)

Ø Dean: “We don’t get involved in primaries, we do support the Democratic nominee chosen by the people in the Democratic party in Connecticut.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 7/7/06)

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

After Spy Story, the Times Defends Its Patriotism

Editor's Note

This is posted from the Times Watch Tracker, an online publication which exposes the liberal agenda of the New York Times. See their website at www.timeswatch.org

Perhaps sensing that editor Bill Keller’s arrogant open letter didn't do the job, today’s masthead editorial in the print edition makes another defense of the paper’s latest terrorist-program wrecking scoop, mostly by accusing conservatives of attacking the paper’s patriotism.

The defensive “Patriotism and the Press” begins: “Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists.”

The Times says publishing classified details on terrorist surveillance isn’t sedition: “The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals. Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers. In fact, a United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.”

So the Times defense is that it’s just repeating old news. Then why the front-page play?

“Our news colleagues work under the assumption that they should let the people know anything important that the reporters learn, unless there is some grave and overriding reason for withholding the information.”

Except for Mohammad cartoons, of course.

“They try hard not to base those decisions on political calculations, like whether a story would help or hurt the administration. It is certainly unlikely that anyone who wanted to hurt the Bush administration politically would try to do so by writing about the government's extensive efforts to make it difficult for terrorists to wire large sums of money.”

They have half a good point here – it would not surprise Times Watch if Bush’s support actually increased after the revelations of what his administration is trying to do to combat terrorist tactics.

The Times can’t seem to locate any actual civil liberties violations or illegalities in the SWIFT program itself, so it just portrays it as “part” of something that causes liberal vapors at editorial roundtables, which is apparently reason enough to put all the details out for anyone, including enemies, to read. It also sounds, as Michael Goodwin opines at the New York Daily News today, that the paper's long-standing anti-Bush animus played a role in the decision to publish -- if the "Bush administration" hadn't been involved (and note Keller's letter didn't use the generic term "federal government," but specifically the scary "Bush administration") the paper could well have held off.

“From our side of the news-opinion wall, the Swift story looks like part of an alarming pattern. Ever since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has taken the necessity of heightened vigilance against terrorism and turned it into a rationale for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch, exempt from the normal checks and balances of our system of government. It has created powerful new tools of surveillance and refused, almost as a matter of principle, to use normal procedures that would acknowledge that either Congress or the courts have an oversight role. The Swift program, like the wiretapping program, has been under way for years with no restrictions except those that the executive branch chooses to impose on itself -- or, in the case of Swift, that the banks themselves are able to demand. This seems to us very much the sort of thing the other branches of government, and the public, should be nervously aware of.”

Exactly what “public interest” is being served by making it that much harder to fight terrorism?

Notice there’s nothing said about concerns over SWIFT itself -- if revealing this program was so important, just what are the specific concerns of the paper? The only specific results from the program appear to be positive ones. As the Times itself reported, terrorists have been tracked and caught because of the SWIFT surveillance. Or perhaps we should say “had been tracked and caught,” given that the Times has likely scuttled the program’s effectiveness.

The editorial concludes with petulance over alleged attacks on the Times’ patriotism. “The free press has a central place in the Constitution because it can provide information the public needs to make things right again. Even if it runs the risk of being labeled unpatriotic in the process.”

The Times has yet to say what has gone “wrong” regarding this terrorist surveillance program.

Some more editorial spin from on high, courtesy of Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz (hat-tip Tim Graham):

“Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in an interview yesterday that critics ‘are still angry at us’ for disclosing the government's domestic eavesdropping program in December, ‘and I guess in their view, this adds insult to injury….The Bush administration's reaction roused their base, but also roused the anti-Bush base as well,’ he said, noting an approximately even split in his e-mail.”

As if conservatives are automatons waiting for orders from White House central. In fact, the outrage was spontaneous with the paper’s online filing of the story Thursday night, long before Bush’s Monday comment that the Times’ behavior was “disgraceful.”

Tammy Bruce applauds GOP efforts for an investigation but feel they don’t go far enough, and concludes by knocking the Times’ obsession with investigating the Valerie Plame affair: “If the ‘exposure’ of non-spy Valerie Plame deserved a Special Prosecutor, doesn't the exposure and publication of secret war plans deserve an investigation?”

Monday, June 26, 2006

Parke Still in Race for Senate...Some Ask Why?

Editor's Note

Some time ago, WCV sent Greg Parke, a candidate of the U.S. Senate, an email asking a few questions concerning his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. He did not respond. WCV openly wondered about some of the same questions raised by James Dwinell in the Dwinell Political Report. Here's a re-run of Dwinell's story from three weeks ago.

We have put in bold the areas we think that candidate Parke should address publicly.


If you listen to Greg Parke, he is on the move, on the move to beating Rich Tarrant in the GOP primary, and then handing Bernie Sanders his pink slip.

He told us, "I am working hard at raising money. It is very telling that Tarrant has spent $2,000,000 and he is lower in polls by two percent today than he was in January. It is very disturbing that Tarrant is calling for increase in Medicare as a solution to the health care crisis. Medicare is responsible for getting us into this mess. It created a limited supply and an unlimited demand. Its cost was perceived as free. When the cost is nothing, demand is infinity.

"For me to beat Tarrant, people need to understand that Bernie can only be beaten on two issues: protecting families and national security. Bernie has a very poor record on each. When people learn about his record, they are shocked. Bernie has obstructed our national security and consistently voted in favor of criminals and against families."


"People are looking for experience in national security and I have that. We have one of lowest levels of ex-military ever in Congress and it shows. Tarrant is pushing issue health care but Sanders owns that issue. Bernie is not weak on health care; people perceive that he is doing lots for us on health care. Tarrant is pushing the wrong issue.

"Defense is my ace in the hole. Though I lost to Bernie in 2004, the run for a senate seat is a very different race. Many people say that having Bernie in Congress where he is one out of 435 is fine; but it is a very different thing with his being senator.

"Having grown up in Vermont and now having returned, I see a very different state. I have seen the extreme damage Vermont caused by the liberal agenda. I am working in whatever capacity I can to turn this state around, to restore the values that made Vermont great."


There is probably not one Vermonter in a hundred who can recall the details of Greg Parke's political career. A quick review: he ran in 2002 eager to take on Bernie Sanders but he lost the Republican nomination for Congress to Bill Mueb, garnering only 22.3 percent of the primary vote.

In 2004, Parke ran once again for the Republican nomination for Congress. This time he won and had his chance to take the evil doer Bernie Sanders; but Parke was trounced winning only 24.4 percent of the vote, a slight improvement.

In 2006, Parke declared his intentions once again to run against Bernie Sanders in the race to replace Jim Jeffords in the Senate. This year he has to beat Rich Tarrant in the GOP primary first however. At the Republican Convention on May 20th Parke received only 23.2 percent of the vote in the straw poll. As former Douglas campaign manager Neale Lunderville said, in this case of Mark Shepard but it would apply even more so to Parke, "If he can't win here, he can't win anywhere."

Three times at the plate, and three times he cannot break the twenty-five percent. Not good. So why does he run?


Greg Parke had set the record for spending on a primary election in Vermont. Of course Tarrant has caught up and is spending even more. Nonetheless the media ignores Parke. He barely receives a mention in the Sanders/Tarrant discussion. Amazing. He has raised over a $1,000,000 and nobody talks about him.

Parke says, "They do not think that we have traction because we do not have the $500,000 checks like Mr. Tarrant. Some in the media do not want me to get traction."

Yet for all of his fundraising prowess, after paying his fundraising costs, the Parke campaign had only $33,237 cash on hand after debts and loans on March 31, 2006. Maybe he has no media recognition because he has no money and he up against the very rich Rich Tarrant who has already spent over $2,500,000 in this election cycle.


"It is a lot of work for not much money that sticks. Building a donor base is expensive. It costs money to raise money. We are still doing mail, we are sending out a 600,000 person email Monday. We use lists, several conservative email lists, Eberly's GOPUSA list, Newsmax list, Conservative voice.com list, and so forth.

"It depends on the campaign Internet provider who takes care of the money. We receive a file of donors from the caging operation, they send us a check after they take their percentage for keeping things up and running and their credit card fees. We also have a direct mail house with caging operations, they send us money, a donor file and FEC record of the donation. All over the country people understand the true nature and threat of the so called independent Bernie Sanders."


In the last sixty days, Greg Parke's money machine has asked for money more than ten times in emails alone, emailing to conservative donors around the country.

In the emails, Parke writes that Jim Jeffords quit his run for re-election because, "He saw the massive support I was getting from grassroots Republicans like you. He took a hard look at the rapid momentum my campaign was gaining and within just a couple of months he decided to call it quits."

And we thought that Jeffords decided to forgo re-election because of health issues.

Parke claims that Jeffords "handpicked the most far left, most radical, most liberal politician in America to run in his place, Bernie Sanders. Ultra liberal Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed 'socialist' who absolutely must be stopped from ever reaching the U.S. Senate."

Bernie declared his interest in Jeffords's senate seat a mere two days after Jeffords's retirement announcement. That was pretty quick work recruiting Bernie!

Parke urges the reader to send money quickly as we have "less then 6 months until Election Day." Parke's next Election Day is the second Tuesday of September, less than four months away. He fails to mention that he has a primary opponent.

His fund raising effort warns of the radical agenda of socialist Sanders, and his fellow traveler Hillary Clinton. "In fact, Hillary Clinton has just contributed $10,000 to Bernie Sanders," trumpets a recent fund raising email. "Do you want Hillary Clinton putting avowed socialist Bernie Sanders in the United States Senate?"

Parke extols his political organization in Vermont, which is all but invisible to the naked eye. "I have spent most of this past year putting the infrastructure in place to run a top notch campaign. I think we've done a great job building a team that can beat Sanders and get this Senate seat back in Republican hands."

There is no evidence that, other than his wife Sharon and treasurer Wayne Carlson of Rutland who does Parke's books for a cool $13,000, that there is any paid organization in Vermont. There is no evidence that he has county chairs, town chairs, state coordinators, etc. On the other hand, the Tarrant campaign has recently announced 470 local and county campaign chairs.


His March 31st FEC filing shows that he has received contributions of over $250 from donors in forty states, including three from Vermont.

Parke's expenditures are nearly all for mail and Internet expense. Hardly a dime has been spent for voter contact: radio television, phone banks, or persuasion mail. It is all about the money.

Like Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Parke receives money from the campaign, a small salary instead of the mega commissions for Mrs. Sanders. A visit to the Parke for Senate website section "About Greg" states, "His wife Sharon of 32 years works for a non-profit organization." According to Parke, her only job is with the campaign, a non-profit no less!


The Constitution of the United States gives wide berth to political speech. Parke's misrepresentations, explicit and implied, probably slide into that constitutional "wide berth."


Dear Friends,

"Stopped into a church as I passed along the way, I got down on my knees" and I began to pray. I heard the message: reveal your truth. Here it is folks.

Actually, in spite of thousands of words to the contrary, I am not running against Bernie Sanders. I am running against a very successful health care entrepreneur, Rich Tarrant, for the Republican nomination to have a chance to run against Bernie.

I have really no chance to beat Mr. Tarrant. He has just sold his business, IDX and has over $100,000,000 in his pocket, and he is a longtime generous supporter of the Republican Party and its candidates in Vermont. He has put together a statewide organization, is very committed, and is well liked in the Party. At the recent Vermont GOP convention, he beat me in a straw poll, 76 percent to just 24 percent for me.

I did run against Bernie in 2004 and received only 24 percent of the vote. I also ran in 2002 for the GOP nomination for Congress and received only 23 percent of the vote.

Did I mention that my dear wife Sharon works for a non-profit? Well, that non-profit is actually my campaign committee, Friends of Parke.

Unfortunately though, I must continue to ask you for money. Fundraising is expensive, the Internet consultants I employ are paid tens of thousands of dollars. Though you have generously given my campaign over $1,000,000, virtually all of that money has gone to the consultants, the printers, and towards raising more money. I only have $33,000 available to begin my campaign. This is hardly enough to take on Mr. Tarrant.

Because Mr. Tarrant is a millionaire and I am not, I am now able to accept $12,000 from you. So please be generous, and maybe a bit Quixotic, and support Friends of Parke so that I can once again take on that dangerous liberal socialist Bernie Sanders in the unlikely event that I first beat Mr. Tarrant.


Your friend, Greg

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Governor Vetoes Gender Identity Bill

Today, Governor Douglas vetoed H.865, commonly known as the Gender Identity bill. Although the bill passed with overwhelming majorities, mostly by Democrats, in both the House and Senate, it is expected that the House will not have the votes to override the veto.

Issues with the bill, such as the ambigous definitions and the lack of clarity of what "gender identity and expression" really was, was a sticking point in the abbreviated deliberations during testimony taken in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

The matter was so convoluted, Senator Sears, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was frequently bewildered by the proponents inability to give a straight answer concerning these definitions. Despite the confusion, the bill was voted out of commmittee with Sears voting for the bill.

We will post the Governor's veto message as soon as we obtain it from the House Clerk's office.