Dover Charter Election

[Kat Kanning]

From Davie Mincin:

Dover Charter Election

Thanks to Lloyd yesterday, and Cathrine, and John today we were able to paper 750+ homes in ward 1.

Hoping to get folks election to the commission to take a look out the Dover
city charter, and make in more responsive to the will of the people.

The election is tomorrow and know your effort is so much appreciated!

Thanks so much guys for your help.  You ROCK!

Dave

[davemincin]

We got 3 of our 9 candidates elected...think the fact that the voter turnout was 12% did not work in our favor.

We met this morning to assess the results.  We did pretty well in 2 wards, needless to say they were the ones
with the highest voter turnout, and they were also the wards we made the most personal contact in.  Believe we
can all learn from this.  The most effective campaigning is personal.

We maped out a plan re which parts of the charter are in most need of revision, and will be testifying at the upcoming
hearings.

This appears to be primarily a local effort, but will let you know if we need any help.

Dave

[Russell Kanning]

LTE from Seacoast paper:
LTE page
a few of them are about our issues

[davemincin]

Thursday, February 10, 2005
Foster?s should separate fact from fiction
by Robert K. Latture
Rollinsford


The power of a free press is a wonderful thing, one of the many tools a democracy uses to build a better society. It appears, however, that Foster?s Daily Democrat has a toolbox of its own, and, of late, has been making good use of one particular tool, the hammer, pounding those with whom they disagree.

After running roughshod over former Mayor Alex Nossiff, one of the most dedicated and hard working public servants Dover has seen, they have set their sights on former State Rep. David Scott as evidenced by their Jan. 18 article on the Dover Charter Commission vote.

The article is little more than a transparent attempt to tarnish Mr. Scott, a man who has criticized Foster?s reporting as biased both in what it prints and, more importantly, in what it fails to print, i.e., the facts about wasteful local government spending and those city officials whose hands work the levers of that spending.

Foster?s writes ?Free Staters, a group dedicated to limiting the size and scope of government, may have gotten involved in [the recent] Charter Commission election in the city? by urging supporters to help David Scott ?in his attempt to influence today?s Charter Commission election.? It is well known that political action groups nationwide receive funding from a variety of outside sources and spend millions financing advertisements to influence the outcome of all sorts of elections. Newspapers themselves, via their editorials, attempt to influence elections by trying to sway their readers to their opinions. There is nothing illegal nor unethical about these processes whatsoever, as Foster?s well knows. So, why suggest the Free Staters? actions are shady and why use the word influence in an ominous sense to describe David Scott?s and others? careful researching and recommending of candidates, as if he were an evil plotter, conspiring to underhandedly alter the outcome of an election? The truth is that David Scott is a highly respected and successful businessman who could very easily spend his retirement years in comfortable obscurity, yet has chosen to dedicate his time and effort toward helping the people of this community and this state with a focus on reducing government inefficiency, waste and rampant growth as well as the taxes that pay for it. If there be heroes here, he is one, not the faceless forces who stir the public into false indignation by the tenor and the innuendo of their reporting.

Foster?s writes, ?It is not explicitly clear if the money is to help Scott promote nine candidates, or with a mailing that is also referenced concerning voting fraud - or both.? It is not clear says Foster?s, yet how timely that on the day of the election they whisper in print that David Scott might be taking outside money to promote his groups choice of candidates. It is not clear says Foster?s, yet they poke the stick of disparagement into the eye of objectivity anyway. By placing a sinister shadow over the destination of any alleged funding for David Scott?s efforts, Foster?s has blocked the light of responsible journalism. They appear to make no distinction between their editorial page and their front page, though, by any ethical standard, this type of speculation belongs on the gossip page.

Foster?s then grilled the candidates whom David Scott?s organization recommended, using leading questions clearly intended to solicit indignation against Mr. Scott. They also interviewed local fear monger Charles Proulx who likens the Free Staters to those of conservative or far-right groups whose real agenda is to undermine public institutions, when in reality their goal is to reduce the size and scope of government. Mr. Proulx would be well advised to read up on the matter before dumping his alarmist swill into the public trough.

Foster?s also interviewed Rep. Peter Schmidt who repeatedly used dubious terms like didn?t rule out, perhaps affiliated, you can read it either way, etc. Such ambivalence adds nothing to the discourse at hand and belongs not in an article that questions a man?s character.

The interview with Carole Appel, chairwoman of the Strafford County Democratic Committee, had little but street talk to offer, she claiming that outsiders were messing with Dover?s government and that Free Staters are interested in living in their own private communes and not paying any taxes. These baseless allegations are better suited to the weekly papers found at supermarket checkouts, not in Foster?s Daily Democrat.

The owners and editors of Foster?s have every right to print whatever they like. They do, however, have a responsibility to the community to separate fact from opinion.

Perhaps they have forgotten that you can?t fool all of the people all of the time.



Editor?s Note: Foster?s Daily Democrat?s response to David Scott?s commentary was published in an editorial in the newspaper?s Feb. 2 edition.

[Russell Kanning]

So is the only anti Scott editorial from the paper itself?

[davemincin]

So is the only anti Scott editorial from the paper itself?

To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.

[Russell Kanning]

We are beating them at their own game.....NH residents are smarter than the papers think they are.

[davemincin]

All things considered, thinking we are not doing too bad for a bunch of rookies!

Expect having so many allies in NH doesn't hurt either.

[Russell Kanning]

Exactly...you don't have to be a genius when you are fighting for liberty for us all...you just have to try.