To the victor go the spoils. - Taking the contrarian viewpoint on Gov. Perdue engaging in a free campaign ad because it concerns HOPE.
Today’s Athens Banner-Herald has some rather strong words for Gov. Perdue, accusing him of something with which I do not necessarily agree. The paper's editorial provides in part:
Gov. Sonny Perdue is using state lottery money to fund what amounts to a campaign commercial.
The commercial comes in the form of a 90-second video message from Perdue on the Web site http://gacollege411.org, a site built with at least part of a $1.7 million allocation of lottery money. It is that same lottery money that funds the state's HOPE college scholarship program.
The video, one mouse-click away from the site's home page - which includes an invitation to "View a message from Gov. Sonny Perdue" - has the governor explaining the features of the site.
While the governor's message is not overtly political, and while it doesn't automatically pop up on the site, it's more than reasonable to assume a large number of site visitors will choose to view it. It's also reasonable to assume the governor's avuncular presentation will resonate favorably with viewers, and that it will link him with the hugely popular HOPE program. And, it's reasonable to assume many of the people who see it will remember it when they step into voting booths in 2006. That is, of course, presuming Perdue will run. Which seems likely, if he's going to the trouble of having himself inserted into a state Web site he has to know will be heavily used.
Incidentally, in 1992, Perdue voted against establishing the lottery, and against using its proceeds solely for education.
[C]learly, there is no need for the governor to appear on the site.
Perdue [should] be happy with the Web site? He's gotten a campaign commercial at no cost - a commercial that will be airing frequently in households filled with likely voters. That's certainly some bang for the bucks.
The trouble is, they're not Perdue's bucks. He's taking them from young people across the state looking for a shot at an education.
No campaign commercial should cost that much.
_______________
In a 2-15-05 post entitled "Gov. Perdue: "Is you is or is you ain't." - The charge: "Democrats warn of raid on HOPE." Gov. denies this. Someone is mistaken or someone is lying," I wrote in part:
I have reviewed the one-stop location for college-bound students and think it is great; but the cost of setting it up and administering it has become an issue.
I have reviewed the one-stop location for college-bound students and think it is great; but the cost of setting it up and administering it has become an issue.
[My immediate reaction to nine positions to run it as the same as my reaction to the Cobb County Board of Education spending $60 million on laptops for students (and thus committing to spend a like amount every 5 years as the laptops need to be updated). Utter disbelief (and I am a school board attorney and generally very, very liberal on spending for education).]
As voters, we of course remember the HOPE program being sold with the assurance that HOPE funds would never be used for anything but educational purposes, or to replace educational dollars that otherwise would have been appropriated for existing educational programs.
While one cannot argue whether this Web site is not for educational purposes, it is very questionable whether this is the type of thing HOPE should pay for.
But given the present situation, such abstract issues can be decided at another time.
What needs to be decided now is who is correct on the very issue of whether this new Web site is costing HOPE anything.
Gov.Perdue's office says it is not -- that the $1.7 million is part of the cost of administering HOPE.
Lt. Gov. Taylor begs to differ.
We as citizens are not only entitled but would very much appreciate knowing who is correct.
I would suggest to Lt. Gov. Taylor that he request Attorney General Thurbert Baker investigate this matter and issue a report (you're welcome Thurbert).
The Attorney General will probably decline such request unless some there is an allegation of some possible law violation being involved.
If the AG's office does not become involved, perhaps the AJC can show us some more of its great investigative reporting.
I do think this is a very important and serious issue, and would like to know who is right or wrong.And based on the ultimate finding, let the chips fall where they may.
Either the Gov. is correct, and the Lt. Gov. and other Democrats owe him an apology, or he is incorrect, and should have his mouth washed out with soap for lying to his constituents.
While we know we can expect charges -- almost all of them politically motivated -- on many issues the next couple of years with Taylor running against Perdue, when it comes to messing with HOPE funds, this is a cat of a different color.
_______________
As far as I know, we as citizens have not heard whether or not the Gov. or the Lt. Gov. was telling us the truth about this Web site and HOPE. This is most unfortunate given the large amount of bucks involved.
But for purposes of this post, whether state funds or HOPE is paying for the Web site is not determinative of whether the governor is getting a free campaign ad.
I do not think that Gov. Perdue has done anything at all wrong in appearing on the Web site, regardless of who is paying for it. And my definition of "wrong" includes questionable or unethical or illegal in any way.
There is something known as the spoils of political victory, and whether we like it or not, George Ervin Perdue from Bonaire, Georgia was elected governor in Nov. 2002.
We understand that for Democratic Party officials to fuss about such is just them just doing their job.
But at some point all of us -- and I am talking about both parties -- need to quit being so dern picky and contentious and alleging that every little this and that represents some sort of egregious malfeasance in office by our elected officials. (A recent example comes to mind of an official using a state computer for some minor personal business; is replying to a personal e-mail allowed if you are working on you state-owned computer? In law we would call such use di minimus and disregard it as being a capital offense.)
Clearly there is and must be a line. But being a spokesperson for a state administered program does not cross such line, regardless of the source of funding for the medium of the communication, in this case the Web site.
In a similar vein, it was not improper for Secretary of State Cathy Cox to do the public announcements and various programs on investments frauds, etc., since her office was involved in the tobacco settlement money. Did such advance her standing and status in the state as an attactive gubernatorial candidate? Sure. Did this make it wrong? Of course not.
The above opionion notwithstanding, I still sure would like to know who is correct on whether HOPE funds are involved in this Web site.
Gov. Sonny Perdue is using state lottery money to fund what amounts to a campaign commercial.
The commercial comes in the form of a 90-second video message from Perdue on the Web site http://gacollege411.org, a site built with at least part of a $1.7 million allocation of lottery money. It is that same lottery money that funds the state's HOPE college scholarship program.
The video, one mouse-click away from the site's home page - which includes an invitation to "View a message from Gov. Sonny Perdue" - has the governor explaining the features of the site.
While the governor's message is not overtly political, and while it doesn't automatically pop up on the site, it's more than reasonable to assume a large number of site visitors will choose to view it. It's also reasonable to assume the governor's avuncular presentation will resonate favorably with viewers, and that it will link him with the hugely popular HOPE program. And, it's reasonable to assume many of the people who see it will remember it when they step into voting booths in 2006. That is, of course, presuming Perdue will run. Which seems likely, if he's going to the trouble of having himself inserted into a state Web site he has to know will be heavily used.
Incidentally, in 1992, Perdue voted against establishing the lottery, and against using its proceeds solely for education.
[C]learly, there is no need for the governor to appear on the site.
Perdue [should] be happy with the Web site? He's gotten a campaign commercial at no cost - a commercial that will be airing frequently in households filled with likely voters. That's certainly some bang for the bucks.
The trouble is, they're not Perdue's bucks. He's taking them from young people across the state looking for a shot at an education.
No campaign commercial should cost that much.
_______________
In a 2-15-05 post entitled "Gov. Perdue: "Is you is or is you ain't." - The charge: "Democrats warn of raid on HOPE." Gov. denies this. Someone is mistaken or someone is lying," I wrote in part:
I have reviewed the one-stop location for college-bound students and think it is great; but the cost of setting it up and administering it has become an issue.
I have reviewed the one-stop location for college-bound students and think it is great; but the cost of setting it up and administering it has become an issue.
[My immediate reaction to nine positions to run it as the same as my reaction to the Cobb County Board of Education spending $60 million on laptops for students (and thus committing to spend a like amount every 5 years as the laptops need to be updated). Utter disbelief (and I am a school board attorney and generally very, very liberal on spending for education).]
As voters, we of course remember the HOPE program being sold with the assurance that HOPE funds would never be used for anything but educational purposes, or to replace educational dollars that otherwise would have been appropriated for existing educational programs.
While one cannot argue whether this Web site is not for educational purposes, it is very questionable whether this is the type of thing HOPE should pay for.
But given the present situation, such abstract issues can be decided at another time.
What needs to be decided now is who is correct on the very issue of whether this new Web site is costing HOPE anything.
Gov.Perdue's office says it is not -- that the $1.7 million is part of the cost of administering HOPE.
Lt. Gov. Taylor begs to differ.
We as citizens are not only entitled but would very much appreciate knowing who is correct.
I would suggest to Lt. Gov. Taylor that he request Attorney General Thurbert Baker investigate this matter and issue a report (you're welcome Thurbert).
The Attorney General will probably decline such request unless some there is an allegation of some possible law violation being involved.
If the AG's office does not become involved, perhaps the AJC can show us some more of its great investigative reporting.
I do think this is a very important and serious issue, and would like to know who is right or wrong.And based on the ultimate finding, let the chips fall where they may.
Either the Gov. is correct, and the Lt. Gov. and other Democrats owe him an apology, or he is incorrect, and should have his mouth washed out with soap for lying to his constituents.
While we know we can expect charges -- almost all of them politically motivated -- on many issues the next couple of years with Taylor running against Perdue, when it comes to messing with HOPE funds, this is a cat of a different color.
_______________
As far as I know, we as citizens have not heard whether or not the Gov. or the Lt. Gov. was telling us the truth about this Web site and HOPE. This is most unfortunate given the large amount of bucks involved.
But for purposes of this post, whether state funds or HOPE is paying for the Web site is not determinative of whether the governor is getting a free campaign ad.
I do not think that Gov. Perdue has done anything at all wrong in appearing on the Web site, regardless of who is paying for it. And my definition of "wrong" includes questionable or unethical or illegal in any way.
There is something known as the spoils of political victory, and whether we like it or not, George Ervin Perdue from Bonaire, Georgia was elected governor in Nov. 2002.
We understand that for Democratic Party officials to fuss about such is just them just doing their job.
But at some point all of us -- and I am talking about both parties -- need to quit being so dern picky and contentious and alleging that every little this and that represents some sort of egregious malfeasance in office by our elected officials. (A recent example comes to mind of an official using a state computer for some minor personal business; is replying to a personal e-mail allowed if you are working on you state-owned computer? In law we would call such use di minimus and disregard it as being a capital offense.)
Clearly there is and must be a line. But being a spokesperson for a state administered program does not cross such line, regardless of the source of funding for the medium of the communication, in this case the Web site.
In a similar vein, it was not improper for Secretary of State Cathy Cox to do the public announcements and various programs on investments frauds, etc., since her office was involved in the tobacco settlement money. Did such advance her standing and status in the state as an attactive gubernatorial candidate? Sure. Did this make it wrong? Of course not.
The above opionion notwithstanding, I still sure would like to know who is correct on whether HOPE funds are involved in this Web site.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home