One of the family members is Leonore Annenberg. Here is a list of her 2006 political contributions. She does lean one way.

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/leonore-annenberg.asp?cycle=06

Yeah, that contribution to Rick Santorum's campaign really paints her as a lefty ... :lol:

Clyde, Westsider. Leonore is dead. Has been for over a year and a half. Her daughter Wallis runs it now. Here is her contributions.

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/wallis-annenberg.asp?cycle=08

 

She does lean one way.

Clyde, Westsider. Leonore is dead. Has been for over a year and a half. Her daughter Wallis runs it now. Here is her contributions.

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/wallis-annenberg.asp?cycle=08

 

She does lean one way.

 

Shows you how much I pay attention to the lives of the Annenbergs.

 

So it was "right" and now it's "left?"

 

It seems to blast both when I check it.

Shows you how much I pay attention to the lives of the Annenbergs.

 

So it was "right" and now it's "left?"

 

It seems to blast both when I check it.

 

I don't see a bias, as I said I like the site and check it regularly.

The logo?

 

Is this one of these right-wing urban legends, like the nuclear weapons summit logo having some tie-in to the Muslim crescent?

 

You caught me.

The business trip and related expenses don't bother me in the slightest. Attending "trade shows", for lack of a better term, should be considered the cost of doing business.

 

Arriving 2 days early and staying 2 days late rubs me wrong, though.

 

Here's a switch; you defending a R for going to the meeting (well, at least part of it) and me saying it was wrong to go. In order to govern, you must lead. In order to lead, you must do so by example. Farmer set a very poor example for other state workers being asked to do more with less and for those furloughed state employees in these tough economic times by going to a trade show in VI if it was going to cost the State a $1.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd venture a guess that all the info he learned by attending, he could have learned otherways. I'm sure it helps shaking hands and meeting face to face with other Ag leaders. If Ag problems were what were pulling the economy down and decreasing state revenues, then perhaps it might be easier to justify. But I seriously doubt meeting face to face with other Ag leaders is going to help improve the economy. Unless I'm wrong about that and Farmer can make a compelling argument that I am wrong, I'll continue to think it was a very poor decision by Farmer. Enough to cause me not to vote for him? No, but his poor judgment on this issue will be considered by me in my deliberations of whether to support him or another candidate (some times votes are for the lesser of two evils).

 

If he can make the compelling argument why he attended, then he still has to convince me that it was necessary that 3 top aides also attend on the State's nickle. I have refused to go to conventions and trade shows for quite some time that were paid for by civic boards that I'm on or have been on. I questioned why any one needed to go. If there was a compelling argument that someone attend, I told the President of the group to go and when he/she got back to pass on the info that I needed to know in order to be a contributor and asset to that board. Call it the "No boondoggles for LN at someone else's expense" rule. When I was on TriEd's Board, we paid our own way to seminars, strategy planning trips and trade shows. I thought that was the best policy and still do. It quickly separates the wheat from the chaff.

Here's a switch; you defending a R for going to the meeting (well, at least part of it) and me saying it was wrong to go. In order to govern, you must lead. In order to lead, you must do so by example. Farmer set a very poor example for other state workers being asked to do more with less and for those furloughed state employees in these tough economic times by going to a trade show in VI if it was going to cost the State a $1.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd venture a guess that all the info he learned by attending, he could have learned otherways. I'm sure it helps shaking hands and meeting face to face with other Ag leaders. If Ag problems were what were pulling the economy down and decreasing state revenues, then perhaps it might be easier to justify. But I seriously doubt meeting face to face with other Ag leaders is going to help improve the economy. Unless I'm wrong about that and Farmer can make a compelling argument that I am wrong, I'll continue to think it was a very poor decision by Farmer. Enough to cause me not to vote for him? No, but his poor judgment on this issue will be considered by me in my deliberations of whether to support him or another candidate (some times votes are for the lesser of two evils).

 

If he can make the compelling argument why he attended, then he still has to convince me that it was necessary that 3 top aides also attend on the State's nickle. I have refused to go to conventions and trade shows for quite some time that were paid for by civic boards that I'm on or have been on. I questioned why any one needed to go. If there was a compelling argument that someone attend, I told the President of the group to go and when he/she got back to pass on the info that I needed to know in order to be a contributor and asset to that board. Call it the "No boondoggles for LN at someone else's expense" rule. When I was on TriEd's Board, we paid our own way to seminars, strategy planning trips and trade shows. I thought that was the best policy and still do. It quickly separates the wheat from the chaff.

 

Perfect!