Tuesday, October 25, 2005
What Kind of Party Are We Having?
In what some are speculating may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, our ears on the ground are telling us that Brian Monaghan, the Democratic Party of New Mexico's Comptroller, has given his two week notice. Compounding the drama is word that Monaghan's resignation was quickly followed by that of Judy Baker, State Party Treasurer and former IRS agent from the 2nd Congresssional District.
Monaghan was first brought on board by then Party Chair Diane Denish to help steer the party out of the legal trouble it had gotten itself into with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) during the 1998 election cycle. Locally and nationally, Monaghan is considered to be one of the best comptrollers in the country because of his knowledge and commitment to adhering to complicated national and state campaign finance laws.
One has to wonder what drove Monaghan to decide to leave now, and why Judy Baker decided to tender her own resignation immediately after he did.
Monaghan's departure from the Democratic Party of New Mexico also represents the fourth resignation to land on Chairman Wertheim's desk since the State Central Committee Meeting in April. These include Gideon Elliot, Deputy Executive Director; Sarah Rosenzweig, Finance Director; and Marci Youngmark who resigned after being promoted from Volunteer Coordinator to Finance Director. Terri Holland, the former Director of State Party Affairs, is also gone, having moved over to the Bernalillo County Party as Executive Director.
All this reinforces the serious concerns being raised by State Central Committee (SCC) members and party activists regarding the DPNM's financial dealings and effectiveness.
My experience with Monaghan was that he was a ding dong. His rules for the caucus were ridiculous. Others seemed to have a similar opinion.
In general though, the turnover among political staff is pretty high, so most of these I wouldn't read much into.
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 25, 2005 1:20:46 PM
Yes turnover is often high among political staff, but according to what I am hearing people are resigning for two reasons: they can't track where money is going and why and they can't get anything done with current Party leaders and top staffers.
Posted by: Old Dem | Oct 25, 2005 2:04:39 PM
Besides Wertheim, who is left?
Posted by: jeanne carritt | Oct 25, 2005 3:33:53 PM
Does anyone know how the party is doing in raising money and what they spend it on? When I do precinct work and try to get people interested they always are asking for information and handouts and there never are any that I can find. You have to wonder what these people do in the party. Think of the weak effort on supporting the living wage proposition. No wonder we lost.
I guess everyone is raising money for certain candidates, like the governor. What we need is reach out to get people involved, especially Native Americans, women, and people who haven't voted in years.
Posted by: Pissed Off Voter | Oct 25, 2005 5:54:28 PM
Thanks for the information....I'm both biased and largely uninformed (a typical condition, now that I think about it), but reading this just reinforces my feeling that we need a TOTAL overhaul of the Dem Party of NM. Between offering inadequate candidates for important national races and the intra-State shenanigans/upheaval, it's time for progressives to take a bigger part in the party apparatus and replace what certainly appears to be an overly-long entrenched "cabal", "network", (insert insidious but appropriate word here).
Posted by: scot key | Oct 26, 2005 6:43:25 AM
You guys gotta be jokin'! You seem to assume that everyone who left the party was competant and was doing a great job. How do you know? Were you managing them, did you work with them every day?
Maybe they left because they couldn't do the job. Ever thought of that?
It's a struggle getting competant people to work in politics and political work draws a lot of mediocre performers who talk a great game but don't produce.
Monaghan is one of the "best in the country" where did you get that from??
You make it sound like running a party is simple, that it's like running the neighborhood association or the glee club. It's tougher than that and you should give these guys a break for once.
The people that work at the party are professionals with strong academic backgrounds and political experience. What's so bad about that? Give 'em a break and lend 'em a hand. We have an election to win so get off the gossip mongering.
Posted by: Mike S. | Oct 26, 2005 8:08:17 AM
Mike S: These people weren't fired or encouraged to leave. They resigned. Big difference. If the "professionals" in the Party are doing so well, why is there so much criticism being expressed by so many? And often for the same reasons.
Of course running a party is difficult. That's why it's so important that the staff and officers act energetically and efficiently to build the party and get strong candidates. What we see now is business as usual, poor or nonexistent communication, failures in raising money, questionable spending, almost no transparency or accountability and no unified message or platform. We see a top down organization that doesn't even follow its own rules.
We're supposed to be impressed with this?
Posted by: Old Dem | Oct 26, 2005 9:36:10 AM
I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to be run the its members, and especially members of the state central committee. If you read the state party rules, it's the SCC that has the responsibility for approving budgets and expenditures, not staff or officers.
And it's the resolutions and platform committee that's supposed to be in charge of developing the message. There are supposed to be meetings of that committee in every congressional district to get input from rank and file Democrats. Not happening.
I read many blogs from around the nation and this same battle is happening all over between those who want to see the party return to its roots and those who want to continue the insider control. We need to change to win and Dean is on our side.
Posted by: L.D. | Oct 26, 2005 11:17:11 AM
Isn't debate about what the party is doing and how it's going about it a plus, not a minus? If we can't analyze ourselves and take action to make things better we'll just keep losing.
Posted by: IzzyL | Oct 26, 2005 11:59:16 AM
All of you people are kind of right, but I think you all come to the who discussion with a bias against the party organization.
Ever thought about the fact that maybe to get rid of people that were incompetant, political hacks or skill-less is a good thing? Maybe? Maybe they couldn't cut it at the party?
I remember when the party Resolutions committee and the rules committee didn't do anything and weren't even functioning. Now they are functioning parts of the party and people are interested in them. Give 'em some credit, man!
Show me where they screwed up on candidate recruitment, Old Dem. Wilson is freaking out about heather, we have good people running for AG, Land Commissioner and other offices. Richardson, Bingaman and Udall are going to cream their opponents. Sure, There's always more work to do. But geez, lay off.
Posted by: Mike S. | Oct 26, 2005 12:14:13 PM
Mike: Richard Romero. John Kelly. Phil Maloof.
Did I mention Richard Romero?
Posted by: scot | Oct 26, 2005 12:39:42 PM
It is too bad that Brian is leaving - he is considered one of the best comptrolers around. And yes the party has seen some turnover and things could most definitly be run a lot better over there, but we have to hire staff that we can trust to make day to day decisions. You can't have the SCC making every expenditure decision, that would grind the party to a halt.
Posted by: Local Dem | Oct 26, 2005 1:07:47 PM
I hit submit on accident - sorry about the typos in the last post.
One other thing - Just wanted to point out that the DNC has hired the NM organizers.
Posted by: Local Dem | Oct 26, 2005 1:12:59 PM
Of course the SCC can't make every expenditure decision. Straw man argument. But the party CAN follow the rules and at least provide a detailed and sensible budget and a clear listing of what money is being spent on, what they plan to spend it on and how they are raising money. This is not in any way unreasonable.
In fact, it is the SCC members' DUTY to question expenditures and hold the chair and staff accountable. Maybe if this were followed, we wouldn't have spending on things like nonperforming "consultants" paid despite there being no signed contract, no scope of work and no work product. FEC rules are not being followed.
Mike S. Since when are the rules and resolutions committees functioning? We had ONE state resolutions committee meeting, mostly because activists pushed for it. No rules meetings. And the party rules are NOT followed.
Nothing would be happening on that front if we weren't pushing Wertheim and others hard. No way will we "lay off," sit back and kiss ass as Dems have done in the past. WE are the party -- not the bigwigs.
As for weak candidates, try Patsy Madrid. An insider's insider who failed to go after the financial crimes in the state when she had the chance. It will be used to demolish her.
And then there's every Republican's Republican, Marty Chavez. So happy he's in there representing big developers and rich Republicans. Yeah, he won. And he calls himself a Democrat. But he's for the other side, plain and simple. Time to crack down on Democrats who only pretend to support core Democratic beliefs.
I guess according to Mike S. everything is hunky dory and we should just keep giving money and supporting candidates who vote against our interests and letting a state party be that doesn't work to further our values. Hey, keep it up and the party won't have anyone to knock on doors, phone bank or give donations.
As for the DNC paid field coordinators, it would be nice if SCC members got some information on them, wouldn't it? And rest assured, it's only Dean's push and money that has resulted in their being there.
Posted by: L.D. | Oct 26, 2005 1:31:20 PM
This is a very serious matter. It goes to the core of what we are fighting for. We want to win, we want to have our country back. If business continues as usual, we will be in such horrible shape. In fact with the ticker on the front of this website rotating so fast accounting for our money, our tax dollars going over just for the war in iraq -- $200 bill+ -- it blows my mind how there is not any urgency. It is hard to see how we can ever take the controls away from these kamikazi politico pilots and keep them from crashing and burning.
We have been working with the party intensely. Basically we get lip service. Being gullible, I actually believd some of their words, but now I have seen no action and more stalling. We do not even have the most basic requirement for a Fall SCC meeting set from the chariman and his workers. WHY NOT? It was supposed to be in Sept. or Oct. It is November and still no call.
Is this the way to win our country back? There is no accountability. We do not even know what the paid people -- and may I say paid quite well -- are doing at the headquarters. If the communications person for the dem party is reading this, what the heck are you doing for us, your democratic party members??? Any recent things you feel you should be notifying your dem party of NM about??? Oh yes I know the website. You know - we want more, and we need more to stop these pilots from crashing this plane.
The whole issue of the state treasurer indictments is such a black eye for us all here. If anyone thinks they won't have to be accountable in these times they are sorely mistaken. It is going to take work. Down and dirty work. So roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Posted by: mary ellen | Oct 26, 2005 4:58:52 PM
Old dem: John Kelly, Phil Maloof and Richard Romero weren't recruited by Wertheim, dumb#*%. .and Marty Chavez was not recruited or endorsed by the Party. And I didn't see you had a response to all the dems that are going to kick a#* this year and romp over the GOP: Richardson, Bingaman, Udall, all the State House races, County Commissions, state offices. You have a problem with Dems winning?
And that's my point. You guys want to rip the party for all its past failures. I still don't know where people come up with Brian M. is the "best comptroller in the country" Nice guy, but c'mon.
I don't know who LD is but I'm sure they have absolutely no idea all that is involved in the budget (which is given to the exec committee, btw) of a state party. Nor would you even start to understand it. I reiterate my point earlier, this isn't the glee club or the neighborhood association here. This is complicated stuff. Oh, and why didn't the "best comptroller in the world" produce these financial statements that you are so intent on looking at??
Wertheim invited so called "progressives" to look at the books and I think one person showed up. Also, should the dems books be public or something? Do we want to let the Republicans know exactly what we are spending our money on. Heck that makes a lot of sense.
Come to your senses people!
Posted by: Mike S. | Oct 26, 2005 5:10:02 PM
So I'm wondering what the answer to the problems people have mentioned. It takes five members of the SCC to call for the removal of a party officer. And a 2/3 vote in favor to remove him. Would people like to see Wertheim removed? If people feel things are as bad as they've said - shouldn't the buck stop at the Chairman. But could anyone put together a coalition to remove him and does anyone have thoughts on who would be good to replace him? I've heard people on this site continue to say how bad the party is but no one has mentioned what should be done to remedy the problem. Clearly the current actions aren't working.
Posted by: Local Dem | Oct 26, 2005 5:18:21 PM
Hey Mike S. I think you should read more carefully before you post. It wasn't me who mentioned Kelly, Maloof and Romero. It was scot. And I didn't see scot saying that Wertheim chose these. He was pointing out weak candidates put forth by the Party.
Yeah, Dems are gonna kick ass this year. We've got Bingaman, who votes for CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill and thinks it's a victory to toss in some meaningless environmental clauses, most of them later rejected, in a horror of an energy bill. Big winner for us, the working people. Bring on the nuke power!
Richardson will probably win by the force of his personality (and the money he takes), but we know he cares little for anything but his presidential hopes, which are truly fantasyland given his baggage. In the middle of Albuquerque's fight to win a living wage, he states he won't take a stand, but that he may try to raise it at the state level. Yeah. Heavy.
The Dem Party supposedly didn't take a stand in the mayoral race, they just sat there and let a crook win, when he should have been thrown out of the party for being a Republican and being as full of filth as the treasurer's office.
The Dem Party failed to register new voters, did almost nothing to support the living wage proposal. Did NOTHING to help Dem candidates for city council in districts with only one Dem running. Success!!
If we get an honest and strong candidate for AG, believe me it won't be because the Party has anyting to do with it. It will be despite them and Richardson's push to get his own in that slot. And tell me again, who's running against Pearce?
What does the Party have to do with the State House and County Commission races? If anything, they've made it harder for good Dems to win because the Party and its bigwigs have tolerated and even promoted the likes of those involved in the State Treasurer scandals for decades. They need to be flushed out.
There are way too many overly paid staffers and consultants attached to candidates and party functions who have only tunnel vision about their particular piece of the pie. Meanwhile, the nation goes down in flames. But hey, Richardson and Bingaman and Patsy Madrid are winners. For themselves and their big dollar donors.
Posted by: Old Dem | Oct 26, 2005 5:33:45 PM
Old Dem - So what should we do? Can anyone recruit a better candidate to run against Wilson? I'm tired of the complaining without a plan of action for change.
Posted by: Local Dem | Oct 26, 2005 5:40:32 PM
MIke S who are you and where did you come from??
Is it your opinion we did well in the 05 elections?? Do you live in albq.?? Do you believe in a living wage? Even that failed. Maybe you are one of those dems like marty who say the feds should pick it up. Oh they did pick it up and dropped it just as fast, meanwhile gave themselves a hefty raise. I guess they see that they need the $ but people making 5.50 an hour don't.
I also want to say that my city councillor Sally Mayer who is a republican with real real strong republican values was re-elected to my district. Marty Chavez supported her over the only dem running Marianne dickenson. Am i supposed to be happy over this news?
REALLY MIKE S COME TO YOUR SENSES.
The crazies have the wheel...tell me one good thing that is going on locally, state wide and federal for the dem party just one thing at each level.
Posted by: mary ellen | Oct 26, 2005 5:46:46 PM
I have to step in here and comment about the books. Yeah, Mike S., we know this isn't a glee club or neighborhood association, though the Party often functions like one. A private club for insiders. We expect and demand the Party to function like at least a semblance of a professional organization. One that has accountability and transparency and honest communication to its SCC members, one that follows its own rules, one that requires its communications staff to communicate effectively, one that requires its administrative staff to manage effectively, and one that requires its officers to meet the requirements of their offices. It's not rocket science and it isn't silly to demand that basic principles and rules be followed. On the contrary, it's imperative that they are.
Of course the books are complicated given the campaign rules, but you can't tell me that a clear statement of where money is spent, on what and when can't be produced so the SCC, who is in charge of approving these, can understand where the money is going and why. Vast corporations with incredibly complicated books can produce expenditure and budget reports that are understandable. Don't tell me the Party can't.
In addition, when a particular substantial expenditure is questioned there is no reason that the expenditure can't be adequately explained when 5 members of the SCC, as required by the Party rules, ask for that in writing.
We aren't talking about the Dem books being "public." We're talking about SCC members getting adequate information to make decisions, as defined in the rules.
In short, you just mock people for seeing things as they are and trying to get support for changing them. People have to identify the problems before they can be fixed. More and more people are seeing the truth of the matter, all over the nation in fact. We are fed up with the status quo, with the filthy money that controls so much and with a bunch of candidates and party holders in the Party who think they can take any position to meet the demands of their big money donors and we'll just keep voting for them anyway.
Wake up, Mike. The times they are a changin'. And next time you want to come off like an inside expert, please post with your real name. Why be ashamed of it?
Posted by: barb | Oct 26, 2005 5:56:58 PM
Local Dem: As I said above, you have to identify the problems before they can be fixed. Reformers in the Party haven't had large amounts of funds over decades, paid staffers and extensive contacts so that we can come up with new candidates or party officers in a snap. The first priority is to gain support for REFORM. To do that you have to be clear about the problems and what needs to be fixed to move forward. That's what many of us are doing here.
Eventually, perhaps sooner than later, we'll have the loosely knit coalitions in place to get better candidates, better party officers, better party staff and alternate sources of funding, not just here but all over the nation. You've got to start somewhere.
We aren't just bitching. We're following a clear path being laid by the DNC Chair Howard Dean and many others, in a fight to take back our party and our nation from forces that in no way have the common good in mind when they act. It's not easy, but this thing is gaining momentum each and every day.
Posted by: barb | Oct 26, 2005 6:08:55 PM
Doesn't the party have to report to the FEE? Why don't you just go to the reports there.
I'm no expert, just a volunteer.
Posted by: mike s. | Oct 26, 2005 7:04:29 PM
hey guys, i think you should know where mike s is coming from. he isnt just some guy from outside of the city making comments about stuff he doesnt know about. unlike many current "progressives" mike along with barb and mary ellen actually got off his ass and worked serious hours for one of the REAL dem city council candidates in this cycle. when so many others are satisfied with sitting in the coffeeshops bitching about the federal scene mike knew that he could best help democracy by actually doing something. dont confuse things and think he defends the state party-believe me he doesnt, but come on how many of you who want to tear everything down about the party can actually say you've put in significant time to our last municipal race? the ones who whine the most are usually the ones that need something to do.
Posted by: Keegan King | Oct 26, 2005 10:44:52 PM
The person posting under the name "Mike S" is not me. I don't know who it is.
I never use pseudonyms or false names (although sometimes I forget the middle initial) and I always use my email address.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Oct 26, 2005 11:26:06 PM
Okay, as long as I have the microphone, maybe I can throw some darkness on the issues.
No, the State party does not have to report to the FEC, as I understand it. Some months ago (6??) I spent 5 or 10 hours looking through various disclosures posted on the FEC site. I posted some links and comments on this site. I believe that the FEC is only concerned with Federal elections and federal campaigns, and not intra State and local elections, nor with State party building. Thus, I found reports of some NM Party expenses, but only the portion of the expenses that was attributed to federal elections.
No, I don't recall John Wertheim ever offering to let anyone look at the books. I would have been all over that like pandering is on Richardson. I love looking at accounts. I love financial statements. I have the soul of an auditor (which I keep in a hermetically sealed box in the closet).
No, the SCC never did see or authorize a budget, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that the rules require this. Back before the April SCC meeting I made noises here and elsewhere asking "where's the budget?" but never did get an answer. I love reviewing budgets, too.
No, as far as I can tell the NMDP is a totally dysfunctional waste of time and money. Personally, I wouldn't give 'em the time of day, let alone actual money.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Oct 26, 2005 11:38:44 PM
Yes, it takes just 5 SCC members to call for removal of a state officer, and a 2/3 vote to remove.
"... a quorum shall be 3/4 of the entire membership [of the SCC] ... no proxies shall be permitted in determining a quorum ... (State Rule 5-7B4)
That means if just 25% +1 stay home, or somehow don't make it to the meeting, there's no quorum and no removal. I can't imagine ever actually getting 75% of the SCC to show up for a meeting, even if we could somehow issue arrest warrants and get the police to serve 'em. So no, removal isn't possible.
The only real effect of the rule is to get the troublemakers on record (it's NOT a secret vote) and identified for retribution
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Oct 26, 2005 11:53:32 PM
I can answer the question, Where did Romero come from?
Richardson chose him as the candidate in 04, which proves he thinks political paybacks are more important than winning the seat for Dems.
And don't be silly; the current Democratic party no more chose Bingaman, Richardson and Udall than I did.
Can anyone tell me, does Bingaman have an opponent yet?
Posted by: KathyF | Oct 27, 2005 5:36:06 AM
Keegan makes a good point. It is very important that people concerned about the Party also do the often down and dirty work needed to build the Party and elect candidates. I know many people from our DFA-DFNM Meetup group and beyond DO dedicate alot of time, energy and money to the cause. However, there are still many people who apparently believe talking, emailing and criticizing equals activism. We all need to be as involved in on the ground work and support as we are at analysis.
It's important to remember, however, that many, many progressives, activists, DFA-DFNM Meetup members and others HAVE been very involved for a long time. I know many of us first got involved in the early days of the Dean for president campaign, and then volunteered and gave money to Miles Nelson for Congress, Richard Romero for Congress, Kerry for President, Griego for Mayor and Dickinson for City Council or other Dems running for City Council, as well as being active in the campaigns to pass a living wage and the clean election code.
Many worked hard to get the election reform bill passed at the Legislature earlier this year and are continuing their involvement with the Interim Election Reform Task Force.
There has been dedicated involvement in many political efforts via NM Democratic Friends, DFA-Democracy for NM and Buena Gente.
Working together, we got about 50 new people elected as ward and precinct officers and a similar number elected to the Democratic Party's State Central Commmittee, as well as folks elected to the County and State Resolutions Committees. We urged people to attend County Party functions, to do precinct work and to raise money for the Party. Many of those who got elected have held ward and precinct meetings, house parties, picnics and more. A bunch of people got together and organized a Chile Cookoff to benefit the County Party, and got buttons and tshirts made for sale to benefit the County Party.
I could go on. I just thought it was important to recognize that many in our progressive or reform community HAVE been working hard for the Party and candidates. We aren't just sitting around typing our thoughts into blogs.
Posted by: barb | Oct 27, 2005 10:13:49 AM
fine i take back defending you mike s. sorry.
Posted by: Keegan S King | Oct 27, 2005 10:22:23 AM
hey keegan nice to hear your voice here tho!!!
keep coming back...help us with the mess!
Posted by: mary ellen | Oct 27, 2005 2:02:50 PM
This sure has got people riled up. Can be a good thing in times like these. The hard part is getting thing fixed and getting together to beat Republicans and build our party so it gets stronger.
Posted by: Pissed Off Voter | Oct 27, 2005 4:19:48 PM
Stinks we have to fight the party bigsheets as hard as we fight the repugs. Do you know any happy and hopeful democrats who aren't earning money one way or another from the party or candidates? I don't.
Posted by: clovispoint22 | Oct 27, 2005 4:37:53 PM
Hey , Mike S!! Your prose sounds so familiar! Tell the truth -- are you really Matt Farrauto from the state party? Confess!!
Posted by: mikeZ. | Oct 27, 2005 6:11:17 PM
If Mike S is Matt F from the Party we now have the question that so many of us have been asking regarding “what does the Party do?” Apparently, the Party is busy monitoring Democratic websites instead of recruiting and training candidates, raising money, planning the SCC meeting we’ve all been waiting to receive notice of or develop that budget that anyone has yet to see (and from what I’ve heard the recently resigned Treasurer never saw it either).
I can’t express how glad I am that the Party is using my donations to pay someone to blog trying to justify their job instead of doing their job.
Posted by: Mike T | Oct 28, 2005 7:59:23 AM
God, you guys are crazy . . . Really crazy. You are really stuck to your opinion so much that you can't even begin to see or comprehend somebody else's.
I thought us demos were supposed to be about compassion and understanding or something like that.
So, you guys accuse me of being some guy from the party or something and i think that shows how whack you guys are.
I just wrote Mike S. because everyone else wirtes in as Mike T or Local Dem or mad Dem or Angry Dem and I thought I would do that instead of putting my full name.
If you had a bunch of guys named or calling themselves "angrydem" "Pissed off Voter" "RoadRageDem" "CrankyOldProgressive" "HomicidalManiacVoter" or "Michael Schnieder" mad at you would you post your full name, give out your email or your home phone number?
I'm just hoping I can get "HappyDem" "UniteDems" or "ExcitedVoter" or "ProgressiveWhoWantstoWin" to write in some day. Might make it a little more fun around these parts.
Posted by: Mike S. | Oct 28, 2005 8:24:57 AM
When confronted with strong points against his arguments, I guess Mike S. believes it's sufficient to call people "crazy" rather than answer the questions raised or provide reasoned support for his points. Sorry Mike S., debating an argument on the merits doesn't equal a lack of compassion or understanding. Quite the contrary. I guess you subscribe to the Republican take on debate -- juvenile name-calling.
Even your listing of the names people use to post is out in left field (or is that right field). I see only Local Dem, Old Dem, people's initials and their real names. And one Pissed Off Voter -- which is no doubt a take on the youthful activist group Pissed Off Voters.
People aren't mad at you for the most part. They're just making their arguments, which you avoid replying to. You accuse others of not being able to see or comprehend your argument, but people have been refuting you point by point while you make accusatory statements about their mental states.
Posted by: clovispoint22 | Oct 28, 2005 9:53:39 AM
Thanks Clovis! For standing up for us...you say it well above. Are you really in Clovis NM? That would be a very good thing for us if you are. thanks again. meb
Posted by: mary ellen | Oct 28, 2005 10:08:11 AM
A Clovis Point is a type of paleo-indian projectile point; large, carefully chipped, presumably a spear point for use against large grazing animals. So named because it was first characterized or described from on samples found near Clovis. Related to Folsom points.
Anyway, back to Mike S's statement that "If you had a bunch of guys named or calling themselves ... "Michael Schnieder" mad at you would you post your full name, give out your email or your home phone number?"
Yes. There's a lot to be said for honesty and openness. Using one's name is an indication that you stand behind your statements. Anonymity or pseudonyms always raise the suspicion of deceit or dissimulation.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Oct 28, 2005 6:51:03 PM