Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Why we need Jim Ogonowski to represent Wayland in Congress

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default Why we need Jim Ogonowski to represent Wayland in Congress

    In the upcoming special election this fall, Wayland has the opportunity to re-connect government to the people. To accomplish this, I am asking Wayland residents to help elect Jim Ogonowski to Congress to replace retiring Rep. Marty Meehan. Meehan was elected to the 5th Congressional District in 1992. At that time he made reform a central theme of his 1992 race, promising not to serve more than four terms – Term Limits. Meehan broke that promise. We currently have 10 House Democrats who represent Massachusetts. There is no diversity of thought on Capital Hill representing the citizens of Massachusetts. Neither Massachusetts nor Wayland needs another liberal Democrat towing the line for special interests. We need a person of integrity, honestly and someone close to the people. Jim Ogonowski of Dracut is that person.

    Jim Ogonowski is a farmer and a small businessman. The Ogonowski family has farmed in Massachusetts for over 100 years, so Jim understands the struggles of working families. Ogonowski is also a 28-year Air Force veteran, having just retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Ogonowski's brother, John, piloted Flight 11, which was hijacked on Sept. 11 and flown into the World Trade Center in New York. Jim disagreed with President Bush to go to war with Iraq, but he wants to make sure Iraq has a stable and self-supporting government. Jim has a blueprint for America’s safety and success in the Global War on Terror. The plan focuses on three parts: (1) making America’s safety our top priority; (2) achieving victory in Iraq; and (3) creating stability in the Middle East. He goes into detail on his website about this plan.

    Jim is a Republican who can not be put in a category. He has strong values and principles and he is firm in his convictions. His stances on issues are from his heart and his experience. This is a candidate that Unenrolled, Republicans and Democrats can all get behind to have the district well represented.

    In announcing his candidacy Jim says:
    “I want to restore people’s confidence in Government. We can do better. We have done better. We must do better. Congress is broken. It’s simply not doing a good job. It has become too partisan. They are too concerned whether an idea is a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. The question they should ask is: Is it right for America? Congress has a responsibility to serve the people who elected them, and the constitution of the United States which they have sworn to uphold.”

    Jim is truly a remarkable man. As Co-Chairman of the Wayland Republican Town Committee I am proud to have a candidate of Jim’s character running for the 5th Congressional District. Please join me in supporting him this September and October for the Special Election so we can make the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation more diverse and in touch with the people.

    For more information please visit Jim’s website at www.jimogonowski.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    235

    Default

    From his web site, here's Ogonowski's idea of a "detailed plan":

    Achieve Victory in Iraq :

    • Provide the leadership to foster the growth of democracy.
    • Make the Iraqi government accountable by outlining benchmarks and establishing a timetable.
    • Create the security necessary for political progress and stability.
    • Focus on training the Iraqi security forces.


    Create Stability in the Middle East :

    • Develop a regional coalition invested in the future of Iraq
    • Get tough with Iran and Syria
    • Fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan
    • Improve Intelligence


    Its hard to imagine a more clear demonstration of naive incompetence.

    Mr. proud Co-Chairman of the Wayland Republican Town Committee: putting "Neither Massachusetts nor Wayland needs another liberal Democrat towing the line for special interests" and "Congress is broken. It’s simply not doing a good job. It has become too partisan." into separate paragraphs isn't quite enough distance to hide the glaring contradiction.

    We need competent, humble, and clear thinking leaders; Ogonowski is clearly well below the bar.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default Why we need Jim Ogonowski to represent Wayland in Congress

    Thank you Dave Bernstein for your posting. Healthy debate is the cornerstone of democracy. This is why many folks here in Massachusetts want debate among the Congressional delegation. Currently, we have 10 House Democrats in office. There is no diversity. I remember Democrats complaining when they lost the Executive and Legislative branches. They wanted debate and diversity. Massachusetts Republicans want that as well. So I’m glad Democrats agree.



    I’m also glad to be a proud Republican because Massachusetts and Wayland have a strong history of Republican leadership.



    You state: “We need competent, humble, and clear thinking leaders”. I contend that the current line-up of Massachusetts Congressional Democrats do not fit that description very well. I would also put forward that Jim Ogonowski is just the man Wayland and Massachusetts need to act as a balance to the Democrats controlling debate for Massachusetts on Capital Hill.



    Also, you comment on his plan for Iraq: “Its hard to imagine a more clear demonstration of naive incompetence”. I suggest Jim Ogonowski’s views and plans on Iraq and the wider War on Terror is more consistent with moderate views of both parties. I encourage folks to review Jim’s remarks and compare to Democrat and Republican plans. It’s nice to have a debate. Let’s encourage debate by voting Republican.



    I have cut and pasted from Jim’s website just some of the details of his plan – perhaps you missed it:





    REMARKS BY JIM OGONOWSKI ON IRAQ:

    "It is no accident that we meet today, June 6, the anniversary of D-Day, to talk about America’s fight to preserve freedom and liberty. On this day sixty-three years ago, Allied Forces launched the offensive to take back Western Europe. The world watched in horror and disbelief as the Nazi regime rose up to spread hatred across the world. The United States knew that failure to act was not an option. On this day, our soldiers landed on the beaches of Normandy, strong and stoic in the face of danger on foreign shores, and drove back evil.

    The men and women who fought on D-Day will always be remembered as heroes. We often call them the “greatest generation” because they displayed the courage, strength, and perseverance that embodies everything that is great about America. I am proud to have served my country for 28 years and to have followed their footsteps protecting freedom around the world.

    Today, the fight for freedom wages on. Again, we face an enemy that hates and destroys without reason. On the morning of September 11, 2001, America and the world were reminded that evil in the hearts of only a few men can cause harm to many. I was on my way to Logan that morning. Just as I was leaving home there was breaking news that an aircraft hit the World Trade Center in New York. My first reaction was to call my sister-in-law, Peggy, who grew up in the shadows of the towers as they were being built. On my way to the airport I heard the aircraft was from American Airlines and from Boston, so I called Peg back to see if her husband, my brother, was flying. When she answered the phone, all she could say was, “Jim, Jim, it’s John.”

    The tragic events of 9/11 changed the course of American history forever, showing us all that even the greatest nation on earth is not immune from terrorist attacks on our soil. In true American tradition, we were strong in the face of adversity and united in our determination to defend liberty and freedom around the world.

    There is no single issue more challenging to America’s future than the Global War on Terror.

    We are at a defining moment in history. America has two paths before her. The first, we immediately withdraw our troops and let the region sort out the turmoil. The second, we learn from our mistakes and we give the generals and the troops the tools they need to win the war.

    “Immediate withdrawal” makes for a good sound bite, but it is cowardly and shortsighted. Those that propose it have no real plan for America’s security and have underestimated the American people’s desire for real solutions.

    In Washington, what seems more important is playing political games and gotcha with the war, and both parties are guilty of it. Congress passes a funding bill knowing the President will veto it and only after he does do they compromise.

    In this standoff, nobody wins and everybody loses—the troops, our standing in the world, the President and Congress. That is not how we did it 63 years ago and it’s not how we should do it now.

    I believe the President was wrong to invade Iraq. Let me say it again: I believe the President was wrong to invade Iraq. We all agree that Saddam was a brutal and ruthless dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people and whose aggression destabilized the region. However, we lacked conclusive and irrefutable evidence that someone inside Iraq was actively supporting terror or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

    Although I think it was wrong to invade Iraq, it does not change my determination to win the war in Iraq. I will never waiver in keeping America safe and strong.

    To be victorious we must first define victory. America is fighting an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy. While Iraq is now a part of the Global War on Terror, we must maintain our focus globally so that we can prevent future attacks both on American soil and abroad.

    I am here to announce my blueprint for America’s safety and success in the Global War on Terror. The plan focuses on three parts: (1) making America’s safety our top priority; (2) achieving victory in Iraq; and (3) creating stability in the Middle East.

    Big problems demand real solutions. Many will say that we cannot achieve these goals, but I say to them that America’s safety and security are at stake and we must not cower in the face of adversity.

    First, America’s safety must be our top priority. You will hear many politicians who talk about bringing our troops home to keep them safe. I can tell you, as a 28-year veteran, our troops want to come home, but they also want to accomplish their mission: keeping America safe. To do this, we must provide the best equipment and technology for our troops by providing sufficient funding to allow our generals the ability to properly plan and execute our mission.

    Furthermore, we need to plan for the replenishment of depreciating military equipment to keep the American armed forces the best equipped in the world.

    In addition to protecting our troops in battle, we need to remain ever-vigilant about the safety of our homeland. Since 9/11, we have experienced a renewed focus on protecting our vulnerabilities. We must improve the security infrastructure surrounding our borders, ports, rail, subway systems and chemical and biological facilities.

    We have done a good job in finding threats, as evidenced by the foiled plot at JFK airport just this weekend, and the Fort Dix plot last month. Despite these successes, we must constantly reassess our progress. We need to improve our intelligence systems to identify the risks posed to American citizens and possible attacks on American soil.

    You have heard the argument many times before, and I know it means as much to you as it means to me. Your troops need your support, and our homeland needs more protection. Our national security must be our first priority.

    Next, we must achieve victory in Iraq. Victory in Iraq is the time when American forces are no longer on the front lines and when a stable and self-governing Iraq is in charge of its own security. But the Iraqi government needs to know that our patience is running thin, our commitment is not unending and they must be our partners in securing the region. Success is keeping our commitment to stabilization, democracy and economic growth in Iraq, while removing American soldiers from the police-like duties they are engaged in on the streets.

    The President needs to expand the coalition of nations. The President has lost credibility on the world stage and should therefore solicit the help of former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Carter to bring international support securing Iraq. Despite the fact that they are from different parties and some oppose the war, they are patriots first and if called to duty they will serve our country at this critical juncture.

    We must make the Iraqi government accountable by outlining benchmarks that they must meet to be a fully functioning government, and we must outline a timetable on which they must meet them. These benchmarks should include the formation and election of local governments as well as a final national constitution.

    The security situation requires that military and police training and deployment must be part of the plan. We must establish benchmarks for the training and deployment of motivated, equipped and effective Iraqi security forces.

    But stabilization goes beyond military forces. We have attempted to introduce capitalism and democracy, but the necessary infrastructure has been destroyed. America must help them rebuild their infrastructure, such as roads, schools and hospitals. We need to offer incentives to businesses that open up in Iraq, but this cannot happen without security first.

    When the Iraqis can enforce safety in their own country, we can feel confident in bringing our troops back home where they belong.

    Finally, we must create stability in the Middle East. We must develop a regional coalition invested in the future of a stable Iraq and, if necessary, apply diplomatic pressure to ensure that these nations will protect her. By expanding the coalition of support to other countries, they too can apply diplomatic, political and economic pressure to resolve future problems.

    Many of Iraq’s neighboring states also pose great risk to the United States. This means that we must get tough with Iran and Syria. Both continue to create turmoil in the Middle East and provide safe haven for terrorists. America needs to engage these countries to help stabilize the region. We cannot continue to make demands without dialogue.

    We can never again have the intelligence breakdowns that led to 9/11 and the war in Iraq. We need to give the tools to the intelligence community they need to gather information, share information and provide accurate assessments of risk.

    Additionally, the United States needs to train Iraqi personnel in intelligence gathering techniques so that we can expand the network of information.

    I am here to tell you that our American troops must complete their mission. Our reputation as a nation and the future of Iraq and the entire region depends on it. I would not have placed Americans in this situation. But now that we are there, I believe that it is our responsibility to resolve and improve the situation.

    I will be a constant force working to find solutions to the war in Iraq. Here beside me are copies of the plan that I am mailing to Congress as well as the President and the Vice President of the United States.

    The gravestones behind us and the flags to our side remind me of the cemeteries of Normandy where so many brave soldiers gave their lives in dedication to their country. I lost a brother on 9/11. Many of you lost friends and relatives that day or in this war. They gave their lives because our freedom is so precious to us and a threat to the dictators and terrorists. They did not die in vain.

    War is not a partisan issue. We are patriots, we are Americans, we have faith in our future and love for our country. It’s that spirit that we need to renew: patriotism before partisanship. People before politics. That’s what we did on D-Day. That’s what we need to do today."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    Thank you Dave Bernstein for your posting. Healthy debate is the cornerstone of democracy. This is why many folks here in Massachusetts want debate among the Congressional delegation.
    Intelligent debate is a cornerstone of democracy. The fact that someone considers themselves a Republican does not make them intelligent, nor does it guarantee debate with Democrats. Too many members of both parties do little more than point fingers and help each other conceal earmarks while hundreds of our troups and thousands of Iraqis die each year. A plague on both your houses.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    Currently, we have 10 House Democrats in office. There is no diversity.
    Right. Those ten human beings have identical brains carrying identical experiences and thought processes. The fact that they are all Democrats makes them totally homegenous.

    You will use any random statement as proof that more members of your party should be elected, no matter how lame or twisted the logic. Intellectual honesty means nothing to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    I remember Democrats complaining when they lost the Executive and Legislative branches. They wanted debate and diversity. Massachusetts Republicans want that as well. So I’m glad Democrats agree.
    Massachusetts Republicans just want to reclaim their influence, which if recent history is any guide will promptly be used to bankrupt the country while ignoring the many pressing problems we face. You don't want debate and diversity, you want power.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    I’m also glad to be a proud Republican because Massachusetts and Wayland have a strong history of Republican leadership.
    Yes, you've accomplished quite a lot: you stopped the war in Iraq, ended the slaughter in Darfur, balanced the budget, protected the food supply, stopped employers from lowering everyone's wages by hiring illegal aliens, put a cap on carbon emissions, and restored human stem cell research. Nice work!

    No, you didn't do any of that. It was much more important to stop gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    You state: “We need competent, humble, and clear thinking leaders”. I contend that the current line-up of Massachusetts Congressional Democrats do not fit that description very well.
    You'd say that if every one of them were a perfect combination of Einstein, Lincoln, and Plato. Your contention is entirely based on one thing: party affiliation. You don't care about competence. You don't care about effectiveness. All you care about is advancing your party's agenda so you can return to power.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    I would also put forward that Jim Ogonowski is just the man Wayland and Massachusetts need to act as a balance to the Democrats controlling debate for Massachusetts on Capital Hill.
    Based on what? His inane plan for Iraq? His ability to string together meaningless sound bites. Oh, right, he's a Republican. Competence doesn't matter to you -- just party affilication.

    By the way, "we need balance" is an incredibly lame argument. It reminds me of the joke about a man with one crippled arm who is given a wish by the grateful Genie he has just freed. "Please make my one arm like my other". Guess what happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    Also, you comment on his plan for Iraq: “Its hard to imagine a more clear demonstration of naive incompetence”. I suggest Jim Ogonowski’s views and plans on Iraq and the wider War on Terror is more consistent with moderate views of both parties.
    And those moderate views have been so effective in ending the conflict, haven't they? Thousands of American service people have been killed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and millions of Iraqis have been displaced -- and your endorsement of Ogonowski’s views is that they are consistent with the policies that have achieved these wonderful results.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    I encourage folks to review Jim’s remarks and compare to Democrat and Republican plans. It’s nice to have a debate.
    I would encourage folks to ignore political hacks who will do and say anything to attain power. Seek candidates who are honest, smart, committed, independent, and willing to do what it takes to solve our many problems. On the list of considerations, party affiliation is the least relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    Let’s encourage debate by voting Republican.
    Let's ignore lame slogans.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default Why We Need Jim Ogonowski In Congress

    Thank you again David Bernstein for your posts.

    I stand by my original positions.

    Let me end by simply stating that I am a proud Republican because Republican ideals and views are most closely related to my own. No, it does not mean I agree with all party positions or support every candidate. I do my research, ask questions, go through deliberations then support a position or candidate. This led to why I support Jim Ogonowski. This is why I am a proud Republican.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    I stand by my original positions.
    So much for intelligent debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO
    Let me end by simply stating that I am a proud Republican because Republican ideals and views are most closely related to my own. No, it does not mean I agree with all party positions or support every candidate. I do my research, ask questions, go through deliberations then support a position or candidate.
    Please cite a specific example of when your research and deliberations led you to support a candidate who was not a Republican.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default Proud To Be GOP!

    Your postings speak for themselves. Thank you again.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN TOTO View Post
    Your postings speak for themselves. Thank you again.
    Translation: you've never supported a candidate who was not a Republican.

    So much for honesty.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16

    Default Even prouder to be GOP!

    Again your "postings" speak for themselves.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Let's focus on the issues...

    Hi Dave and John,

    That was a rather interesting discussion between the two of you. I thought I might cut in.

    I am very interested in this race, and it is coming upon us very quickly. We in Wayland are in a very unusual situation, as we are the only town in the entire state of Massachusetts that is split into multiple federal congressional districts. I hope that can get fixed next time districting is looked at, because it it leaves us relatively powerless. We're already a small town, but split it us up, and we don't have a lot of pull in either district.

    So, as I see it, this race is about a couple of things: (1) getting great representation generally by a competent legislator, and (2) getting representation for us specifically in Wayland.

    I confess I'm not too concerned about having diversity in the Massachusetts delegation -- doesn't seem relevant really, since they are just a piece of a federal puzzle which has not been interlocking well in recent years (OK, I think I already stretched the puzzle analogy too far). I am concerned about having our congress make good decisions (though truthfully, I am a heck of a lot more concerned right about now about our Supreme Court -- could it get any worse? Well, maybe, if we don't have proper representation across the nation). So, let's get a great legislator in there, regardless of political party. As someone who disdains the way the word "liberal" is thrown around as if it was something dirty, I am going to object to any argument that says we don't need another liberal democrat.

    This would be a good time to quote Pres Kennedy:
    What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

    But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

    In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

    I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

    I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them....

    The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
    Phew, so I guess that's why I'm a liberal. Anyway, sorry, I digress...

    You know what we do need? We need someone who is going to vote for stem cell research. Someone who is going to keep the government out of our bedrooms, out of gynecologists offices. Someone who is going to try diplomacy before war, someone who dares to be honest, someone who is concerned about global warming and the environment and wants to end our dependence on foreign oil.

    So, here's what I ask you. Please talk about the issues. Talk about the candidates and what they believe in. Don't talk about labels, or partisan politics, or negativity. And don't get mad at each other. Can we have a calm debate here? John's not going to vote for any of the democrats, and Dave isn't going to vote for Jim Ogonowski -- but maybe we can help those who don't know who they are going to vote for to make an informed assessment.

    Just my two cents.

    Kim
    Last edited by Administrator; 06-29-2007 at 02:56 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    You know what we do need? We need someone who is going to vote for stem cell research. Someone who is going to keep the government out of our bedrooms, out of gynecologists offices. Someone who is going to try diplomacy before war, someone who dares to be honest, someone who is concerned about global warming and the environment and wants to end our dependence on foreign oil.

    Kim
    Well said, Kim. To your list, I would add "someone who will keep the budget in balance, and someone who will enforce the law against employers who hire illegal aliens".

    Dave

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Why do you support your candidate?

    Good point, Dave. I certainly wasn't exhaustive (nor were my issues in a priority order).

    With social issues, Iraq and the environment dominating my issue list right now, I'd love feedback from advocates of any or all of the candidates on why their candidate is the one to vote for.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •