The reason is becuase this does not address my post.

I am troubled by why Assemblyman Heastie did not follow through with our interview. I am concerned that there was some reason that he backed out. And in a year since that planned interview not one member of his staff has bothered to contact me.

Any politician that acts in such a manner concerns me. People advocating another official does not answer my concerns. It does not state that any other politician is better, or answer any of the questions I have.

I want to know if Assemblyman Heastie has done his job. Do voters have concerns like my own. Are they aware of the answers to my questions, and do they have any of their own?

If Alan J Gerson wishes to have an interview with me, he can reach me at info@vassconsult.com

But piggybacking on a post about another politician, withot addressing the issues in that post, does not confer any greater trust or reason to vote for that politician in my mind.

Yes I am a Republican. If you have read my posts I have said so many times. And if you have read my posts, independent research reports, and the admissions of several news agencies themselves you will note that the media bias in favor of President Obama was widespread. To comment on fact is not partisan.

In addition I made no promise or implication that I would not favor a particular Presidential candidate. I have stated in posts several times that I supported Senator McCain.

But the big question should be why. What policies made me believe I should vote Republican. Because I do not favor blind partisanship. And in that I believe I have always done well. Unlike the major media I have discussed the pros and cons of every candidate, and my opinion of those factors. Unlike the media I admitted I could be wrong, or that my readers may favor another candidate. And unlike the media I openly promoted voters to vote for whomever they believed it.

I just asked them to be aware of the policies they would be voting in.

So no I don’t believe that I was so partisan as to “have a warm feeling in my legs” and other such pro-Obama hype. And I did pay attention to the multiple gaffes and contradictory comments of Vice President Biden. And I mentioned the conflict that exists in the Obama Administration - as I see it so far. And I mentioned the most probable consequences of each candidates platforms.

This election was a comment on the current President. It was a statement of fear - economic fear. And it was the biggest kick in the ass the media has given the public since yellow journalism. The media failed to present facts and events, or ask questions that voters had questions on. I expect the media hopes to gain something from this massive corporate support. I recieved noting but readers and comments.

I can live with that. But did you find my commentary to be inaccurate, unfair, or overly biased? Did I promote a candidate to the detriment of facts and events? Did I unfairly present a candidate as to alter votes on a misrepresentation?

I ask that honestly because I always want to know what my readers think. So far most believed me to be accurate if a bit harsh. And in an election, especially for President, I think that is just right.

Have we even heard anything about how close the popular vote actually is???

Let’s be very scared and worried. OBAMA BIN LADEN…

And thank you for taking the time to comment.

I listened to the video clip. And I take from that 2 things. First that Chris Matthews was trying to deflect the conversation to a wider accusation than was being presented, and that Senator Obama has not made his relationship with Bill Ayers clear. And I should add a third thing. Rev. Wright is not an issue.

Rev. Wright is not a politician. I have clearly stated that he is a religious figure, and not elected. There has been no connection found that shows influence on a single decision Senator Obama has made in his political career, and many have searched for one. While Rev. Wright may be extreme in some views, he is not entirely wrong in the subjects he discusses – it is his delivery some are challenged by. That is not political fair game.

Bill Ayers is fair game. He is by definition a terrosist. He is unapologetic, and willfully interested in supporting a dramatic change in American politics that few agree with. He supports violence in achieving this limited view, that he has described as socialist. He is self-described as an anarchist. And it has been revealed that he has held these views while he served with Senator Obama on a Board, and when he launched Obama’s political career in his house. That is fair game.

Matthews wants to excite the far-left, and to offend those in the middle of the nation. He incorrectly states the political leanings of the nation. In fact some 60% of the nation has been projected as being center-right politically – no matter the official Party affiliation. He tries to extend the comments to make any non-Republican look like they are being called un-American, which is absurd.

He tries to make the comments seem like they are directed towards a geographical place, and thus type of American. That is foolish as well. But to dismiss the thought that some would radically change America into a more socialist nation is just as foolhardy.

There can be no dispute that Bill Ayers is anti-American. He is an unrepentant self-admitted terrorist. Rev. Wright is not the same. He may have strong views that are challenging, but I have yet to hear anything that is un-American. Again presentation is not the same as belief. When taken in context Ayers and Rev. Wright are nothing alike.

Tony Rezco is also not fair game. In over a decade of investigation by reporters and the legal system no wrong-doing by Senator Obama was found. I doubt that any person placed under the scrutiny of the media and politics will not have former friends and associates that have made questionable actions.

The fact that I grew up in the Bronx and have lost half the people I went to school with to drugs and/or crime does not change what I say or who I am. It does mean that I am aware of America not always being a Rockwell painting. And yes I would have a drink or dinner with those that survive today, they are friends. But that does not mean I would support what they would do, nor allow them to influence my decisions. Yet if I were questions about them, and seeking elected office, I would expect and answer my association to them.

Few in America can say that everyone they have know followed the perfect path. Fewer are aware of every action a former associate might have or is taking. That is not their fault. Rezco is out of bounds.

So in balance yes this discussion is on balance unfair. By both sides. One for including non-relevant associations, the other for sensationalism. Thus I am left to conclude that some Republicans are at fault, and the media is extremely at fault. The media has failed in their duty to inform the public without political preference. Their bias harms the nation. And part of that bias has fueled a portion of the Republican Party that feeds on irrelevance over substance. But that is not enough of a reason to pick a President, nor is it a reason to choose who not to vote for.

All that does is cause me to seek out for information, hopefully with less bias and rhetoric.

Have I answered your question?

Thank you for the compliment. I’m glad that you disagree with my positions. I firmly believe that if any commentator covering the election, or politics in general, cannot evoke respectful disagreement they are failing to give an honest opinion. Because it is in the reaction of those giving an opposing view that independents often are able to see their questions answered.

By that I mean it is the fact that a true independent will look at both sides of the issue, see what each side believes, and their weaknesses as well, and determine the overall best answer for themselves. Merely speaking to copy someone else, or to rant for ratings is a disservice to the public at large, as I see it. I am glad I have avoided that.

I would love to have a larger audience, and one of these days you just might hear/see me in a different format. But for now I am more than pleased with the tens of thousands of readers that visit me each month from around the world. Of course I’m not opposed to adding to that group, so do tell your friends.

Henry, one thing I am interested in hearing is what it is you disagree with in my analysis of Senator Obama. Is there one point I got wrong, or the whole thing? Do you see Senator Biden working positively with Senator Obama, and willingly giving up views he claimed during the Democratic debates? Do you think the economic policies will work to help America, which many disagree on? Do you think that his attitudes on foreign policy benefit or weaken America?

These and other questions are important for us to answer. They are the reasons that will determine the direction of America after the election. They should be the only factors for basing a decision on whom to vote for. So I do believe your answers can be helpful. Both for me in making my view clear and honest, and for those that oppose or are undecided. Because if there is a question I can’t answer or respond to, it is a reason to have doubt. And those I can answer give a balance to base a decision on.

That is the purpose of my years of writing on this subject. I hope that you will follow my writing on politics and other subjects after the election, because I’m not disappearing. But this focus is no less critical for all of us.