One more entrant is set to embark on the quest for the Democratic nomination to become Philadelphia’s next mayor.
According to the Inquirer’s Heard in the Hall blog, State Senator Anthony Williams emailed his supporters the details for the announcement of his candidacy on Wednesday.
Williams has been widely expected to run in next May’s primary.
Last summer, he hired 270 Strategies which is run by former Obama campaign alumns Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart.
In fact Anthony’s father, State Senator Hardy Williams ran for Mayor back in 1971.
At the moment, Sen. Williams’ announcement is scheduled the same day as former DA Lynne Abraham’s press conference to proclaim her candidacy. Terry Gillen and Ken Trujillo have already entered the race.
Among those suspected of possibly joining the fray are: City Controller Alan Butkovitz, Councilman Jim Kenney, former Councilman Frank Rizzo Jr., and City Council President Darrell Clarke.
Before you hear Josh rebuke you [and debunk your paradigm of the Middle East], you may wish to watch the following brief [spoon-fed] video on the history of the Middle East conflict; you will then appreciate why you generate so many “Defects” in your postings [now, including the phrase, “I’m fine with the existence of a the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, but not at the expense of the Palestinians prevented from having their own state.”].
In the process, you will be reminded of the overarching legality of the ’48 Partition, which Arabs have consistently opposed [militarily, diplomatically, etc.] thereafter; you will also be reminded of the pre-’67 posture that existed among those you condone [opposing Israel’s existence before the defensive war that yielded expanded Israeli control], when your two-state solution existed [but didn’t satisfy the Arabs’ desire to wipe-Israel-off-of-the-map].
Excerpts from the Hamas Covenant might prove enlightening:
[After praising Muslim women, notwithstanding the enslavement thereof by Islamists worldwide]….[Y]ou find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.
[After having claimed Jews “were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there]….With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.
You are lying [note double entendre] with this organization and, thus, you have “fleas.”
@ The Reader:
DD has admitted he condones terrorism against Israeli Jews: “The Hamas rockets are the result of Israel’s policies.”
One would hope that all Dems who are public figures and/or who advocate for the Dem-Party would repudiate his oeuvre [here and elsewhere].
1) It is you have made a “moral equivalency” between the lives of a few dozen Israel soldiers and more than hundred-dozen innocent civilians.
2) The Hamas rockets are the result of Israel’s policies.
3) The results of the war are Israel’s disproportionate overreaction to Hamas’s ineffective weapons by slaughtering over 1,000 innocent adults and over 500 children.
4) The tunnels are nothing compared to Israel’s bombers, gunboats, assault helicopters, and heavy artillery. Tunnels are a low-tech response to Israel’s complete air superiority.
What’s more terrorizing.. a kidnapping or the bombing/leveling of an entire neighborhood?
If tunneling was a great and powerful military tactic, Israel would be digging their own network of thousands of tunnels. (and, I wouldn’t be shocked if they didn’t have a few tunnels of their own for covert ops).
You have confused tactics with terrorism.
As usual, you evaded the key-question by citing data c/w the concept that “War is Hell.”
Further, you claim unjustifiably that Israel has engaged in terrorism.
You adopt a typically-lib “moral equivalency’ stance, without quite admitting that Hamas has terrorized Israel [and had planned a slaughter].
Cannot you admit that the results of the war were related to the Hamas policies of sending missiles into Israel?
Cannot you condemn the plan to use the tunnels to kill/kidnap and, thus, to terrorize?
The Gazans are suffering from the Israeli blockades and restrictions. They are the ones being terrorized by Israel. While Hamas engages in terror, so does Israel, but on a much larger scale.
“Between 2,127 and 2,189 Gazans were killed (including 513 children) and between 10,895 and 11,100 were wounded. 66 Israeli soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians (including one child) and one Thai civilian were killed and 469 IDF soldiers and 261 Israeli civilians were injured. The Gaza Health Ministry, UN and some human rights groups reported that 69–75% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians; Israeli officials estimated that around 50% of those killed were civilians. On 5 August, OCHA stated that 520,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (approximately 30% of its population) might have been displaced, of whom 485,000 needed emergency food assistance and 273,000 were taking shelter in 90 UN-run schools. 17,200 Gazan homes were totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes suffered damage but were still inhabitable. In Israel, an estimated 5,000 to 8,000 citizens temporarily fled their homes due to the threat of rocket and mortar attacks.”
You fail to acknowledge the lack of justification for the tunnels/missiles…unless you consider them justified terrorist actions?
The Gazans are suffering due to the Hamas leadership, don’t you agree?
You think the Arabs aren’t suffering? Over 2,000 dead and no suffering?
The problem is that the Western media is too un-responsive to the suffering in Gaza, and very biased toward Israel.
I have used data – from multiple sources – so effectively that you have been unable to refute my conclusions…nor have you been able to corroborate yours.
Your unfinished-business also includes whether you have acknowledged the creation of “suffering” of Arabs by a responsive media.
“Data” clearly did not refer to scientific measurements (breitbart, fox, etc.)
So, my usage was correct (per Oxford), as you and your sources of information are not scientific, but rather propaganda sites masquerading as news and information.
You must be getting desperate if you are worrying about the use of the word “data”, to avoid your real problems
1) You use bad data
2) You can’t recognize good data
2) You draw wrong conclusions from all the data you get anyway
Assuming your efforts are not “scientific” in quality, you can use “data” as a singlular-form; assuming your efforts were to have been assessed as well-referenced information worthy of being scrutinized on its merits, you cannot use “data” as a singular-form.
Choose your poison.
“Data” is acceptable in the singular form when used as equivalent to the word “information”
According to Oxford English Dictionary:
“In Latin, data is the plural of datum and, historically and in specialized scientific fields, it is also treated as a plural in English, taking a plural verb, as in the data were collected and classified. In modern non-scientific use, however, it is generally not treated as a plural. Instead, it is treated as a mass noun, similar to a word like information, which takes a singular verb. Sentences such as data was collected over a number of years are now widely accepted in standard English.”
So, once again, you don’t know what the f*ck you are talking about.
I have refuted (with specificity) your claim regarding my use of “data”.
Admit your error.
The word “data” is plural.
Refute with specificity or admit error
When it’s true, it’s not “name calling”, it’s “labeling”.
Just like: “Defective. Please return to manufacturer”.
When all your data is bad (breitbart, fox, etc.), you get “garbage in.. garbage out”.
The reader is invited to recognize that you are delusional (it’s a data-driven conclusion).
Absent any effort to rectify your multiple-“Defects” [all carefully memorialized], you recall the denuded Emperor [again, in another context, resembling your Fearless Leader following the Gruber-revelations].
The reader is invited to decide whether you were correct; I’m data-driven.
You may feel I’m a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist racist, but the electorate rejected such superficial [and transparently dismissive] name-calling; ignoring [and/or bastardizing] basic-info really is unbecoming of a pseudo-politico such as yourself.
1) Being correct twice a day is two more times than you ever are.
2) You have claimed that Obama is an anti-Semite (after creating your own new definition for the term), and believed you have proven your ludicrous assertion. Given this, no one is ever going to take you seriously (except maybe Rick Santorum).
Readers should pay you no mind; I documented elsewhere that you have “0” credibility.
[When a debater has neither the facts nor the law, he/she argues ad-hominem.}
Recall the multiple defects in the posting you ultimately abandoned, instead invoking the classic Dem-canard [labeling me a racist], acting as the “cornered-rat” that you repeatedly demonstrates yourself to be.
You purposely are evasive and adopt outrageous postures; you resembles the broken sweep-hand clock that’s correct twice daily.
It’s a shame Sklaroff’s parents were not thinking more “prophylactically” in the bedroom 64 years ago, as we would be spared his insane, delusional and revisionist ramblings.
One doubts he can pick his nose correctly.
I supported Guzzardi as a stalking-horse [a point made prophylactically both to him and to Cawley]; I even suggested that he claim a medical reason not to run for re-election, allowing the personable/knowledgeable Cawley to supplant him.
I felt Corbett’s defects were profound and immutable, and proclaimed these concerns to anyone who would listen [and/or read postings on this website]; nevertheless, I also argued that efforts should be made to tie Wolf/BHO, as was occurring nationally.
Alas, this was only to be implemented a few days prior to the election, perhaps narrowing the gap; I have no regrets regarding everything I attempted to do.
Unsanctioned R –
I can’t wait until you continue your brilliant insight into politics, like when you bragged about the greatness of Corbett’s ads and lectured the ads work because they are “focus group tested”. Just like the 2006 Santorum campaign, those Brabender ads were “focus group tested” to guarantee a blowout loss. Brilliant insight Unsanctioned R.
So much for your brilliant insight on how the President and First Lady campaigning for Wolf would result in a win for Corbett. Corbett lost by 10% in a huge Republican wave year, nationally and in Pennsylvania. First Guzzardi, then Corbett. Picking candidates for Governor isn’t your thing, huh? Please give us more of your knowledge Great Self-Proclaimed Seer of Montgomery County. We are waiting for something to laugh at.
He is attractive regardless of his stance on School Choice; he has demonstrated the capacity to function in a bipartisan fashion in Harrisburg regarding at least one issue I have monitored during the past year, the Mandatory Holocaust Education Law.
Joel Greenberg, Arthur Dantchik, and Vahan Gureghian must be smiling and pulling out their checkbooks.
That might be good — for the Pennsylvania Senate.
God bless him.
How much of his campaign will be funded by charter school profiteers?
File under ‘things that aren’t news’.