| In the interest of full disclosure I'm a rare contributor and off and on reader of Red Mass Group, further I'm supporting Jon Golnik, for Congress financially and with the extremely limited time I have avaibable.
In and August 6th 2012 Press Release, Golnik's Republican opponent, Weaver indicates "Tom Weaver Vows To Keep His Word". This statement is laughable were it not so pathetically sad. Mr. Weaver is anything but truthful! Much like our current President it is apparently everyone else's fault. Since Mr. Weaver is at it again I will relate an incident that occurred reference to Tom Weaver focusing on a proposed televised debate. This is provided to show the caliber of the individual.
I'll summarize the email chain below, I have a public access show called "Down the Middle"
1. I gave both campaigns an opportunity during the week of 16-20 July, with an ideal date Of 19 July (Normal show taping day) to have a discussion/exchange of ideas. This email was sent out on 27 June. I respectfully asked both parties to confirm by 2 July 2012 See Weavers Email to his manager and the operator of the "Concord Forum" on 27 June, as they develop the "plan"
2. Weaver NEVER mentioned a prior commitment with the "Concord Forum". But said in an email they were interested in doing this (28 June email)
3. We then found out the debate/discussion had to be canceled due to a quicker than expected studio renovation, both candidates and management were advised of this at 3;22pm on the 29th of June
4. A careful review of the attached email chain you will see Weaver pushing the strings of the man from the Concord Forum.
5. You will also note
a. Team Golnik never responded as to their availability to have this discussion from the time the announcement/offer went out until such time as it was canceled
b. Team Weaver did, in an attempt to "set up" his primary opponent and use me/my public access show to accomplish this.
c. When they try to infer I had something nefarious going on as I specifically mentioned the 19th, they failed to fully read, I offered the entire week "with an ideal date of the 19 July"
d. When this gentlemen from the "Concord Forum" "a neutral organization" responded he inadvertently attached the correspondence from Weaver showing the blame, calling me a "snake"
e. It should also be noted that when I replied to all, included in the attachment, no one from the Weaver campaign offered a rationale or responded,only this "neutral co-conspirator" from "The Concord Forum"
What does this show, merely a trend developing, a character flaw reference Tom Weaver it is his way or no way. This again shows a lack or the ability to deal, work in harmony to accomplish a goal for the goods of all, it shows a vindictive little man always looking for an angle in which he, without much effort should come out on top.
This type of "representation is absolutely no better than what we currently have in Ms. Tsongas, potentially worse in that if you don't agree with Weaver he sets of on a mission of personal destruction!
Do with this what you will, I'm sure Mr. Weavers paid media manager will be all over this site denouncing spelling, clouding the issues etc. As I have observed with several entries on/about Mr. Weaver. The problem is these are his own words, his own emails, and his own actions
From: Bryan Dumont [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:41 AM
To: 'Dave Stephens'; tom ; email@example.com
Cc: 'Bryan Dumont'
Subject: RE: FW: Potential Televised Debate
Firstly I don't know who you are or what the magnificent "Concord Forum" is and frankly was not an issue when I tried to put something together to benefit both campaigns.
Your efforts to cover/gloss over what is an absolute plot is frankly boorish.
We will see what the citizenry has to say. I work for neither entity so am beholding to neither
From: Dave Stephens [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:22 AM
To: tom ; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: FW: Potential Televised Debate
Dear Mr. Dumont,
Since the Concord Forum was referenced in your malignant attack upon Jack and Tom without the courtesy of supplying us a copy of your words, I have prevailed upon Tom to send me a copy for my information, which he has done. Your interpretation of the situation is wholly mistaken, requiring this response.
Overlooking the crass intemperance of your attack, you are entitled to an explanation of what happened:
1) Neither Tom nor Jack undertook to conspire with the Concord Forum to use you or your show as an attack upon Jon. That is pure, paranoid fabrication on your part. Rather, Tom called out of courtesy to inquire whether or not the CF would countenance a change in the CF debate time/day in order to accommodate your and Jon's interest. I told him that Jon had rejected our invitation after we extended the deadline for RSVP at the request they made in a very unprofessional manner. Accordingly our timeline required no further delay and, in keeping with our policy of continuing the event in the case of one invitee rejecting their invitation, we have closed the door on Jon's invitation and are moving on.
a. Simply, the above statement is pure fabrication. I'd suggest you re-read what you and your pal Tom wrote.
2) Tom indicated a genuine willingness to double up on the 19th to accommodate your invitation, if that was necessary, and I congratulated him on his integrity when caught in such a bind.
a. To support your above paragraph (paragraph 1) being pure fabrication. Jack or Tom could have said at the outset we have a commitment on the 19th, they did not. I would request you take your blinders off concerning your devote admiration for one of the two candidates and read one paragraph "If interested we would like both sides to be available for taping 16-20 July...at 330pm at the remote studio located inside of our Middle School, 1 Hospital Rd. Shirley Mass 01464 (for those of you who were in attendance at the 2010 Debates in Shirley, it is across the open field from the library, the location of the last debate) our IDEAL DATE that week is the 19th of July." As you can plainly see I offered anytime the week of 16-20 July the reason the 19th is/was the ideal date is simple...that is the normal taping of this particular show, i.e. every other Thursday..however since at the point that this became an issue Roy agreed in principle to the 19th..THEY knew they had a commitment, THEY never mentioned having a commitment. Had they, I would have simply offered any date in that week, Which has been done now on three other occasions to accommodate other guests. They did not , Team Tom not mention a commitment and clearly seeing I offered any time that week, indicates deceit on their part and now your part, or a lack of understanding of simple English!
3) I had NOT read Tom's letter of the 27th concerning your invitation until today, the 29th of June, and after I had spoken with him on the 28th.
4) Neither Tom nor Jack prompted my letter that so fired your ire -- nor this one. I initiated the first as a thank you for his integrity, which you so cavalierly impugn, along with ours. You are way off base, requiring this clarification.
Tom Weaver has no integrity at this point. Again you can twist what you think he said, what you think they said. It is in writing, and YOU...never intended to allow your materials below to get out into the public domain, with your almost concerning adoration of Tom.. Had you intended this to become public and be sent to me you most assuredly would have eliminated some of the venom in Tom's message.
5) Since you were referenced in our comms, you were entitled to receive a copy and one was sent to you.
I did not send my initial message to you as you were not my concern. The deceitfulness of Weaver in particular. (By the way find where I attacked Jack Roy anywhere in that correspondence)
6) Had you been truly concerned for the timing problems of either Jon or Tom you would have consulted them concerning the viability of your RSVP deadline. You did not, apparently, which indicates a rather high-handed approach toward both candidates.
You sir are plainly an idiot. And are showing your ass the more you try to spin this. Again (I'll type slowly so you can understand)
1. I offered the entire week of 16-20 July 2012...I stated the Ideal date would be the 19th (the reason it would have been ideal was that was a normal taping day) however and according to your message Tom Agreed to the 19th Jon apparently had or did not . so if Tom had another commitment Tom or Jack could have told me and I could have moved the date ANYWHERE in the week of 16-20 July.
2. I asked for an RSVP not later than 2 July, still (indicating "with all due respect") I have had one reply Weaver and his people... and you planning a trap would have responded " Jon could go there but not here", Tom's response would have been another lame Face Book post similar to the one up now "Golnik agrees to only three debate" insinuating that somehow Golnik is afraid of debating Weaver.
3. On the high handedness of my suspense, as of this writing I have only received one response from Team Weaver. The group that had the "conflict" and since it has been postponed/canceled all is mute
7) Your invective and personal attack upon two innocent men belies your "down the middle" claims, and your hubris in thinking that either of them will jump at your beck and call is silly.
You have past the idiot mode, calling you an idiot does a disservice to actual idiots, you are a self anointed arrogant, egomaniac, I will let the public decide who is what here, re-read yourself important conversation with Tom...for me to read it again will make me physically ill. .
8) Further, your response raises serious doubts about your claimed even-handedness. The Concord Form came into existence seventeen years ago in the face of such abuse, and you have spoken out of the abundance of your ignorance.
Since you are an obvious Weaver rump swab I would have expected nothing less than the above pronouncement from the "king" of the almighty "Concord Forum" . Your arrogance and self importance and obvious twisting of facts oozes from your written word...You won't ever see the fact that your failure to edit something you sent out, your failure not to hit "reply all" got you in a trap, Showed you (and since you are nothing) showed the candidate of your obvious choice to be conniving back door man, embroiled in an attempt to create an issue where no issue existed prior to the grand plan, and then the foolishness of sending the grand plan out to all.
By now you are in receipt of my response to Ms. Preston's letter. In it you will find further information pertaining to this fiasco. Jon and Ms. Preston surely had time to respond to your invitation and, though she claims never to have "discussed" it with Jon, they surely knew of it and failed to respond in a timely manner. I acted on that belief and your violent response against Tom has confirmed your prior bias against him, as far as the evidence goes.
Again you are trying to create and issue to deflect from your grand plan..The date I asked for a response was TWO JULY, for those with calendar difficulty such as yourself that would have been FOUR days from yesterday, again mute as this has been canceled NOT because of anything other than renovations starting the 15th of July. You are so intellectually superior to us mere mortals and your brain is so superior in development, you thru brain sensing know what Ms. Preston and Golnik did or did not discuss. And again Golnik's people had until Monday to respond...you are really trying to push this issue, to deflect that you and your buddy got caught. I won't comment on your choice of words "violent response" because I know you being all intellect sensed my response to a man setting up a trap for another candidate and a man lacking honor, ten years worth of restraining orders (in all the papers) "financial issues" indicated on a posting on RMG, and his deliberate elimination of people he did not agree with from the Massachusetts Republican Assembly and then not allowing votes to get the people back into their place (posting on RMG) show him to be without honor and a coward! That sir is from one military person to another! No violence, facts. Something you seem to have a significant problem with!
Your resort to character assassination is a common ploy, and your attempt to disseminate your bile seems less honorable than anything of which you apparently accuse Tom. By your own account, however, at least now the source of such hatred is and will be clearly identified as you.
You again are a lying idiot, who again got caught and is now trying to wriggle out of an issue by involving yourself in something that did not require your involvement in, but personalities such as yourself cannot go long without being the center of attention, trust me you will have a lot of attention for the conspiracy you were complicit in and are now trying to spin...why don't you scream "Victim" or something it may help your cause, although I doubt it!
Meanwhile, the Forum will be putting Tom under fair, penetrating and public scrutiny on the 19th. Jon and Tom are asking you, me and the public to put in their hands the power of governance over us. Their evaluation requires more than bilious invective and self-serving bias. Perhaps, after you've cooled down, you might even provide some rational insight in the matter. Until then, your inputs will have to be severely discounted for bias.
Your input is based on lies and twisting of facts, you are the worse kind of enabler I'll thank you to not send any more of your incoherent emails to my inbox, After I send this you will be put in junk mail status as people such as yourself cannot help another round of reply and I have frankly wasted 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back...Here is what will happen. We will see how the public enjoys this and from facts see who they most believe.. I have documents, facts and your and Toms own words to back me up...you have 75 cent big words and a feeble attempt at deflection and support of your guy...
Team Weaver has never responded to my email. My "violent" (your words) response was at THEM...yet YOU choose to respond...begging the questions are you a paid member of the publicity team? OR do you serve in some other paid or voluntary part of Tom Weaver for Congress team?
David Stephens, President
THE CONCORD FORUM, INC.
On 06/29/12, Thomas Weaver wrote:
For your info
From: Tom Weaver for Congress [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 5:11 PM
To: Thomas Weaver
Subject: Fw: Potential Televised Debate
From: Bryan Dumont
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:22 PM
Cc: 'Tom Weaver ; 'Bryan Dumont'
Subject: Potential Televised Debate
We have been friends longer than we have known ANY of these candidates, you and I go back to pre 2007...(Beatty Campaign and were on the same side) I frankly am at a loss to figure out how you hook up with this type of person.
#1. I don't know and frankly could care less about the self importance of a "Concord Forum" and was not aware of any of the behind the scenes activity. Had either side informed me that there was a potential conflict with such an impressive body as the "Concord Forum, after I got done bowing in reverence, I'd have of course canceled/rescheduled little Shirley's Event.. Had I seen this prior to sending out a email to you and the Golnik folks at 233pm (one apparently should read all emails before writing an email) I'd have most assuredly phrased it slightly differently!
a. Is this not the same Concord that BANNED Bottled water on which your candidate ranted in a circle for way to many words, arguing with himself on BOTH sides of the issues and then blaming the citizenry of Concord for not showing up?
#2. The spokesperson from the "CF" was feed misinformation. I wonder where? Golnik's people have not go back to my invite..you folks did, but nothing definite and now I see why...you have misstated or inferred Golnik was "contemplating" anything to get this gentlemen all fired up.
#3. So you two were planning to use me/my show to set up another candidate?... Tom there is a snake in the grass...it is not I, you need to look in the mirror.
I have assisted Golnik in one effort to date and have not attended a Republican Town Committee event is close to one year as I'm not a Republican. I'm doing a show called Down the Middle because frankly extremists on either side of the political isle make me sick to my stomach. The evidence of that, was my initial monologue and my initial show I have had noted R's on the Show, Noted D's on the show and a wide Varity of non-political entities on the show, all unlike you Tom, Experts! On any issue from finances/National Debt, Social Security's pending demise, Health Care, European finances and its impact on the U.S. etc..etc.. I do this because I believe a informed citizen is the best citizen
Your words Tom Other than the fact that he will never be down the middle - tell him no, there is a scheduled debate in Concord that night or better yet ----- let's see if Dave Stephens can change the date of the Concord Forum to accommodate Jon - check with Dumont and see if Jon says yes - he will be waiting on us, and then he will attend --- what snakes...; What do you think Dave? See. His invitation is in red and we need to mess with him. I believe we should say yes and then do the Concord debate the next night of so... But first need is to keep word with Dave and Concord Forum....
I've forwarded this to Golnik and his press person...I sincerely hope they spread this far and wide, to be forewarned is to be forearmed..
And just so you will know Tom...Just like the Healthcare decision has ignited citizens, your unwarranted attack on me based on absolutely no evidence or cause and your sneaky plan to use me, to attack another candidate is beneath contempt but NOT beneath you! Your name calling of me is unwarranted and beneath contempt, but again not beneath you! I've stayed for all intents and purposes pretty much out of this, Thanks for giving me the motivation to become "fully engaged" and based on what I've seen, heard and read..you living in a glass house should have not thrown stones! And Tom you will know it is me brining up legitimate issues, as I will be using my name and confronting you directly, apparently your time in the Military you forgot HONOR! !
It is now 320pm I'll maintain a copy of this to insure what is reported later is reported correctly
From: Dave Stephens [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 10:54 AM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: FW: Potential Televised Debate
Thanks for the heads-up on this and this is to confirm our telephone conversation yesterday (6/28, AM).
Your willingness to do both debates in one day is highly commendable, considering the effort it will demand from you. Even moreso, your willingness to be honest and forthright in keeping your commitment to the Concord Forum sets you apart from the field.
We are not willing to extend further the invitation to Jon, which he has already rejected. We are in the process of arranging the press line-up and hope to have that in order shortly. It is regrettable, indeed, that Jon and his associates -- knowing that the CF event was scheduled already on that date and that he had rejected his own attendance -- should even contemplate a TV debate with you (in addition to those he used to reject the CF invitation) on the very day of the CF event. Your willingness to call his hand in the matter -- at considerable cost to yourself, but in keeping with your expressed willingness to meet him in debate at any time and place that does not compromise your prior commitments, is to your great credit and should be known to the electorate.
We at the CF, and the press representives, do not intend to pull our punches in our questions of you, nor would you expect us to do so. Yet, we must say that your integrity is a matter of preeminent public concern, as is Jon's, and should be the prime determinant in the choice of the electorate, assuming all else being equal. Yours has earned our respect.
Dave Stephens, President
THE CONCORD FORUM, INC.
On 06/27/12, Thomas Weaver wrote:
Other than the fact that he will never be down the middle - tell him no, there is a scheduled debate in Concord that night or better yet -----
let's see if Dave Stephens can change the date of the Concord Forum to accommodate Jon - check with Dumont and see if Jon says yes - he will be waiting on us, and then he will attend --- what snakes...;
What do you think Dave? See. His invitation is in red and we need to mess with him. I believe we should say yes and then do the Concord debate the next night of so... But first need is to keep word with Dave and Concord Forum....
Tom From: Bryan Dumont [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:50 PM
To: 'Thomas Weaver'; 'Jon Golnik'
Cc: 'Bryan Dumont'
Subject: Potential Televised Debate
Gentlemen and Committees,
Bryan Dumont on this end. For those of you who do not know, I'm an independent voter (un-enrolled) and have a show pretty widely watched on Shirley Public Access (SPACO) which is now being offered to surrounding communities, entitled ";Down the Middle";
I have been authorized to offer the two Republican Candidates for the congressional seat in this the 3rd Congressional District the opportunity to have a "debate" or gentlemanly conversation if you will
If interested we would like both sides to be available for taping 16-20 July...at 330pm at the remote studio located inside of our Middle School, 1 Hospital Rd. Shirley Mass 01464 (for those of you who were in attendance at the 2010 Debates in Shirley, it is across the open field from the library, the location of the last debate) our IDEAL DATE that week is the 19th of July.
The ground rules are as follows;
1. Each candidate (due to size restrictions in the actual recording studio) will be allowed one "second" in the studio.
2. I'll ask both candidates a question. Questions will not be shared with either candidate in advance...Questions focus on the top issues according to a March 2012 Gallop voter survey
Topics we will cover at least one from the following areas, these topics are numbered in ranking by the survey respondents 1 being most concerning to them;
1. Economy 2. Federal spending/debt 3. Unemployment/jobs
4. Affordable/available healthcare 5. Social Security collapse 6. Size and Power of Federal Government
7. Availability and affordability of Energy 8. Crime and Violence 9. Illegal Immigration
10. Hunger and Homelessness 11. Possibility of future terrorist attack 12. Drug Use
13. Quality of our environment 14. Race relations 15. Political Stalemate/bickering
Format will be;
1. I'll intro each candidate, brief bio and give each 2 minutes, to introduce themselves and expand on their bios I give (I'll need a Brief BIO from each candidate)
2. I'll ask each a question, you will have two minutes to respond...Question will be on one of the above topics, will rotate the questions between candidates so each gets a first shot at question and the first question will be based on a "live" coin toss... Opening introductions will be based on a coin toss in advance of the "live taping" whomever has the opening intro will get second in the closing remarks
3. At the end I'll allow 2-3 minutes for closing statements from each candidate
The only other people in the studio will be your seconds if you opt to bring them along... the director and crew, yourselves, myself and potentially the publisher from our local town paper. The room literally not hold more. The show will be 50-55 minutes in length allowing for intro and exit messaging/music/credits.We then intend to, after the primary, and through the DTC have the same format with the Republican nominee/challenger and the incumbent, Ms Tsongas.
Spaco now has the ability to reproduce the final version of this show quickly a copy of a useable CD will be provided to both candidates within 7-10 days of the completion of the event and the first airing on SPACO. The Managing Director of the Shirley Public Access Corporation, also the producer of this particular show will be present and based on work load(s) will either expand or contract on the availability of CD's for both candidates!
As you all are probably aware this is a huge logistical nightmare, with equipment, notifications, staffing requirements, and our current studio is undergoing a renovation... Additionally in the location we are taping (A Middle School). We cannot have throngs of people involved, definitely inside and we suspect outside. This will probably be the only format where you will actually get to talk too, not at each other, exchange ideas, without Interruptions and have a hopefully informative conversation with each other . We will endeavor, along with you folks, I'm sure to get this out to public access's within the 3rd Congressional District so all of same will be equally informed.
WE, with all due respect, need to know of your interest, or lack thereof, not later than close of business, 2 July 2012.
Spaco and the citizens/voters in Shirley are looking forward to a great conversation with great candidates. And again we will try to assist in getting this taping out to other communities.
Thanks in Advance