Wednesday, May 28, 2008

MC40- IS HE CREDIBLE

TAKING BAGGAGE TO WASHINGTON D.C.
One should question if this is the man to send to be the Rep. to represent the CNMI in D.C.
The Story Here....
'Lizama not yet off the hook'
Although
Juan T. Lizama had already resigned from the bench he is not yet off the hook in the unethical acts complaint filed against him before the CNMI Supreme Court. In 2007, unethical charges were filed against the then associate judge before the high court.
So is this the person we want to represent the CNMI in D.C.? It looks like there are some problems here at home to resolve before running to be the elected official to go to Washington.
There are others who have no load of baggage to carry and are capable of doing the job. This candidate should drop out until the problems here at home are resolved. There are some others like Pete A. who can hit the ground running and get the job done without whispered questions about ethics.
Let me hear what you think....
.....GED.....

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

With all due respect to you Sir, have you ever read or seen some of Pete A's public statements to the media, written statements to Congress, and his taped comments to Inside Edition when he harshly criticized members of Congress and George Miller.

He, at the time, was an ardent supporter of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff and went golfing and wining and dining with them. He even helped raise money for Delay and Abramoff's causes and he contributed to those members of Congress who opposed the extension of federalization of immigration/labor laws in the NMI.

Pete's change of heart was recent and some people, even some who support federalization, are concerned with Pete's sudden change of heart when the delegate position looked like it was to be part of the effort.

My question is now this: Why did Pete A not oppose the removal of the "permanent residency" provision in the legislation? Was it because Pete's been always good at taking the middle ground and not at doing the right thing?

As for Juan Lizama, it is important, I think, the courts should prosecute this case so that the people, and Lizama, will have some closure to the issue before Election Day.

Thank you Sir.

Anonymous said...

Pete donated $500 to Tom Delay on 4/26/2004 and $500 to Dan Burton on 5/3/2004.

These two are the two champions of fighting federal takeover of immigration in the NMI.

glend558 said...

Isn't it great we can all have different opinions amd express them openly?
Anon, I imagine that was the way the popular way the government went at that time in 2004 and before. However what counts today in 2008 is the fact that he was the only one I saw at the hearings on federalization to not oppose federalization while the popular government stance was to oppose it. Anyone else if they did supported it did not support it openly. His position today counts more to me then a golf game and a donation years ago. The governor for instance, cannot seem to ever make changes and see what is really happening or what is the best position today. Today is what counts. Did you ever change your mind on an issue? The world keeps on evolving with or without you.

Anonymous said...

Not true and NOT FACT that "he [Pete] was the only one I saw at the hearings on federalization to not oppose federalization". Tina Sablan also testified. There was also the Philippine national gentleman who was invited to testify and he also did not oppose the legislation.

There were also others who wanted to speak but the hearings, which Pete's office helped coordinate, only invited a few people to speak.

We may disagree about Pete but we agree on many other things. Thank you for sharing your views, Sir.

glend558 said...

I stand corrected. I also appreciate your comments and thoughts, keep them coming.
Thank You.

Anonymous said...

Pete A. is a "political prostitute." He's self-serving and all for convenience and expediency. PERIOD!!!

I was appalled by his comments that he made two days ago where he asked that ONLY "serious" candidates should consider running. Who does this guy think he is? Such condescending and arrogant statements should automatically disqualify him from the race.

Finally, this Pete A. guy is seeking the local GOP's nomination yet he supports the U.S. Senate's (Democrats) version of the GI Bill to which Sen. and GOP presumptive presidential candidate John McCain adamantly opposes. McCain has his own GI Bill version of which the Democratic Senate opposes. Worse of all, Pete A. was selected by the local GOP to represent the latter in the upcoming National GOP convention in St. Pauls, MN. For what? To endorse McCain's candidacy. Hypocrisy all around!!! What a travesty!

Anonymous said...

And for the record, the preceding comments represents Pete A's actions TODAY!!!

Anonymous said...

So, is Pete A. a true Republican? The Republican National Committee should strongly consider looking into this issue. STRONGLY!!!

Anonymous said...

Pete A. is just trying as much as possible to disassociate himself from the Abramoff scandal. What he doesn't know is, it won't work!

Lil' Hammerhead said...

You're right about Lizama's baggage. He won't win. I don't know why you'd throw so much money at a race.. you won't win.

Commenters spelled out some of my misgivings with Pete A. as well. I'm glad he had a change of heart over the last couple of years.. that wasn't the Pete A. I remember. It did seem timely and convenient, considering the U.S. Delegate measure was included in the new immigration takeover law.

Some of the "announced" candidates are just a joke. They won't win.. god forbid. Imagine what we'd look like with Luis up there. Egads.

glend558 said...

Anon above, So who is your choice for the D.C. Rep.? Luis P. Crisostimo? Is he a serious candidate? Is he going to rename the D.C. streets or skip voting on the issues as he often does here? I don't take him seriously, do you?
I would also disassociate myself from Abramoff too. The governor still calls him a personal friend, that's not to smart.
If you are with one political party it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they do. If that were the case there wouldn't be a need for voting on issues and bills, the count would always be the same. We are all entitiled to have a difference of opinion, this is what makes a democracy so great.
I do appreciate however, your participation in our comments. Although we don't all agree or see eye to eye on everything we can always state our preferences and discuss what may be the best outcome for the majority of the people.
Thanks Again.

Anonymous said...

If that were the case Glen, then why would Pete A. even bother going to D.C. to endorse a candidate he disagrees with? Did you even bother to read the Democrats' Bill? Can you trust a man who lacks principles? Or better yet and as eloquently stated by you in this blog: "IS HE CREDIBLE?"

Nice try on spinning the issue though. I give you points for your efforts.

To this end sir, keep up your efforts in actively campaigning for Pete A. because you're a huge liability. You're basically doing the other candidates a favor. For that, I am grateful.

Anonymous said...

As for the disassociation with Abramoff, IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT HE WOULD BE IMPLICATED,THEN there is no avoiding prosecution under our criminal justice system. No siree! Golfing with Tom Delay, ardent garment advocate, and now a Democrat etc... All the MORE reasons why we should NOT vote for Pete A!

Anonymous said...

TO TOP EVERYTHING OFF, this guy spent nearly two terms in office and until now, the Federal Government is still unaware of the issues and needs of the commonwealth! Why is that?!?!

The dude needs a bigger hat. lmao!

Anonymous said...

"Some of the 'announced' candidates are just a joke. They won't win.. god forbid. Imagine what we'd look like with Luis up there. Egads."

Now, this is a statement I would agree to. The race will boil down to a battle between Kilili and Pete A. I hope the former wins though.

Anonymous said...

IF Pete A. was doing an extraordinary job, THEN explain why there are so many interested indivdiuals wanting to run? This is a strong indication that Pete A.'s approval rating is below Bush's.

glend558 said...

If a person were to support a candidate he agrees with on every issue they would be a lonely soul. Nobody agrees with everything a candidate supports but takes the one with the most agereeable platform.
So you do agree some candidates aren't serious, see, we agree on that. You want Kilili, I want Pete, see, we disagree on that. It'll be up to the voters to deciede, then all should join in the support of the elected candidate. Works pretty well don't it?

Anonymous said...

While I respect your opinion, is that how you would convince voters to support Pete A.

Let me ask you this:

Why Pete A.? Because he supported Federalization of our local labor and immigration? I support Federalization but I certainly do not support Pete A. Mr. "Flip-Flop." It is one thing to disagree but flip-flopping on issues is entirely a different beast in itself. Pete A. is NOTORIOUS for this as some of the previous posters highlighted.

glend558 said...

Your last comment wasn't posted when I replied. So to farther answer your question about why so many candidates are running, there is one answer, $170,000 dollar salary, or transposed into laymans terms 'GREED'.

Anonymous said...

By the way, whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? The retired judge will have his day in court and we should leave it at that. Quit the attacks. I hope Glenn that you're not selected to serve as a juror (in any trial in the CNMI) since you've already proven that you're biased when it comes to judgment.

Anonymous said...

For you to deduce the following: "... $170,000 dollar salary, or transposed into laymans terms 'GREED'" means that Pete A. is GREEDY.

Pete A. will lose. Watch, see, and learn my friend.

Anonymous said...

NOW: Answer the QUESTION,

WHY PETE A.????

Anonymous said...

And why do you always drag the governor's name into most of your responses in defense of Pete A.? Is that the best you can do in terms of defending Mr. Pete A. Tenorio? Pathetic. Stick to the issue for once sir... Your responses are embarrassing.

glend558 said...

I had to reread my origional post but couldn't find anywhere that I said or even implied he was guilty. Where did you get that. I only said it should be resolved at home before running for the D.C. office. Does that implicate guilt?
I must say however,I appreciate you civility, alot of commenters get into name calling and rude remarks, then they lose all their respect and the point of their comments. You on the other hand are decent. I too, hope the best man wins.

glend558 said...

Why Pete A.
Here is MY reasons.
First and formost he is for the support of the federalization of L&I and continued mininum wages. (with due reports and surveys.) Anyone going to D.C. with a different agenda will not be productive or work for the interest of the CNMI.
Second, I wrote him some E-Mails questioning his stances on some issues and he had the courtesy to reply and explain his reasoning. Ask me to find that in another elected official and I will show Tina Sablan, no other one seem to care about the 'little guy.'
That made a difference to me, If you don't think an elected official responding to your questions is important, thats up to you.

Anonymous said...

Took you long enough sir.

Now, what have they accomplished? Both Tina and Pete A. List them if you will, beginning with Pete A's.

Anonymous said...

Immigration Federalization and the Minimum Wage don't count since these issues were on the Democratic agenda since way back when Pete A. (working for a garment factory) opposed them.

As for me, the common man, I am still waiting for the 24-hr potable water that Pete A. promised to deliver. He even took a bottle of water to Hawaii and D.C. to make his point.

Finally, Pete A. being a "Founding Father" himself has been fully aware of the infrastructure needs of our commonwealth (Note: "Our"), yet we still talk about power, water, and sewer problems.

NO 24-hr potable water and still NO reliable power. Admit it, Pete A. is an "OBN" himself!
The Godfather of OBNs!

Anonymous said...

For the record:

First PETE A says he was not supporting the Federalization Bill because the legislation contained the Non-Voting Delegate provision. Next, he said that he's not thinking about running for the Non-Voting Delegate seat. Then, he says that he will wait until the Bill is signed by Bush before disclosing his intentions. After the Bill was signed into Law, Pete A. said that he needs to consult with family and friends and will make his public announcement a week thereafter. BUT!!!! Just a couple of days later, he formally announced his candidacy.

Now, explain to me whether this Bill was endorsed by Pete A. because he was interested at running for the Non-voting Delegate seat.

If you ask me, Pete's actions are too suspicious to be all coincidence.

Now, can we TRUST the guy (with self-interests)???? You be the judge!

glend558 said...

Millions of federal dollars were given to the CNMI to improve power and water. It seems it was ill used. (I myself was involved in the $7,000,000 million dollar grant to put in 'Smart Water meters') Did that improve the wqater quality or service? No. But it was the elected officials here that squandered the money. Was that Petes fault? He got the money but didn't order its use.
No, I'm not making lists, if you don't know do some research and find out for yourself. I think you are capiable of doing that as you seen very intelligent.

Anonymous said...

Nice try sir. You can't list them because... Pete A has NO accomplishments.

Smart meters??? You're kidding right? How about providing 24-hr water first? I mean, what good would these meters serve if they don't have anything to measure but air in the rusted pipes?

We're not stupid like your so-called smart meters.

glend558 said...

Damn, I seem to keep playing catch up and are a step behind your posts. I enjoyed the debate but got to run. (Eat Dinner.)I'll check in later. Thanks for the lively discussion it's a brain excerciser.
Later.

Anonymous said...

Keep em coming, by the way... Convince or persuade me, why don't you...LMAO

glend558 said...

One more., About the meters, exactly my point! What good were they? Yet this government saw fit to spend $7 million of federal funds on them. Pretty foolish wasn't it?

Lil' Hammerhead said...

Only foolish if those dollars were spent outside the CNMI :} We need that 7mil spent right here. I'm sure you can make some "smart-meters" to sell the gov't Glen.

glend558 said...

Lil, We were bidding on the second phase phase of the 'smart meter' installation, (the first being 4000 units, the second 7000 units,) and we were required to bid the installation labor at $5.15 the U.S. min. wage, which we all did. This was all well as the bids all were competitive with the same wage requirments. however the governor, now Fitial stepped in and ordered the bids redone with the wages set at $3.05. This I never understood as the Feds were paying the costs and the wages would have went to local companies and their labor pools. What advantadge this was for him or the CNMI I'll never understand. Even with experience in construction bidding this never made sense to me.
But they had it all wrong, the meters weren't the problem the water supply itself was, still is.

Anonymous said...

I am happy, Sir, that you agree that "water supply" and not water meters is the problem. I also agree that Fitial is wrong in applying local minimum wages to a project funded by the Federal government.

But, with all due respect, Pete A., when he campaigned for Lt. Governor in 1982, made a public promise and commitment to have 24/7, potable water SIX months after he gets into office. That was, what, 26 years ago and still no 24/7, let alone potable, water supply.

Then, again, as a Res. Rep. running for re-election, Pete A. promised us a "water festival". Still no water, as you so correctly stated.

Pete A., among other things, has made too many promises he cannot keep. And it was President Reagan who said something like "lie to me once, shame on you; lie to me twice, shame on me."

Pete will say and do anything, ANYTHING, to get elected. I won't let that happen. Try getting a quick response to your queries when he is not running and see for yourself that he won't even share the time of day with you.

The truth sometimes hurts but it remains the truth.

Anonymous said...

Let's no forget that in recent news, Pete A. proclaimed the need of electing an individual that can articulate the CNMI's needs to Congress and the Federal Government. He admitted that until now, the Federal Government still don't know what issues plague our islands.

So, what has this guy been doing for the past six years besides traveling?

Anonymous said...

Summary

1. Pete A. - No accomplisments
2. Kilili - 2 shady
3. Gonzales, Luis, and Yumul - Jokes
4. Atty. Vic Torres - Greed-driven

Biba Judge Lizama!

Anonymous said...

Juan Lizama is being prosecuted for judicial misconduct. How can we let him represent us?

Anonymous said...

A matter of "innocent until proven guilty" my friend.

Let me ask you this: How can we make any one of the other candidates represent us?

1. Pete A. - No accomplisments
2. Kilili - 2 shady
3. Gonzales, Luis, and Yumul - Jokes
4. Atty. Vic Torres - Greed-driven and lack of experience... Less than five years as an attorney does not qualify as having a strong background, esp when it's the only profession he held since Law School.

glend558 said...

It would help me reply and answer your thoughts if you somehow identified your own posts. Use a handle or anything to seperate you from other anonynous 'comments'. I really don't care about your own personal ID but it sure would be nice if I knew who I was responding to. Say, I'm Mr X or 'the island local,'or I'm a reader, anything to let me know how to respond.....
Thank You, Sir, was a good start.

bigsoxfan said...

Seems like the usual political condrumum (damn spell check; I mean lesser of two evils) Pete A. doesn't have the baggage of an easily or already indicted candidate, but he isn't perfect, as his record during the happy times indicates. However, he has steered clear of the rocks and shoals of the Fitial admin. and seems to have some common sense when dealing with the parties in power back on Sodom on the Potomac. Honor to you Glen for entertaining the anon #1, 2, 3. Great points anon's and at least you all made some sort of rebuttal, but differentiate your identies a bit, please. For my money, anon #1 was Glen H.

glend558 said...

BSF, How did you decifer the difference betweem 'anon's' I thought they were all the same person, maybe I'm being two sided, thus the request for some kind of seperation of posts/comments.

Anonymous said...

Defensive, eh Glen? Your defensive actions shwo who the REAL formidable candidate will be in November. Thanks for the free publicity...

By the way, personal character assassinations and political mudslinging are ineffective strategies nowadays. Hence, keep it up my friend.

glend558 said...

Anon, Copy and paste any line in my orgional post or in any of my comments that you consider character assassinations or mudslinging. Paste them in your next post, please, I'd like to know where they are, and about who. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Anonymous said...

Talking about taking baggage to DC. Here is a comment from the May 9 2008 Washington Post on Jack Abramoff:

Here's the comment:

"It is quite interesting that one of Tom Delay's strongest supporter in the Northern Mariana Islands is now running for the delegate position in Congress.

Pete A. Tenorio was working for a garment magnate during Abramoff's heyday and Pete walked around with a polo shirt that praised Tom Delay as godsend. He publicly praised the fact the Congress will not extend federal immigration and labor laws to the Northern Mariana Islands."

bigsoxfan said...

Beats me, Glenn. I thought there were two seperate anons there, but after another read, I'm not so sure. Best result I could imagine would be for the entire legislature to declare their candicacy for the non-voting seat and have the special election BEFORE the delegate vote. A clean slate. Might be cheaper to send them all to Sodom on the Potomac, than to pay for the discretionary budgets and rent a tent filled with pork and bud.

glend558 said...

Sinners sometimes see the light and convert to the paths of righteousness. Pete has seemed to change his path. Nothing wrong with seeing the light. Most others still haven't, and are in the old rut still. Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Please allow others to do the same. It's the nonconformist that keep things in the dark ages.
I'm still waiting for the 'mudslinging' comments you say I've made. Can't find any?

dominic said...

Here's a good way to research our possible candidates: Type in your candidates name into the Saipan Tribune or Marianas Variety website archive search box.

Anonymous said...

Glen,

The title of your post says it all: "Is He Credible?" I mean, why would you even ask that without trying to "character assassinate"?

And this is notwithstanding the gist of the blog. You think you're fooling us sir but the joke is actually on you.

Show some respect for the retired judge. Rather than question the latter, you should some of your time researching into Pete A.'s past. You forgive one and question another. How hyprocritical of you.

You want us to forgive Pete A. and question Lizama's credibility. We should question YOUR CREDIBILITY instead, you HYPOCRITE!

How's that for a powerful comeback! Was going to respond earlier but NO POWER!

Anonymous said...

Glen,

The title of your post says it all: "Is He Credible?" I mean, why would you even ask that without trying to "character assassinate"?

And this is notwithstanding the gist of the blog. You think you're fooling us sir but the joke is actually on you.

Show some respect for the retired judge. Rather than question the latter, you should spend more of your time researching into Pete A.'s past. You forgive one and question another. How hyprocritical of you.

You want us to forgive Pete A. and question Lizama's credibility. We should question YOUR CREDIBILITY instead, you HYPOCRITE!

How's that for a powerful comeback! Was going to respond earlier but NO POWER!

Anonymous said...

Your Hypocrisy EXPOSED: "Sinners sometimes see the light and convert to the paths of righteousness. Pete has seemed to change his path. Nothing wrong with seeing the light. Most others still haven't, and are in the old rut still."

How dare you insult our intelligence!

Anonymous said...

MORE OF YOUR HYPOCRISY: "I would also disassociate myself from Abramoff too. The governor still calls him a personal friend, that's not to smart."

If a crime has been committed in the past, then it would take more than "DISASSOCIATION" to free a person from a criminal charge of any wrongdoing. You should know that! GEEZ.

Anonymous said...

By the way, is this the same Glen that owns that sleezy bar called "Midnite Karoake" in Oleai?

I'm just curious.

Anonymous said...

MORE AND MORE OF YOUR HYPOCRISY:

"So is this the person we want to represent the CNMI in D.C.? It looks like there are some problems here at home to resolve before running to be the elected official to go to Washington.
There are others who have no load of baggage to carry and are capable of doing the job. This candidate should drop out until the problems here at home are resolved. There are some others like Pete A. who can hit the ground running and get the job done without whispered questions about ethics."

Abramoff scandal not yet a "closed case" my friend. If I were you, I'd begin looking into Pete A's past my friend. The same people he would be working with (if elected) would be the same people going after him; if he's implicated in the above-referenced scandal.

Anonymous said...

R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

Anonymous said...

AND THEY JUST KEEP PILING UP (YOUR HYPOCRISY GLEN):

"Anon, I imagine that was the way the popular way the government went at that time in 2004 and before. However what counts today in 2008 is the fact that he was the only one I saw at the hearings on federalization to not oppose federalization while the popular government stance was to oppose it. Anyone else if they did supported it did not support it openly. His position today counts more to me then a golf game and a donation years ago."

You stated that it's what Pete A. does TODAY that counts and not what he did YESTERDAY.

I ask you, but aren't you a bit concerned what he'll do TOMMOROW?!?!

A lot of our CNMI people are! OUCH!

Anonymous said...

AND THEY JUST KEEP PILING UP (YOUR HYPOCRISY GLEN):

"Anon, I imagine that was the way the popular way the government went at that time in 2004 and before. However what counts today in 2008 is the fact that he was the only one I saw at the hearings on federalization to not oppose federalization while the popular government stance was to oppose it. Anyone else if they did supported it did not support it openly. His position today counts more to me then a golf game and a donation years ago."

You stated that it's what Pete A. does TODAY that counts and not what he did YESTERDAY.

I ask you, but aren't you a bit concerned about what he'll do TOMMOROW?!?!

A lot of our CNMI people are! OUCH!

Anonymous said...

Honestly, this race will ultimately boil down to a fight between Pete A., Kilili, and Ret. Judge Lizama. Who would be the victor? That would be decided in November.

I will not be surprised though if the other aspirants pull out before the certification date. Right now, candidates are just "testing the water" including the good Senator and Representative.

Just my personal view.

Kimo M. Rosario

Dominic said...

Someone should start up an online CNMI delegate election forum with vbulletin or something...

Matt said...

Hello -

Lizama's judicial mis-conduct is being blown way out of proportion. He thought another judge should recuse himself from a case and he sent a letter explaining such to the presiding judge as well as to both attorneys. However, the other judge then sent the letter to the press. In this case it is the letter to the two attorneys that got him into trouble.

The best real life example is say you caught someone cheating on a test and you told the teacher and the person cheated off of. By telling the person you was cheated off from you would have committed the same ethical violation as Lizama had. Also if this was so pressing why hasn't the Supreme Court set a hearing date?

Also, this violation stems from a personal conflict between Lizama and the other judge. The judge disbarring attorneys over stepped his authority in an ethical violation, yet he is not being prosecuted or investigated.

The rules of judicial conduct are very strict and easy to run afoul of (i.e. cannot say hi to an attorney or juror in an elevator before you in court.)

Unless you know what the "ethical" violation is, or is familiar with the rules of judicial conduct and how overly strict they are, one should not pass judgment.

Like anything in life unless it is put into context it is hard to tell how serious it really is.