On Monday, May 5th the 11th Annual Conference on Vaccine Research will convene in Baltimore, MD. Unlike the International Conference on AIDS, it will meet with little to no fanfare and in all likelihood media coverage will be sparse. This conference differs from so many today because its focus is not the “activist” patient or consumer as so many HIV/AIDS scientific conferences have catered to over the past many years – but a conference for the basic scientist with a venue for discussion of basic science and vaccine research.

A few months ago the world was abuzz with concerns over statements made by some “noted” HIV/AIDS researchers and scientists in regards to the possibility that the world might never see a viable HIV/AIDS vaccine. Their concerns and comments were considered significant when taken into context of yet another recent HIV/AIDS vaccine candidate failure. Response to such negative comments prompted AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to write an op-ed commending any further use of funds to fund HIV/AIDS vaccine research instead recommending that this money would be and could be better spent on programs such as prevention, education and so forth.

However for many of us, including me, who have been involved in HIV/AIDS research from nearly Day One this rationale was nothing more than defeatist talk. And if the same rationale that AHF was using to argue for the need to stop HIV/AIDS vaccine funding were applied to the success of prevention and education then a lot of AIDS Service Organizations would be out of business; because we all know that prevention and education have not always delivered the positive results that had been expected except for financial benefit to the numerous NGO’s and non-profits.

What most people don’t understand about vaccine research is that little real new and groundbreaking work has been done in the last 50 years. Most, if not all the current HIV/AIDS vaccine research is based on vaccine models from the past, with few scientists looking at novel approaches such Dr Peter Nara and his colleagues’ “Immune Dampening” approach. The other drawback has been that so many of the HIV/AIDS leaders whose opinions are solicited on the progress or lack of progress on the search for a vaccine are not vaccinologists. For example Dr. Baltimore is frequently asked to give his opinion on the state of HIV/AIDS vaccine research, and though he is a brilliant scientist he is neither a vaccinologist nor an expert on vaccine research. For example we wouldn’t ask a cardiologist to speculate on the state of cancer research, even though most people would recognize a cardiologist as an expert in medicine. And time and time again reporters seem insistent on seeking out the opinions of scientists who may be expert in science overall but know little about the nuts and bolts of vaccine research.

The last thing we need to do is stop funding HIV/AIDS vaccine research, this field needs the support of both public and private funds. We also need to get back to basics and promote basic science and the work of the basic scientist. We also need to ensure that wise funding decisions are made, for example the current vaccine failure did not entirely surprise many of us involved in HIV/AIDS. The reason was simple since at least one of the failed vaccine clinical trial’s vaccine was based on a model that many suspected to be flawed at the outset, but there were some individuals in positions of power and influence that chose to ignore the known weaknesses and low chance for success to champion the vaccine. Other supported the idea because, as they explained to me (you wouldn’t believe me if I told you who!), we need experience in large-scale clinical trials, as if we didn’t do this for the phttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifolio or small pox vaccine efforts.

I have always believed that political support of vaccine research is crucial, but I have never supported the politicization of vaccine research. Unfortunately, as so many things related to HIV/AIDS all too often people are more concerned about politicing the process and I think this recent failure is just such an example.

At the end of the day I think we will only gain the upper hand in the fight to find an effective HIV/AIDS vaccine if we first encourage basic scientists (especially vaccinologists) to be even more involved; second spend the money supporting HIV/AIDS vaccine candidates that are scientifically sound and if they are also politically attractive all the better; and third put a real vaccinologist in charge of our Nation’s vaccine efforts – because a respected and innovative vaccinologist will without a doubt draw other cutting.

Have you seen the latest political “hit piece” on John McCain (see below)?

You may ask yourself what weakness or shortcomings these ads highlight. Do they focus on his voting record, his military service, or some scandal from his past? No they focus on something far more insidious than the above, this ads focus on his – dare I say it – his age. Of course at 71 the Senator is no spring chicken, and physically he has had his challenges with the debilitating torture suffered while a prisoner of war and his two very public battles with melanoma, why I’ve even touched on some of these very issues myself in my blogging. However I think that to try and use the spector of “age” as if this some how should give sensible people reason to not vote for him for the office of President is ludicrous.

However, what I think and find even more concerning is the utter silence of the self-named guardians of all things “senior citizen”, the champion of older Americans – the A.A.R.P. Why the silence? Lately the A.A.R.P. has been sticking its “finger” in nearly every political pot you can think of all the while claiming to be non-partisan. The group’s rationale for why they are throwing their weight around is grounded in the notion that those issues also impact seniors, who of course are their core constituency. I’m not sure what the A.A.R.P. looks like outside the Los Angeles County area, but here at home they often lean way to the left and often don’t even pretend to be non-partisan. This is also a common problem with many of our local Senior Citizen Commissions and groups.

The question now is will A.A.R.P. issue any kind of statement against attempts such as this ad (which is allegedly funded by George Soros) that attempts to make political hay out of a prospective candidates age? Of course if Soros or his money is behind this idea I find it ironic since Soros himself is 77. In theory one would think that this group can still cleave to it so-called non-partisan agenda and still speak out about this blatant attack of a person solely based on the person’s age, and as one of the many who see 70 quickly approaching on the horizon I don’t think of myself as coming even close to reaching the twilight of my years. If you’ve seen any recent news footage of Senator McCain you’d be hard pressed to believe that he’s 71, since it appears to me that he is very energized by campaigning So my challenge to you is simple, if you believe that the attempt to make Senator McCain’s age an issue is wrong then I encourage you to contact the A.A.R.P. switchboard at 1-888-687-2277, or complete a “general questions” form on their website and be sure to select age discrimination from the drop down menu. And while you’re at it contact your local senior citizen commission and ask them to review the ad and strongly encourage them to denounce the attempt to attack Senator McCain solely because of his age. There are many good reason one can support or not support Senator McCain in his bid for the Presidency, but age shouldn’t be one of them – remember one day it might be your favorite candidate (young or old) that is the subject of a “ageists” attack; if you do not speak out on this one now then you have little moral ground to speak out on any other such attack in the future.

To view McCain is Older then . . . go here.

By now many of us have heard the news that Gov. Romney has decided to suspend his Presidential campaign. His decision was met with sadness by this voter and supporter, however as I listened to his speech at this tear’s CPAC convention my belief that he was the best candidate to represent our party was reaffirmed. Though I would have liked for him to continue his campaign all the way to the national convention, I respect his reasoning for suspending his campaign and his decision. Gov. Romney’s decision to place what he believed was the need of the party and its members above his personal desire, in my opinion, is in stark contrast of Gov. Huckabee (and of course the now notorious events of the West Virginia Republican Convention).

Senator McCain now appears posed to capture the nomination as the Republican candidate. Unfortunately at this point I cannot say that I am enthused or overjoyed by this turn of events. This will be my second Presidential election since gaining my citizenship in 2001, and I’m not quite sure how I will mark my General Election ballot. I think that there are many who are wrestling with the same dilemma as I am.

In closing, after listening to Gov. Romney’s speech and his reasons for suspending his Presidential bid I can only say I am proud that he had been the candidate that I chose to support.

Let me begin by disclosing (just in case you’re new to my blog) that I am a Romney supporter. However, my blog entry today focuses on Senator John McCain; no I’m not jumping ship au contraire; I will continue to campaign for Gov. Romney so long as he stays on the campaign trail and in the fight. Today I decided to write about and share my personal observations about the Senator and what I view as a possible questionable “health-issue”.

To the Senator’s credit, at least in the past, he has made no secret of his brush with melanoma (you can read about it at this NY Times link – No Complications in McCain Cancer Surgery) and of course his injuries suffered from both his aircraft crash into Hanoi Bay and at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors are well documented. What has caught my eye recently is the “changes” on the left side of his face and more recently the asynchronous eye blinking, and the drooping of his left eye. As a registered nurse, with many years of experience caring for critically ill neonates and infants I have learned to look for very subtle signs of change in my patients and these skills has served me well over the years alerting me to a change in health status of patients not equipped to communicate them to me verbally; in addition those who know me know that I am very observant and have a knack as an astute observer.

Of course, there could be numerous non-health related reasons for detecting physical changes in the Senator’s face and eye movements. For example, until recently the press seemed to focus almost exlusively on his right side, which lacks the “chipmunk cheek” of his left side. Also when full frontal head shots were taken some were obviously “zoomed” in and perhaps this caused an exaggerated look to McCain’s face. What really caught my interest was how about two weeks ago I noticed how much his left eye had begun to droop, and then during coverage last week I noticed that he eyes did not blink in unison, with his left eye often blinking in rapid succession before his right eye blinked.

It is possible that there is nothing medically wrong with the Senator, however knowing his history of cancer (especially melanoma) and how stress is a known trigger for cancer cell growth, and yes let’s say it he’s in the 70+ club (I’m not far behind in years myself) which also increases the possibility of age related illnesses I felt compelled to ask – is Senator McCain being truthful about his health and his ability to lead should he win the Republican nomination and go on to capture the Presidency (I am definitively not in favor of this option).

Now there may be those who read this and think that such concerns are small and petty, but I would disagree. I think that having a candidate that is not only viable “electorally” but medically is crucial. So perhaps the good Senator can put my concerns to rest by answering the questions I posed about the condition of his health and ensuring us that he is not only physically fit, but medically fit as well.

This voter is waiting to learn the answer.

Both supporters and opponents of Proposition 93 are wooing Californians this year, with a purported term-limits “correction” proposition (my definition). First, let me disclose that I am and have already voted against Prop. 93 and my reasons for not supporting this proposition is simple – it’s a BAD, BAD, BAD idea!

Way back, when California citizens first began to consider term limits, I read all the available information and on paper it looked like a good idea. However, as fate would have it, term limits looked better in paper than in practice. And, just like with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, politicians, their supporters, consultants, lobbyists, etc., found creative ways around it and what was a noble idea quickly succumbed to corruption and manipulations and machinations. So too with term limits, elected officials chose to interpret term limits as hurdles to overcome in order to stay in office; of course they justified this reasoning that they sought to remain in office in order to complete the important tasks that their constituents had sent them to Sacramento to complete, and this is not in and of itself a ignoble ideal. Unfortunately, many of these same elected officials missed the other message that the constituents were trying to send which was we don’t want you to turn this into a life-long career.

So now we are being offered Prop 93 as a fix to a “bad” term-limit law. Proponents of Prop 93 are trying to sell the voter on the idea that letting legislators spend up to twelve consecutive years in one house is far better than the current system where they can only spend two consecutive terms in the Assembly or the State Senate or a combination thereof before being termed out thus prompting an elected official to launch a bid at the next available “elected” slot. We are also being told that passing Prop 93 would allow our elected official to become better informed and educated on their roles and responsibilities thus better servants of the people – and we are warned that failure to pass Prop 93 could mean leaving “outside” influences such as lobbyists, specials interest groups (and though they don’t mention it unions) in charge of our legislature and our government.

Opponents argue that this is a veiled attempt to thwart the will of the people and that it will actually extend the terms of up to 42 sitting legislators (Democrat and Republican alike). It is a simple, and I believe is a pretty accurate interpretation of the Prop 93.

It was this extension of office limits for sitting legislators that raised the “could this be a scam” alert in this voter’s mind. If Prop 93 was about correcting what was a perceived imbalance then it would have made sense for it to apply to newly elected officials, and not those already in office who had been elected under the old terms. Additionally, the argument that it would make for a better educated or prepared elected officials sounded ludicrous to me since if that person is that incompetent to start with then no amount of years in office could serve to better educate them, and lets not forget that each elected official has a cadre of aides and advisors, that are paid for by you and me, whose jobs are to inform and educate their boss; not to mention the entire bureaucracy of Sacramento that is in the business supposedly to serve as a resource to and for our elected officials.

So on Tuesday, February 5th I hope you vote no on Prop 93; and remember the best term limit we can impose on our elected officials is to not vote for them when they do scummy things, break the law, ignore the will of the people, grow arrogant of the privilege granted to them by the people, etc. So remember to be an informed voter and vote each and every time the opportunity presents itself.

Okay, so I know that Giuliani endorsed McCain, and of course our erstwhile Governor has also come out in support of McCain; and as all the pundits would like us to believe that we were waiting with bated breath on whom they would endorse just so we’d know how to mark our ballots come Super-Tuesday on Nov. 5th. However, I’m not so sure that their endorsement will actually sway many Republicans, at least not those that I know personally and to those I’ve spoken to who have declared that their vote is going for Romney on Super Tuesday.

Now for those of you who’ve been tracking my blog may remember that back in September of last year, I decided to leave the Giuliani campaign after experiencing what I believed was a complete lack of consideration and respect for the campaign volunteers. I took a month or so off and evaluated the field of choices left for me, and the more I learned about Gov. Romney, his family and his team the more I liked what I saw.

As I chatted up friends and colleagues I learned that many of them were contemplating ending their support of Giuliani and looking for another candidate to support, and I know many have chosen to support Romney. That’s why I believe that even though McCain is racking up a list of endorsement from various so-called Republican leaders (many of whom are not nearly as in sync with fellow Republicans as they think they are).

Also, as I have noted in previous posts even though National Security is an issue of importance to many of us, the economy — especially on the heels of the home mortgage debacle is moving towards the forefront of many American’s minds. Many would argue that McCain’s the man when it comes to the War on Terror and the best choice to support our men and women in uniform who are serving on various missions overseas. I would argue that Romney’s a better choice because his strong economic acumen and track record in turning around distressed enterprises positions him as the candidate that can help develop and implement strong economic strategies that in turn will allow our Nation to continue on a path of strong National Security and continue to support our men and women in uniform as they carry out the missions overseas that have been assigned them.

Additionally I’m concerned about such things as having someone who can work with individuals from both sides of the aisle and even though McCain has a track record doing that; he has often co-sponsored bills with some of these same individuals that have had unintended negative consequences. Such as McCain-Feingold, which effectively muzzled business and individuals of means, damaging their First amendment rights while pretty much giving a free pass to unions and helping give rise to many of the now notorious “527’s”. Then there was the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform bill that was so convoluted and out-of-touch with what “We the People” seem to be telling our elected officials, that we nearly had to rise up and storm the Bastille just to get them to listen (thanks to the radio hosts such as John & Ken, Rush Limbaugh and many others they helped rally the constituents to express their views and maybe we’ll see a repeat of this rallying to help push Romney over the top on Super Tuesday and beyond). Granted McCain may have thought he had crafted two excellent bills, but it has become obvious that McCain-Feingold is incredibly flawed and the McCain-Kennedy bill was just ill conceived.

I know many people are impressed with McCain’s reputation as a “straight talker”. However all the “straight talk” aside McCain seems to also have a mean streak that is often revealed in well documented tirades and bouts of foul language directed at individuals that cross his path or chose to actively disagree with him. I live in fear that his reputation for throwing “F-bombs” at his colleagues in the Senate is a way of life for him and though I’m no fan of some of our world leaders I cringe at the thought of a person of McCain’s temperament and what it could mean to diplomatic relations.

Just in case you think that I jumped ship to Romney on the heels of Giuliani’s withdrawal you’d be dead wrong. Last week my daughters and I sat down and completed our permanent absentee ballots and cast our lot with Romney. I hope that those Republican’s reading this blog also consider voting for Gov. Romney; but whatever you chose to do — don’t forget to vote on Nov. 5th!

As I sit here contemplating the two most recent caucuses/primaries, I’m struck by how the media seems hell bent on creating the news rather then reporting the news. And, yes I know that its probably not news to many of us how our Nation’s media seems to confuse educating the public’s mind with manipulating the public’s mind.

One of my fondest memories of my childhood in France was reading the morning newspapers with my father. France’s news media, unlike American news media has had a long history of making their bias clearly known to its reading public – for example Le Monde is known for being center-left, Le Figaro is known for being center-right, and Le Canard enchaîné is known for its willingness to hit all politicians of all ilk equally hard, and so forth. However, in the US with the exception of a few, such as the LA Times, the New York Times, Washington Post (known for their left lean), it can often be hard to ferret out the lean of US Newspapers because they like to put forward the image that they are “unbiased” in the way they choose to report the news. This can make it somewhat of a challenge at times to decipher a newspapers “spin”, it used to be that all you had to do was read the editorial section and the bias was quickly revealed; now one had to scrutinize the headlines and the best way to do this is to read several of the papers and compare. How they title the piece, where they place it and how large the photo and headline are will often give away the paper’s bias.

Another way to ferret out what the media bias is — is to pay attention to an election year, such as this Presidential Election. Prior to the Michigan Primary, one would have thought that Gov. Romney was running a losing campaign, that all he had done was come in second place twice. However, what the media failed to report with accuracy was that he had already won one primary, albeit not a big one, in Wyoming. So contrary to so many of the pundits he was already ahead of the game, and his win in Michigan gave him his second – first place win compared to Gov. Huckabee and Sen. McCain. When you factor in that the media had continued to promote how McCain had won Michigan in the last Republican Primary only four years earlier makes McCain’s loss by 9 points interesting.

Of course Gov. Huckabee’s win in Iowa appeared unexpected and thus was news worthy, but again he beat Romney by a mere 9 points, yet when Romney won the Nevada Caucuses this week by 37 points ahead of Sen. Paul, 38 points ahead of Sen. McCain and 43 points ahead of Huckabee you would have thought the headlines would have characterized his win with at least the same amount of enthusiasm and excitement as they did for Huckabee’s win in Iowa and McCain’s win in New Hampshire. So much for fair and accurate reporting on the part of our illustrious press. I stress this because of all the caucuses and primaries to date the Wyoming primary and the Nevada caucuses had the most impressive point spread between the first and second place choices of the Republican Party.

Now, I don’t pretend to be able to predict the outcome of the Florida primaries, but it is my hope that my candidate of choice (that would be Gov. Romney if you haven’t been keeping track) does well, placing first would be perfect. However, having lived for eight years in the South, I know how Yankees are often perceived by the good people of the South, therefore I was pleased to learn that Romney was in a four way tie in Florida. Then it’s on to Super Tuesday. So as the media begins to beat the “it’s the economy drum” I think that we should all take a hard look at who among the potential candidates has the skill sets to help what has been characterized as a distressed economy, and of all the candidates Romney’s the only one that has a track record turning around distressed enterprises and organizations.

So, I encourage everyone to take a moment and really scrutinize how the press chooses to report election happenings and results, and remember that they are a business as well and as of late far too many of them have their eye on the bottom line and the ratings and not on necessarily providing “just the facts” and allowing us the freedom to interpret those facts. So my advice would be read the newspapers, talk with friends, family and those whose opinion you value, do your own research and then draw your own conclusions.

In closing, if you haven’t already done so and you are eligible to do so register to vote, and if you are already registered be sure to vote on election day and if you vote by absentee ballot be sure to mail it in on time!

Well, it was good to hear the news that Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Michigan Primary. Of course, so many of the media pundits and crystal ball readers seemed inclined to declare Senator McCain the winner, even before the first ballot was cast. So I’m sure the media is going to focus on Romney being a “native son” and factor this into his win, hoping that the public at large will swallow this media spun excuse, rather then accepting the fact that maybe the good people of Michigan recognize that Romney has some skill sets that most of the other candidates lack or are weak in – in particular a proven track record of turning around “distressed” enterprises. Since the media has decided to focus on what is being characterized as a flagging, stalled, weakening (insert the adjective of your choice here) economy then it becomes more and more apparent that Romney skill sets more closely fit this particular scenario.

When this primary season first got started I was a bit reluctant to count myself as a Mitt Romney supporter, in fact I started off as a Rudy Giuliani supporter. However two things convinced me that Romney was the better candidate. The first was the more I got to know Giuliani and his inner circle the more disenchanted I became with his leadership skills (see my post on “How not to treat volunteers”); and as my daughter reminded me this Country has elected a disabled person (FDR), a Catholic (JFK) and of course a Quaker (Nixon) so electing a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (a Mormon) to our highest office is not so far-fetched. So I began to educate myself on Romney and the more I learned the more I like what I learned.

Is he the “perfect” candidate, hardly and I do not think you will find him ever pretending to be perfect. But I feel that his commitment to doing something positive for our Nation is real and heart-felt and he definitely has the managerial, political and psychosocial skills I think that we need in our next President.

This week my daughter and I attended a meeting that was all about clean money campaigns and how “evil” corporate interests have conspired to rule and ruin our healthcare. At this informative meeting we were invited to view a movie entitled “Blood Money” and meet a panel of 6 experts invited to illuminate us by the League of Women Voters.

The meeting was scheduled to start at 7:00 PM, but by 7:20 PM barely 25 people had arrived and the meeting was called to order. While I waited for the meeting to start I watched as one of the panelists ran through her slides and found one slide of particular interest. The slide she had selected was a short movie that was labeled “undercover video” at a special interest fundraiser; and I waited for her to show a similar short movie showing the unions having their fundraisers and hob knobbing meet and greets which of course was never offered. Silly me I thought that one of the themes of this meeting was exposing all special interests that use their money and power to peddle their influence.

My concern about AB 583 (it is now a 2-year bill) and the Clean Money Campaign propaganda is that they use the selling point that it will level the political playing field. But, I’m not so sure that it does. In Arizona, the Clean Money poster child, the unions clearly did not have to play by the same rules as their competitors, business. Also, as a taxpayer do I want to see my tax dollars go to support a candidate whose philosophy is anathema to my own, such as a supporter of extreme beliefs like white supremacist, NAZI, or other hate group. I read the bill now sitting in our state legislature and it doesn’t appear to address the issue of a real-life extremist accessing these funds. At least in our flawed system of today you donate directly to the person you chose. Of course in the Progressive Democrat/Socialist’s way of thinking it makes sense that the taxpayer fund campaigns since the taxpayer is far too naïve to exercise good judgment on their own.

So here we were sitting in the Pasadena Community College Community Education Center attending a forum organized by the League of Women Voters (total nationwide membership of 140,000 including members, supporters and activists as per their 2006 annual report; that’s just about .5% of US residents) waiting for the meeting to start. A member of the League and a panelist introduces herself, and then the president of the Pasadena-League of Women Voters unit. She, of course, announces how the League is all about getting people involved and active in politics, and of course how they are non-partisan – which makes me wonder why they were hosting this event without providing a counterpoint. But the final straw was when they asked us all to stand and honor our Nation’s flag, the real shock came when only small handful of attendees including me and my daughter could bring themselves to utter the words “under God”. Most of the attendees, including most of the panelist refused to utter the entire Pledge of Allegiance. I’m not one that believes we need to say the pledge at every gathering, nor even display the flag; but if you are going to ask us to honor our Nation’s flag don’t make a mockery by modifying the Pledge. Now I know that there has been some ongoing challenge as to whether or not “under God” is allowable, as per our Constitution, but I think that until there is a final verdict by our Supreme Court we need to say the pledge as it is written.

And as the saying goes, I could stand no more … so I left. So beware the next time you are invited to a so-called educational forum, no matter who the organizer. If the panel is comprised of members who all espouse the same or similar point of view, such as the Oct. 17th meeting than you are probably attending an indoctrination or propaganda event and should not expect to hear a real debate of the facts. It’s very sad that a once venerable organization such as the League of Women Voters would stoop to such a low method, but then what can you expect of a group that represents less then one percent of US residents and has to pad its membership to include supporters and activists just to be able to say they had a base of 140,000.

Just before Rudy announced his plans to seek the Republican nomination for President I was asked if I would join his volunteer team as one of the Healthcare Coalition Chairs for California; and I said yes with little hesitation. Like so many of my friends and associates I saw the potential of Rudy being our Republican nominee for President, not to mention the possibility that he could be our Country’s 44th President.

So I agreed, signed an endorsement form and began to recruit others to serve on the health care coalition that I chaired as well as a few people to donate to the campaign – and then the snafus began. First there was a key area campaign staffer that just “disappeared” from the campaign — no reason given, no announcement; just a conference call to announce a new person running the area, a person that had to resign his position with a state party under allegations of racism.

This turn of events gave me some concerns, but I thought that I’d take a few breaths and evaluate how this campaign would continue to shake out. Then the hit pieces began, of course hit pieces against prospective political candidates are nothing new and they have almost become expected in today’s politics. However, one would think that the campaign would alert its supposed key volunteers and supporters that such pieces are set to be run, provide them with background and response information if needed, but not the Rudy campaign. I guess it was much more fun to let the volunteers find out when they received telephone calls from friends, family and other volunteers wanting to know what was going on. As in the case of the two, nearly back to back stories in Vanity Fair, and though we all know to take what Vanity Fair reports with a grain (okay maybe an entire salt shaker) of salt it doesn’t change the fact that it is read by a lot of people and our friends, family and acquaintances that may read it might call asking us about it. (The Vanity Fair articles can be found here - http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706 and here - http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/09/giuliani200709)

However, I didn’t let this phase me too much that is until Purdue-OxyContin and a reported $634 million dollar fine came to light. And though I cannot blame Rudy for trying to defend his client, Purdue at the time, but expecting people to believe that OxyContin was not addictive or habit forming seemed a bit far fetched; any nurse or physician can tell you how many lives were ruined by an OxyContin addiction. This failure to divulge by the Rudy Campaign was my last straw, so I decided that at the next meeting I would announce my decision to step down from the campaign. (A link the report in USAToday - http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/oxycontin_maker.html)

The next opportunity presented itself with the California Republican Campaign that was held this past weekend in Indian Wells where Rudy volunteers were also gathering for two planned events. When my daughter and I arrived Friday night we ran into a fellow Republican (imagine that!), and she reminded me to cast my straw vote for Rudy, and she was shocked when I told her that I wouldn’t as I was stepping down and that I was no longer supporting his candidacy. She asked why and I briefly shared with her my reasons and concerns and told her that I would make it official at the Saturday morning meeting. So imagine my surprise, on Saturday morning, when she came along with the volunteer coordinator from the National level (who shall remain nameless because he knows who he is) came up to me and he took that opportunity to inform me that “I was not welcomed here”, and that if I didn’t leave immediately I would be forcibly ejected. He repeated this ominous threat several more times, as I gathered my belongings; however as a woman who uses a cane and has some mobility issues I can only move so fast. However, he was unconcerned about my apparent “handicap” and was more concerned about bullying me to leave, which of course I did once I had gathered all my things. Apparently, this “nice, Republican lady” had decided to announce my resignation and to further embellish matters she even added her own editorial flourishes such as I had stated that I had planned to go to the Press (something I had not given any thought of doing).

Since I am a firm believer in the “power of the pen”, freedom of speech and expression, I decided that this would make a great entry in my blog, and a good lesson on how not to manage, especially on how not to manage volunteers. I would say that the Rudy Campaign has a lot to learn on how to manage volunteers. Demanding that volunteers do phone banks when this is not their skill or desire; asking volunteers to donate $1,000 and $2,300 to attend events without giving thought to low cost events to inspire the troops will only go so far, and not realizing the incalculable value of volunteer “sweat equity” is most definitely a weakness I do not like seeing in a potential Presidential candidate.