Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Roger Ricker Post-Election Thoughts...Thanks and more

I wanted to post this article to recognize Roger Ricker for his ambition, enthusiasm and dedication regarding his efforts towards the town of Media.  Running as a candidate for a political postion takes a lot of time, focus and commitment.  Running into the head wind of your own party, requires much, much more.  It appears the Media Democratic Party never intended to have an open primary, but hoped no one would figure that out either.

Roger unfortunately lost in last week's Primary, but he's showed a lot of people that he's got the grit and fortitude to continue making an impact for the good of all of Media. Good Luck, Roger!
(Ed Note: Roger did not submit this to ATM, but the statement was used in this post as reference from his Facebook page)

Roger Ricker

Now that the 2011 Democratic Primary is over, I would like to thank the 116 (or 114, depending on where you find the tally) voters of the Borough of Media who took the time to vote for me, a first time candidate who was running unendorsed by the local Democratic party.

Those voters actually used their own will and made their own choice to vote for the candidates they found to be the best on the ballot, rather than simply following the endorsed choices handed to them on a flyer at the polls. These were voters who decided that their choice was the best choice.

I do have, however, a question about the endorsement of the Democratic Party and would like to open it up for discussion.

My question is this: How is it that a member of the Democratic Committee---the very Committee that decides who is endorsed or unendorsed--was himself a candidate? How can this member of the Committee place a vote as to who the party endorses? Obviously the deck was stacked against me from day one as this person was also running for the same office I was running for (Media Borough Council).

Secondly, when the question arose for the Committee to decide whether it would be an open primary--in which all candidates fend for themselves--or whether they would endorse three candidates, it seems logical that this person voted to not have an open primary and chose to endorse himself plus two others.

It is unfortunate that the integrity of the Democratic Committee has lost its luster. I speak not as a sore loser (the amount of votes I received as an unendorsed candidate create much enthusiasm for my local political future) but simply as a resident of the borough who feels that the public was duped into believing that the Committee made an unbiased decision based on who is actually best for the future of Media.

Let's put it this way: If a man sells chocolate and sits on a Committee that decides whether it's best to eat corn or chocolate it is obvious that the chocolate-seller is going to vote against the corn. And the Committee will then tell the public that it has decided chocolate is best. And the public is none the wiser, as they take what the Committee says for granted.

I implore the public, in Media and at large, to begin to question what you are told and to base your choices on your own thought process, trying to discern for yourself as many angles as you can and to stop taking for granted that everything you are told is what is best for you.

Thanks again to those of you who voted for me. My platform of a restructured Media Business Authority (which really should be called an Association) and less cronyism in Media will walk with me as I hope it stays with those of you who pushed the button for Roger Ricker.

Roger Ricker
Media Borough


  1. Since Ricker is talking about me, here's the facts:

    - Media Democrats had three meetings for candidates to meet with the committee. Roger Ricker showed up to none of these meetings. The three "endorsed" candidates showed up.

    - If you really want to talk about qualifications and commitment: I have attended 19 out of the 20 past meetings for borough council legislative and workshop meetings. The only other candidate (Republican or Democrat) to do this is Pete Alyanakian, who is currently President.

    - The other two Democratic "endorsed" candidates have 16 years of collective experience between them on council.

    Running for office is serious business, and I applaud Roger for making a run at it; however, had he actually showed up at any of the meetings, perhaps he could have made his case in person.

    Otherwise, there is no conspiracy here. Mr. Ricker showed his true colors post election by saying publicly he would switch parties, and promote the Republican candidates. Media has already swallowed that bitter pill, and I doubt we need another dose.

  2. If attendance at council workshops and meetings are the true qualifier for electability, I say we should write in Michael Jordan for council.

    That 'qualification' is almost as ridiculous as putting school board candidate lawn signs out while homeschooling one's kids.

  3. It seems illegal to me that someone running for Council was on the Committee that decided who would be (or not be) endorsed. The vote was stacked. This is inappropriate and voters were, as Ricker says, duped.
    There should be another election that is completely fair or the candidate Ricker speaks of should have to withdraw.

  4. Perhaps the real question is: For what reason would Ricker decide to back the Republican candidates? There seems to be more to this than the Dems are letting us know. What would cause a staunch Dem to suddenly state 'to heck with the Dem candidates of Media'?
    Ricker brings up good points. Also, attending Council meetings does not make a person eligible to be elected. A lot of people go to Council meetings.
    What qualifies someone is hard work for the community, a positive attitude, and a connection to the borough.
    I also notice that nowhere does Ricker bring up Kent Davidson's name, yet Mr. Davidson states "Ricker is talking about me." Is this paranoia or guilt?
    Ricker is merely asking a question and raising a concern but does not point fingers to anyone by name.
    Mr. Davidson, was your hand in the cookie jar?

  5. Pssst, Roger you did get duped. Even Bill Krieger, the recent Western Committeeman and Former Chair of the Media Democratic Party resigned in disgust a few weeks ago over the mis-leading "open primary." Apparently, a committee person from the North was snubbed too. With this kind of nonsense, who could blame Dawn and Monika for switching leadership.

  6. Roger you should cease, cease, cease making declarations about switching parties,no one see you as a republican a-hole and instead focus on the lack of integrity and shady practices of Kent Davidson and the Democratic committee....expose the newspapers..if Kent Davidson doesn't have the wherewithal to recuse himself at a meeting in which he is being endorsed and votes for himself....can you imagine the double dealings when he gets elected to Council?...i see shades of of serious ethical questions here....John

  7. This kind of political bantering takes away from the page. It's a nice fb page but whoever owns it should concentrate on more positive stuff.

    As for Mr. Ricker, he was invited to attend a forum for all dem primary candidates and showed little enthusiasm for the event. Mr. Ricker was never a serious candidate and was treated as such by the voters.

  8. To Owen:
    Your comment is entirely false, and I have an email from you to prove that.
    You stated to me in an email, when you were scheduling your 'forum', that, after I told you when I was available, I was one of the few who had gotten back to you at the time to let you know when I was available.
    You then stated you had to reschedule.
    Soon, you sent an email stating you were cancelling the event because the candidates, not just me, could not agree on a suitable time. You mentioned all of them by name and what their conflicts were.
    So don't be putting out false information.
    And, quite factually, if the top vote getter at the polls only received 275 votes (Brian Hall) and I received 116 votes as the fourth runner-up (hence, getting cut from the November elections) and, considering I ran unendorsed by the Committee---well, that's a sign that the voters actually took me fairly seriously.
    The Committee did not get a huge amount of voters off their couches on primary day to support their candidates, if all of them received under 300 votes each.
    If you wish, I can make the email you sent to me public to prove that what you are saying is completely false.
    I had much enthusiasm for the forum....YOU were the one who cancelled it, concerned about the conflicts that all candidates had.
    Do you have any other mis-information you would like to share?

  9. Sorry if I misread you Roger, but my impression was that you were an extremely busy guy with a lot of scheduling conflicts - as in fact were most of the other candidates. But your situation as an unendorsed candidate was a little different, this event was a rare opportunity for you, one that you may have had to change your schedule for. Over the years I have found the underdogs ready to do almost anything to get their point across. Once again my apologies if I misread you.

    BTW Democracy Unplugged is still willing to put on a forum between the candidates in the November general, if there is some enthusiasm and a willingness to work on it. I was thinking about doing it with some local kids, perhaps as a fund raiser for the youth club. But I don't have the time to do it all by myself, unless there's significant interest.

    again my apologies