Letter to the Editor: Tired of the Mattiacci Campaign


To the editor:

I have about had it with the lies and misconceptions that are happening here in Abington and Upper Dublin surrounding the 153rd State Rep race. I really don’t go on attack often, but I feel I have to here.

First of all, there was a “letter to the editor” () posted on Abington Patch and Upper Dublin Patch and other publications, written from the point of view of a person who hadn’t made up their mind about the candidates until attending a , and then went on to write about how he found Nick Mattiacci to be a “breath of fresh air” and the stronger candidate. But, it turns out, he was a paid campaign worker (listed as paid thousands of dollars on the public records of the campaign finance report). This was all set up by a candidate who claimed at the start that he would run a campaign with integrity.

But wait, there’s more. Mr. Mattiacci publically denounced billboards in Abington and claimed he would protect us from them, then days later he plastered his campaign on the only billboard anywhere near Abington by Carmel Presbyterian Church (just on the other side of the Abington border). He consistently makes claims he is removed from the Republican party, yet the Republicans at state level are financing all his mailings that include lies about his opponent, , being disbarred and a disgusting phone poll they did that included out-and-out lies about her and her family.

Mattiacci is not trustworthy. Well, we’re smarter than that Mr. Mattiacci. The voters of Abington and Upper Dublin deserve more respect than to be subject to these underhanded, dirty political practices and lies. It proves he feels we are stupid, easily manipulated people. It’s insulting. There’s hard campaigning and then there’s dirty politics. He has crossed the line now several times and it is disrespectful to every voter.

I plead with you all, do not put this man in office.

Robin Beall


Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Doesn't stating that you are more moral/ethical than me demonstrate that you believe in moral relativism to a degree? You don't read what you write either, do you?
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Your noose is so tight that it's amazing you can continue to "type." You write "True enough, but the supporters do say something about the man who accepts their support." This serves to acknowledge my fundamental point [that politicians cannot be expected to answer for all comments/behaviors of their supporters] but, no, it "says" absolutely nothing about the candidate. You also write, "Also, you don't know if he was involved or not. You are making some pretty big assumptions yourself," but you fail to note that I'm making NO assumptions because it's far easier to debunk your totally/knowingly false accusations.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 05:59 PM
No, I don't believe in moral-relativism; my preference is situational-ethics. This precludes the capacity to shift assumptions to befit intended outcomes. [Also, supra, "me" should be "I"...another syntactical error.]
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:04 PM
First, stop with the noose metaphor. You aren't impressing anyone other than Victor. Second, I think it does say something, you don't. There is no point going after that argument because it will end the same as it started with nothing real being said. Third, you assume he isn't involved. That is an assumption. You must be deluded and think that everything that comes from your brain is a fact.
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:06 PM
No, my grammar was correct, check again. You make distinctions where there are none. Maybe you should write a book of fake philosophy.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 06:10 PM
You have been reduced to admitting your claim of mudslinging is so specious that I am expected to refute it; that's not how it goes, and you know it. If you cannot prove your claim [and its implications], its long past the time that you should withdraw it [although this would be Ego-permitting]. Mattiacci must be assumed NOT to have had anything to do with either the picketing or the push-poll, until you have shown otherwise.
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:13 PM
How do you prove such a thing? What if he did have to do with it directly and you elect him? I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm playing it safe and voting for the one who doesn't have a stench surrounding her campaign.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 06:13 PM
GRAMMAR ALERT! When you write "you are more moral/ethical than me," you are forgetting that the second-person word "you" is the subject...as is the word first-person word "me." That is why the first-person SUBJECT should be "I" and the sentence should read: "you are more moral/ethical than I [am]."
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:14 PM
Go talk to an English teacher and see if he/she agrees with you. Also, what does grammar have to do with any of this?
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 06:15 PM
The only "stench" on this webpage is that which you have manufactured; indeed, that you would announce you predicate your vote on such nonsense [undocumented, conjecture, etc.] could serve to impugn the candidate you support [in the mind of some of the Patch readership].
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 06:17 PM
You segue from inability to disprove my grammar point to claiming it's irrelevant. This metaphorically reflects your entire approach to blogging/commenting.
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Still not blogging. Come on. No one will ever agree that this is blogging. You expect me to answer your grammar questions when you can't use words correctly?
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:22 PM
My experience was not nonsense. Your "debunking" was just nonsense. So my support could impugn the person I support? I thought you said supporters didn't relect the politician. Huh... strange.
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 06:27 PM
No, I expect you to reply to my grammar-related challenge by admitting error.
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 06:30 PM
You took the bait, as anticipated. I didn't say I concurred with the concept that all potential Dean-supporters would become dissuaded after having witnessed my dissection of your arguments; rather, I recognized the possibility that some would see that your flailing might reflect poorly on the individual you are attempting to defend. When you erect paper-tigers, and are exposed when having done so, it would be best to admit error, accept damage, and resolve to become reality-based.
Joseph Finnick April 22, 2012 at 06:43 PM
That was a long explanation to say nothing.
Marc Lombardi April 22, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Does anyone else hear that squawking from Maple Ave?
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. April 22, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Again and again, I accept your accolades...presumably provided on behalf of the Patch readership...with humility, and with hope that others will see-the-light.
Richard Hilliard April 22, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Let us hope and pray there are more intelligent and caring voters in this district than Robin Beall. People who want change and CARE about this District. THINKING people who know what they are talking about and not spewing unsupported filth like Ms. Beall
Victor B. Krievins April 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Thank you Mr. Hillard. You are a wise and learned man.
Marc Lombardi April 23, 2012 at 12:01 AM
The Awards pt. I I declare Joseph Finnick the winner of this line of comments on this article -- for his intelligence, his use of factual evidence when needed, his staying on topic and for his failure to go on the attack when he was clearly being prodded to do so.
Marc Lombardi April 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM
The Awards pt II Second place goes to Kristen Petroff for staying on topic and adding relevance to the discussion without relying on ad hominem comments and tactics to distract from the discussion at had.
Marc Lombardi April 23, 2012 at 12:04 AM
The Awards pt III Third Place goes to thompso for his (or her) ninja-like presence. Thompso came in and dropped links, knowledge and evidence that was not only damning to the Mattiacci campaign but also to those who failed at discussing the topic.
Marc Lombardi April 23, 2012 at 12:06 AM
The Awards pt IV - Conclusion Dishonorable Mention goes to Victor B. Krievins for not only failing to add significance to the discussion (and instead only parroting the comments of others), but also for going personal and trying to out people by declaring personal information (such as the street where I live).
Marc Lombardi April 23, 2012 at 12:08 AM
And with that I conclude my comments on this article. Have a great day everyone...and I'll see you all at our next regularly scheduled game of "Who Can Stay On Topic?"
Victor B. Krievins April 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Lombardi, your diet of bird seed might need to be changed. It appears to be a negative effect on your thought process. Having studied ornothology, I was unable to properly classify you as to species etc.
Marc Lombardi April 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Ornothology AND Stamp Collecting, Victor? No wonder you're a laugh a minute on here!
Victor B. Krievins April 23, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Lombardi. Thank you for the idea. We now have "Stamp Collectors", "Coin Collectors", "Wine Collectors" etc for Nick MATTICCHI. We ALSO VOTE. Thanks again for this Great idea! Hopefully you are not bashing Stamp Collectors. We have members from all walks of life amongst us including Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, The late President Gerald Ford etc. Stamp Collectors are of above average intelligence and always on the quest for knowledge. They are productive and contributing members of our Society.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »