Sunday, August 30, 2009

And now, for some proof that I haven't gone completely soft...

From the camp of "one who did not receive Chuckle's smiley face of approval in his pre-election mailer this year," I bring you....

Proof that Chuck Eisemann leads to K.A.O.S.

Chuck Eisemann -->Bernie Kopell -->The Love Boat's "Doc" -->Get Smart's 'Fearless Leader' Siegfried, who, on that show, ran the evil organization....KAOS!!

Coincidence? I think not. Paranoid? Who's asking?!


  1. Amazing! I never knew. But now I do. He does all that and he still has time for the RC?
    Very special fellow there.

  2. Looks like you got a pic from Chuck Eisemann's pre-plastic surgery days. His face is pulled so tight now, particularly around his eyes, that he has that "surprised" look on his face at all times. Honestly, a very bad look for a very bad dude.

  3. Lordy, Eisemann is looking bad these days. Slagel, too, with his 1970 gold-rimmed aviator glasses, isn't either. When you're an evil man, I guess your appearance begins to reflect it.

  4. Hey, throw in John Murphy - he used to be a skinny dude when he went on the council 20 years ago. Now, what, he's probably doubled in size....ouch!

  5. When it comes to width and height, I remember my young nephew commenting to my dad one day, as he was looking at an old picture of him. My young nephew said, “You suuuuurrre were tall back then!” That statement, just if you are curious, did not stop my young nephew’s aging process.

    Wisdom might come with age, but there are definitely other things that are more likely to come with age.

  6. Do you people have to be so hateful and vicious all the time. I just don't understand it. Can't you just disagree with people without having to name call and say hateful things. If you want change then act instead of spewing hateful words. I mean you call her "Bitter Ritter", but listen to yourselves?

  7. To the Anonymous above, I'd say that is the pot calling the kettle black. You must not have read the Richardson Coalition's "Voter's Guide". Yeah, that was some great piece of kind journalism - NOT. That publication spewed the most vicious lies ever told in this city about some very qualified council candidates like Chris Davis and Diane Wardrup. OK - so they didn't like these two WOMEN, why did they need to trash them? Last I checked, Chuck Eisemann, David Peters, Martha "Bitter Ritter" Ritter, Bob "Let's not comply with Open Records" Macy, and their Richardson Coalition were behind it all.

    So, I'd say that this elderly group of "has beens" should have thought twice about the nastiness that THEY started. OK, they got Slagel back as mayor, but I don't think that they ever estimated the costs that it would take to do it - and what it will take to keep him there on an ongoing basis.

  8. Hi anonymous at 11:56am. Were you directing your comments at everyone here, or just a select few? Because I thought what I said was in fairly good taste. Not vicious or hateful.

    As for Eisemann and some of his crew, they put themselves out there and did some really hateful and vicious things. The one that struck me the most was the reference to Sheryl Miller calling her “the eternal candidate” on the RC Voters Guide. How contemptable is that? Second, the website Chuck and Dave put together to viciously shame Nathan, Although, I have to say that stunt turned pretty good. It prompted another website, with a page just for Chuck and his buddys, I would dare say that page never would have been made if it were not for Chuck’s, Gary's and the RC’s actions. It is obviously retaliatory in nature. There are plenty of other reasons for people to dislike The Eisemann/Slagel mob, too many to list here.

    Chuck, Gary and the rest of them are the ones who have taken local politics to a new level. Most of the people I know are just responding to their actions. Most are trying to do it in a tasteful manner as well. And yes, some people take the insults too far.

    I don’t need to make hateful remarks, and try not to make them, but I will make remarks where my displeasure or admiration will be displayed.

  9. dc-tm, I was not talking about you. I should have been more specific. And I think you tend to do a better job than most on keeping civil discourse.

    However, you do not convince me that Chuck Eisemann, Gary Slagel, etc. have done hateful and vicious things. Is it really hateful for Chuck Eismann and Dave Peters to make a website to counter the ongoing attacks by Nathan Morgan? They say nothing slanderous about Nathan; they simply have corrected him and defended themselves, And I don't know if you saw any of the debates during the election, but Gary Slagel was very polite and even complimentary of Diane Wardrup and her service to the city.

    There is nothing wrong with passionately disagreeing with the RC and Chuck Eismann. But to label him "evil" for having different opinions is ludicrous. Chuck has done nothing illegal or wrong. He is a Richardson resident who has opinions just like all of you. He puts his opinions into action by creating a PAC and endorsing candidates, which any one of you can do. The Richardson Fire Fighter's Association does the same thing. In fact, I am sure they endorsed candidates that many of you preferred.

  10. "Anonymous" above fails to mention - or just plain ignores - the RC "Voter's guide". What about that was anything but vicious? C'mon. In my book, deceptions and lies are evil. "Anonymous" seems to act like Slagel and Eisemann and the Richardson Coalition aren't linked - they are.

    How does "anonymous" know that Chuck hasn't done anything illegal or wrong. They don't. Any sane person would have to question why someone, like Chuck, would spend over $30,000 of their own money to keep Slagel in office and put him back as mayor. Wake up - the amount that firefighter's spent was pennies on the dollar compared to Chuck and the RC.

    As for Slagel, the DMN articles, TV reports, etc. speak for themselves. Seems to me that this guy is very ethically challenged and has trouble discerning right and wrong.

    "Anonymous" above is clearly a coalition person who refuses to believe that any of their pals may be corrupt. And, I am sure that THEY voted for the candidates that the RC endorsed in their voter's guide rag.

  11. Hi anonymous @ 6:49pm,
    Thank you for the compliment. I try to be civil, even when I don’t want to be, at times. Generally, when I think of that perfect come back for exactly the right moment and with the right target, it ends with regret for me. Justified or not.
    Chuck did have the right to form a PAC with his friends. I do disagree with his views most of the time, especially with his endorsements for city council. His Voter Guide looked very nice and professional. It was what I thought of as “slick”. Look at the RC Voter’s Guide again. Take a look at what they said about Chris Davis.
    Chris Davis Segment:
    “Our assessment of Chris Davis’ candidacy is one of disappointment. Davis currently serves as an executive assistant to our Dallas County Commissioner. We are very concerned about the conflicts of interest this situation presents, as Davis will be forced to withdraw from any votes that impact the County and the City. This seriously curtails her ability to represent the citizens. In addition, Davis has resorted to unethical, mean-spirited and untrue negative attacks against opponents. Davis has contacts, having been a grassroots worker for politicians, and has called in favors for the campaign.”
    Let’s start with Conflicts of Interest. What Conflicts of interest? They failed to name one. But wait, how about “Mr. Economic Development” aka Gary Slagel? Et’s take a peek at this links (real reporting and real news stories, and BTW, thanks whoeverput these together in one place. They deserve a standing O!

    Here is a reference to NTTA -
    Here is a reference to Startech – see the video -
    Chuck concerned that Chris might face a conflict of interest? Give me a freaking break! Bold faced he supported someone who actually DID have conflict of interest.
    “Davis has resorted to unethical, mean-spirited and untrue attacks” Ok, go ahead and name them. I have heard this claim, but always lacking was “what” she actually did. Do you know what she actually did? If so, please tell. The world is waiting with baited breath for the answer.
    “Davis has been a grass root worker for politicians” So, aren’t we all? I tell my neighbors and friends about who I am voting for and why. I don’t think you can get more grass roots than that. And is it a bad thing to be involved with the election of politician (otherthan some presently on the council)? Chuck didn’t think so, he spent $19,000 of his own money ($1,500 of it was a loan though, according to his PAC’s balance sheet.)
    “Davis has called in favors”. Jeepers Creepers! So it ain’t so! A political candidate politicin’. Who would have thunk it? So much for my grammor and speeeling. Where is my blood pressure medication? OK, so you don’t see these remark on the voter guide as hateful and vicious? I do.
    Cheryl Miller Segment:
    How dumb can the RC be to not even get the correct spelling of her name. And to boot, they say this,
    “Ms. Miller is the “eternal candidate.” She has been unsuccessful each time she has run for office.” If that does not show how contemptible the RC is, I don’t know what else to say.

    too long - end of part one

  12. Part 2

    Diane Wardrop Segment

    “….. Although co-workers say she is “very hard on people who work with her, especially women volunteers,……” Why don’t we just spread some rumors here? It almost makes me laugh that they would say “especially women volunteer”. What was the RC trying to do with that statement? Get all the women’s in Richardson panties in a wad because she is so hard on other women?
    One more and then I’ll stop. This about Pris-“While the coalition does not favor change for the sake of change, we do believe this year that some fresh ideas would be welcome on the City Council.” Chuck and the RC flat out lied here. Pris’ whole time on the council she had nothing but fresh idea. Why do you think Chuck and his gang wanted here gone? It is because she had an independent mind and spoke the truth. You would be hard pressed to find a more selfless person to serve on city council, short of Jim S.

    “But to label him "evil" for having different opinions is ludicrous.” You are right, it would be ludicrous to call him evil for his opinions. It is not his opinion that has earned him that label, it is his actions. And if you still don’t get it, go back to the top of my post and read it again.

    Ok, I lied a minute ago, really, just one more thing this time.

    People who can be called powerful and influential (Chuck and Dave Peters) trying to shame, berate humiliate, or whatever your choice of words, a citizen who dared criticize the status quo. Chuck is nothing less than a big fish in a little pond when he publishes sites like and If they were slandered or libeled then they should file suit.

    By the way, something else has bothered me for a long time. Chuck and Dave forgot a “ ) “ at the end of the page after the You mind asking them to fix that for me? I sure would appreciate it.

    To D., if you want, delete this. Wouldn’t want you to be accused of hosting hateful speech. :0)

  13. Anonymous at August 31, 2009 8:06 PM,

    No Fair. It took me too long to write and then had to post in two segments. I started before you did though!


  14. Well, said, dc-tm. You make great points, particularly the one where you note that it is Chuck's ACTIONS that make him the evil man that he is. Maybe, "anonymous" @ 6:49 p.m. aka RC will get a clue. Don't hold your breath.

  15. Sure, Slagel/Slago-jevich was very complimentary of Diane Wardrup during the forums because he had his Richardson Coalition henchmen/woman (don't want to leave out "Bitter Ritter") out doing all of the dirty work. Anonymous @ 6:49 p.m. is extrememly naive to think that Slago and Chuck and their coalition weren't working hand in hand.

    And, by the way, Anonymous @ 6:49 p.m., you know way too much about the coalition, Chuck, Nathan, etc. There's not way you're not a part of the Richardson Coalition.

  16. anonymous@6:49pm.
    are you chuckles? or might you be davy? who ever you are, get a clue. the RC has mentally impaired you, brain washed you, and you no longer recognize the truth when it whacks you over the head or between your eyes. chuckles has earned the remarks others make of him, just as bitter ritter has earn her reputation. their own actions brought it down on the. their actions have awaked many others who have stayed silent in the past but no so now. the rc will come to regret their actions and tactics, the chicken will come home to roost and crap all over them. things are changing.

  17. “While the coalition does not favor change for the sake of change, we do believe this year that some fresh ideas would be welcome on the City Council.” - The Richardson Coalition's endorsement of Bob Macy over Pris Hayes.

    I can't hold back here. "Fresh ideas"? Huh? They can't possibly be referring to any "fresh ideas" that Bob Macy might have. So far, I have heard nothing out of his mouth but "everything is great", etc. Oh, I did hear that he had an issue with, what was it, the Open Records Act. Now, I would say that was fresh, albeit, foolish.

    This elderly gentleman, Bob Macy, is a complete joke, and I think that it is very reflective of the coalition's agenda: pack the council with Slagel puppets so Slagel can be mayor. They even had to import carpetbagger- Slagel puppet Omar from Dallas to take on Stewart - very crafty.

    Any negative comments that are spoken about Chuck Eisemann, Dave Peters, Martha Ritter, and the Richardson Coalition are accurate - and well deserved.

  18. I am starting to miss anon August 31, 2009 6:49 PM. It's been almost 24 hours and no further statements from her. That was entertainment!