Endorsements that Really Aren't My Business . . .
I already announced my endorsements on the races that I get to vote in (go Nixon, Page, Carnahan, Zweifel, Harris, Cleaver, Kander, Kanatzar, Bullard, Bough and Weir!!!!), but I can't help speaking up on a few other races. So here are my choices (not necessarily predictions, since I hate to put my sterling reputation for prescience on the line in races I haven't seen up close and personal) for races I won't be voting in.
FOR REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR - Kenny Hulshof - Come on, Republicans, you really need to get your stuff together if you want to rebound in 2012. Let the healing begin now. Sarah Steelman is too independent and too honest to be a dependable Republican, and you know it. Your party prefers authority and stodgy old ideas, and Kenny Hulshof is your man. In your heart, you know he's a return to the good old John Ashcroft days, and that's the only way you stand a chance of getting the rightwing mojo back. If you select Sarah Steelman, you're going to get stuck with a whole bunch of free-thinking individualists, and you know that's not your style.
FOR CONGRESS, 9TH DISTRICT - Steve Gaw - Steve Gaw is the candidate who will represent his district. He's not as liberal as I am, but neither is his district. But, really, the reason I'm supporting him is that I worked with him when I was a student intern in the Department of Revenue decades ago. There's no way he would remember me - I was a faceless worker bee, but I remember that he always treated me with respect and genuine kindness. They say that character shows through in the way you treat people who aren't in a position to help you advance, and Steve's character was sterling.
FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE, 17th CIRCUIT - Karl Timmerman - I've already written about my reasons for supporting Karl Timmerman. In selecting a judge, I care a whole lot less about party affiliation than I do about integrity. Karl Timmerman is an immigrant who has fought for this country in Vietnam and risen to be named the Missouri Lawyer of the Year in 2007. He will give all persons in his courtroom the same respect and fair treatment under the law that we all deserve.
Any other races I should be calling?
Labels: Karl Timmerman, Kenny Hulshof, Steven Gaw
posted by Dan at 8/02/2008 09:55:00 PM
19 Comments:
I agree completely!
And remember folks, ANYBODY but KOSTER!
So to be clear over the past year
Jeff Harris has skipped more then 33% of the votes in the Mo. House,
and
Margaret Donnelly has missed more then 25% of the votes in the Mo. House,
It reminds of the movie Farris Bueller’s Day Off. Bueller?… Bueller?… Bueller?…. Harris?…. Harris?…. Donnelly?…. Donnelly?
Again, why vote for a person that does not show up for work??? Why, in a job that is only in session for 5 months a year, did these 2 miss over 400 votes? Why?
Why in Gods name, would somebody vote for a person that had a job which was only for half the year and then that person skipped a third of the time they were supposed to be working.
If most people skip work 1 out of every 3 days, they would get fired.
There are no “meaningless” votes. Missing 30% of the votes is not something most citizens want in the politician they elect. I expect my representitive to show up for work.
Chris Koster has real experience, has been an excellent prosecutor for over 10 years and State Senator for over 4 years. Plus one more added benefit, he shows up for work. Harris and Donnelly like to sleep in. On the days they don't sleep in, they skip entirely.
I am voting for Chris Koster.
Oh, Kate, please don't come around here and spread that kind of nonsense. We both know that the state would have been much better off if Koster had stayed away from work - instead of voting republican (even after he claimed to have switched parties). The number of votes is not nearly as important as the nature of those votes, and you're talking about the guy who voted to rob children of medical help. Is that something to be proud of?
"The number of votes is not nearly as important as the nature of those votes"
Then why have them? Why have a representative republic?
Missed votes, due to illness, are acceptable. Missed votes, because because the Representative found that item to not be important, is a violation of the Representatives contract with the Citizens of Missouri.
Hulshof missed 43.8% of the votes held in the second quarter of 2008.
One of the Nine voices that Missouri uses to represent our 6 million citizens was silenced.
The number of Representatives is limited. When they don't vote, all those voices are silenced. Every vote is important to somebody.
I don't support Koster, but I do support a Representative Republic.
Whistleblower -
You are entitled to your opinion, but you believe we live in a dictatorship, so I caution readers not to take you too seriously.
The number of votes cast by a representative does not matter nearly as much as the difference he or she makes. I'd much rather have a representative miss a few party line votes with pre-ordained results than vote Republican on a regular basis.
What is Steve Gaw's position on sending unsolicited bulk e-mail?
Only a person who doesn't care about important things would ask such a question. I have no idea if he has even thought about the question, and I hope he's too focused on other things to have ever given it a second thought.
To be even more clear, Koster was a Republican leader, he didn't just vote one way following the party line. And just a few months before switching parties, he voted against restoring Medicaid funding even when fellow Republicans crossed the aisle.
As a Democrat, I'd like a longer, more consistent record representing Democratic values. That's why I support Margaret Donnelly.
So you don't care about integrity of people running for office?
Who are you talking to, anonymous? (As if an anonymous commenter ought to be talking about integrity.)
Between two otherwise equal candidates, would you prefer the one who believes it is acceptable to send unsolicited bulk e-mail (as a campaign tactic or otherwise), or the other?
The former, absolutely. If I thought there were a candidate who wanted to use the force of law to restrict political speech, I would actively campaign against that candidate, and denounce him or her as anti-American.
If, on the other hand, it was simply a personal policy of the candidate, I would probably distinguish between the otherwise equivalent candidates on something a bit more relevant than their thoughts on bulk email - maybe something like hair color or the font they use in printed materials.
I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would vote against an otherwise acceptable candidate because he or she used unsolicited email to inform me of his or her views.
Dan, I will not vote for candidates with TV commercials that interrupt my favorite shows, nor will I vote for a candidate who gives public speeches that might disturb me if I should happen to walk by. A website is OK, as long as nobody links to it.
The only candidate I will vote for is the one who holds meetings in basements accessible only by uttering the secret password.
Great comments on Steve Gaw. I, too, have worked with him and always found him to treat all co-workers with repspect and dignity. i say "Believe in Steve and Go for Gaw!"
Seen the latest Judy Baker on You Tube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIGhYQe3eRk
Yesterday, one of Washinton DC's best political publications, The Politco, ran a story describing how people across the ninth district know that Steve Gaw is the only Democrat who can win in November. The article also said "Some leading Republican operatives in Missouri are privately rooting for Baker," because they know how much harder it would be to take on Steve. What a compliment!
Remember, Gawe is the one who created the children's health insurance program in Missouri to send thousands of children to the doctor. He's the one who eliminated the state sales tax on groceries, required sex offenders to register, and authored the no-call list. And he's the one person who will go to Washington and stand up to special interests to lower gas prices so we can jumpstart this economy. And he'll work to fix healthcare and get us out of Iraq while he's at it.
Believe in Steve and Go with Gaw!
I understand that Judy Baker’s own company, CURA Advantage, has client organizations that are funded by the State of Missouri (such as the Missouri Kidney Foundation) or seek business from the government (such as the Daniel Correctional Psychiatric Services – DCPS). If Baker sits on the Missouri State Budget Committee, doesn’t that seem like a conflict of interest? If CURA helps these organizations get this government money, is that a violation of ethics? Something does not seem right….. I was reading some quotes on Judy Baker's CURA website ( http://curaadvantage.com/clientsatisfaction.htm ) and it just caught my attention that people were thanking her company for helping them get the financial support, backing, funding, whatever, from the state. If she sits on the budget committee deciding who gets the state's money, it just appears to me to be a conflict of interest. It almost seems like her company lobbying her committee. Is that legal? I do not understand why supporters of Judy Baker cannot answer my questions regarding her clients and business, CURA, and her being on the state budget committee. I am a voter and deserve to know, yes? No answer makes me feel someone is hiding something. I get so tired of politicians using their political positions and power for their own personal greed and gain.
So this is why the Republicans want Judy Baker to win:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12291.html
Buy Codeine online.Codeine without prescription.Order codeine.Generic Codeine.Cheap Codeine
Buy Avandia.Generic avandia.Purchase avandia online.Avandia 4mg.Cheap Avandia
Buy zyban. Cheap zyban. Order zyban. Zyban without prescription. Generic zyban
Purchase Diflucan.Buy cheap diflucan.Diflucan 150mg.Discount Diflucan.Order Diflucan
Buy evista. Evista online. Cheap evista. Order evista. Generic evista
Post a Comment
<< Home