Wednesday, November 01, 2006



To steal a phrase from Jody, "My Assemblyman doesn't suck." The bad news is that he consistently votes with the ones who do. Every vote for Brett Davis has the effect of being an echo vote for Gabe Loeffelholz and the clueless mass in the lower house. Carrie shows us how Davis has voted against the interests of the 80th District.
If Davis had moderated his voting more than he had, he could have locked up this
seat for the Republicans again with an entrenched Republican like they did with
former Rep. Powers. But Davis voted for concealed carry, voted to criminalize
some of the techniques used by stem-cell researchers, voted to put the
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions on the ballot, and
voted against requiring hospitals to carry emergency contraception for victims
of rape or incest. And those are just the appetizers. A side note on his
concealed carry vote - Davis did vote for an amendment to prohibit the weapons
from being carried into banks, but voted against amendments that would have
prohibited them in places where kids go like Chuck E. Cheese. So the banks
deserve to be protected from guns, but kids don't.
Janis Ringhand will be a voice for the people of the 80th against the dunderheads in the Assembly. She has government experience but isn't beholden to Madison.

Janis Ringhand deserves your vote.


slammer said...

"Davis has voted against the interests of the 80th district."

I would assume you were meaning your interests. Let's let the rest of the 80th decide next week.

What I do not understand is how Janis let this get into a smear campaign. From the times I have met her I found her to be a nice respectful person, but after the crap she has been mailing, and I will assume she does not write the mailings but she has to approve them and it is really sad.

Walton said...

While I can't claim any insider knowledge with Janis' campaign - I do know from past experience that a challenger who does not attack the incumbent's record is doomed to fail (unless the incumbent is in a scandal). The incumbent's best strategy until polls prove otherwise is always to tout their own record and ignore the challenger as much as possible to lessen name recognition. That seems to be the way this has played out.

I also have to wonder if Janis has found herself in a position where she has had to hand the campaign over to the Party and they are calling the strategy for her. Again - not at all unusual in today's politics. They are the one's who are also securing endorsements and contributions, so unless you want to run as an independent or be stuck with luke-warm Party support like Goff was two years ago, you are forced to trust in your party. Frankly this relationship is a primary reason I never tested the waters beyond City Council.

Do these two things make a negative campaign okay? Absolutely not, but they do make it understandable. I am also guessing that Janis has likely vetoed several nastier strategies that the Party has pushed on her.

slammer said...

Walton I will respond by saying, I understand attacking a voting record and pointing out why this may be a bad idea but to call Brett Davis a Hater of Women and "get in bed with" people like Progressive Majority is what I do not understand. I agree you must attack the opponent but to belittle yourself to name calling is terrible

Mark Schnepper said...

I agree with Walton that this is how it works in politics. It is too bad that campaigns aren't more issue focused, we are the losers because of it. Apparently it works because both parties keep doing it. However, it is quite amusing to hear a staunch GOP supporter whining about it when the GOP wrote the playbook.

If things were more honest, Bush wouldn't have been close enough in 2000 to get selected as our President by the Supreme Court and "former Maverick" John McCain, wouldn't have sold his soul to the GOP.

Karen Aikman said...

I understand that at 7pm this evening, Thursday Nov. 2, Janis and Brett will be on 93.7fm. Perhaps this will be an opportunity to hear an issue focused discussion.