Early Preference Poll for District 19 Representative race

[feelip]

Far from it. As Conservative as it I can get. Those that know me, know that to be a true statement.

 

 

See, I have about as much use for a far right extremist as I do for a far left extremist. Just because one doesn't posses the ability to acknowledge the fact that their way is not the only way doesn't make one correct.

 

The bright side is that being stubborn and opinionated shortens one's life span so the level headed people in the world will not have to tolerate the bullsh*t very long.

[joemturner]

To follow-up on my previous post --

 

I think all three men, in political terms, would represent the general principles and point of view of the district to some extent. From a policy perspective, there ultimately didn't appear to be a dime's worth of difference between them. This leaves the voter to make determinations on other criteria.

 

1. Jody Cash seems tremendously honest, eager, and principled. He unfortunately strikes me as being somewhat under-equipped to make a strong case for the district or even for his own point of view when push comes to shove. I think he believes in his core principles and that's what motivated him to run, and I admire that.

 

2. Daniel Stout was my original preference. I was disappointed in what I considered a somewhat plastic presence in the debate, and while I agree with him practically down the list of his declared conservative principles and causes, I thought he came across as rather superficial -- never seemed to get past the bumper sticker. In subsequent reading I have seen more details from him that I liked... along with other concerns that left me disappointed. I had originally thought that Stout would get my ultimate vote, but I left the debate with that opinion undone and have gone on to have my confidence further shaken. (I talked to his wife at the debate -- and if his wife were the candidate, she would have probably gotten my vote.)

 

3. In the debate, Ronny Sibley struck me as just too "slick" -- knowledgeable, sure, and able to speak. I really disliked that he took his opponent's honest career and repeatedly tried to make it an issue with his jabs about his "banker friend," as if it should disqualify him from consideration. That tactic rubbed me completely the wrong way. (I personally thought this was a more serious offense than the Stout quip about Sibley's "decades of experience.") I have been on the receiving end of that kind of ad hominem dig before, and that style of attack undermined Sibley's positives in my view. To me, on that night, he came across as the guy who just really wants to get elected to something - *anything* - and is ready to do some wheeling and dealing to get there.

 

If we had a longer cycle here, I might have time to find out more and finally gel behind one of these guys. I know several folks I respect have gotten behind each of the candidates and that's great. I think they are all reasonable choices for people to make. As it is, it's decision time and I'm just not at a point where I could declare support for any of them.

 

I've made my decision. I was unconvinced by the available candidates, but I refuse to sit out and just not to participate in the election process. Therefore, as I have done in the past when faced with a situation where I simply can't bring myself endorse one candidate, I'm writing myself in.

 

That is all.

[NewsJunky]

To follow-up on my previous post --

 

I think all three men, in political terms, would represent the general principles and point of view of the district to some extent. From a policy perspective, there ultimately didn't appear to be a dime's worth of difference between them. This leaves the voter to make determinations on other criteria.

 

1. Jody Cash seems tremendously honest, eager, and principled. He unfortunately strikes me as being somewhat under-equipped to make a strong case for the district or even for his own point of view when push comes to shove. I think he believes in his core principles and that's what motivated him to run, and I admire that.

 

2. Daniel Stout was my original preference. I was disappointed in what I considered a somewhat plastic presence in the debate, and while I agree with him practically down the list of his declared conservative principles and causes, I thought he came across as rather superficial -- never seemed to get past the bumper sticker. In subsequent reading I have seen more details from him that I liked... along with other concerns that left me disappointed. I had originally thought that Stout would get my ultimate vote, but I left the debate with that opinion undone and have gone on to have my confidence further shaken. (I talked to his wife at the debate -- and if his wife were the candidate, she would have probably gotten my vote.)

 

3. In the debate, Ronny Sibley struck me as just too "slick" -- knowledgeable, sure, and able to speak. I really disliked that he took his opponent's honest career and repeatedly tried to make it an issue with his jabs about his "banker friend," as if it should disqualify him from consideration. That tactic rubbed me completely the wrong way. (I personally thought this was a more serious offense than the Stout quip about Sibley's "decades of experience.") I have been on the receiving end of that kind of ad hominem dig before, and that style of attack undermined Sibley's positives in my view. To me, on that night, he came across as the guy who just really wants to get elected to something - *anything* - and is ready to do some wheeling and dealing to get there.

 

If we had a longer cycle here, I might have time to find out more and finally gel behind one of these guys. I know several folks I respect have gotten behind each of the candidates and that's great. I think they are all reasonable choices for people to make. As it is, it's decision time and I'm just not at a point where I could declare support for any of them.

 

I've made my decision. I was unconvinced by the available candidates, but I refuse to sit out and just not to participate in the election process. Therefore, as I have done in the past when faced with a situation where I simply can't bring myself endorse one candidate, I'm writing myself in.

 

That is all.

 

Well, you could have been on the ticket and you would not have to write yourself in. I will not let someone else choose the candidate for me so I voted for the one I thought could best speak for Paulding at this time.

[joemturner]

I know. The problem is, if I had been on the ticket I might have won -- and that's not in the best interest of my family at the moment.

 

I understand your decision and respect the way you made it! No problem at all.