The Appeals–37th district supporters make their case
Sep 11th, 2009 by David Anderson
First, here is a non partisan voter guide for the race.
My Word
This race is important for every citizen in the state beyond the individual candidates involved. The race is about two visions of the state. The race is about checks and balances in our state government. The race is about whether or not the recently passed but sunsetted tax cuts will remain sunsetted. Party matters. If you don’t believe that, tell me if Rep. John Atkins would have voted for the tax increases this year if he were still a Republican. The pressure of conformity is real. The strategic voter will use it to his/her benefit. In this case, we need to keep a two party state. That can only be achieved by voting for Ruth Briggs King.
Ruth Briggs King is a thoughtful person with a record of working hard for the people she represents regardless of the momentary passions of whomever is in front of her. That is exactly the kind of person you want standing up for you in the general assembly. You want someone who will stand up for your rights, hold the line on taxes, represent the community values where they relate to public policy, have a real world understanding of the economy, understand education, and have a good business sense. Mrs. King wins on all of those counts.
Some people have a problem with the fact that she is a registered lobbyist. I think it is fair to ask her positions and question her to see if she realizes that she is changing clients. That is common sense. The sense that I get from her is that she will make a clean break as soon as she is elected. She understands that the boss in the job she wants is the people not the special interests. That may actually put her ahead of some already in the General Assembly. Either way, you know where she stands if you look carefully. The anti-development crowd should be asking questions of the guy who was on a planning commission.
If elected where she would look first to make cuts to reduce the tax burden on the citizens her first response was the amount of consultant fees that the state pays out according to Frank Knotts interview. We both have come to the conclusion that she is a true small government conservative in the best tradition of the party.
In my interview, she knocked it out of the park.
There are some pleasant surprises in her record that I encourage you read. She has gone out of her way to fight for affordable housing.
Guest Contributor Perry Hood (Comment Rescue.)
Rob Robinson, a public defender, is an independent thinker, and should have a strong appeal to 37th RD voters of all political persuasions. I’ve attended the debate and looked closely at the qualifications and positions on the issues of both candidates.
Rob’s deep family roots in Sussex County, both active Republicans and Democrats, have enabled him to become keenly aware of our unresolved problems and how to work to solve them. Moreover, he is fiscally responsible and willing to work on both sides of the aisle to streamline government and create job growth. Finally, he is an intelligent and genuinely nice person, to which I can personally attest.
On the other hand, in my view, it would be foolish to risk our families’ security on a career lobbyist with a special interest agenda, especially with regard to land use issues in Sussex County, including her lobbying role for the Manufactured Housing Association.
Rob claims that he won’t “hesitate to stand up to special interests or even his own Democratic Party leadership”.
I like his attitude and I like his qualifications.
You have read both sides. Now it is in your court. Vote wisely, we are all counting on you. Please vote for Ruth Briggs King. It is a strategic vote and in my view also a good one on an individual (tactical) level.
David, I appreciate your presentation of both sides here. That is real class, something that has been missing too much in our political arena in recent years. Thanks for that!
It is worth noting that yesterday’s edition of the Cape Gazette, a Conservative leaning local newspaper, has endorsed Rob Robinson!
Robinson goes negative!!!!!
I went to vote this morning at the polling station and there standing was Mr. Robinson. Surrounding Mr. Robinson were a swarm of yard signs that are NEGATIVE. They basically are a condensed version of his negative literature and he’s posted them at the actual polling places.
I actually was offended by this and don’t think it is going to work in his favor. I guess desperation results in negativity!
Perry is either extremely far left or does not read the Cape Gazette.
The Robinson endorsement is on the editorial page of yesterday’s Cape Gazette, Phil, for your information. Check it out.
And on the “far left” comment, Robinson is far from that, rather an independent, fiscal conservative, pro-preservation, possessing many qualities which would appeal to Conservatives. Labels are at best inaccurate, at worst, falsehoods.
And Frank, interesting that you did not give one example of going negative. Robs campaign, and his literature, have focused primarily on Robs attributes.
Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. I never said Robinson was far left. I said you must be, IF you believe the Cape Gazette leans conservative. That, or you simply don’t read the paper and were making a wrong guess about which way the Cape Gazette leans. Why are you telling me where the endorsement was printed? I read it already, and never said that it wasn’t there, or asked where to find it. Remedial reading is down the hall and to the left…
Phil it is not only Perry’s reading Comprehension that is questionable, It is his entire memory. In the thread that immediately precedes this one, Perry responded to Maria Evans regarding Out of State Liberal Union help going to Rob Robinson with this:
“Regarding out of state help in the campaign, that is not unusual. Did you ask Ruth Briggs King if her campaign has any paid workers or out of state support? How about the RNC? I’m sure she does!”
It appears here Perry has no problem with out of state help for his candidates.
This is previous quote is from comment 4 from the thread “Doubting Robert” posted on Sept. 11th.
However, less than one month ago on August 15th, Perry thought this was a horrendous idea.
Here are Perry’s thoughts expressed on comment 1 of the thread “Help out in VA from your own home”
“1 Perry
Isn’t this a State of Virginia matter?
How would we here in Delaware react if people from Virginia were campaigning in a Delaware US Senatorial campaign, for Beau Biden, as an example?
I am pretty sure we would say that outsiders are not welcome. It is none of their business!
Here a request is being made to participate in the Virginia Gubernatorial campaign. No, that is definitely wrong!
I can understand people being involved in a Presidential campaign in any state; but no, not in an intra-state political race like this one.
Let us mind our own business. We have enough to worry about, enough to be active about, right here in our own State of Delaware.”
Now, I actually pointed out to Perry that Democrats do the importation of Out of State Union members on a regular basis and that the Kent Democrat Chair bragged in the pages of the Delaware State News of getting over 100 Union members to help out in a Special Election. I did this on comment 3.
Here is Perry’s reply which is comment 4 posted on the morning of August 16th.
on 16 Aug 2009 at 09:064Perry
“Before I could possibly do anything, Tennessee, I would need a citation, which you have not provided.
I stand opposed to us intervening politically into the internal affairs of another state, on behalf of a particular candidate, I don’t care who does it!”
So on August 16th Perry was opposed to intervening politically into the internal affairs of another state, on behalf of a particular candidate, no matter who does it and yesterday it was no big deal. This is either evidence of:
1. Perry can’t remember his own positions from last month.
2. Perry will change his position at the drop of a hat if the new position will help a Democrat.
3. This is just a demonstration of the most egregious example of pure hypocrisy ever documented on this site.
Take your pick.
What I said, Tennessee, is that out of state help in campaigns is not uncommon. And I believe that Briggs-King also has out-of-state help. I think it better that a state campaign not have out-of-state help, period. So my view is unchanged from the VA example cited.
And Phil, regarding your snarky remarks, it was not clear to me that you had read the endorsement in the Cape Gazette. On the politics of the Cape, as a consistent reader for years, I would characterize Forney, the owner and responsible person for editorial policy, as leaning Conservative. If you don’t agree, that’s fine!
You are both making much ado about nothing.
“On the other hand, in my view, it would be foolish to risk our families’ security….with a special interest agenda…”
Like ACORN?