PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSANDS WORDS

1. After viewing this photo and hearing about the event, all I can say is “politics makes strange bedfellows.” The city council at-large debate yesterday afternoon at Toast showed that Burton and Mercer are clearly the least qualified candidates for the job. This appears to be a desperate attempt on the part of Mercer to appeal to the minority vote, something she has shown little interest in … up until now – that is.

   • Mr. Callahan, I didn’t hear the debate. Could you give me some specifics where the others were more qualified? I preach term limits and believe new ideas and unqualified (not part of the controlling group) is positive. There are no qualifications except the ones individuals create. What are the key qualifications you are looking at?

2. Mercer is another Winnecke puppet. Sadly we are screwed no matter what happens Tuesday.

3. It appears to me that Ms. Mercer was impressed with the results of the Courier and Press poll that showed Gail winning handily and decided she had been riding the wrong coattails. Phony is as phony does and this pandering should backfire on her and elect Mr. Myers.
   Kudos to Gail and team for not being rude to her, though.

4. Why isn’t Weaver with Riecken? They are both Democrats.

   • Weaver is a Republican.

5. And Baghdad Bob is an Iraqi.

6. “Candidates Campaigned At Churches In The Inner City.” So it’s okay to conduct a political campaign in church as long as the church is in the inner city?? Where’s the uproar over separation of Church and State?

   • You seem to be in an uproar but I’m not sure why. The tracker (thanks CP) reported that the pastor didn’t verbally endorse a candidate, so you be hard pressed to build a case, but since you seem to be the most outraged, why don’t you lead the charge and hire the lawyer. Or you can chip in for the lawyer Ms. Jenkins hired. Or probably the GOP is already covering that cost because when you raise millions in dirty donations money is no object.
     Candidates can go to church. Are you suggesting banning political candidates from attending church services during a campaign? Or perhaps you are suggesting removing the church tax exempt status? I could support the removal of the tax exemption status for all churches.

     • So you want another constitutional right which we are taxed for exercising? I believe this unofficial meet the candidates after worship is a thinly veiled political effort. It might be veiled enough to avoid an issue, but Brooks is certainly skirting the line.

     • As with most dems, lets—-, your reading comprehension is 0. Headline: “Candidates Campaigned At Churches In The Inner City.” Story: “After the service they were talking with people and asking them for their support on election day”. Clear violations of IRS law and FEC rules. You, of all people, should be suggesting they lose their tax exempt status.
       Or did you even read the article?

       • Which IRS and FEC laws are you citing specifically? I can read the headline but you haven’t convinced me a law is broken until you cite it. You do realize that most voting centers are churches here, right? It seems that you’re the one fuzzy on separation and current campaign laws. It’s whatever triggers your hair trigger outrage.

         • There are some people in whom ignorance knows no bounds.

7. Isn’t the LST part of a tax exempt 501c3? I don’t recall anyone filing a complaint when Winnecke held a political fundraiser on the ship, complete with giant “Winnecke For Mayor” banners. The only thing I heard was a bunch of whining because Ron Riecken pulled up a bunch of signs that were placed on private property without permission. Maybe a call to the IRS is warranted.

   • Mad. Dems and atheists are always screeching about “separation of church and state.” Openly soliciting votes in a church does not qualify as separation. Where are all the outraged dems and atheists?

Comments are closed.