City-County and Community Observer are conducting a Mayoral Primary Poll for both Democrat and Republican Candidates in this year’s election.
Winnecke? DeGroot?
Davis? Tornatta?
City-County and Community Observer are conducting a Mayoral Primary Poll for both Democrat and Republican Candidates in this year’s election.
Winnecke? DeGroot?
Davis? Tornatta?
The only logical choice is Rick Davis.
Logic, NO, no, no…
Your process of elimination might be logical in it’s methodology, but voting for the best of awful choices is not in the end logical.
Is it true that sometimes a non-vote is the best alternative?
It’s kinda like choosing between a steamy pile of crap, vomit or urine. You guys can wax eloquent about which you prefer to try, but I think I’ll pass…
While I agree with your sentiment….a No vote regardless is a vote for whoever is the winner, you do have a responsibility (in my mind) to vote, if you choose not to vote your basically saying I don’t care who leads us and on which path, granted as a voter your only given so many choices….choose wisely.
If you vote, don’t you indirectly hold responsibility for what that individual does… So, if your candidate flees to Urbana, don’t you have the moral obligation to see that she/he fulfills the job?
No, what I’m saying is that none of these guys have told me one reason to vote for either of them over the other guy! So it’s not even a choice, it’s an election turned popularity contest. We don’t know what any of these guys will do, because the climate allows them to just shake hands and create a blank slate image of them leading the city to paradise.
They are all wildcards in the deck, little substance, mostly parsing a middle ground on issues. So a non vote is simply saying, I don’t want to draw a card, I already know what I’m getting [nothing concrete] – they are all wildcards – we both know that. So, no, I will not intentionally hand power to a potential incompetent, just surprise me?
All I’m saying is, after New Kids on the Block Durham, and the reverse-carpetbagger fleeing to Urbana… These candidates owe us more content before they EARN our votes!
Don’t just pick a name from a sign because it’s on your [union] boss’ lawn and pledge, he’s your man!
The press sure isn’t challenging these guys, we as a community need to. Otherwise, we’ll wind up hearing about Opus One Wine boozefests and new kids on the block tickets while our State rep spends her days answering phones, supporting the local URBANA economy!
Choose wisely, but also buyer beware!
“If you vote, don’t you indirectly hold responsibility for what that individual does… So, if your candidate flees to Urbana, don’t you have the moral obligation to see that she/he fulfills the job?”
I see your point, but it’s not our responsibility if they don’t do their job, but it is our responsibility to remove them from office…case in point Brad Ellsworth, those that voted for him along with a good number of us that did not vote for him effectively removed him from office, as a voter it is our only responsibility. We can not be held responsible for the actions of others, we gave them the job, if they choose not to show up for work they should suffer the same consequences any of us in the private sector would suffer should we choose to act in the same manner.
That said…there would appear to be at least a small amount of justice left in the world which gives us hope doesn’t it? So for our little local mayoral race we have two candidates which are part of the same political structure that our current mayor belongs to, forget about parties that’s just a diversion to fool people, but then you have Mr Davis, while I’ll agree not as polished as the other two, but the fact that his chosen party has not given him any backing speaks volumes.
Sure if he wins the primary they will not have a choice but to back him, but like you given the choices we have….it’s Davis hands down, if for no other reason then to give him a chance. As you said we know what the other candidates will be a similar or light version of what we have now.
I don’t know about anyone else but I’d like to see what would happen if Davis is elected, of all the evils I see to choose from for mayor he seems to be the one the current political machine doesn’t want to support… that’s good enough reason for anyone to vote for Davis.
JMHO
That’s not good enough… (http://tristatehomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=262366)
He’s not spelling out anything significantly different to me. Weinzapfel’s jobs program?
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, he isn’t lacking a policital “machine”. He has the Kennedy club wing of the larger Democrat machine.
So many people have fallen for this romantic notion that Davis is grass roots, and want to give him a shot because of it. I challenge that assertion as largely BS.
Pick Rick, I did
Where’s the Tea Party candidate?
Davis has my vote
The GOP Primary winner, should be no different than the mayoral winner in November race. That be Mr Winnecke
Sorry Jeff, Wake Up, Winnecke is a RINO.
No one likes a Phony.
I can not vote for him.
mr.davis has my vote
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IC 36-1-3-4
Rule of law; powers of unit
Sec. 4. (a) The rule of law that a unit has only:
(1) powers expressly granted by statute;
(2) powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and
(3) powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit;
is abrogated.
(b) A unit has:
(1) all powers granted it by statute; and
(2) all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.
(c) The powers that units have under subsection (b)(1) are listed in various statutes. However, these statutes do not list the powers that units have under subsection (b)(2); therefore, the omission of a power from such a list does not imply that units lack that power.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sub-section b. (1) and (2) of the above Indiana Code makes it clear that the County of Vanderburgh, through its Commissioners, has the power and the right to re-institute the rejection threshold.
The irony this situation, where we now see the lone democratic county commissioner wanting to re-instate the rejection threshold, and the two republican county commissioners are on record as in favor of doing away with the rejection threshold, is not lost on the residents/voters of unincorporated Vanderburgh county.
In all fairness, Marsha is still playing the political double-speak game and is noncommittal at this point. At least she isn’t siding with Whinecke as of yet, anyway.
Its time for Marsha Abell to do the right thing and join Steven Melcher in restoring a voice to the people who do not live in the city of Evansville.
I think this tells it all regarding rejection threhold..
in response to della:
“county-only residents apparently think their vote is more important than the other county residents who reside in the city. i guess some animals are more equal than others? the so-called ‘rejection threshold’ has already been rejected as inherently unfair… one person one vote. now let’s put it to a vote. say yes to consolidation and let’s move forward.”
..and apparently city residents think they have the right to essentially perform a hostile takeover of the county.
“”rejection threhsold” has already been rejected as inherently unfair”
Sure it has, by two clowns who want to be mayor and a third person who has since publicly announced he has changed his mind.
If it were inherently unfair, why was the option even written into the law? Of course, an employee of the Chamber of Commerce, who is supporting consolidation, bragged that he was the one who actually wrote the law. That explains why rejection threshold was made optional instead of mandated. The whole process is rigged by business!
If the concept of rejection threshold is inherently unfair in a merger between separate governmental entities, why is a city-county merger the ONLY one under Indiana Code where it is even optional? In all others, IT IS MANDATED!
IC 36-1.5-4-32
Approval of public question
Sec. 32. (a) This subsection does not apply to a reorganization
described in section 1(a)(9) (city-county) of this chapter. A reorganization as
specified in the plan of reorganization is approved if a majority of the
voters in each reorganizing political subdivision voting on the public
question approve the public question on the reorganization.
So who is the real crook in all this? Winnecke, Tornatta, the Chamber of Commerce and everyone else pushing a consolidation vote with no rejection threshold!!
…..
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/apr/07/city-county-residents-not-same/
Rick Davis all the way!!!
Tornatta? More of the same.
Winnecke? More of the same.
It’s time for a CHANGE, Evansville!
PICK RICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments are closed.