Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Airing dirty laundry...

The Republican primary in District 5 just got a little less crowded (not that it was ever really crowded in the first place).

Jim Adams, who was refreshingly candid about his chances of winning, has exited the race and thrown his support behind former police chief Wayne Livesay. Adams’s reason for leaving: “dirty politics.”

“The first reason is that there was a slim chance that I could win, but more importantly, I have recently become aware of what I refer to as dirty politics,” according to Adams’ speech given Monday at Chris Merdon’s campaign headquarters.

…“There are various items that the opposition is wrongly addressing and I will not go into them, with one exception. That exception addresses Wayne Livesay as a Republican,” according to Adams’ speech.
Of course, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans don’t have a problem with pointing out Livesay’s disloyalty and certainly don’t view such actions as “dirty.” However, on the Hedgehog Report, Adams goes into a little more detail about his decision.
Greg is running scared, he has no confidence. He had a push telephone pole conducted, omitted me, and used trash questions in reference to Livesay, and has not released the results. Greg is not impressing me as a man of good character, although I want to be wrong about this, his actions are disappointing me. I made my decision after conversations with MANY GOP members. None Recommened I drop out, some even suggested, without my prompting them that I stay in. It was in these conversations that I found out my conclusions about Greg’s campaign were not mine alone. I have always placed people before party...
Still, the full details of what he calls “dirty politics” remain elusive. Anyone who has been following this race at all, however, knows that it is highly charged and borders on what could be called “dirty.” Although I think David Keelan’s work on the Hatch Act issue was generally quite good, he has continued to target Livesay and sometimes, I would argue, crosses the fuzzy line. This is from last month.

Remember to stay on message and that Wayne Livesay is:

  • An Opportunist (switched to the GOP to run in a GOP district)
  • Doesn’t have the convictions of his beliefs (switched to the GOP to run in a GOP district even after he publically and loudly disowned the GOP)
  • Won’t endorse Sandy Schrader
  • A Republican in Name Only
  • Doesn’t trust that citizens know that comp-lite was a complete farse
  • Listens to Charlie Feaga too much
  • Precided over a police department leading to two sexual harrassment lawsuits and chalks it up to disgruntled employees (read the court records - they don’t sync up).
  • Doesn’t possess the grasp for details to be a legislator

My concern is that if we don’t stay on message and allow ourselves to be distracted then Wayne Livesay will win.

Although some of these items are just silly, partisan things, others are character attacks that rightly qualify as dirty. For instance, the last one, which basically amounts to calling him stupid. Livesay ran the police department admirably for almost a decade and yet he somehow doesn’t have it in him to decide on county-level legislation? That’s the easy part. Try implementing it.

Also, I would argue that it takes stronger convictions to leave a party than it does to blindly follow one. But that’s just my opinion.

Finally, hammering the point home about the ugliness of this race is the third comment – an odd, foreboding one made by timactual -- on Keelan’s post about this story.
There is another reason that Adams withdrew, but I do not want to get into that. He knows what I mean.
May the best man win, indeed.

9 comments:

hocoblog said...

Poor David Rakes er I mean Wayne Livesay. Some of us don't want him representing the GOP. That is fair enough. Allegations are eeking out that Fox has employed dirty politics and that on that basis Jim was convinced to quit the race and endorse Livesay.

What will come out is that Fox employed no dirty tricks and that Jim was misled and misled on purpose. Then we can talk dirty politics.

Hayduke said...

I'm not saying there is no dirty laundry in the Dems house, nor am I saying that in this race the dirt is coming from only one side...

Mary Catherine said...

Hayduke..

What about the Sun endorsements for the Democratic races? Do you have an opinion on those?

mary smith said...

This has nothing to do with the above, but check out this British blog. Jolly good!

http://www.notapathetic.com/comments/1938#comments

Tom Berkhouse said...

Good idea. How about if Hayduke puts some time into a posting about the dirty tactics that the Democratic Party is using against Mary Kay Sigaty. Like, spreading rumors that she is privately supporting republican Tom D'Asto. What is with the Democratic leadership that they are passing her over for Feldmark? Is it because of Feldmark's close personal ties to Ken Ulman? Not necessarily something that Feldmark should publicly admit to. Mary Kay is a very genuine, honest, and dedicated person. She derserves better than the boot-kick she's taking from the Dems.

Dave Wissing said...

Even as a Republican, I've never quite understood why the Democrtaic Party seems to dislike Mary Kay Sigaty so much.

After passing over her four years ago for Ulman, it looks like the party leadership is conspiring to take her out once again, this time in favor of Ulman's protege Feldmark.

Hayduke, any insight to what the Democratic leadership has against Mary Kay?

hocoblog said...

Dave, good question. Idealogically I am on another planet than Mary Kay but I think she is pleasant and dedicated.

Interesting rumor Mr. Berkhouse.

I honestly thought that race would be a lot more contentious than District 5. Maybe they are better at keeping family fights in the family.

Hayduke said...

I think you guys are characterizing the Mary Kay/Josh divide wrong. Remember, we're talking about the chronically disorganized Democrats here. It's not that the leadership is against Mary Kay, it's just that there are two factions -- one supporting her and one supporting Josh, which was the same situation we had four years ago. There are Democratic "leaders" on both sides, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. The in-fighting is probably far jucier than you imagine, but you won't hear nothing from me...

What's with all the love and sympathy for Mary Kay anyway? Do you guys really have nothing better to do than constantly hate on Ken Ulman and his friends? You say Mary Kay's nice, but have you ever met Josh, or is your opinion of him just based on your utter loathing for Ulman and a few stories in the press? He's actually quite different from Ken, but why would you bother to notice?

Also, what happens if Mary Kay wins? Will you continue to treat her with such respect and concern?

Tom Berkhouse said...

Hocoblog,

Not a rumor. If you were at the recent candidates forum, you'dknow that someone asked Mary Kay point blank about her party loyalty. Really a bizarre question and hardly an issue worth bringing up at such a forum. Seems like a staged question to me (just my opinion mind you). As for "hating" on Ulman and his friends - well let's just say that people who break the law as he did during the COMP LITE fiasco, deserve to be scorned. He does not deserve to be in any public office where he can only serve to abuse and break more laws. He has violated the public's trust. Fledmark - well, it's guilt by association, plus he's done some very questionable things as a CA board member, such as holding closed-door meetings, some of which were with GGP. Hmm, I wonder what they were discussing? Oh, but ulman and Joshua want to have an "open" government and zoning process. What a sham.

As for what will happen if Mary Kay wins - well, at that point, Mary Kay or Tom D'Asto would be a deserving winner. Both have integrity, something very much lacking in Ulman and Feldmark.