I do not care a thing about Democrats except as entertainment - like when they shoot themselves in the foot as they did last week.

Lieberman, good guy and I see him winning in November - which would be another Democratic shot in the foot - sad little people they are.

Wells, gone - good.

So, on to the real issue - what's up with the Basmati Rice icon? Are you selling something? Is it a "whiter than rice" statement or what?

I think even I could have been elected if I ran! Good Riddance! What an embarrassment she was to her district.

McKinney didn't lose because people were sick of her, per se. She lost because the people that supported her, the majority, or at least the plurality, didn't come out to vote.

Linda Wells lost for the same reason. This was a run off primary where only hard core people like myself, and those with an agenda will actually vote. Negatives against Linda ran deep. Jack might be an extremely wonderful replacement for Linda, but the electorate voted "against" Linda, as they did with, Steve Brown, McKinney and Lieberman, and did not vote "for" the winner. Honestly, I think Sam Chapman could have beat Linda if he had made it to a run off. That would have been horrifically sad, but I believe was a likely scenario in light of the results.

I've always believed that "what you win people with, is what you win them too!". So these candidates should not fool themselves, into thinking they have this groundswell of support that will remain with them over years to come. Because the tide that brought them into power may very well take them out.

I hate to see it, but I believe it is true, that people will vote the status quo, until they have a strong negative to vote against an incumbent, whether this negative is true or not.

Many people, admittedly myself included, was fed up with the screaming and hollering against Brown, against Dunn, against Wells, et al. Many voters just want to have peace and quiet. Shameful but true.

Do you really believe that most of the voters that cast a ballot for jack were voting against Linda? You can play semantics, but you are smarter thn that.

Jack came out with a strong stand against wasting taxpayer dollars on litigation that was totally unneccessary. And you must admit that there was certainly a better way to solve problems with the local municipalities than with litigation. Furthermore, the situation involving the Sheriff was nothing more than a power play on the part of Greg Dunn with the other two muskateers following him like a couple of puppies. The voters of this county spoke with a resounding voice. Fortunately, our system only calls for a majority. I am ashamed that only about 12% or so actually cared enough to come out and exercise their right and privelege to vote. However, having said that, that is what happened. The majority of the voters believed in the direction that Jack wants to lead this county. He has stated that he believes in managed growth and better cooperation between the FCBOC and other entities. That is not a vote against Linda, but rather a vote for a better person at the helm.

Thank goodness that Jack and others chose to run.

Don't forget to vot for Jack in the fall.

P.S. I want to know if Linda and Greg will publically support Jack in his bid for the seat in the General Election? What do you folks think? Let me know.

I agree to a degree.

You have several groups and subgroups in every election:
For
--Candidate is good
--Candidate is incumbant, so must be good (a very annoying group that does not look into things)

Against
--Candidate is bad
--Candidate ticked me off in one key place, like Dawg with the church/Walgreens issue (This group ticks me off because they don't look at everything going on and do not realize every candidate is not going to please them somewhere, if elected)

Apathetic (excuse voters)
--My vote does not count
--They are all the same
--The incumbant will win, so why even try

Unfortunately the Apathetic non-voters are the largest group.

McKinney lost because there were many of those for her, before, got embrassed, so she lost votes, some were so frustrated they stayed home and because those against her were really rilled up and even drew Republicans votes in to get rid of her.

Dunn turned off many supporters. Plain and simple. He did some very wrong things.

When Linda was sole focus, her roles in things became clear and even more who wanted the 3 our were encouraged to vote.

These issues will have long memories and Phfiefer is next.

A point for you to consider, here, is the backing of the Fayette County Republican Party did not helpe either. A backing based on they had been good little Republicans and Smith and Maxwell were not, did not help them, at all. It turned independents off big time.

We want a good Commissioner. Not a good Republican.

Brown lost because of his lack of communications skills. In the main he was not a great mayor, but surely was not a bad mayor.

So, the Anyone But Brown bandwagon formed and they simply refused to examine Logsdon. Now, we are paying for it.

I doubt he will get reelected.

Between Brown's foolish comments and Logsdon's arrogance, pro-developer stances and poor management skills, Brown was still the better man. And many who voted for Logson are now realizing that. Some will never admit it or allow themselves to see it.

Maybe they will learn to become more educated voters.

With that said, hopefully lessons are learned.

So, what do we do to get it right? To get the best people in office versus being loyal Party line candidates?

Do we keep butting heads or do something to change Fayette County politics? Do we make Republican a name, here, that stands for the best candidate? Or the one who has the most check marks on being a good Republican?

You want folks, like me, to get involved, then give us a reason to get involved.

I think a big issue, one that is hard to overcome, is that a lot of good folk would be willing to sink a ton of time into these things, but cannot afford to.

I am not opposed to being a volunteer. I have volunteered for scouting, 4-H and HOA roles from building rep to President.

But, it cost me. While others were tucking away savings and working long hours I was working with the kids and so on.

Many are like me. They cannot do it anymore for free.

So, how do you get people, in office, that are willing to do the work, who are not special interest puppets, or coming out of corporate backgrounds, that do not really understand government is more like an HOA than a for profit business?

Just my thoughts. I understand many think otherwise. And I am not really desiring to battle on this.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I vote FOR Jack Smith, not against Linda Wells. As far as I could tell, Linda did a fine job. However, Jack is such an outstanding candidate, I know he will do an even better job.

So often when I vote, I have to choose the better of 2 not really great candidates. This is first election in a long time that I have felt totally comfortable with voting for a person.

Wow - I wish I coulda voted in an election like that.
Lets face it; just to get to the ballot level, every politician must have given up at least a little of his values and principles. The higher they go, they worse it gets.
I think it's been a looooong time sich there's been a perfect candidate, but there are always less good and waaaaayyyy less good candidates.

McKinney didn't lose because people were sick of her, per se. She lost because the people that supported her, the majority, or at least the plurality, didn't come out to vote.

Linda Wells lost for the same reason. This was a run off primary where only hard core people like myself, and those with an agenda will actually vote. Negatives against Linda ran deep. Jack might be an extremely wonderful replacement for Linda, but the electorate voted "against" Linda, as they did with, Steve Brown, McKinney and Lieberman, and did not vote "for" the winner. Honestly, I think Sam Chapman could have beat Linda if he had made it to a run off. That would have been horrifically sad, but I believe was a likely scenario in light of the results.

I've always believed that "what you win people with, is what you win them too!". So these candidates should not fool themselves, into thinking they have this groundswell of support that will remain with them over years to come. Because the tide that brought them into power may very well take them out.

I hate to see it, but I believe it is true, that people will vote the status quo, until they have a strong negative to vote against an incumbent, whether this negative is true or not.

Many people, admittedly myself included, was fed up with the screaming and hollering against Brown, against Dunn, against Wells, et al. Many voters just want to have peace and quiet. Shameful but true.

I think you have to look at a special set of circumstances with regards to both McKinney and Ralph Reed. Both of their core constituencies consist of the fringe elements of their respective party: McKinney was supported by the ultra-left wing, Reed the ultra-right.

Both of them had situations which embarassed their core constituencies: Reed had his Abramhoff corruption woes and McKinney her Capitol Police run-in. As President George H. W. Bush learned in 1992, when your lunatic fringe core ain't happy, they simply stay home...hence the overwhelming defeat by both candidates.

You really believe that Richard?

I must admit that I know very little about local politics, but I am learning.
One of the first candidates I learned about was McKinney.
Do you really think people wanted someone in office that was willing to hit a policeman?

I like the rest of your post, especially about the status quo voting except when strong negative present.

But I'd bet if you forced 100% of the population to vote, McKinney still would not have won.

Or?

Richard, as is his right, predicted because she came so close to winning outright the first time, would win hands down.

He based this on history.

He also said forums, with all the good and bad I admit they contain, have no influence.

I said they did. And whether right or wrong, predicted that both would loose the relection bid based on the revelations on this forum, in part. (meaning some got info here and spread it to others).

Now, he has to explain why both Dunn and Wells lost.

McKinney was simply an issue added to cloak the main agenda.

I hope Richard has learned something, after this, and revises his opions.

Maybe a Fayette Republican Forum? Year round discussion of issues? Firm up the base?

Now that would need admined. I can picture the spam from some now.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.