I have never been to this forum but this caught my eye and knowing a bit about this, I must respond.
Let's see, first post, never been to the forum, just joined today? This is what is called a reputation defender. Campaigns have people who comb the web making sure their candidate is defended whenever someone generates a negative post. Is this a dirty trick? Not necessarily. So long as the reputation defender doesn't misrepresent themself or the position of the candidate they are shilling for and their true purpose is evident, all is fair. The first step is to establish trust with the forum population...
I am a 2A supporter, an NRA member, a true conservative, and (I'm certain Hyperion will gasp) a Dana Margaret Hathaway supporter...even before I knew she was related to Former NRA President Tom Washington.
I wonder what attracts this arch conservative to Dana Hathaway. Is it her conservative views? What is her stated position on the 2A?
You have made it clear that you are supporting her opponent. I respect your right to vote for whomever you choose but you are biased, and so am I.
That's kind of the point of an election, isn't it? If an elector wasn't biased, how could they choose who to vote for?
In addition, your post lacks substance, so I will fill in the facts. You have said nothing about Dana's second amendment views - you have merely attacked some of her democratic supporters and ignored her conservative support.
I can't wait for the facts now...and to hear what Dana's 2A views are!
You don't mention that the "union" support that she has is the Police Officers Association of Michigan - a group that clearly values their 2A rights. They recently endorsed Rick Snyder.
The POAM doesn't need or have 2A rights. Their membership consists of police. Its members have "police powers", people have rights. The idea that the POAM is supporting Dana because it values the 2A is disingenuous and intentionally misleading. What is the purpose of POAM? From their website: " [POAM] Provides all labour related services, from negotiations, grievance processing, arbitration and legal representation for members." POAM explains their endorsement of candidates thusly: "Why should police officers' labor organizations be any different from the Teamsters, UAW, teachers, skilled trades, or any other labor union who would do the same thing?" And for POAM endorsing the 20 point leader for governor? Wow! What a courageous stand. Endorsing another Hathaway in a close race? I'm unimpressed. Not that I care at all about endorsements, but Ryan collected these civil service related endorsements:
The Detroit Police Officers Association
The Detroit Lieutenants and Sergeants Association
The Michigan State Troopers Association
The Michigan State Police Command Officers Association
The Police Officers Labor Council
The Michigan Association of Police (MAP)
The Michigan Association of Fire Fighters (MAFF)
The Michigan Association of Public Employees (MAPE)
The Warren Police Officers Association
The Flint Police Officers Association
Believe it or not, republicans and democrats can exist in the same family.
That's kind of the whole point behind my original post. Dana's relationship to Tom Washington has absolutely no bearing on her position on the 2A. Conservative or liberal, RYAN's position on the 2A is favorable. But you're not going to say that Dana is a conservative, that she is a gun owner or supports the 2A are you? You seem to know all about the Hathaways and the Washingtons, but you don't know what Dana's position is. I wonder how that is.
Although it is clear you would like to exact the "Revenge of Cliff Taylor" on the daughter of the candidate that defeated him, your vengeance is misdirected. A huge difference between Dana and her mother, if you bothered to do your research, is that Dana has represented the very same corporations that supported Taylor and made him Chief Justice.
You confuse me with someone who gives a damn about Cliff Taylor. I don't. The dirty tricks employed by the Hathaway campaign are illustrative of those who can't succeed on their own merit or on their out-of-the-mainstream views. The barrage of smoke and mirrors in the Hathaway campaigns and clueless incumbents who are facing the vengeance of the electorate are what irritates me.
You may have not seen her in court because she represents clients in cases all over the country. Brilliant and talented attorneys can do that.
Brilliant and talented as she may be--like I said, I've never seen Dana actually practicing law--if she is representing corporations all over the country, how does that make her qualified to preside over issues of mental health, estates, wills, trusts, divorce, custody, support, etc.? Those are the responsibilities of a probate court judge, not representing corporations all over the country.
Regardless, it is a non-partisan race. Of course she is going to have liberal supporters but that should not cause you to unjustly question her conservative base or 2A views.
What are her 2A views? 2A Defender would seem to infer that he/she is, well, a 2A defender. One would think that he/she would at least be able to state what his/her preferred candidate's views on the 2A are. Alas, we don't even have those assertions. As a Dana supporter, would you mind asking her if she is a firearm owner, recognizes the 2A as an individual liberty, supports concealed carry, open carry, abolishing PFZs, etc.
I did not receive a robo-call but I'm not shocked to hear that Snyder is supporting her. Your unverifiable claim that a "democratic operative" sent out robo-calls for Snyder is nonsense.
I never wrote, nor did I imply that Rick Snyder supports Dana. Where did that smoke come from? The robocalls are real and have been traced to a democrat operative in Royal Oak.
And although I have met your candidate and know of her reputation, I will not attack her as you have attacked mine. The Ryan camp has, from the beginning, attacked Hathaway because of her mother in an effort to confuse people.
The only "attack" by the Ryan campaign that I am aware of is illuminating Dana's complete inexperience. What attacks are you referring to? What is Dana's experience?
http://www.ocba.org/resource/attach/1747/JCQHathaway.pdf Check it out yourself. She has never gone to trial, not once! Her experience is limited 100% to civil cases; auto negligence. Kathleen Ryan's experience:
http://www.ocba.org/resource/attach/1747/JCQRyan.pdf
While you and I do not share the same viewpoint, I would never be hostile toward your children because of it. I did not vote for Diane Hathaway. But I will vote for Dana.
It is my experience as a libertarian that democrats just don't understand that the populace is pissed about the trampling of individual liberties whether caused by demicans or republicrats. Democrats seem stuck on the idea that "Republicans are the enemy" and "anyone who opposes us is a Republican". Challenged, democrats and their liberal shills in the media hurl personal attacks and threaten hostility. Democrats dismiss Tea Party supporters as Republicans, deriding them as "tea baggers" with their "astroturf base" and created by ultra-right wing founders. They just don't get it. That's why democrats are going to get their hats handed to them next month, just like their republican contemporaries got creamed in the primaries.
The unanswered facts are that Dana is completely inexperienced and her views on firearm issues are unknown. Her association with anti-liberty supporters is sufficient to call into question her opinion on the subject. I don't believe that a candidate for elected office should ascend to the position purely because of their DNA originates from a political dynasty. I KNOW Kathleen Ryan's position on guns. Probate court judges are in a unique position to issue orders that can permanently deprive a citizen of their rights to possess firearms. The members of this forum should be very sensitive to the political leanings of those who wield such power.