Saturday, May 14, 2005

Craddock vs Reese

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by ImageShack.us The Reese-Craddock campaign is even getting nastier. Reese recently sent out a hit piece... heres a section of it.. "Since entering the race for the House of Delegates five months ago, Chris Craddock and the Richmond special interests that are funding him have waged an expensive non-stop smear campaign aimed at distorting the record of your Delegate , Gary Reese. Chris Craddocks dishonest negative campaign proves he is just not ready to serve in the House of Delegates. On June 14, vote AGAINST inexperience politician Chris Craddock" A couple weeks ago, an editorial was written in the Centreview, supporting Reese's claims that Craddock campaigners were calling Reese, "pro-choice, pro-tax, and pro-gay" -This is the downside of having every Teen in your youth group, and soccer team get out and help you..sometimes you get a lack of maturity. Delegate Reese's hit piece had no real substance to it though, because he hadn't dug up any useful dirt on Craddock. It states that Reese "Didn't vote for the largest tax increase in Virginia's history" , he didn't, but he voted for a different version, which STILL called for some sort of tax increase. -This race will be very close, but TC again believes Reese will be able to win because of his name id, and as said on Commonwealth Commonsense, he has a way to "sooth over voters"

8 Comments:

At 5/14/2005 11:00:00 PM, Anonymous Kevin Allen said...

I can't believe Gary Reese is attacking Chris Craddock for being funded by Richmond Special interests. People who live in glass houses...

Compare who has donated to the candidates and who is taking special interest money. Chris Craddock has been supported by VCAP but that is hardly a special interest PAC. The rest of his donations are from individuals and it appears that many live in and/or by the district. Compared to Gary Reese who has taken donations from many special interest PACs.

Reese Donations:
http://www.vpap.org/cands/cand_donorlist.cfm?ToKey=COM00594&CycleID=2005

Craddock Donations:
http://www.vpap.org/cands/cand_donorlist.cfm?ToKey=COM01033&CycleID=2005

FYI, I have donated to Chris Craddock's campaign and intend to donate more.

Gary Reese has plenty in his record to call him pro-tax and pro-choice. The letter writer seems to have a problem with Gary Reese's record and not Chris Craddock's volunteers.

 
At 5/15/2005 12:36:00 AM, Anonymous ls said...

Off the VPAP link ....
does anyone know anything about the $220,000 donation to VCAP by the American Tort Reform Assoc. about 2 weeks ago??

 
At 5/16/2005 04:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

VCAP is not a special interest PAC? Of course it is...its interest is Jerry Parker and his narrow-minded agenda. And while Reese may have taken more in donations from PACS, his campaign is fair less beholden to any one of them that Craddock who basically is a puppet creation of VCAP. His campaign does not exist without VCAP.

As for the $220K in ATRA money, that is being used to pay for the McDonnell radio ads running on conservative talkers around the state.

 
At 5/18/2005 09:20:00 PM, Blogger Mary_1961 said...

Too bad people don't read the facts on votes. I researched a slew of Pro-Life and related "Traditional Family" bills. Gary Reese never made one pro-abortion or "pro-gay" vote in the lot of them.

Is Craddock's campaign misinforming people? Definitely. They have infiltrated channels of communication for pro-lifers and are telling people things that simply are not true. The "youth minister" whose degree is in economics, not theology, divinity, or religion, should look up the Decalogue. I believe one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

What is Extremely Pathetic is that Craddock is vastly under qualified. Craddock will not win in this district. Even if by some bizarre twist of events he squeezes by to November, Kathy Smith or one of her liberal friends will suddenly declare as a candidate to "rescue" public education from a fraud like Craddock. So, while Craddock's supporters are very misinformed about small items like facts, a vote for Craddock in June simply begs for the Democrats to bring up a strong candidate in November. And you know what? In a district that voted 45% for John Kerry, I see alot of people turning to an alternative. Too bad most Republicans here aren't even paying attention to the fact there is a primary coming up.

 
At 5/19/2005 12:35:00 AM, Anonymous Kevin Allen said...

You must not have looked very much into Gary's record.

Gary Reese voted against an amendment to prohibit state funds from being used for embryonic stem cell research.

Just because he voted right on the few simple issues like parental consent does not make him pro-life.

When Gary Reese was running for the House against Ken Plum in 1989 he said that he was against a ban on abortion but supported parental notice and consent.

Since Gary was elected a Delegate he said that the abortion debate has focused too much on the thou shalt not's and not enough on alternatives. I don't know of anybody who is truly pro-life who would say something like that. Yes, the pro-life movement needs to do a better job of marketing the positive solutions they are providing to help women facing crisis pregnancies but politically we need to focus on those thou shalt not's.

Gary Reese also recieved a 50% rating from NARAL in 2004 -- tying him with the second highest of any Republican. There were 39 delegates that received a zero from NARAL in 2004.

There is more than enough reason to believe that Gary Reese is not pro-life.

People differ on what makes a person qualified to run for office. I think anybody who supported raising any tax during the past few years is completely unqualified to hold office. Chris Craddock will not be voting to raise our taxes like Gary Reese did the past few sessions and will do so in the future.

 
At 5/21/2005 03:12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's pick apart your statement, Mr. Allen, as it does not hold water.

I looked up that bill. I agree Del. Reese voted against the amendment. But the lack of the amendment was not enough to stop Del. Black, Sen. Cuccinelli, Del. Marshall, and other pro-life legislators that I trust from voting for the bill on final passage. I cannot imagine they would do that if not passing the amendment made the bill a threat to the pro-life cause.

You pull a quote from 1989. I went and looked up the article. Cost me $3.95 to buy it. Del. Reese said that in the context of a much longer statement that was a little less ardently pro-choice. That being said, is no one allowed to come to the light, Mr. Allen? Can no one be redeemed? One comment made 16 years ago does not necessarily represent who a man is today. 16 years ago, our President was an alcoholic. Today he is a god-fearing soul and the leader of the free world. We can all see the truth as time wisens us.

The NARAL thing is also a red herring. I looked that up too. And, I will say as a strong pro-lifer--one who does not subscribe to wiggle-words like rape and incest because I feel the worth of the child is not determined by the circumstances of conception--that I would have voted as Del. Reese did upon seeing the bills.

One bill was to require people to receive information about birth defects and AIDS when applying for a marriage license. Personally, as a pro-life American, I want people to have that information, especially as it pertains to genetic screenings for birth defects. Doesn't it make more sense to know you have a high risk of having a child with a birth defect so that, if you feel you could not handle that responsibility, take steps to avoid pregnancy and avoid the chance that the mother might consider an abortion? What is pro-choice about that?

Another one of the NARAL bills was to require Family Life Education classes to teach women that if they are the victims of sexual assault to go see medical attention. Is that a bad thing? Should women not know that? Oh, and by the way, it was Gary Reese who wrote the amendment stripping out language that would have encouraged use of the morning-after pill. Yep. Gary Reese.

The third bill has to do with requiring the medically factual information be taught in health classes. Why is that a bad thing?

Maybe I missed something, but I read those bills and the only thing that confuses me is why NARAL even scored them as votes. And the fact that they scored Del, Reese on the sexual assault bill is doubly confusing since he stripped emergency contraception out of the bill. The fact that other pro-lifers voted against these bills as I understand them from reading them says to me that they are more concerned about following some misinterpretation of what is and isn't pro-abortion legislation than in actually reading the bills.

Also, you are wrong on the thou shalt nots. Changing the laws will not save one baby. Changing the culture will protect the innocent. Does it really make sense to criminalize women who make bad choices in a time of high stress and fear? Or does it make sense to begin to develop a cultural shift that brings about a consensus that abortion is wrong? Laws that a huge swath of the population disagree with are unenforceable and delegitimizes the authority of the government. If you pass more thou shalt nots, you will not stop a desperate woman from killing her child. All you do is drive her to a back alley sawbones or a coat hanger. But changing the culture and perception of how women feel about abortion will move mountains. Passing more laws is not the answer. Changing our culture and converting people to our point of view IS the answer. No matter how many thou shalt nots you pass, you will not change how a woman considering an abortion values that innocent life. We have to change the values and then the laws will take care of themselves. Prohibitions do not work. Thet did not work with alcohol and they do not work with drugs. It will not work here either.

Finally, to the tax question. I am not happy that my taxes went up. But I am happy that it was not the absurdly huge Senate package. And I am glad that we did not shutdown government. Laying off police and teachers and such would have been a disaster. Shutting down the government would have been nothing more than a knee-jerk response. This was better than that and it was far better than the monsterous Senate plan.

A final note on Mr. Craddock. I have not met him and I doubt I will as I do not live anywhere near Del. Reese's district. But I went on his website and it is pretty clear he is not ready for prime time. And being supported by VCAP is like being supported by the Keystone Kops of the conservative movement. Did you already forget what a disaster the Katzen campaign was--managed by VCAP's inept executive director? Did you forget that VCAP supposedly check Steve Chapman's residency and it turned out to be sham? As a conservative, I am embarrassed by some of the VCAP recruits. Is Mr. Chapman the best we could have done against an out of touch old guy like Del. Parrish? Is Mr. Craddock, a guy whose only qualification for office seems to be that he put his name on the ballot, the best that VCAP could do? Chris Oprison looks like a reasonable choice and Mark Jarvis looks OK. Maybe even Shawn Kenney although I am not convinced on that front. But 4 good recruits--and I am stretching with the word good--do not make for a successful effort on the part of conservatives.

 
At 5/31/2005 08:46:00 PM, Anonymous Kevin Allen said...

Anonymous,

The amendment passed ... so what you wrote makes no sense. I believe that Delegates Black, Marshall, etc. would have voted against the bill if the amendment had not passed.

I said the article was from 1989. It is the clearest quote I have from Gary about his stand on abortion. Almost all of his votes on abortion are within his 1989 statement. The only exception being banning partial birth abortions which is even more popular than parental involvement laws. Anyone who is active in pro-life movement knows that courts interpret the health exception so broadly that no abortions will be made illegal with a law with a health excpetion.

Certainly people can change their minds and become pro-life. I have several friends who are active in the pro-life movement who have had abortions. There is just nothing in Gary's record to make be believe that he has changed. His comments to the Washinton Post were not off-hand comments. They were in response to questions from the Washington Post for their voter guide.

As far as the NARAL votes go did you look at the voting records of Delegate Black, Marshall, etc. There were about 40 Delegates that received a zero rating. While the votes were not all abortion related, pro-family conservatives were voting against NARAL on every vote they rated. Gary Reese voted with them 50% of the time. I suggest that you find out what was actually in the bills not what NARAL said was in the bill. Don't forget Naral doesn't want people to know the truth about fetal development.

Passing pro-life legislation will absolutely reduce the number of abortions. Even parental notification laws have reduced teen abortions in states that have passed the laws. And you think outlawing abortion won't reduce the number of abortions? Will it eliminate all abortions? Unfortunately it won't but laws against armed robbery haven't eliminated armed robbery either.

Besides changing the laws will help change the culture. Your rant about changing the culture could have been delivered by any pro-abortion politician who claims to be personally pro-life.

Why would it not have been the fault of those who wanted to raise taxes that the government had to shut down? They could have just passed a budget without the tax increase that kept every thing going like it was.

Frankly from your post you don't sound like you are really pro-life, anti-tax or conservative.

Chris Craddock is very well qualified to be a Delegate. The first qualification in my opinion is your position on the issues. Gary Reese fails that test on taxes, abortion, etc. Chris Craddock passes with flying colors.

I sure wish there were challengers to all the delegates who voted wrong on the tax bill. However just because we didn't recruit enough challengers doesn't mean I am not going to support those who are running.







Finally, to the tax question. I am not happy that my taxes went up. But I am happy that it was not the absurdly huge Senate package. And I am glad that we did not shutdown government. Laying off police and teachers and such would have been a disaster. Shutting down the government would have been nothing more than a knee-jerk response. This was better than that and it was far better than the monsterous Senate plan.

A final note on Mr. Craddock. I have not met him and I doubt I will as I do not live anywhere near Del. Reese's district. But I went on his website and it is pretty clear he is not ready for prime time. And being supported by VCAP is like being supported by the Keystone Kops of the conservative movement. Did you already forget what a disaster the Katzen campaign was--managed by VCAP's inept executive director? Did you forget that VCAP supposedly check Steve Chapman's residency and it turned out to be sham? As a conservative, I am embarrassed by some of the VCAP recruits. Is Mr. Chapman the best we could have done against an out of touch old guy like Del. Parrish? Is Mr. Craddock, a guy whose only qualification for office seems to be that he put his name on the ballot, the best that VCAP could do? Chris Oprison looks like a reasonable choice and Mark Jarvis looks OK. Maybe even Shawn Kenney although I am not convinced on that front. But 4 good recruits--and I am stretching with the word good--do not make for a successful effort on the pa

 
At 11/10/2005 01:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the extreme right wing rue the day they ousted Gary Reese??

I would hope so.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home