What I'm saying here is that they are both attacking each other for their campaign contributors.
Other than that what should we use to seperate to people who want to be the chief prosecutor?
We probably want someone with prosecuting experience like Attorney General Jim Hood.
The governors office touches on a lot more than handling legal issues for the state.
We should look at governing (as in governor) philosophy. Haley doesn't believe that the government should be involved in bettering folks' lives. Eaves believes we can do better when we use the government to help all people.
Their philosophy informs their policy and politics and that's what I vote on in a Governor.
The AG's office does a lot more than prosecute. In fact, the AG himself only goes to court when 10 or more cameras are present. The AG is responsible for the legal affairs of every state agency.
Our AG brags about not being a defense lawyer, when he is charged with defending the State against lawsuits. He hires a defense attorney to handle this job, much like he hires prosecutors to prosecute.
What we really need is an executive to lead the office. I'm voting for Hopkins based on 35 years of legal experience. The world won't end for me if Hood is re-elected. It is a choice, and I am voting for the person I believe to be a better lawyer.
I apply the same logic to this ad as I did with Phil Bryant's attack ad. Hood wouldn't be doing this if the race weren't a lot closer than he'd like. Something's rotten in Denmark.
JL writes: Haley doesn't believe that the government should be involved in bettering folks' lives. Eaves believes we can do better when we use the government to help all people.
If those statements were true, Barbour would have vetoed every human services bill that crossed his desk while Eaves would be advocating radical redistribution of wealth. To me, the two views you've described sound like Ron Paul and Mao Tse-tung, not Haley Barbour and John Eaves. The differences aren't really all that stark.
Would you "fire" an experienced employee and replace him with one with no track record?
ReplyDeleteSo I'm guessing your voting for Barbour since he is the only gubernatorial candidate with experience?
What I'm saying here is that they are both attacking each other for their campaign contributors.
ReplyDeleteOther than that what should we use to seperate to people who want to be the chief prosecutor?
We probably want someone with prosecuting experience like Attorney General Jim Hood.
The governors office touches on a lot more than handling legal issues for the state.
We should look at governing (as in governor) philosophy. Haley doesn't believe that the government should be involved in bettering folks' lives. Eaves believes we can do better when we use the government to help all people.
Their philosophy informs their policy and politics and that's what I vote on in a Governor.
That's why I choose Eaves.
The AG's office does a lot more than prosecute. In fact, the AG himself only goes to court when 10 or more cameras are present. The AG is responsible for the legal affairs of every state agency.
ReplyDeleteOur AG brags about not being a defense lawyer, when he is charged with defending the State against lawsuits. He hires a defense attorney to handle this job, much like he hires prosecutors to prosecute.
What we really need is an executive to lead the office. I'm voting for Hopkins based on 35 years of legal experience. The world won't end for me if Hood is re-elected. It is a choice, and I am voting for the person I believe to be a better lawyer.
I apply the same logic to this ad as I did with Phil Bryant's attack ad. Hood wouldn't be doing this if the race weren't a lot closer than he'd like. Something's rotten in Denmark.
ReplyDeleteJL writes:
ReplyDeleteHaley doesn't believe that the government should be involved in bettering folks' lives. Eaves believes we can do better when we use the government to help all people.
If those statements were true, Barbour would have vetoed every human services bill that crossed his desk while Eaves would be advocating radical redistribution of wealth. To me, the two views you've described sound like Ron Paul and Mao Tse-tung, not Haley Barbour and John Eaves. The differences aren't really all that stark.
I don't think this race is all that close, but I don't know what it is, exactly, that is going on.
ReplyDelete