Brading fights back against "swiftboat" attack

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

In 2004, many of us were frustrated and disappointed when John Kerry failed to respond to the "Swiftboat" attacks that leveled his campaign. The attacks were untrue, and the failure to respond cost his campaign time, money, energy, and votes.

Well, it seems that Democrats have learned the lesson. Respond fast, and hit back hard.

BradingAnd in East Multnomah County, Rob Brading is punching back. When the bogus attacks came last week from Karen Minnis's campaign team (a.k.a "Friends for Safer Libraries"), Brading responded hard and fast. The Oregon House Dems have the story:

First, Rob's wife Karen - the chaplain at Willamette U - recorded an auto-call that went out to thousands of district voters.

Second, Karen sent a letter to thousands of district voters (download PDF):

Whether you call it bearing false witness, or just telling lies, what Rob's political opponents are willing to do to win this election is disgusting. I hope you'll use your vote to send them a strong message that their destructive politics have to stop.

Third, and this is the best part... Rob Brading actually has a plan for protecting kids - and he mailed it to thousands of district voters (download PDF).

In the plan, Brading is calling for a 25% tax on the porn industry - and will use that money to increase funding for law enforcement and keeping sexual predators off the streets. Brading is also going to support tough laws to keep kids away from violent and sexually explicit video games.

Go to and make a donation now to help fund his response to these attacks.

Two years ago, this same attack was so absurd that Karen Minnis actually apologized for it (but waited until the day after the election):

I apologize to the members of the Library Board, and in particular my opponent, Rob Brading, for this error. Gresham Outlook, November 3, 2004.

This time, Minnis is trying to pretend she's got nothing to do with it -- even though it's her campaign consultant, Chuck Adams, who is behind it.

Karen Minnis ought to demand that her consultant, Chuck Adams, stop these attacks. And if he doesn't stop, she should fire him. She's got the power to end these vicious and personal attacks.

If she doesn't, she gets the blame.

  • David Wright (unverified)


    Brading may have a plan for protecting kids... but what he apparently mailed out (the PDF you linked to) isn't a plan, it's a few vague bullet points. What about the details?

    I couldn't find the specifics on his web site, either.

    Is this 25% tax on the "porn industry" a business tax, or a consumption tax? What exactly qualifies as the "porn industry"? Is it 7-11 selling Playboy behind the counter? Is it the producers of pornographic magazines and videos (few, if any, of whom are based in Oregon)? Is it strip club owners? Patrons? Workers?

    These are details the voters deserve to know.

    So at this point it looks like Brading has responded to an unfair characterization with a vague generality. I dunno who "wins" that debate, but the voter certainly loses.

  • (Show?)

    Uh David, this is a campaign stating positions, not a legislative mark-up session. Yes you raise specific issues that would need to be addressed, but if the tax were only a business tax for stores like Fantasy video it could raise a lot of money in Oregon cause there sure are a lot of them. Even if the specifics would get difficult, I would like to know where Ms. Minnis stands on the principle. If it could be legally done, does she support raising taxes on porno shops or not? Pick one; add new business tax or support porno shop businessmen. Which is it Karen?

  • (Show?)

    There's plenty of time for details. The point here is that one candidate is demagoguing the issue, while the other is actually looking for solutions and answers.

    Which one do you want to represent you?

  • (Show?)

    David, I agree with John. Sure, legislation requires lots of details - and, surely, negotiations among many interested parties.

    And while it's good to get some of the details on the table now, it's about the principle right now.

    John's question for Karen Minnis is a great one, and one that will hopefully be pursued by the media... Is she willing to join Rob Brading's call for a tax on pornography to fund services to protect kids?

  • David Wright (unverified)

    John: How positively Rovian of you. Opposing a new business tax must necessarily entail support of porno shops? That kind of false dichotomy is ugly and unhelpful when Republicans do it, and it's ugly and unhelpful here too.

    I don't expect the full and final text of a bill here, I'm just curious about what it is exactly that Brading supports. How can you ask Minnis where she stands on the principle, when we don't really know what the principle is?

    TJ: Sorry, but what little Brading has said on the issue (from the flyer) is pretty much textbook demagoguery. So you've now got two candidates demagoguing the issue, and neither one offering any real "solutions" or "answers" (but I'm sorry... what was the actual problem in the first place?)

    Based on this particular issue, I wouldn't want either one representing me.

  • (Show?)

    This is exactly the kind of issue that gets Libertarians all riled up...and I think on this one, the Libertarians are probably closest to the public at large. This could get really interesting.

    And David- last time I looked for a Playboy at a 7-11, I was terribly disappointed. Pretty sure they haven't sold porn magazines (or playboy, for that matter) since some time in the '90s.

  • (Show?)

    I'd love to have a link to an audio file of the autodial. The public has only the haziest concept of how the Right intentionally spreads libel about opponents ans uses carefully crafted cutouts to hold the individual campaigns blameless. The lack of clarity in the public mind leads to the meme favored by Republican ops, "They're all crooks," and the corollary, "They all do this."

    This of course, leads to further disengagement by the voters and suppression of turnout.


    If memory serves, Chuck Adams' firm wrote virually all of the copy for Repubs in the '04 cycle, modifying it slightly by district, thus ensuring that all Repubs were using an identical message and saving a bunch of money on composition and artwork.

    To allege that this punk is anything but our own Oregon version of Karl Rove, would be ridiculous. Like Rove, He's happy to retread what worked last time. Hopefully, the voters at national and local levels are starting to catch on.

  • (Show?)

    David--beg pardon? How is defending yourself against a ridiculous and dishonest slime job, while offering an actual concept of how to combat children's exposure to the porn industry "demagoguing?"

  • Bob Tucker (unverified)

    So David Wright is making the case that the attack on Brading and his response to that attack are basically equal? That because his response isn't heavy on detail it is somehow equal to - and as damning as - Karen Minnis once again making the case that service on the libray board makes one some combination of sex offender and Larry Flint? I don't know if Bradings' idea is good or if it sucks. I've never thought that he was going to win. I don't care. I do care that Minnis' attack is a huge load of manufactured crap. It's not spin, it's not rounding numbers on a budget, it's lies. She should criticize him on his positions, not twist comunity service into the most hideous and personally damaging attacks available.
    Is this your kind of politics - run for office, and you'll be called a perv or sex offender? Doesn't matter if it has any basis in reality, it's just the way it is? Oh, and you'll only get my vote if your produce a detailed plan with every mail piece? Imagine being Rob Brading: for simply choosing to run for office, win or lose, he gets to spend the next several years having large segments of his community think he's some perv lurking around in a trench coat obsessing about porn. Just because he disagrees with the speaker on substantive political issues like schools or taxes or the environment. It's one thing to have your neighbors disagree with you on taxes; now he's likely to have neighbors who think he might be a sex freak. That ain't right.

  • Tamerlane (unverified)

    Whatever? Can we just agree, at least among our literate selves, to stop calling this an "issue." Seriously, is there really somebody out there who actually believes that libraries are dens of pornography luring in children? Did that ever happen, even once? Is it possible that Republicans are just simply unfamiliar with what a "library" is? God forbid should Brading involve himself in some truly high-level scandal, like instead of volunteering his time at the library he should be caught flying a kite or even singing carols at Christmas.

  • (Show?)

    I wonder if they caught the significant typo in the last paragraph of Karen's letter before sending that out.

    I think David's original question is a good one, and illustrates why it's important to have some specifics, even early on. If you're claiming millions in new tax, that's a lot of pornographers you're gonna be taxing. If you're gonna call the pornographers bad guys, that's a lot of potential consituents you're alienating. If you own a convenience store and sell a few nudie magazines, or an ordinary bar with a couple video games that have nudity in them, it's reasonable to ask "what about me?"

    Are those millions gonna come out of MY pockets? or are there greedy bastards someplace else that are gonna have to pay?

  • David Wright (unverified)


    demagogue, n. : an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience

    So here's what Brading says in his flyer (and there are no further details on his web site; the flyer alone is billed in the original post here as his "plan"):

    Rob Brading will push for a new 25% tax on the porn industry to help fund programs to keep our kids safe. Rob Brading will work to keep our kids safe. His new tax on pornographers will mean millions more for programs to keep our kids safe from dangerous content and additional funding to help keep sexual predators off the streets. Rob Brading will support tough laws to help parents protect their kids from violent and sexually explicit video games. These games hurt our kids and can have a serious negative impact on how they develop as teenagers. Rob Brading is looking out for the values of our community. As the CEO of Multnomah Community Television, Rob successfully removed shows from the air that were indecent and posed a threat to our children and families.

    OK, so there's lots of emotional appeal there (any time any politician starts talking about "values" that raises a red flag for me), but not a lot of logical appeal there, hence demagoguery. Sure, he can claim that taxing the porn industry will keep kids safe. But absent at least the basic details about what sort of programs he intends to fund with these new tax dollars, how are we to evaluate whether his proposal actually would (or even could) keep kids safe?

    What I hear, and admittedly this is perhaps due to my own perceptual filters so by all means correct me if I'm wrong, is the following:

    1) Porn is bad. 2) We should tax porn. 3) Give me that money, and I'll keep your kids safe.

    As far as it goes... okay... maybe. But it's perfectly legitimate to ask, setting aside the appropriateness of the new tax itself, how exactly do you propose to actually keep kids safe with this extra money? Until that question is answered, however, you have nothing more than a loosely coupled set of emotionally charged concepts (pornography, child safety) and no actual proposed solution that voters can evaluate.

    Wait, there's one sort of vaguely defined program -- "tough laws" to "help parents protect their kids" from video games. We don't know what laws specifically, but it's a pretty dubious claim as far as it goes.

    So, once again, absent any specific proposals for how the extra money is going to be spent, this looks to me like a feel-good sound bite piece, a purely emotional appeal with no substance.

    And for the record, of course Minnis' claim that opposition to public library content filters equates to pushing porn on little kids is inane. I'm not sure it quite rises to the level of "Swiftboating", but I suppose when you scale that concept down to the local level...

    I just think that Brading's response is a step in the wrong direction. I mean, since Minnis' charge was so insubstantial, I guess I shouldn't expect much in the way of a weightier response. But come on, how tough would it be to simply explain the idea of the First Amendment as it applies to public libraries? This is part of what turns people off from political campaigns. Candidate #1 falsely accuses Candidate #2 of some heinous perversion, and rather than Candidate #2 explaining his (or her) position rationally so that a reasonable person can see why they voted the way they did, instead Candidate #2 overcompensates for the original false charge.

    And good public governance gets lost in the mix.

    Minnis is no peach. I don't know enough about Brading to say whether he'd be better. But holding up this response flyer as a positive example from his campaign certainly doesn't convince me that he would be.

  • GregD (unverified)

    I don't understand why Mr. Brading didn't flat out expose the dishonesty of the flier by stating the MCL internet filtering policy as it relates to children:

    "Teens (13-17) have the choice of filtered or unfiltered Internet access unless their parent or guardian designates filtered access.

    Children (12 years and younger) have filtered Internet access unless a parent or guardian designates they can choose between filtered and unfiltered access."

    And if Minnis was an honest politician, she would not only disown the group "behind" the flier, but she would would admit they are lying.

  • (Show?)

    "And for the record, of course Minnis' claim that opposition to public library content filters equates to pushing porn on little kids is in[s]ane."

    Fixed yer post, David. Next time, try to understand that the Queen of Darkness' closest minions just called Rob Brading a perv.

    Good thing that wasn't me. My response would not have involved leaflets in the mail and auto-calls.

    But it reminds us all that there is no depth to which a Republican will not spelunk in order to remain in a position to try to tell us how to live. Or what to do with our bodies.

    The irony is that I just came back from listening to one of Florida's newest Democrats, Michael Schiavo, tell me this exact same thing.

  • djk (unverified)

    Tax porn?

    Not really sure how you do that. I mean, how could we define "pornography" precisely enough to determine whether it fits in the tax code. Plus, I see all kinds of constitutional equal protection and freedom of speech problems here.

    Has any government at any level (state or local) in the United States -- or anywhere else in the world -- ever taxed "pornography?" How did they do it?

  • (Show?)

    I think Brading is just trying to execute the pimp tax recently advocated on the Daily Show. (Thanks for the tip, Jana.)

    Seriously, though - announcing support for a new kind of tax is a risky move for a campaign, and one I'd expect to result from careful weighing of many factors. If this truly is a response to a smear attempt, that worries me. Letting one's position be influenced by an opponent's dirty tricks is not a quality I'd look for in a legislator.

    I have supported Brading with my wallet and my knuckles. I like him and his wife, and I am appalled by Minnis's "leadership." I want Brading to win. But I can't say I support him on this issue. I'd say anything but a direct denouncement of Minnnis's smear tactics will come across as weakness on Brading's part.

    Be bigger than this, Rob.

  • David Wright (unverified)

    Heh... John, the irony is in your post where you decry namecalling in the same breath that you refer to Minnis as the "Queen of Darkness".

    Hmmm... pervert, or Satan... which label is more libelous? :-D

    Oh, and the further irony is your complaint about Republicans telling us how to live. Which is true, they do, and annoyingly so. But Democrats do as well, just in different spheres of life. Both parties have their own versions of "morality" which they insist upon trying to legislate. And Democrats have actually been far more successful in codifying their particular brand of restrictions on behavior than have Republicans. It may be difficult for you to see this if you happen to agree with that brand of morality, and/or you may see nothing wrong with it if you agree with the position. But the Republicans certainly have no monopoly on telling people how to live, and they're at a disadvantage at actually legislating how people live.

    BTW, I know you were using this to make your own point, but I chose the term "inane" deliberately. Neither side's arguments on the whole library filter issue are actually insane. Misguided, unhelpful, deceptive even, but not insane. Both sides, however, are certainly inane.

    I expect as much from Republicans (at least, from the current leadership), but I would hope the opposition could be better than that. So far, I've been disappointed.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)

    Brading's plan may not be stellar, but the call from his wife is right on. As Mr. Ryan notes, the R's are shameless campaign liars, and Adams is a little Rove.

    Now, I wouldn't expect or support Democrats getting nasty with lies and distortions, but it would make campaign good sense for our guys to get nasty with the truth once in a while. It seems that Democrats take off the gloves only when running against other Democrats. What's that about? If you have the dirt on an R, I say unload both barrels.

    There was a time when some Republicans were honorable. Dave Frohnmayer, Norma Paulus, and Verne Duncan, for instance, campaigned like decent folk. The more Republicans associated themselves with fundamentalist morality, the more immoral their campaigning became. There must be some sort of lesson in that, but I'm not sure what it is.

  • Jon (unverified)

    Brading is also going to support tough laws to keep kids away from violent and sexually explicit video games.

    This again? We already have a system for that, its called parents.

    I would guess if he goes that route, he needs to support tough laws to keep kids away from violent and sexually explicit music, movies, and TV too.

    And taxing porn?? please...way too many people in politics get kickbacks and donations from the porn industry. Directly and indirectly. Its not going anywhere, and taxing it will never fly. I mean c'mon....the Feds couldnt even force them onto the .xxx domain. You know why? Because it would work. You could filter the content 100% of the time. That means less money for them. So it didnt pass.

    And here I thought Republicans were supposed to be the ones legislating morality.

  • (Show?)

    And here I thought Republicans were supposed to be the ones legislating morality.

    Actually, the way I understand it, among the ideas discussed is to use the funds for things like cops in classrooms talking to kids about internet safety. Also, a strong law that makes it illegal to solicit children on the internet for sex. (No, that's not explicitly illegal in Oregon.)

  • Jon (unverified)

    Actually, the way I understand it, among the ideas discussed is to use the funds for things like cops in classrooms talking to kids about internet safety.

    I thought they did that already. When I was a kid, a policeman came in once in a while telling us what to look out for on the street or on the playground. One would think with the way technology is today, it would be a natural progression. I would also say that parents should be in the classroom when that discussion happens too. I would guess that most have no clue what's going on.

    I guess I dont see punishing a particular business demographic as the answer. Are they saying that Oregon porn shops are the reason people stalk kids?

    Also, a strong law that makes it illegal to solicit children on the internet for sex. (No, that's not explicitly illegal in Oregon.)

    But it is a federal one already isnt it?

  • (Show?)

    I don't see this as punishing a business demographic at all. We use gas taxes to pay for road construction. We use lottery profits to pay for gambling addiction services. We use liquor and cigarette taxes for prevention programs.

    I'm not saying I sign on wholeheartedly to the Brading program, but philosophically I don't see the issue with using an industry that caters to adults, to help fund the effort to keep children shielded from that industry. We're lucky enough to live in a state that goes "all the way" to protect expression that others might find harmful; I think there's room for accomodation in trying to mitigate any harmful effects.

  • jon (unverified)

    Torridjoe- I think those are bad examples. Those "addictions" you mention are directly related to the programs. And thats bad enough...why dont people take responsibility for their actions? Save for the gas tax, why should taxpayers have to pay for your addictions? And I have yet to see proof that looking at naked bodies of adults makes you a pedophile or a stalker. This is about as silly as Ashcroft covering up the statue.

    But its just one more thing we as parents dont have to worry about, right? Let the state take care of it. Pretty soon I bet they will be picking my son's clothing & haircut too...

  • (Show?)

    There are plenty of people addicted to porn as well.

    Not everyone who buys alcohol or lotto tickets are addicts. It's likely true of cigarettes as well, but I don't see that being much of the purchasing population.

    There are plenty of people like myself who buy alcohol or lotto tickets occasionally. We're not addicts-- sometimes it's nice to have a wine cooler or a pina colada on a hot day.

    It's the same with porn. Some people buy items occasionally. Others are addicted. The worst ones are sexual predators.

  • Chuck Paugh (unverified)

    I do not have a problem with a special tax on pornography sold in Oregon, however the US Supreme Court itself makes the definition of "pornography" difficult to interpret. What if a book sold in a pornography shop is also sold at Barnes & Noble? Would this book be subject to a porn tax in Barnes & Noble too or just excluded from the tax in the porn shop? Additionally, there may be a First Amendment issue involved with taxing speech / print-media at a higher rate than normal consumer goods.

    Speaking of porn shops, travelling the country quite a bit as a part of my job, I am amazed at how many porn stores Portland has compared to other cities around the country. The only other place I've visited with more shops was Missouri with a porn shop off every exit of the interstate.

  • (Show?)


    I'd imagine it has something to do with the voters' refusal to regulate where these businesses can go.

    I don't know how his proposal would work, but I'd imagine it would be something like the cigarette and alcohol type taxes-- they're added to every item of that type. The question, of course, will be what is included/excluded.

  • (Show?)


    Eight-year-olds play the "but you did it too!" card better than you do.

    Chuck Adams paid for publicity to broadcast what he said about Brading; that makes it more injurious. My argument that Karen Minnis is evil (which I have better reasons to make than Adams does for his own argument) is posted as a comment in the middle of a thread in a blog.

    Besides the major difference in scale, I'm not Brading's campaign consultant. That makes me not have to hold to your standard of behavior, which is artificially inflated and false anyway because you're playing the role of concern troll.

    You're probably not old enough to remember when her husband served in the Legislature, but if we dig up the person or people who coined the phrase, "Dwarf of Darkness", can you threaten legal action against them, too?

    That would be funny, like your attempt to scare me.

  • David Wright (unverified)

    Errrrr... what attempt to "scare" you, John? How on earth did you get an implied threat of legal action from what I wrote? The term "libelous" is an adjective, not a verb.

    I think maybe you should switch to decaf. Lighten up a little! I was simply pointing out that your own post had a certain element of irony to it, in that you complain of name-calling then proceed to do so yourself, in what most would consider to be harsher terms than you alleged of others. I find that funny, man, not actionable.

    And it's frickin' hilarious when you go on to further kettle-calling by complaining about Republicans trying to tell everyone how to live.

    And now I'm ROTFLMAO at your inflated sense of self-importance to imagine that I was somehow trying to threaten or scare you. Paranoid, much? ;-)


    Regarding the broader topic of "punishing" an industry -- I agree that simply imposing a tax on targeted goods for a targeted purpose is not inherently "punishment" in principle. But again, here's where the details matter. I can imagine a number of ways that such a tax could be implemented to effectively punish the industry (and/or the customers). And I can imagine a number of ineffective programs that might be funded by such revenues, which would sort of amplify the potential punitive nature of the tax in my opinion.

    Which comes back to my original point -- the over-broad, over-vague notion of "tax porn and kids will be safe" is virtually useless. How can anybody be expected to sign off on such a "plan" without knowing the details? Many other posters here have pointed out potential pitfalls, so if Mr. Brading really does have a plan and not simply a bullet point, let's hear it so we can see for ourselves whether he'd be an effective legislator. I hope he would be. But absent the details, it would appear that Mr. Brading has offered nothing more than insubstantial sound bites.

  • Anon (unverified)

    Karen Minnis has had years and years to take action on this "library issue".

    For years and years, she has done nothing. Toni Manning has been mad about the library policy for 2 years and Minnis has done nothing to resolve the issue. Minnis has been completely unresponsive to Manning for years.

    Minnis has refused to take action on this important issue.

  • Anon (unverified)

    I find this interesting:

    Manning, however, said she doesn't know who's behind the flier. "I'm relatively new to any kind of political thing," she said.

    Doesn't know who is behind the flier - YOUR NAME IS ON IT.

    So they sent out a mailing, admittedly prepared by Chuck Adams and Oregon Family Council, and the only names on the flier are Toni Manning and Friends for Safer Librarires? And Manning "does not know who is behind the flier" yet her name is ON IT?

    Why are these groups sending out fliers with Manning's name on it that she knows nothing about?

  • (Show?)

    Wow - that's like a quadruple axel of tortured logic you've posted up there, David. I'll give it a 6.0 under the old scoring system; you obviously know me better than I know myself.

    It's also the first time I've seen someone hide behind the argument, 'I'm not smart enough to be that subtle, so you're being paranoid.' What an amazing dreamworld you've built; does it have a swimming pool and HBO?

    Certainly you studied root words in the Christian madrassa; it would have usually come after parts of speech, which you've demonstrated an awesome command of. Although, I can't vouch for your school, who may have neglected suffixes such as -ous in between lessons of the Prosperity Gospel, Comparative Heathen Practices, and the START program. Here's a hint: "libelous" comes from the word, "libel." That can be a noun OR a verb. Yay!

    I know Rob Brading well enough to know that he is a moral man beyond reproach, full stop. So yeah, Karen Minnis is an evil bitch for letting Chuck Adams off the spike collar and leash long enough to get off that paper airplane of fascism. I'm totally biased that way.

    But I'm curious, and this is the funniest part of your last post, so much so you've posted it twice now, as to how a factotum of the Republican Party such as yourself feels threatened by the Democrats "telling you how to live?"

    It would make my day to hear your most heartfelt example of Democratic oppression; I would even promise not to laugh so hard that Gatorade came out of my nose when I read it!

    Hillary Clinton, keeping the Man down! Lead them by their Cheeto-stained faces to the re-education camps! (Sorry, was that insensitive?)

    Maybe I should switch to light beer instead of decaf; God knows there's enough of that in Florida.

  • David Wright (unverified)


    John, I think you're the one with the active imagination, to have read so very much beyond what I've said here. And so very inaccurately, I should add.

    So... I'm just gonna take Mark Twain's advice and leave you be. Have a great day, man. ;-)

  • (Show?)

    Speaking of porn addiction, it's disturbing to see obsession with vice we see in so many of these self-proclaimed champions of public virtue. It's not even surprising anymore when they get busted for their odd perversions (see: Lou Beres.)

    Anon--of course Karen Minnis hasn't done anything to stop porn in the last two years. Why would she try to actually solve such a great campaign issue?

  • (Show?)

    speaking of fighting back--the Brading campaign has filed a restraining order against Chuck Adams and "Friends for Safer Libraries," the laundered PAC set up to attack Brading.


  • Cybergranny (unverified)

    Our daughter is the director of Friends for a Safer Library. She is not involved with political things and people. She is a devoted mom and wife and a rn..She is upset because her child was exposed to porn at the Gresham Library. She has three excellent children who are great students and she and her husband are hard working people.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)

    speaking of fighting back--the Brading campaign has filed a restraining order against Chuck Adams and "Friends for Safer Libraries," the laundered PAC set up to attack Brading.


    Duh . . . that's what this lawsuit (known as a Complaint) is all about. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, hoping that leads to a preliminary injunction, which they hope is made permanent.

    You failed to note that Judge Koch denied plaintiff's TRO.

    BTW: This is not the same kind of RO that domestic squabblers take out, requiring "no contact," etc. Brading wanted to immediately "restrain" the distribution of the hit pieces, and the judge said, "No."

    Now, That's the rest of this unfinished story.

    • Wes
  • (Show?)

    Yea... they're in no way connected with politics. They just happened to contact and pay the same guy to do work for them who is the chief consultant to Karen Minnis. Of all the people they'd chose, it would just happen to be the same guy who put out a mailer on this exact topic during the Minnis/Brading race two years ago.

    They're not political, but they've done nothing in any of the county commissioner races-- positions that ACTUALLY DECIDE library policies such as this one.

    This is politics, pure and simple, and should be shown through the information releases that the courts have ordered.

    And while the courts may have said no to Brading now, that doesn't mean they won't say yes once additional information is released.

  • cybergranny (unverified)

    Well I know my daughter is too busy protecting her little ones to be connected with politics. She is a family oriented gal, who sets up our family vacations, helps kids with homework, is a registered nurse, and s great housekeeper and wife.She and her husband are very middle class people, and do not hand out with politicians.

  • (Show?)

    Oh CyberGranny... I'm sure you're a lovely person, and I'm sure your daughter is a lovely person, and I'm sure that all she cares about is protecting their little ones -- and doesn't care for politics.

    If that's true, why in the name of all that is good, would she attack a candidate for the legislature WHO DID NOTHING WRONG.

    Maybe she got bamboozled by those sharpies who run the Minnis campaign, so why doesn't she say that? If she denounces the use of her name (and your granddaughter's name) to attack a decent man who also comes from a decent family, I'm sure she'd be forgiven by Rob, his wife, and all of us.

    If it's true that she doesn't care for politics, then she should ask that her name (and your granddaughter's name) be pulled from this slanderous, horrible, and untrue personal attack.

    If she doesn't, then she's just as guilty as the rest of the gang. Even if she is a nice person the rest of the time.

  • (Show?)

    Wesley--duh, 'this' story wasn't about the lawsuit; it's about his wife's reactions and the Brading plan for addressing the issue.

    Thanks for the legal lecture I didn't need.

  • (Show?)

    I find it funny that you'd say that just because a person is a good mom, wife, middle class person, etc. that she couldn't have anything to do with politics.

    That description sounds a lot like how people in my family would describe me. However, I've been involved in politics for more than half my life.

    And you don't have to hang out with politicians to be involved in politics. Many people I know who are involved in politics have only on a few occasions even met a politician-- and that was just a handshake and quick hello at an event filled with people.

  • (Show?)

    I find it funny that you'd say that just because a person is a good mom, wife, middle class person, etc. that she couldn't have anything to do with politics.

    Well, if your idea of "politics" includes Chuck Adams and a bit of possibly-unlawful and definitely-unethical slander against a good human being who just wants to serve his community -- well, no wonder "politics" sounds like something to avoid.

    Seems to me that CyberGranny shares more than she perhaps intended to...

  • cybergranny (unverified)

    Our daughter was not concerned about politics when she started this. Not everyone is into your "hate" politics. She just wants a library that is safe for her (and everyone elses kids). I am a 70 yr old woman and know that our daughter is a wonderful person..who gave me my first computer for my 60th birthday. Yes we have our political persuasions but are more interested in all of the kids and that they turn out to be kind and loving people. We have five more grandchildren, and so far they have all been raised right.

  • (Show?)

    Our daughter was not concerned about politics when she started this. Not everyone is into your "hate" politics.

    Yeah, which is exactly why she shouldn't have let those hateful people use her name to slander an innocent person.

connect with blueoregon