Readers here know that I'm not a big fan of Mike Briggs. He seems to fail to grasp the basic understanding of representative government: what it is... or how it works.
After Maureen Winningham made it clear that she would brook no opposition to her bizarre positions on her campaign web site and to be absolutely non-responsive to her constituents by silencing those who question her positions or judgment, I took a shot and decided I would ask Briggs about this glaring dichotomy:
When you hate the positions of the district you want to represent.... when you are, in fact, diametrically opposed to the positions the district hold dear.... when you claim, repeatedly... as you, Mr. Briggs, have so claimed... that you, unlike the others representing the 18th District would represent EVERYONE.... and that EVERYONE includes ME.... how, precisely, do you do that?
For example, there is no question that the 18th district passionately opposes the CRC Plan. Nor is there any question that Mike Briggs is almost violently opposed to the district position, writing literally for years that the CRC Project, along with the hated light rail and tolls, will solve every problem known to man.
In short, it is the position of Sen. Cleveland and Rep. Moeller... who serve a hard core democrat district that essentially encompasses our local version of Detroit known as Vancouver.
How can a Rep. Briggs actually represent a district that he personally AND politically opposes?
I shot the question up to his campaign facebook page, presuming that like most others who oppose Briggs politics in other venues, the question would not be long for viewing.
Well, I was pleasantly surprised about that, as he responded by writing:
The problem?
He hasn't answered it.
It's still there, but here's the thing: neither of the democrats running in the 18th to this point stand a chance of winning. But what is the point of allowing the question to be asked if, like Bob Dingethal, you're just going to be ignoring it instead of answering it?
After Maureen Winningham made it clear that she would brook no opposition to her bizarre positions on her campaign web site and to be absolutely non-responsive to her constituents by silencing those who question her positions or judgment, I took a shot and decided I would ask Briggs about this glaring dichotomy:
When you hate the positions of the district you want to represent.... when you are, in fact, diametrically opposed to the positions the district hold dear.... when you claim, repeatedly... as you, Mr. Briggs, have so claimed... that you, unlike the others representing the 18th District would represent EVERYONE.... and that EVERYONE includes ME.... how, precisely, do you do that?
For example, there is no question that the 18th district passionately opposes the CRC Plan. Nor is there any question that Mike Briggs is almost violently opposed to the district position, writing literally for years that the CRC Project, along with the hated light rail and tolls, will solve every problem known to man.
In short, it is the position of Sen. Cleveland and Rep. Moeller... who serve a hard core democrat district that essentially encompasses our local version of Detroit known as Vancouver.
How can a Rep. Briggs actually represent a district that he personally AND politically opposes?
I shot the question up to his campaign facebook page, presuming that like most others who oppose Briggs politics in other venues, the question would not be long for viewing.
Well, I was pleasantly surprised about that, as he responded by writing:
Unlike the other democrat running against Liz Pike, Briggs has left the question up... and I actually appreciate that.Mike Briggs for State Rep On this site, no comments will ever be erased, no commenter blocked, if all comments and commenters remain civil, non-threatening and to keep comments pertaining to the subject matter under discussion.
The problem?
He hasn't answered it.
It's still there, but here's the thing: neither of the democrats running in the 18th to this point stand a chance of winning. But what is the point of allowing the question to be asked if, like Bob Dingethal, you're just going to be ignoring it instead of answering it?
No comments:
Post a Comment