Let me get this straight, youu supported Love? A anti business bully who voted against your GL ordinance. While there was an "extremely qualified opponent"?
I knew you where bad at this but WOW. Too funny.
Bill, while i dont normally engage old bigots, i do have to point out that you are as wrong about things as you usually are.
Yes, i supported Love. I am a republican after all, and given no egregious reasons not to support my party's candidate, he deserved my consideration for that reason.
Additionally, his son was an engaged member of the forums and vouched for his father's intentions.
I had no previous affiliation for Jill Dame, and there was no incumbent of any type in the race.
We only had their stated words to go on.
Jim talked a good game, that he has failed (in my opinion) to back up.
That is what the democratic process is for, to be honest, and there is no shame in allowing people a chance to prove themselves. He has had that chance and so far, he has proven that he is a better insurance salesman than a councilman, in my opinion, and given a better choice in the next election (which I believe there will be) I will gladly support them.
I do want to point out that the HRO was not my initiative, nor was i involved in any way with the campaign to draft or pass it. The primary person who was involved in that effort was Jimmy Midyette. I was not asked to help or to participate in that campaign, and literally had no connection to it except to cover it for metrojacksonville.
However, that said, it seems fairly counterproductive for a councilperson to vote against the recognition of equal rights for gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexual people when his district is the largest GLBT friendly community in the city.
But when you consider the votes that he cast to set aside funding for transit and mobility issues exactly when his district is facing RAP driven controversy over parking issues that would be largely solved by the very transit funding he voted against
, then one has to wonder exactly who in riverside avondale he is adequately representing.
In my mind, honoring his customer base by voting with them to use city policy to stomp on young business developers is the final nail in the coffin of reasons to support Jim Love for council.
He doesnt think 'the gays' deserve equality, he doesnt think his neighborhood deserves mobility funding to solve its parking issues, and he doesnt represent the young businesses whose investment has driven the high quality of life available in the neighborhood.
So exactly who, besides Kay Ehas, is Jim Love representing?
And while Kay Ehas is fabulous in her own way, she just doesn't rise to the level of an entire constituency---no offense to the dynamic force of nature whose above mentioned support is no doubt appreciated by (and will be valuable to) the candidate.