A Positive, Uplifting Message

Norm over at One Man’s Trash already has his incisive take on the Tyler Whitley, front page Russ Potts story in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch.

I’d just like to expand on one point Norm made. Russ Potts wants into the debates. There are many positive, persuasive reasons he could give. But the “straight-talking independent” can’t resist casting his current exclusion only in terms of Jerry Kilgore’s perfidy: “I’m terribly disgusted with him for his gutless, spineless actions on the debates.”

Nice talk. Negative campaigning and name-calling usually get critical press, but Potts gets a pass.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Potts gets a pass because he’s right.

  2. TheModerate Avatar
    TheModerate

    Here is the best line of the whole story:

    Of the “far-right crowd,” Potts said, “there are a lot of people in my party that cower at them, but I don’t cower at them.”

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I actually thought there were several good quotes in the article.

    “Explaining his own conversion from a conservative Republican to a tax-raising Republican maverick, Potts said “only a damned fool doesn’t change his mind…””

    and

    “Potts said some of the Senate leaders persuaded him to change his mind and run for a fourth term in 2003 because “they saw that the far-right crowd would replace me in a very conservative district.””

    So Sen. Potts winning in 2003 in this “very conservative district” obviously was more important than telling the truth, or did his conversion somehow occur in the 2 months that passed between NOV 2003 when he ran as a “anti-tax-and-spend” and “pro-life” conservative, and JAN 2004 when he suddenly became a foister of unnecessary tax increases and defender of abortion rights? Sorry Pottsie, but that big of a change conveniently in the two months after your election is a little bit much to explain away by saying you just “changed your mind”.

    I have to say my favorite quote is below:

    “Potts said he does not plan to seek re-election again.”

    Thank God!

  4. TheModerate Avatar
    TheModerate

    Clearly, the definition of a conservative has changed since 1991 when Potts was first elected.

    Anon 10:14 just gave us a perfect example of how. A conservative in today’s Republican Party must be OBSESSED with abortion and anti-tax rhetoric or they are considered a maverick.

    FYI….there are other issues that are important to the Commonwealth.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How’s this for negative campaigning? Visits from a judge with a message “shut up and play along”? A soon to be felon bragging that his ally the AG isn’t going to have an investigation into his dealings?
    http://www.virginiastar.net/archives/ar05_0810/jenkview.htm

    Sounds like the Godfather, or something that might happen in the old machine days of the Demcoratic Party in Chicago.

  6. subpatre Avatar

    The article’s actually illuminating. It clearly establishes –if you can believe a single word Potts says– a timeline. His platform decisions, the reasons to run, were established 1) before the primary, and 2) in collaboration with others.

    RTS Potts said some of the Senate leaders persuaded him to change his mind and run for a fourth term in 2003 because “they saw that the far-right crowd would replace me in a very conservative district.”

    On Oct 29, 2003, the eve of election, Potts was saying, “I will continue my support of low taxes, and more importantly the will of the people.

    RTS Of the “far-right crowd,” Potts said, “there are a lot of people in my party that cower at them, but I don’t cower at them.” …..Potts said his views didn’t change on abortion policy, but “those guys lost me. The far-right crowd kept pushing the envelope.”

    Yet to get elected, Potts said, “With the common-sense exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother, I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of human life, and that life begins at conception.” That’s a period at the end of his statement.

    RTS Besides, he said in a recent interview, he is now free of the shackles “of the extreme right wing of my party.”

    No kidding! He’s ‘unshackled’ from his constituents. The 2003 campaign was a premeditated deception, and Potts had become a charlatan, saying the opposite of what he believed.

    Mr. Potts left one word out from his last quote: ‘Virginians deserve a governor who has the character and courage and confidence to face down the people.’ …And proud to spit on them too.

    It’s not about issues; voters can choose. It’s about ethics.

  7. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    subpartre, thanks for the heads-up; I’ve corrected the link.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Anon 10:14 just gave us a perfect example of how. A conservative in today’s Republican Party must be OBSESSED with abortion and anti-tax rhetoric or they are considered a maverick.”

    Moderate, I fail to see how my post belies anything like an obsession with those issues. It was simply a poor attempt (shown up considerably by Subpatre’s excellent post) to show how Potts completely changed his views on important issues in the two months subsequent to his election in 2003 but prior to the start of the 2004 Senate session. In other words, he lied blatently to get elected in what he himself defines as a “very conservative district”. Well at least he shows he knows his own constituency even if he doesn’t respect them.

    Also, it was not I that labeled him a “maverick”, but the RTD (please note the quotation marks in my post).

    Finally I agree that there are other important issues in the Commonwealth, but how the state government uses the public’s money and the protection of human life to me are certainly as important as any other.

    Neither are these two issues the only ones that Potts has flipped on.

  9. subpatre Avatar

    Anonymous2:48 said, “…Potts completely changed his views on important issues in the two months subsequent to his election….

    Not true. The words subsequent or subsequent to mean ‘after’ or ‘afterwards’.

    In the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Potts confesses that he changed his beliefs before running for the nomination, definitely before the election, and long, long before he told the voters.

    The only place for the word ‘subsequent’ is that Potts revealed his deception subsequent to being elected on false premises.

    It’s not over issues where voters can choose. It’s over ethics.

  10. TheModerate Avatar
    TheModerate

    During the 2003 campaign Potts was defending himself from his own party., just like other senior members in the State Senate including Norment and Chichester.

    Each was labeled a flip flopping, tax and spend liberal that was pro-abortion. Who labeled them this? Not surprisingly, it was the ultra-conservative activists in the party.

    Difficult choices had to be made in the 2003 & 2004 sessions and in retrospect it is easy to call Potts a liar, flip-flopper, etc., based on campaign material that was distributed during the 2003 campaign.

    Had Potts not “flip-flopped” on his term limit pledge the 27th District would now be served by Mark Tate (R), Phil Griffin (R) Jill Holtzman (R), or Mark Herring (D).

    Is all I can say is Russ, thanks for the flip-flop.

    Anon, my apologizes

  11. Dave Burgess Avatar
    Dave Burgess

    God Bless you Subpatre. I could not hit the nail anymore square on the head. You clearly illuminated the whole point against Potts. The point that bamboozled folks like TheModerate completely overlook. A point overlooked because they too have hatred towards Kilgore just like Potts.

    The point is ethics. You demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Potts could not be trusted.

    However, TheModerate will complete ignore the fact that Potts is a liar and a fraud and will prop up Potts all in the name of attacking Kilgore.

  12. subpatre Avatar

    TheModerate, Thanks for showing what the term moderate and Democrat stand for: justification of dishonesty, praise for deceit.

Leave a Reply