Judicial Races

[jbm32206]

Yeah, I can't go by someones spouse giving an endorsement, to make me want to vote for them....

[Squid Shark]

Originally Posted by jbm32206

Yeah, I can't go by someones spouse giving an endorsement, to make me want to vote for them....

It was like Elaine Browns ads with her husbands name on endorsements. Unless you are Governor Arnold, getting your spouses endorsement is not really a coup.

R
SS

[rpschutt]

Originally Posted by Squid Shark

It was like Elaine Browns ads with her husbands name on endorsements. Unless you are Governor Arnold, getting your spouses endorsement is not really a coup.

R
SS

Lol. I saw that. "Mayor Richard Brown"

I got several mailings from him today. Glad to see he's wasting money...

[CS Foltz]

Yes....RP....maybe a better choice of words were available!

[Jimmy]

With apologies to John Daigle, who, I know, is just doing his job...

I got a very icky email from the Buttner campaign last night at 10. It was sent from "Attorneys for Rick Buttner" and the subject line was "Judicial Candidates: 57.105 Sanctions v. Strong Qualifications"

The "letter" is unsigned -- so I have no idea which are the "Attorneys for Rick Buttner." But it seems like a last-ditch effort to smear Virginia Norton in a most unflattering way. And, from what I've been told today, in a way that's not accurate or fair.

You can see the letter here: http://voterickbuttner.homestead.com/

Tonight, I got an email from the Norton campaign which was a direct response to the Buttner campaign's email from last night.

You can see it attached to this message.

Because I'm a lawyer, I don't typically make any statements about the judicial races. But with so much recent action in this race, I felt it important to share these letters with you all, in the hopes of placing as much information as possible before the voters.

I just realized that many of you reading this are guests to our forum and not members. To see the Norton response, follow this link. (And do consider joining -- the ability to view attachments is well worth the price of membership ($0.00 per lifetime). Thanks.)

[spidey]

Originally Posted by Jimmy

It was sent from "Attorneys for Rick Buttner" and the subject line was "Judicial Candidates: 57.105 Sanctions v. Strong Qualifications"

The "letter" is unsigned -- so I have no idea which are the "Attorneys for Rick Buttner."

Wouldn't they have to be registered with the secretary of the state or something?

[Jimmy]

Originally Posted by spidey

Wouldn't they have to be registered with the secretary of the state or something?

That's why I apologized to Mr. Daigle in advance. It looks like just an otherwise normal piece of campaign email that was sent by his agency, Principle Creative, which, I suppose, is the new name of Daigle Idea Development (from the old days).

As to your actual question, I'd have to look it up. If there's a group called "Attorneys for Buttner" and they've organized for electioneering, then I suspect they need to be registered with someone.

[jaxadvocate]

This is a last minute attack piece before Tuesday against Ms. Norton.

[mcsmith2006]

Originally Posted by rpschutt

Just saw Rick Buttner's ad where his wife says "Rick Buttner has made real-world choices for himself and others. That's why he's qualified to be your judge."

Question: Is there anyone over the age of 30 who hasn't made "real-world choices?" Well, besides John Peyton... I understand his are made for him. But, the rest of the world?

I saw the ad yesterday and thought 'oh my' is this a good thing? - I did think the ad was well done - but would not sway my vote one way or the other - if anything, it makes me think of someone trying to get their 15 mintues

[Austin Cassidy]

I was undecided in this race for quite a while, maybe even leaning towards Buttner to tell the truth. But in the last week or so, Mr. Buttner has helped me make the decision to cast my ballot for Virginia Norton.

This last minute attempt to smear someone with questionable material is not something I'd expect from a potential judge. Furthermore, I feel like they have gone out of their way to highlight the fact that Ms. Norton is unmarried, as if that were somehow relevant. First with the television ads where his wife talks about how he's a "family man" and that means he makes "real-world decisions" or some such nonsense. And of course in this letter they call her "Miss Norton" instead of the more generic Ms. Norton.

I understand this kind of stuff in regular races, but the judicial candidates should hold themselves to higher standards.