Forum

Palm_Bay_Conservative said:

I understand your frustration, and respect your possition, but I do not blame Lisa Cullen for the union, I'd blame Rod Northcut, and I still think Cullen is best qualified for this office.

I hope you can respect my opinion as I do yours.

I don't mind if you voted for Cullen. That's your choice. I did not.

Contacts of mine say that Northcutt is not to blame. But you have the right to vote for and support whomever you desire.

Okay?

Palm_Bay_Conservative said:

Considering that the union was brought in by Cullen

---

Did you happen to hear her “50 Minutes With” interview with Bill Mick?  She says that she is not pro union, and that she was trying to make a point, and doesn't think that the union was a good thing.  I do wish she would say that she was dead wrong for signing the union card, but she did try to get it retracted, and she contends that the union was on it's way no matter what she did.  I believe her in that, and the union is here now, like it or not.

I do think that she is the better choice of the 2 we have, although, I think either of them will do a good job. 

If I am, in fact, wrong in this, I will certainly admit it, and fight to defeat her for another term.

Did you hear this part of the interview (yes, I took the time to transcribe it): 

Bill said, “The office is apparently unionized, based on the discussions we had yesterday. Does that present a problem?”

 

Lisa: “No I don't believe it presents a problem. I believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed. With nearly $300,000 dollars of taxpayer money spent in the unionization of this office, I believe the concerns and issues of the employees need to be addressed. And I don't believe all of those concerns are economic ones. I believe there's a lack of leadership and trust between the tax collector and his employees right now that's led them to this issue.”

 

Bill: “Do you feel like with your experience in the office that you're in a position to mend that rift?”

 

Lisa: “Yes, I do. I've led those employees for many years and I believe that I can walk in on day one and establish — re-establish — that trust with them.”

 $300,000 taxpayer dollars? Can I have my part back? Can I get a refund? It wasn't necessary, but it was done. $300,000 down the tubes because of one person's actions. Sweet. I wish I could do something like that with other people's money. $300,000 taxpayer dollars spent bringing the union in. I know that the number is high because of the PROPER Tax Collector's office RESISTANCE to it, but still, without certain actions having been taken, that $300,000 would still have been in the County's accounts, not in an attorney's pockets. Thanks, Cullen.

PBC,

I hope your vote is not something you will later regret. I do think it possible to have a well qualified candidate who should still not be elected. Considering Cullen's union ties and the things I have heard from trusted friends, I cannot vote for her even if I did consider her such.

However, that is not to say that I will try to dictate your vote. I support your voting for whomever you wish. I also support coming here a year from now and seeing you retract your statement.   Considering that the union was brought in by Cullen, if she wins, I can foresee a few complications coming to the county that would otherwise not be in play: collective bargaining, union rules, a few things that are not in the works right now that will be then will add up to a big mistake. And so, I look forward to being proven correct once again.

See you here in one year.  

Palm_Bay_Conservative said:

Ok, then, I guess now I have to say, I must've missed whatever happened with Lisa Cullen.  I was planning on voting for her, but if there is some good reason why I shouldn't I'd like to know, because I don't think Dils is an altogether bad choice, we got rid of the only bad choice in this race in the primary.

http://blog.spacecoastconservative.com/2008/10/02/maybe-this-will-explain-things.aspx

Will explain to you why I decided not to vote for Cullen. I encourage you to vote for her if you wish. I do not dictate votes. I do think that the information I posted is important, but it does not mean that I endorse “the other side.” I am a Republican and always have been (although through their “Gutless Wonder Years” [at times still in effect], I have considered becoming otherwise), so voting for anyone on the pro-abortion death camp side is something I cannot do. I will sit this one out and pray that God will make the winner be the best candidate. God knows them better than I, so I think that's pretty safe.

Palm_Bay_Conservative said:

Ok, I totally agree with the principle of what you're saying, I've never been a straight down the line party voter myself, so, no issue there.  My only question is, what candidate are you talking about if you don't mind… I'm curious as to whether or not it's something I already know about.  Thanks…

Palm_Bay_Conservative (Good name!):

I am referring to the candidate, Lisa Cullen. However, the person who said, “Explain to me why you can't vote for Lisa Cullen” is NOT a candidate and, therefore, shall remain unnamed.

I do respect this person, but sometimes I don't understand this person's reasoning. Maybe I'm just dense, but sometimes it makes me go, “Huh?” Thus my posting: I had to get it out of my system because when the “Huh?” gets too big you just gotta' vent.

I must admit to being a little taken aback when I found information on a Republican candidate that made me decide not to vote for this particular candidate in the November elections. I had voted for this Republican in August, but since then found out a few things that made me decide against voting for the candidate again.

My support was based on trust and that trust had been lost when I found out the things that were not supposed to be found out (why candidates think we won't find the truth is beyond me). I found out the truth and when I had done so, I told people that I had found information and this is the information and because of this, I cannot give further support to that candidate.

The responses varied. Some said, “Yeah. I had the same reaction to this candidate and now I know why.” Others said, “Well, I can understand why you have changed your mind and all, but I still support the candidate.” That's fine with me: I support people making up their own minds. I am not a vote tyrant; I just want people to know the truth and make an informed decision. That's “informed” decision: as in “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Well, in this case, that's exactly what happened. I was set free from my perception about the candidate and I am glad.

The reaction that puzzled me — and I wish someone could explain it to me — was the reaction I least expected. I received one person's – just one  – e-mail asking me who I was going to vote for if not that candidate and then the same person asked me why I cannot vote for the candidate. I almost said, “Say, WHAT?!” I admit to being shocked by such a response.

Just because I am registered in one particular party does NOT mean I have to vote for every candidate in that party. Just because the alternative is from the other party, does NOT mean that I have to vote for that candidate, either. I can choose to leave that particular portion of the ballot blank and let everyone else decide who is going to fill that spot. If I am not comfortable voting for a particular candidate that does not mean that I have to “keep a stiff upper lip” and vote for that candidate anyways. It does not mean that I have to vote for the candidate for the good of the party. It does not mean that I have betrayed the party in not voting for the candidate.

It means that the candidate should have been more up front, open and honest about their candidacy, their beliefs and their own motivations: as well as their own party affiliation. The candidate is to blame for losing my vote: especially when I had voted for the candidate in the primary and I had supported the candidate previously in writing. The candidate messed up: not I. The candidate lost my trust, something that is EARNED, not handed out based on political party. The candidate is responsible for getting me to tick the candidate's box: I am not obligated to do so.

That's why I need an explanation as to how it is that someone cannot understand why I cannot vote for a candidate when the candidate has lost my trust. Why is it that ANYONE would want me to explain — even after explaining in several e-mails — why I will not vote for someone in my own political party? To whom do I owe an explanation? To whom should we be held accountable when a candidate within our own party loses our trust, blows it big time, messes up and is held accountable? Is it not the candidate who should have feet held to the fire, not the voter who loses trust in the candidate?

I think that perhaps people have forgotten that it is we, the VOTERS, who are owed explanations, who are owed honesty by a candidate and who are owed transparency. Not the other way around.