Tim Nank came by our house with some literature the other day, so I took the opportunity to have a look at his website. Excellent candidate, and those of us here in the Groveton/Kingstowne area who appreciate individual liberty and spending restraint sure won't be sad to see the back of Mark Sickles. This is an easy endorsement. It's good to see strong candidates playing offense against seats the Dems think they own.
Tim Nank for Delegate, 43rd District.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Tim Nank was a Bush appointee and sicophant. This little man doesn't see fit to mention this on his website. Embarrassed? Ashamed? He should be.
You might try spelling "sycophant" correctly if you're going to name-call. He was a counter-terrorism expert, how does that make him a sycophant?
Well no matter how you spell it, Nank was a Bush appointee; placed in a job he was not qualified to hold prior to his appointment. You state Nank was a counter-terrorism expert. What qualifications did he possess prior to his appointment by President Bush in order to obtain such position? Was it his prior employment as a paralegal in a New York City corporate law firm? Was it his long time residency in Seattle, that outpost against jihad? In other words, your post makes a claim which you did not and can not back. What is a fact is that Nank was politically embarrassed by his service to the Bush administration. That is why, until recently, his website eschewed mention of his affiliation with Bush, and why Nank unabashedly stated to the press that he hid his association because he knew it was not a popular one. Would you care to address such an admission? More importantly, can you please address how the voting public can have confidence in his prior experience – which includes 8 years Nank would rather forget – if the candidate himself can not be proud of his past?
That's all you've got, are a million ad hominem attacks about his work for ther Bush administration? Seems to me you're trying to deflect attention from Mark Sickles' pattern of votes for higher taxes and bigger government.
Apparently in your zeal you miss my point (and the spell check button). I am not disparaging Nank’s work with the Bush administration, nor do I make an ad hominem attack upon him. I invite you to point to a single ad hominem comment in my September 17, 2009 post. (Please note, that I did not author the August 5th post, despite the fact that I defend the position set forth therein).
What I stated, and what your breathless response ignores, is that Nank himself felt that his prior “experience” was a political liability; an admitted fact which leads the voting public to believe that he finds the majority of his curricular vitae – including his Bush administration appellation as a “counter-terrorism expert” –to be an embarrassment.
The second point of my September 17post which you fail to counter is that Nank’s position in the Bush administration was not a result of any proven expertise or prior work experience. In order to have done so, you would have had to cite specific positions and employment held by Nank prior to his administration appointment which was obviously the result of party favoritism.
Your silence on these issues makes my point. As does your “best-defense-is-good-offense” response about the opposition. As most attorneys and card magicians know: the best was to fool your audience is with misdirection. Next time, please engage in some intellectual and argumentative honesty, and try a little harder to stay on topic.
Temper temper anonymous! Your comments (attacks) come across a little 'red', though you try to cloak them in literal intellect. YOU should stay on topic instead of resorting to adolescent name calling. I met Mr Nank on a couple of occasions and believe he is a man of solid character. Further, I am not a Republican nor a coservative and am not here to cheer anyone's cause, but foundless name calling should not be tolerated.
Rick,
Try as I might, in reviewing my September 30th post, I fail to find a single example of “adolescent name calling.” Perhaps you can help me out by specifically highlighting any ad hominem comments which I might have made.
As to your point that I have not stayed on topic, I will not debate you. A review of the foregoing posts make clear as to the topics being debated:
1. Concealment of Bush Association: Candidate Nank publicly admitted that he hid his Bush Administration experience. That is a fact not up for debate. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/bush-staffers-congress/). What remains to be answered is how are we, the voting public, to feel confident in Nank’s experience if he himself considers it a liability?
2. Qualifications: You speak of candidate Nank as a “man of solid character” and a prior poster describes him as “a counter-terrorism expert.” These are conclusions which neither poster has backed up with supporting facts. What achievements make Nank a “man of solid character;” what education/experience/qualifications render him “a counter-terrorism expert?” (Being appointed in a counter-terrorism position by the Bush White House as a reward for party loyalty is, by itself, not enough to earn the distinction of “expert.”) Your belief, without empirical support, does not make either of these conclusions so. Should not a person running for public office (and his supporters) be able to cite specific examples of past accomplishments in order to persuade the voters to elect him? Please, provide us with such examples.
Once again, I invite anyone to address these two clearly defined points.
43.72%
Post a Comment