We have this woman Sharice Davids, running for the democratic congressional nomination in my district in Kansas.
TheKC Star has endorsed her. But only for her positions NOT for her experience or qualifications.
And that’s the thing that gets me, she has no real credentials and hasnt accomplished anything.
She has NEVER held or even ran for political office.
She has never held a high paying job in Kansas (she worked on a South Dakota indian reservation)
She brags about having a law degree yet she has no law license in Kansas (her license is is South Dakota and Missouri).
She also brags about being raised by a single mother. Huh? What “accomplishment” is that?
Yet the Emily’s List PAC is throwing $400,000 behind her (WHY?). Thewomans groups favor her. Finally, the gay groups have endorsed her which is interesting how she omits the gay endorsements in her political ads.
I dont get the endorsements? Why endorse someone just because they are a woman or gay or native american when thats about it? Why not look for actual qualifications?
Is she up against someone who has “real credentials”, but has the wrong positions? Because I think I’d pick someone who has the right positions over that.
The article says why: “Davids will bring a unique array of life experiences to Congress, which desperately needs different voices and world views. But she also has distinguished herself with her hard work and intellect.” That’s not really hard to understand.
And the way the hyper-partisan OP summarizes these two paragraphs is: “The KC Star has endorsed her. But only for her positions NOT for her experience or qualifications.”
Yeah. That’s clearly what they wrote, dude. You really read the hell out of that editorial.
I’m also in this district.
Davids’ campaign has concentrated on her being Native American and LGBT (despite not mentioning the LGBT endorsements), to the exclusion of the qualifications mentioned in the editorial. I have nothing against her (or any of the Democratic candidates, for that matter), but I suspect that she won’t be able to beat Yoder in November - and that’s my main criterion for voting.
I expect I’ll be voting for Brent Welder, who has been beating Yoder in polling.
Yeah, she gets all this support for LGBT but doesnt have any of that in her ads. I mean, if she is sooo proud of being gay, why doesnt she mention it? HEREare some photos of her at Pride. Yet otherwise she hides it. Makes me wonder why gays are so behind somebody who is afraid to tell others.
In the republican primary I think I’ll vote Keegan. HERE is the endorsements from Mainstream coalition. Notice, they dont endorse Davids either.
And again, I just dont get why she brags about being this super MMA fighter when she obviously was bad at it?
Good point. But frankly my vote there was more anti-Hillary.
Well this district is the wealthiest and most prosperous in the state with over a billion dollars paid in federal tax money. HERE is her bio which lists her proffessional career. Not much to brag about and I doubt she’s ever made more than $50,000 a year.
Well then why does she brag about being a lawyer when she isnt one in her home state which she wants to represent?
Does making a lot of money automatically qualify you to run for office? There are plenty of people who didn’t hold high-paying jobs and still ran for office.
Chief executive officers and millionaires have no business in government. But, lo and behold, there are many who believe the opposite. Hell, we have a real estate developer in the White House, and how’s that going?
And, what’s the problem with working on an Indian reservation?
At least she practiced law in those states. There are also a lot of politicians who run in states they don’t necessarily work in.
Whatever. You know, instead of fabricating a disingenuous question about the motivations behind the newspaper’s endorsement, why not just come out directly and say you don’t think her background and experience (whatever they may be) are important for the congress, and that you don’t think she works hard or is intelligent (maybe because she’s a woman, a Native American, or whatever)? Why play this petty, transparent rhetorical game?