In a first for Montgomery County politics, Senator Nancy King's campaign has launched "a Blog dedicated to responding to Delegate Saqib Ali's distortions and negative campaign." It's ironic that Ali, who has long been known for his use of online media, is now under heavy attack by it.
The blog, which carries King's authority line, has no publicly accessible site traffic monitor. But the number of visits it receives is meaningless. It is only intended for two readers: Ali and his campaign manager. King's campaign is evidently hoping that their opponents will become so enraged and obsessed with this blog, and so consumed by responding to it, that they will be distracted from the nuts and bolts of their own campaign. It's a great strategy and we will see if it works.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
King Campaign Launches Anti-Saqib Blog!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
When did this become an advice column?
Tom Steele
Looks like a pretty comprehensive (and strictly factual) rebuttal to Ali's claim that his missed votes were out of "principle". Not that his line about abstentions being as good as an actual "no" vote held any water to begin with.
Tom Steele
It looks like Shnider (Saqib Ali's campaign manager) deleted his comment, attacking MPW earlier.I plan on writing a blog post myself on the situation, but I won't use this comment as a 'plug'. Instead, let me just say it is terribly concerning to me that Delegate Ali missed that many votes, meetings, whatever.
As a lifelong resident of Montgomery County and a teacher about to enter my 19th year of teaching with MCPS, I have two areas of confusion over what delegate Ali has stated over the past weeks regarding his campaign and voting records.
According to the Maryland State Education Associations 2010 Legislative Scorecard, there were five votes they rated Delegates on. One of them was Delegate Shank’s floor amendment to the budget which would have cut $126 million in state aid for education. Delegate Ali is listed on the scorecard as a No Vote.
Why did Delegate Ali not vote on this amendment? It was not a bill concerning alcohol or gambling but one that would impact our schools.
I am also confused by Delegate Ali’s reference to HB 658 of the 2010 Session as a way he will “continue to work for tax relief for those with disabilities” which he has stated in one of his pieces of campaign literature
According to the Maryland General Assembly website, Delegate Ali isn’t listed as a Sponsor or Co-Sponsor of HB 658 (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/HB0658.htm) nor is he listed as a Sponsor or Co-Sponsor from when it was introduced during the 2009 Session (http://mlis.state.md.us/2009RS/billfile/HB0240.htm )
Senator King is listed as a Co-Sponsor of SB 190 which was cross filed with HB658 and Delegates Barkley and Reznik were listed as Co-Sponsors of HB 658.
Why does Delegate Ali reference this piece of legislation as evidence of his support for tax relief for individuals with disabilities when he did not even sponsor or co-sponsor it?
David Heller
District 39 Resident
Disclosure - I have volunteered for Senator King’s campaign this election year.
Post a Comment