Inconsistencies
All within a few days the inconsistency of the former Mayor Gray?’s approach to elections becomes more glaring. Its too bad that Mike Maurer and his readers of his recently article titled ?“Filing deadline met with last-minute work?” ?– subtitled ?“Petition circulators include roster of well-known county Republicans?” were not in attendance at last nights Fairfield County Executive Committee meeting in Lancaster.
The meeting had a light agenda with some reminders of an upcoming Fall Fundraiser with guest speaker Earl Bruce slated for 10/4. Then comes the REAL Gray. Please remember that Mr. Gray is noted in the 10/2 article as denying his efforts to put Swanson and Thomas on the ballot as being organized by Postage supporters. The article mentioned in it?’s 3rd paragraph that former Pickerington Mayor Lee Gray, a member of the Republican Party Central Committee gather signatures on petitions for (3) mayoral candidates (Postage, Swanson, & Thomas)?– said he ?“supports incumbent Mayor Lou Postage for re-election.?” Then saying labeling such comments a ?‘conspiracy theorizing?’ saying that it was reading election gamesmanship into the process of circulating nominating petitions.
Now back to what became a longer than usual meeting on 10/3, in that Lee Gray was worried that the 10/4 Earl Bruce event (a pay to attend public fundraiser) would be a potential opportunity for candidates who oppose his slated ballot candidates. I use the phrase ?“his slated candidates?” as Lee, along with Craig Maxey, serve on the Screening Committee for County Club endorsements. Lee was concerned that the mere presence of anyone else on the ballot appearing at the event would ?– in his words ?– ?“potentially cost one vote against the candidates he supports?”. That, he said repeatedly, was an offense he would not abide! ?“Nothing should be allowed to occur that lost his supported candidate a single vote, NOT ONE!?”
So Lee, how do you take that approach of opposing efforts of costing one potential vote to your efforts at placing (2) additional candidates ?– Swanson & Thomas on a ballot that contains your already noted support of incumbent Postage in carrying his nominating petition earlier?
It appears that your ?‘conspiracy theorizing?” is now in fact material evidence of CONSIPRACY REALIZING.
http://www.thisweeknews.com/thisweek.php?edition=pik&story=thisweeknews/100203/pik/News/100203-News-318300.html
All within a few days the inconsistency of the former Mayor Gray?’s approach to elections becomes more glaring. Its too bad that Mike Maurer and his readers of his recently article titled ?“Filing deadline met with last-minute work?” ?– subtitled ?“Petition circulators include roster of well-known county Republicans?” were not in attendance at last nights Fairfield County Executive Committee meeting in Lancaster.
The meeting had a light agenda with some reminders of an upcoming Fall Fundraiser with guest speaker Earl Bruce slated for 10/4. Then comes the REAL Gray. Please remember that Mr. Gray is noted in the 10/2 article as denying his efforts to put Swanson and Thomas on the ballot as being organized by Postage supporters. The article mentioned in it?’s 3rd paragraph that former Pickerington Mayor Lee Gray, a member of the Republican Party Central Committee gather signatures on petitions for (3) mayoral candidates (Postage, Swanson, & Thomas)?– said he ?“supports incumbent Mayor Lou Postage for re-election.?” Then saying labeling such comments a ?‘conspiracy theorizing?’ saying that it was reading election gamesmanship into the process of circulating nominating petitions.
Now back to what became a longer than usual meeting on 10/3, in that Lee Gray was worried that the 10/4 Earl Bruce event (a pay to attend public fundraiser) would be a potential opportunity for candidates who oppose his slated ballot candidates. I use the phrase ?“his slated candidates?” as Lee, along with Craig Maxey, serve on the Screening Committee for County Club endorsements. Lee was concerned that the mere presence of anyone else on the ballot appearing at the event would ?– in his words ?– ?“potentially cost one vote against the candidates he supports?”. That, he said repeatedly, was an offense he would not abide! ?“Nothing should be allowed to occur that lost his supported candidate a single vote, NOT ONE!?”
So Lee, how do you take that approach of opposing efforts of costing one potential vote to your efforts at placing (2) additional candidates ?– Swanson & Thomas on a ballot that contains your already noted support of incumbent Postage in carrying his nominating petition earlier?
It appears that your ?‘conspiracy theorizing?” is now in fact material evidence of CONSIPRACY REALIZING.
http://www.thisweeknews.com/thisweek.php?edition=pik&story=thisweeknews/100203/pik/News/100203-News-318300.html
