I am not a “DINO” as I think folk here know – neither do I claim to be an idealogically “pure” member of any faction within the Democratic Party. I find “litmus test” politics repugnant. I vote in large part because of decisions I have made about character, integrity, and perhaps personality as experienced by me. I do not expect the public positions and later votes of my legislators to always agree with me.
I do consider myself an educated, independent democrat. I have chosen to become a member of the Democratic Party because it is the only party that upholds the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights – or has continued to support the concept of democracy vs. oligarchy/plutocracy.
I consider the rule of law, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and doctrine of Separation of Powers critical to democracy. I have discussed these issues with Brian Knuuttila, and have known him well since 2003.
As a matter of disclosure, Brian Knuuttila was the first reprentative to support full funding and the first raise in 20 years for the indigent defense bar/independent contractors. He suffered politically for that support. He also understands and supports nurses in their fight not to be forced to care for more patients then is safe and right. I admit I have not had iany “one on one” discussions with Rep. Flanagan, let alone any in depth discussions.
I have nothing “against” Rep. Flanagan, and I will not use labels to either ask you to support her or oppose her – I think that is dishonest intellectually and a lot like elementary school student name calling. I happen to find calling Brian Knuuttila, a fine man with a history of public service in the military, and as a police officer for more than a decade a “DINO” to be both offensive and juvenile [as “Heartlandem” did in his post.}
Rep. Knuuttila fought tirelessly as a representative for transportation improvements for Gardner. He has a deep experience of local and state governance, understanding of economic development and health care from a practical standpoint, and I would call him a pragmatist.
Do we agree on everything? No. But I have never found anyone on this blog or in public life with whom I agree about “everything”.
I personally support gay marriage and am anti-dealth penalty. The last time I discussed both issues with Brian Knuuttila, he did not support gay marriage and did support the death penalty based on his experiences in life and professionally.
That all being said, when Brian Knuuttila was a defense attorney, no one fought harder for his clients, including the indigent he was appointed to serve.
As a member of the Board of his local community hospital, Brian has also served tirelessly and really understands the nuts and bolts of health care. He was honored as Man of the Year by his peers in Garner in 2007 in part for that reason.
No, I do not live in his district; if I did I would vote for Brian Knuuttila.
I went and read Hearlandem’s post, your responses, and I’m unconvinced.
<
p>Stands on major issues are more important for selecting a legislator than they are for selecting an executive.
Elective office is not some kind of public integrity award.
I’ve said this before, but I just bristle at “intuitive” measures for candidates.
<
p>If you base it on personal contact, you’re just as likely to elect someone with a raging narcissistic character disorder, who appears to listen but is really just charming.
<
p>If you base it on your “read” of the person’s personality, you are surrendering your choices to the narratives concocted by the herd of reporters.
<
p>I’m with Paul Krugman on this. Look at the issues. Learn the candidate’s character from the issues s/he supports and how s/he describes them. Strive to make the evaluation objectively.
<
p>Think of it the way you’d want a manager to think about promotions in a business. You want the manager to be objective about it. You don’t want promotions left to the vagaries of who the manager identifies with.
…is not merely “intuitive”…
<
p>and there are far far far toooooo many candidates who will say anything to get elected [remember Mitt saying he would be better for and do more for gays then Ted K, for example?]
<
p>The kind of day to day work supporting his own local, community hospital, for example, means a lot more to me than taking PC stands on “progressive issues”.
<
p>Just my .02
that he’ll apply that same exemplary work ethic and dedication do passing objectionable laws?
He is the kind of guy who will turn on the blue lights, and drive up the breakdown lane, to go as fast as possible up I-93 past Newburyport, through New Hampshire, and well into Maine.
<
p>Only trouble is, you wanted to go to Manhattan.
I agree with him on many issues and have actually talked with him – and find he is open to listening even when we do not agree.
<
p>As to issues involving Child Welfare, indigent defense, separation of powers, and civic engagement, for example, he and I agree 100%
<
p>I am more comfortable with legislators and potential legislators who are open and honest with me about what they believe, even when we disagree, then those who yes me to death, and are PC because that is what it takes to raise money, but I am left [with some of these agreeable progressives] with a sense that I have no idea who they really are or what they believe.
<
p>The courage to take stands that are not wildly popular is a characteristic I like.
what kind of child advocate is against the marriage of the children’s parents?! in all sincerity, i can’t fathom how someone can favor discrimination against gay parents when it is their kids who will suffer most from the social and legal ramifications. there is no logic there. after all the marriages that have happened in massachusetts, anyone still clinging to the anti-equality message should really raise alarm bells.