I want to invite everyone in the 9th District to join us in our discussion about the issues that face the voters of this District.
We welcome your comments regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our positions.
Between now and November 2008 we will present information to the voters in this District about Knollenberg’s activities (and lack of activities) in Congress so that you will have the information necessary to make an informed decision when you go to vote in November 2008.
We will report on how even though the 9th District is overwhelmingly against Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq, Knollenberg is supporting it. We will give you links to his voting record and his statements on the issue so that you can see for yourself whether he is representing your interests or the special interests of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.
We’ll tel l you what he does and what he doesn’t do. For example, in the area of healthcare, Knollenberg supports giving tax payer money to Corporations offer to give their workers seminars on health issues — even though the company doesn’t offer healthcare benefits to their employees.
We will be giving you information on the people and organizations and special interests that have contributed large amounts of money to Joe Knollenberg’s campaign and how Knollenberg repaid them with legislation that would guarantee them millions of dollars in government contracts.
For example, we will give you the facts on how Knollenberg inserted a provision into federal law that would have required Amtrak to purchase $8 million in equipment from a company whose owner is one of Knollenberg’s biggest campaign contributors. (See, New York Times, December 11, 2005.)
We even welcome people like Chet and TLW who disagree with our positions even though they do not present any factual basis for their positions.
Also, unlike Chet and TLW, we do not block or censor opposing viewpoints.
What evidence do you have that I “do not present any factual basis for” my positions. Many on the left have defended me on those grounds, even if they ultimately find my evidence unpersuasive.
What evidence evidence do you have for the even more outrageous factual assertion that I “block or censor opposing viewpoints?”