Why haven’t I attacked Katharine Harris so far? That would sort of be like walking up to a guy who has been beaten half to death outside of a bar—and kicking him in the stomach. (A more comprehensive analogy would be that the guy had beaten himself half to death—but I digress.)
I actually feel bad for her. Scott Maxwell reported Sunday that top Republicans are complaining that she is “stubborn, eccentric, and struggles with the truth”. (Orlando Sentinel, 8/20/06)
As opposed to, say, Delay? Feeney? Cheney? Bush? (You can add corrupt to that list as well.) How bad do you have to be to be rejected by THIS leadership?
The article by Maxwell, by the way, focused on a big campaign event for Harris at an airport hanger to hold the crowd. 18 people showed up (which grew to 40). The reason there were so few supporters, according to Harris, was because of a fallen tree, which damaged the hanger and which caused the venue to be moved to another hanger.
At least, that is the reason according to Harris.
The problem, of course, is that that was untrue. The airport said that no hanger was damaged by a tree, and the venue was never moved.
I am not necessarily trying to slam Harris, but it is the latest example that goes to show a pattern that people can recognize as untrustworthy. I can get into other examples of corruption, tainted money, and lies, but you can pick up any paper for that. Which begs this question:
If my GOP friends can agree that Harris has a problem with credibility, then maybe you can understand our problem with Harris six years ago when she was the vote count woman in our state’s darkest hour. Are you telling me that she suddenly transformed from an honest public servant into a corrupt liar over a few years?
Or is it that you just didn’t care?