First he insults my wife and campaign treasurer, Tiffani, by claiming our campaign's finance statements were delinquent. Though I was his intended target he's going to wish Tiffani wasn't injured in the attack.
Now he's claiming another woman is a shill (posted late October but retracted mid-November) for our campaign because she chose to respond to him in the same forum he chose to respond to her--a city council meeting.
".. anyone watching the last City Council meeting would know, my opponent did send a surrogate to the Call to Audience who lambasted me for a supposed 'conflict of interest.'"Mr. Covey hopes no one reading his article will talk to the woman who "lambasted" him. If they did she'd tell them she had a good relationship with Mr. Covey, that they've worked together before, and that she was astounded when he responded during a council meeting to a confidential email she'd sent him privately. She felt her confidence had been betrayed and that she'd been attacked in public. She spoke out to defend herself.
If he thought she was mad because his public response to her private email, I wonder what he'll think when he sees her next after dismissing her as a puppet and trivializing her point on the Internet!
Personally, I think he knows better but is hoping no one else will bother looking behind the curtain.
Now is a good time to introduce our vocabulary word for the day, sophistry
sophistryAt the end of the same article he tries another sophistry, but trips through some illogical arguments along the way.
a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone [syn: sophism]
"[My opponent's campaign finance report] shows a list of contributors that is a veritable Who's who of Republican activists and supporters. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but it makes one wonder why when asked about leadership and support of local community groups during the debate, Mr. Gagne never mentioned his leadership position with the Ferndale Republican Club. Full disclosure should not include omission by design."He could have claimed my contributors were a who's-who of church-goers, family members, friends, neighbors, or Australian Aboriginals, but unless you know them by name how would you know? He's hoping you take his word for it.
And what of the Democrats on the list? There are contributors that made Granholm's short list for judicial appointments. Did he mention them? No. He's less interested in the diversity of my support than in vilifying a single group. That kind of bias isn't what Ferndale's known for.
Next he says there's nothing wrong with that (if he really thought that why say it in the first place?) but why didn't I include my relationship with the Ferndale Republicans? Again, he's hoping you don't remember the question asked for non-partisan activities. I was surprised he listed his involvement with the Democratic clubs because last I checked they were still partisan.
In retrospect, I didn't like my answer to the community involvement question either. I would have rather started with, "I believe charity begins at home. It starts with giving generously of my time to my wife, Tiffani, and my sons, Joshua and Michael." Then move from there to talk about Cub Scouts, soccer teams, church groups, pre-schools, dances, movies, monitoring their online activities, the rest of my family, neighbors, etc.
Most of Tiffani's and my extra-curriculars will involve our children and their activities. If that makes me an activist, well, I can live with that.