Cannon endorses Wilson for solicitor
Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson picked up the endorsement of Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon on Friday in a move that puts two local sheriffs on opposite sides of the highly competitive race for local prosecutor.
Earlier this week, Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt said he is backing Blair Jennings, Wilson's rival in the June 10 Republican primary.
Cannon said his endorsement of Wilson was prompted in part by DeWitt's actions.
In previous elections Cannon said he rarely took an endorsement stand for or against candidates.
In this case he said he wanted to endorse Wilson because keeping a continued silence might otherwise be interpreted as something against her.
Wilson has done a good job as solicitor following the death of Ralph Hoisington last year, Cannon said, adding that she has opened multiple dialogues with police agencies.
He called the race a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it,' adding that he has had more discussions about law enforcement and prosecutions with Wilson 'than with any solicitor since I've been in office.'
Cannon has been sheriff of Charleston County since 1988. He is up for re-election this year but is unopposed; no Democrat filed to run against him.
If DeWitt had not publicly endorsed Jennings, Cannon said he still would have supported Wilson, but it would have been 'less visibly.'
Cannon's endorsement helps illustrate one aspect of the race — the geographic divide of the 9th Circuit.
Jennings was the deputy solicitor in Berkeley County before he was ousted last year by Wilson, and he now works as legal counsel and press spokesman for DeWitt's Berkeley County Sheriff's Office in Moncks Corner.
Wilson was Hoisington's second in command in Charleston. She was appointed his successor by Gov. Mark Sanford on July 6 of last year.
Reach Schuyler Kropf at skropf@postandcourier.com or 937-5551.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 53 comment(s)
Posted by lillycollette on April 12, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While people are free to say what they will, within limits, it would be nicer if they didn’t lose sight of “self respect” in the process. Solicitor Wilson’s record contradicts all the public tantrums and petulant name-calling against her.
Posted by moonpie on April 12, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I predict she wins in a landslide!
Posted by disco on April 12, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnQ - I have to agree with you. The picture makes her look like the exorcist to me. She needs a different photographer.
Posted by SCgal on April 12, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's going to be an interesting race ~Michele Hoisington supports Jennings
http://blairjennings.com/a-note-from-mic...
Posted by lillycollette on April 12, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Equal time:
Wilson for Solicitor
http://www.wilsonforsolicitor.com/
Posted by KnowAllSeeAll on April 12, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Blair Jennings has the Berkeley County vote locked up...I'm predicting that he takes at least 80%--85% of the vote there. However, I'm having to wonder if his share of the Charleston County vote is going to be enough to put him over the top. Anyone else that might be a bit more well-connected care to handicap this for us?
It is important to realize that in this instance, certain endorsements mean a lot. The serving sheriff of 20 years has endorsed Ms. Wilson, and another sheriff has endorsed Blair. Wonder if anyone else is going to come out publicly? If the defense bar endorses Blair, guess who'll get my vote? More than likely, "None of the Above!"
Posted by SCgal on April 12, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL~ equal time ~ who is the article about and where is Jenning's article at with all of his endorsements!!!
Posted by KnowAllSeeAll on April 12, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mayor:
The state is broken up into sixteen (I believe) judicial circuits that are made up of groups of counties. The Ninth Circuit represents Berkeley and Charleston Counties.
We do know that Blair Jennings has been endorsed by Ralph Hoisington's widow and I believe by Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt (if I am wrong, please correct me). With the primary only a few months away, I'm guessing a few more figures might care to offer their two-cents worth.
They're saying that since no one wants to run as a Democrat for this position that it's all over in the June primary. What odds does anyone care to give that, if Blair Jennings comes up short that he'll switch party affiliation or will try to run in November as an independent? Can anyone tell me, is this possible and would he do it?
Posted by nurse7798 on April 12, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
She's not a very fair person from what I have heard from folks who have had to deal with her.. Elect Blair Jennings !!
Posted by CNN_10 on April 12, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Know All See All
Blair Jennings can run as an independent in November but he would need to do that by July 15??? i may be wrong or right on this. Also his name can be a write-in but the last person to win an election as a write in was Strom Thurmond.
As for this election for solicitor I think Jennings is the right choice because Wilson seem to be very extreme especially with here position on abolishing parole.
Posted by bkc6 on April 12, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To everyone - I think she is a damn nice looking lady and doing one hell of a good job. She has the law behind her and does her job accordingly. So all you little piss ants get a life. Sanford thought she could do the job and gave her said job. She has proven that he was right and all we have to do now is to let this fine woman continue doing her job and she has my vote for just that reason. Any of you ants want to come back at me - don't - unless you do it over the phone. I will call as soon as you give your phone number. P.S. to Miss Wilson - you are one nice looking lady. Keep up the great work.
Posted by amholsclaw on April 12, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shes going to win its been paid in full.small town not what you know its who ?
Posted by abitskeptical on April 12, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In an interview Wilson was asked what she felt was the most important quality in the assistant solicitors working under her.
Wilson answered "Loyalty to me".(not to the law, not to the office but "to me").
If she would like to explain exactly what she meant, I'd be happy to listen.
Her "loyalty to me" answer, in addition to the cavalier dismissal of a domestic violence/stalking case, has given me pause to look seriously at the other candidate.
Posted by lillycollette on April 12, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the end of March Solicitor Wilson received the Criminal Justice Award by the South Carolina Victim Assistance Network. The prestigious award, given annually to a member of the criminal justice system who exemplifies true advocacy on behalf of victims, was presented by crime victim Destiny Bendell. Destiny was six months pregnant when she was attacked and robbed as she left her church.
I do not believe that Solicitor Wilson has in any way neglected any of the duties of her office.
Posted by abitskeptical on April 12, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In regard to a case I've referenced a # of times, there are a # of people (AG's office,league of woman voters, victims' advocate)who fully understand & know about this case & are appalled & disturbed over how Wilson's office handled it.
People in a position to know have said, after hearing about this case, that in her office there is an unspoken policy not to get involved if a parallel case is pending in family court. I have no way of knowing for certain if that is true, but from what I have seen, it surely seems so.
In essence, what this does is provide immunity from criminal prosecution to those with a pending family court case.
There was, & still remains, more than ample evidence to prosecute the criminal in this case & many, with credentials appropriate to make that determination, are shaking their heads over this one.
I do not think someone should be crucified & definitively judged because everything is not handled perfectly at all times.
However, when arrogance follows the bad handling of a case, it is not a good sign. At least in my not so humble opinion.
Posted by Ron_Godzilla on April 13, 2008 at 2:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shivering photo. Wouldn't want to face her in court!
Posted by lillycollette on April 13, 2008 at 3:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It appears that abitskeptical and / or the friend that she is advocating for may have been misinformed. The problem as relayed here is with the family court not with the Solicitor’s Office or Ms. Wilson.
If the family court has already established -- “legal” -- jurisdiction in a -- “valid” -- domestic case, the litigants cannot go forum shopping. This is not an ‘unspoken policy’ initiated by Solicitor Wilson or the Solicitor’s Office it is the Rules of Court which the Solicitor’s Office has to follow.
See, Rule 16. Continuing Jurisdiction. The family court has jurisdiction of the parties and control of -- all subsequent proceedings -- from the time of service of the summons and complaint.
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/courtReg...
If the originating case was fraudulently brought before the improper venue of family court then the Solicitor’s Office could conceivably claim jurisdiction under the criminal code. Otherwise it is strictly up to the family court judge to refer the case to the Solicitor’s Office.
Solicitor Wilson is the wrong target of the frustration generated in this case.
Posted by Reader_1 on April 13, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lillycollette- when posters leave their responses to an article, they do not require your instructional responses. Shockingly, right or wrong, they are entitled to their beliefs and feelings. I haven't been able to figure out if you just have a slow life or no life. Your quasi-intellectual ramblings often don't even have a point.
Posted by abitskeptical on April 13, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lillycollete-No I have not been misinformed.
Believe it or not(I know which one you will take)I know of what I speak.
I realize you have a problem with the family court & frankly I don't think they're so hot either. Clearly you support Wilson. I wanted to support her but,alas, I cannot.
The victim in this case has not gone "forum shopping". The case was properly bought before the family court. I do not feel free to discuss details at this time because a minor is in the middle of all of this. Perhaps at a later time I can send you a private message outlining the facts of the family court aspect of this case.
I know what the rules are. So do the sheriff's deputies, Ag's office, victims advocate & others in this case. Additionally, if this was the reason for not prosecuting the case, Wilson's office certainly would have cited it. They did not.
The victim asked for clarification as to why they weren't going forth with this, & she was told there was "no evidence" of stalking (not 'not enough evidence', but "no evidence".)
This is, how should I put this delicately?-- A LIE. I saw the letter where the 'no evidence' lie was cited.
The solicitor's office would not/could not hand over an overt criminal matter to the family court to handle. They would not refer it to the family court only to have the family court refer it back to them, either.
Also, funny thing, when the sheriff's deputies arrest a body, the solicitor's office, not the family court gets the case.
It is rather presumptuous of you to assume that Wilson's office is the wrong target of frustration in this case.
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In my opinion this is used for me:
http://www.counton2.com/midatlantic/cbd/......
Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said, "This gun looks real. Those people didn't know when they had this in their face what they were dealing with." Shevlino's father says Shevlino deserved punishment...but not 10 years for his first offense. Peter Shevlino said, "The solicitor had a choice to send him to family court or treat him like an adult. She decided to put him jail for 10 years instead of sending him to family court."
News 2's Jenny Fisher sat down with Solicitor Wilson and talked about the sentence the family called too harsh. Jenny said, "There's times in bond court where rapists are out in under 10 years. Did you feel armed robbery was the charge or could you have lessened it?" Wilson replied, "I certainly have the authority, but what people need to understand is when we negotiate sentence that is less what may be expected, in a rape chage, that's because we have an evidentiary issue...we have a problem proving our case."
Gadsoon Green
Road Rage employee- any employee in any business is a direct reflection
25 minute NOT GUILTY sets suspected murderer free
What's with the continued delayed sentencing on the other Wando 8
Wando HS newspaper article speaks volumes for me
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
add abitskeptical's info to that list
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, who prosecuted the case, said she met with Hagood and some other lawyers to discuss the matter, but she had not seen the final bill and could not comment on it.
"What I've said all along, though, is I'm not opposed to giving judges options."
Where was giving the judge an option during the Shevlino/Anthony cases?
Posted by abitskeptical on April 13, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Clarification on my 9:37 post--solicitor's office would not hand over to the family court an over criminal matter in which the defendant & the victim both are adults.
Posted by carolinapanther on April 13, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
She has my vote because she didnt back down from the spoiled little brats in Mount Pleasant. She put them in prison where criminal belong.
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those kids from Mt. Pleasant are going to be your neigbhor in 8.5~ products of being in an adult prison population for 24 x 7 mentored by hardened criminals vs. being in the system that could have offered rehab/counseling/a chance at being a productive member of society~
Don't be upset in 8.5 when you get the end product spending prison time during those formative youth years~
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SECTION 16-11-325. Common law robbery classified as felony; penalty. [SC ST SEC 16-11-325]
The common law offense of robbery is a felony. Upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than fifteen years.
SECTION 16-11-330. Robbery and attempted robbery while armed with deadly weapon. [SC ST SEC 16-11-330]
(A) A person who commits robbery while armed with a pistol, dirk, slingshot, metal knuckles, razor, or other deadly weapon, or while alleging, either by action or words, he was armed while using a representation of a deadly weapon or any object which a person present during the commission of the robbery reasonably believed to be a deadly weapon, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a mandatory minimum term of not less than ten years or more than thirty years, no part of which may be suspended or probation granted. A person convicted under this subsection is not eligible for parole until the person has served at least seven years of the sentence.
(B) A person who commits attempted robbery while armed with a pistol, dirk, slingshot, metal knuckles, razor, or other deadly weapon, or while alleging, either by action or words, he was armed while using a representation of a deadly weapon or any object which a person present during the commission of the robbery reasonably believed to be a deadly weapon, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than twenty years.
SECTION 16-11-340. Required placards in retail establishments as to consequences of conviction of armed robbery. [SC ST SEC 16-11-340]
The South Carolina Department of Revenue, with funds already appropriated to the department, shall print and distribute to each business establishment in this State, to which has been issued a retail sales tax license, a cardboard placard not less than eight inches by eleven inches which shall bear the following inscription in letters not less than three-fourths inch high:
"BY ACT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY SHALL SERVE A SENTENCE OF NO LESS THAN SEVEN YEARS AT HARD LABOR WITHOUT PAROLE."
Such placard shall be prominently displayed in all retail establishments to which they are issued.
2 counts of robbery 7 years + 7 years = 14 years.....Was This a Plea Of 10 years or trial(by Judge or jury).
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The solicitor had a choice to send him to family court or treat him like an adult. She decided to put him jail for 10 years instead of sending him to family court."
Posted by bkc6 on April 13, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To Harpo - I am not calling anyone names. I just hope that you or a family member never have to wear the shoes that those people had to wear when they were robbed at gun point. May you never know the feeling of having a gun pointed at your head. I have and will never forget it. Those kids got what they deserved. Have a nice weekend.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
2 robberies= 2counts. 10min to 30years per count=min 20years to 60 years(max) on Both counts( with 20 years being the minimum allowed)..... 10 years was more than fair for these crimes.
She did not decide to send him to jail for 10 years. It was mandated by the law for each count..and a Judge gave this sentence..Solicitors do not give sentences.
My next question would be Why 10 years not 20?..(10 for each count available for parole at 14 years).Was This a Plea Bargain?
Posted by bkc6 on April 13, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To ChrisPia - Thank you for the info. You always seem to do your homework. Enjoy what is left of the weekend.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have a great weekend also..To All
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The solicitor had a choice to send him to family court.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Family Court General: The uniform statewide Family Court system was established by statute in 1976. The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving domestic or family relationships. Pursuant to this provision, the Family Court is the sole forum for the hearing of all cases concerning marriage, divorce, legal separation, custody, visitation rights, termination of parental rights, adoption, support, alimony, division of marital property, and change of name. The court also generally has exclusive jurisdiction over minors under the age of seventeen alleged to have violated any state law or municipal ordinance. However, most traffic, fish, and game law violations are still triable in the magistrate or municipal courts. Serious criminal charges may be transferred to the Circuit Court.
At least two family court judges are elected for staggered six year terms to each of the sixteen judicial circuits, and rotate primarily from county to county within their resident circuits. Occasionally they are assigned to other circuits based upon caseload requirements as directed by the Chief Justice.
© 2000-2008 South Carolina Judicial Department
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This does by no means lower the mandatory 10 year minimum punishment which is mandatory per count.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(1) "Child" means a person less than seventeen years of age. "Child"
does not mean a person sixteen years of age or older who is charged
with a Class A, B, C, or D felony as defined in Section 16-1-20 or a
felony which provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen
years or more. However, a person sixteen years of age who is charged
with a Class A, B, C, or D felony as defined in Section 16-1-20 or a
felony which provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen
years or more may be remanded to the family court for disposition of the
charge at the discretion of the solicitor. An additional or accompanying
charge associated with the charges contained in this item must be
heard by the court with jurisdiction over the offenses contained in this
item.
***The 2nd Count of robbery would mean she didn't have a say in the matter according to this (case law)**
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you feel armed robbery was the charge or could you have lessened it?" Wilson replied, "I certainly have the authority,
Posted by ChrisPia on April 13, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In Most states the laws are given a lesser charge for not using a real gun. this states law does not.
Posted by ThinkAboutThis on April 13, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.tribaltribune.com/articles/wi...
Reason given: "It would be a mess"
What does July bring for the others involved since it had to go to Circuit court for them also?
Posted by lillycollette on April 13, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am willing to contribute my time and effort to Ms. Wilson’s campaign based upon her record of initiatives and service.
Personal insults, name calling and any other form of social disorder is not a valid contribution and only speaks badly of a candidate who does not call such behavior to task. To her credit Ms. Wilson has a history of taking irresponsible idle public chatter to task (i.e., F.O.H.).
Solicitor Wilson has my respect and she appreciates my ability to maintain my self respect.
Posted by lillycollette on April 13, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c003...
ARTICLE 17.
HARASSMENT AND STALKING
SECTION 16-3-1750. Action seeking a restraining order against a person engaged in harassment or stalking; jurisdiction and venue; forms; enforceability.
(A) Pursuant to this article, the -- “MAGISTRATES COURT” -- has jurisdiction over an action seeking a restraining order against a person engaged in harassment in the first or second degree or -- “STALKING” --.
Posted by lillycollette on April 13, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You must have overlooked the part where I also said personal insults and any other form of social disorder – but – good show on the Clark Gable. (lol)
Posted by SCgal on April 13, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What's with the Article 17 posting?
Posted by abitskeptical on April 13, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lillycollette-I imagine you provided the link to the SC Code in attempt to continue defending the failure of Wilson's office to prosecute the case I have referenced.
The section you referenced applies only when someone is seeking a restraining order for harassment or stalking. It does not apply when one is charged for these offenses.
The appropriate sections that apply in this case are as follows:
SECTION 16-3-1700. Definitions. (C) "Stalking"..
SECTION 16-3-1730. Penalties for conviction of stalking.
For the record, the victim was not seeking an order of protection as one was already in place via the family court.
Circumstances of 1st stalking arrest:
Victim noticed estranged husband, who lives in a different town & across 2 rivers, parked on a side street, sitting in his car appearing to watch her house. It appeared that he left after noticing he'd been seen, but he parked on another side street & watched her house. She was quite alarmed for a # of reasons & called the police to ask him to leave. Various LE are familiar with this individual for a # of reasons. The deputy told her she was being stalked & he arrested him.
About a month later estranged hubby suddenly popped out of a side alley as she & 2 other family members were walking to her car after leaving a food service establishment that she & an older child frequented on a particular night. Fortunately, an older male relative had accompanied her & one of her children that night. Her estranged husband clearly was surprised when he saw that she was not as vulnerable as he had anticipated & he made a quick retreat.
She called the police to report this incident & he was again arrested for stalking.
Posted by abitskeptical on April 13, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Addendum to above post:
In other words, the forum in which one seeks a restraining order(order of restraint against stalking/harassment) is magistrates court.
However, if someone is arrested for stalking or harassment, it goes to the solicitor for prosecution in state(district) court.
Often, after someone is arrested for one offense,other charges are added as evidence is revealed through investigation.
Even a half hearted investigation on this man man would have revealed numerous other offenses...some of which would be referred to the AUSAs (feds).
The fact that he has a number of alias' on record should have tipped them off, don't ya think?
Posted by carolinaboy29556 on April 13, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wilson is Williamsburg County finest!!! I bet she will win the election!
Posted by lillycollette on April 14, 2008 at 5:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Abitskeptical: If you wish to vote for Mr. Jennings, that is strictly your choice and one which I do respect.
Engaging in any contrived allegations against Mr. Jennings in an underhanded attempt to assault his campaign would be self deprecating and contribute nothing of worth to the public. Solicitor Wilson is my candidate and she is entitled to the same courtesy extended to Mr. Jennings.
To spare fellow posters any potential distress I shall not directly respond to any of your comments. I do wish you the best.
Posted by ChrisPia on April 14, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/display...
Read this case about 2 strikes and see if Ms wilson didn't give these kids a break? how Many Hours apart were the robberies? days?
Posted by kma71 on April 14, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think she's sexy!!
Posted by Kerry on April 14, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I simply cannot wait to support Wilson, based on the way she stood her ground in the cases of the Wando High School punks alone.
Posted by abitskeptical on April 14, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lillycollette: I did not post to promote Jennings or assault Wilson's "campaign", but rather to share insight gained from in depth knowledge of how Wilson's office handled at least one case.
It is merely a reference point. I believe it is an important one. It seems you do not care to know anything professionally negative about "your" candidate &/or you have a problem considering information I offer.
Asking questions(understandable since you don't know me) is one thing. Trying to "prove" things are not as reported, to discredit my posts-when you have no 1st hand knowledge of case facts, does not help your candidate.
Neither is your candidate well served by your not-so-subtle implications: 1)That I contrived allegations re this case in order to hurt Wilson. 2)That my friend fraudulently brought a case before the family court & was deviously forum shopping. 3)That information I provided contributed nothing of worth to the public. 4)That I have shown a lack of courtesy & respect by sharing what I know to be the truth regarding a job related issue of a public official.
When actions in a case fall short of stated goals & initiatives, or when there is arrogant refusal to acknowledge &/or correct bad handling of a case, it should raise a red flag.
Since loyalty is a quality Wilson seems to value above all else, I have no doubt she sincerely appreciates your support. When loyalty incorporates total rejection of even considering what is not favorable to the object of the loyalty, it does have a flavor of willful blindness, wouldn't you say?
If I were to respond lilly-fashion I would say thank you for the information that I have a choice for whom to vote & then I'd add that I am in no need of disingenuous "well wishes" or declarations of respect for my right to chose a candidate.
In closing, I do have a couple of questions:
Do contrived allegations of contrived allegations count as underhanded spin?
If the truth hurts, does that count as assault?
What exactly is your definition of courtesy & respect?
PS
I wonder how much you really know about candidates you support. You once berated me about my "overriding" concern regarding the influence of corporations, yet the candidate for whom you voted in the primaries, John Edwards, has the same "overriding concern".
Posted by Rebel_Yell on April 14, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Lily is for Wilson, then I'm for Jennings. It's as simple as that.
Posted by bkc6 on April 14, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For KMA71 - I called Miss Wilson a nice looking lady, later she was referred to as a "Rottweiler" so be careful what you say. People may accuse you of name calling or beinging sexually attracted to the canidates. Like I was. Some people can't read between the lines or it might be that instead of sleeping at 11:11 pm their on the computer which tells me they don't have a life.
Posted by Charlestonguy on April 15, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scarlett: Thank you for being a tough prosecutor! You have my vote.