LETTER: Rich Anderson got a bad rap
Published: October 30, 2009
Rich Anderson made a minor mistake in distributing the arrest information regarding Democratic Del. Paul Nichols, but that does not take away the fact there was a confrontation between Nichols and the
police in North Carolina.
Even though we have not been privileged to see the entire transcript, Nichols and company maintained he was innocent of any and all counts related to the incident.
Rich should have known the media would put the “progressive” spin on it, excuse the lawyer and beat that drum until election day as they have been.
The main issue voters should take into account when they go into the booth is what is the background of the candidates?
On the one hand you have Rich who spent his entire adult life in the service of his country, and on the other hand you have Nichols, a frat boy lawyer that can point to few if any contributions to his
country.
Common sense should entice you to vote for the patriot who understands commitment and dedication for the protection of our country and citizens
RON HOMAN
Dumfries
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
If the problem is a “lie of ommission”, then the first lie was Nichols, because he WAS arrested, and never disclosed that fact. It’s not like Nichols didn’t know he was arrested, or know that it was enough of an issue with voters that he sought to have the arrest removed from his record.
So we go back to the omission of the arrest from Nichols record to begin with thus he wins his first election, probably would have lost if this had come out then.
“vmj, you’ll note all my postings deal with Anderson’s ‘lie of omission’ and I have never once addressed the issue of the social security number.
To answer your question, I don’t know”
See, this is how I see it. Omitting a ‘truth’ on either parties part, is still a lie. Letting people believe that Anderson deliberately disclosed Nichols social, when it was ‘in fact’ Nichols that disclosed his own social to disparage Anderson, is also a ‘lie of omission’.
As far as the officer not appearing in court and thus having the charges dropped is also a none argument in that you, nor any of us, know why the officer did not appear. Better that Nickols had gone to court and been exonerated than the charges just being dropped. My question was and is still, why did the officer leave the force? Hmm, very interesting. As I’ve stated before, Ebert will no doubt drop these charges quickly after Tuesday’s election….
I will venture to say, none of us will ever ‘know’ the truth of it and this is all conjecture on our parts, thus rendering the whole discussion of the infamous Social Security and court case caper, moot….
“ray, who actually let the cat out of the bag that the number on the license was, in fact, Nichols social? Was it Anderson or was it Nichols himself?“
vmj, you’ll note all my postings deal with Anderson’s ‘lie of omission’ and I have never once addressed the issue of the social security number.
I am not a lawyer and Paul Ebert will sort that matter out.
To answer your question, I don’t know.
“Ray how did Anderson lie? Seems to me that Nichols didn’t fill us in, so who is lying now?“
Lib(s), when you don’t tell the whole truth, and you know the information you withhold would change the slant of how people perceived what you wrote, this is called a ‘lie of omission’.
Anderson lied by not telling the whole story that Nichols was not found guilty of the charges he stated in his flier.
vmj can better explain the ‘lie of omission’ theory as he was the one that first brought it up on these pages.
But really, is this all Anderson has to run on? That and his military service, however commendable, that equals that of Democratic candidate John Bell who opposes Bob Marshall?
Lib(s), are you saying you endorse John Bell because he served?
Ray how did Anderson lie? Seems to me that Nichols didn’t fill us in, so who is lying now?
ray, who actually let the cat out of the bag that the number on the license was, in fact, Nichols social? Was it Anderson or was it Nichols himself?
Just a thought….
“If Paul Nichols hadn’t of been hiding from his record it wouldn’t even be an issue.“
Lib(s), why is this issue so hard for you to understand?
The issue is not what Nichols did or didn’t do - the issue is Rich Anderson took the low dirty road and only told half of the story.
Had Anderson had the integrity to tell the truth, THEN the ball would be in Nichols’ court. But Anderson LIED - and therefore the issue is about his honesty. Or really, lack thereof.
If Paul Nichols hadn’t of been hiding from his record it wouldn’t even be an issue.
General (fake) Patton:
John Bell, even if military, does not have a TV ad like Anderson that cites as qualifications ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than military officer and missile silo management experience. So you think that’s all that’s needed, huh?
“Sounds exactly like you are talking about John Bell PEEDEE”
So which is it jeep rider?
Either military experience means something and Anderson therefore trumps Nichols ... and then correctly Bell trumps Marshall.
Or .. military experience means little in serving as a public servant, neutralizing Bell, and tossing Anderson out as an empty suit with nothing more than missile silo experience - edge to Nichols.
Your choice. Or better yet, let us watch you dance around on the head of a pin spinning this like a ballerina.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement