Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Sink,
It is one thing to support your candidate. It is quite another to disparage a sitting Rep.
Also, their facts are not quite right. Obviously the Chairman had the majority, when elected. The roll call vote which removed the Chairman was no where near as close in the balance as the letter purports. In the roll call vote the Rep split his vote along the lines of the feedback he received from pilots he was trying to represent. (not that it mattered, CVG is tiny anymore)
The Rep's decision (splitting his vote) was a little unusual, but his logic was reasonable.
Now that the writers of that letter have "gone negative" loudly and proudly they should be able to take it just as well as they dish it out. I kept my powder dry because I figured it does absolutely no good to shoot within the circle ... .
I guess that's it, the bold part is as you said earlier, ugly. The vitriol is sharp, and it makes you wonder about the interactions behind the scenes.
The irony after reading that is am I really supposed to believe the 'majority' truly wanted to work with the now deposed MEC Chairman from the start? Did they really try to work with him for 10 months or did it take 10 months to get him fired?
What was the vote for Roberts to win the election, 11-8? So the majority was at 42% when Kingsley was elected? And the majority (now at 52.6%) put him out on a 10-9 vote?