Longtime state senator, running for an eighth term, says he’s seeking help for cognitive issues: ‘I did things that were wrong and completely out of character for me.’
"Steps back" and "backs off" sound like he's dropping out but that's not what it means. I wish someone would push him on this specific part of it all to make him give a clear answer. Basically what I imagine is that he just isn't actively going to campaign much before the elections but that he is still going to be the candidate. And he will win. And then we will have a senator representing us that is on record saying he believe's he has cognitive issues that are affecting his judgement and morality. Super.
I'm not an R voter generally but I used to have respect for Alting. He stood up against his party a few times to do the right thing. However, after his redistricting vote- any respect I had for him was gone.
This is the kind of story where the ongoing death of local media likely will play a role in Alting still getting re-elected. Yeah, we get good reporting from Dave, but I wonder how many people in the current media environment will never hear about this story because they simply don't engage at all with local news.
It's hard for me to imagine he'd drop out of the race as his party won't want to concede a gerrymandered seat to a Democrat and risk their supermajority. Republicans will still likely re-elect Alting in spite of all this, after which the party can do whatever process there is to replace him.
What is the practical difference between a supermajority and a substantial majority when the governor has no spine and his veto pen has gone missing?
Also, in a world of uninformed voting, there doesn't seem to be much difference between formally dropping out and his current "whatever" strategy.
As you imply, this move clearly depends on a detailed knowledge of electoral procedures, a hobbled local news media, and timing. He didn't just find this out yesterday.
"If Democrats break the supermajority in either chamber, they could deny Republicans a quorum to hear controversial bills. And it would be more difficult for Statehouse Republicans to override the governor’s vetoes on legislation without a supermajority. Plus, Democrats would gain additional committee representation."
So, it's not a lot, but on the biggest bills it's not nothing. I think the quorum part is the most important part. It's not a veto, but makes it harder for GOP to just force through whatever they please, and gives Democrats more ability to draw attention to bad legislation.
If Natasha Baker wanted to use this, she’d cut an add tomorrow and put it on every local social online thing we have. 1 minute, cut clean like they did for the anti Paxton stuff in Texas. Make it ironic in tone and damning in delivery, but if he’s already played the “getting help” card it might backfire.
Truly wild work to double dog klepto a month before the election, and from Ronnie A no less. Remember how the dude who ran against him in the primary got character assassinated for formerly dealing coke
It is very difficult to not get caught stealing from a Walmart. Those cameras they have at the registers are very sophisticated. It’s one thing to be accused at one store but two? He is wise getting checked out medically because people who shoplift and can afford what they are taking usually have an issue that needs to be addressed.
Even before this came out, I thought voting yes to redistrict before midterms seemed out of character to me, but I don’t know him at all. It just came across to me as odd.
whoa!
Not going to be a campaign plus…
"Steps back" and "backs off" sound like he's dropping out but that's not what it means. I wish someone would push him on this specific part of it all to make him give a clear answer. Basically what I imagine is that he just isn't actively going to campaign much before the elections but that he is still going to be the candidate. And he will win. And then we will have a senator representing us that is on record saying he believe's he has cognitive issues that are affecting his judgement and morality. Super.
I'm not an R voter generally but I used to have respect for Alting. He stood up against his party a few times to do the right thing. However, after his redistricting vote- any respect I had for him was gone.
Is "...backs off re-election campaign..." the same as "drops out of race?"
It seems carefully crafted to mean exactly not that.
"I will stop trying and hope my staff, the R next to my name, and the lateness of this story carries me through to another term in office"
This is the kind of story where the ongoing death of local media likely will play a role in Alting still getting re-elected. Yeah, we get good reporting from Dave, but I wonder how many people in the current media environment will never hear about this story because they simply don't engage at all with local news.
It's hard for me to imagine he'd drop out of the race as his party won't want to concede a gerrymandered seat to a Democrat and risk their supermajority. Republicans will still likely re-elect Alting in spite of all this, after which the party can do whatever process there is to replace him.
What is the practical difference between a supermajority and a substantial majority when the governor has no spine and his veto pen has gone missing?
Also, in a world of uninformed voting, there doesn't seem to be much difference between formally dropping out and his current "whatever" strategy.
As you imply, this move clearly depends on a detailed knowledge of electoral procedures, a hobbled local news media, and timing. He didn't just find this out yesterday.
From the Indy Star this week:
"If Democrats break the supermajority in either chamber, they could deny Republicans a quorum to hear controversial bills. And it would be more difficult for Statehouse Republicans to override the governor’s vetoes on legislation without a supermajority. Plus, Democrats would gain additional committee representation."
So, it's not a lot, but on the biggest bills it's not nothing. I think the quorum part is the most important part. It's not a veto, but makes it harder for GOP to just force through whatever they please, and gives Democrats more ability to draw attention to bad legislation.
If Natasha Baker wanted to use this, she’d cut an add tomorrow and put it on every local social online thing we have. 1 minute, cut clean like they did for the anti Paxton stuff in Texas. Make it ironic in tone and damning in delivery, but if he’s already played the “getting help” card it might backfire.
Truly wild work to double dog klepto a month before the election, and from Ronnie A no less. Remember how the dude who ran against him in the primary got character assassinated for formerly dealing coke
I suspect another shoe is about to drop.
If he wins and resigns, what then?
It is very difficult to not get caught stealing from a Walmart. Those cameras they have at the registers are very sophisticated. It’s one thing to be accused at one store but two? He is wise getting checked out medically because people who shoplift and can afford what they are taking usually have an issue that needs to be addressed.
Even before this came out, I thought voting yes to redistrict before midterms seemed out of character to me, but I don’t know him at all. It just came across to me as odd.
Bad timing for him that’s for sure.