Whose actions are more regretable?

a candidate who has voted against the death penalty, and is more than happy, eager even, to explain her position and defend her vote,

or,

a candidate manifestly and deliberately creating beliefs and impressions that are misleading?

The venerable Joe Monahan offered, link.

"But Arnold Jones is not popular with the conservative Republican base. Her refusal to endorse the death penalty is especially problematic with them and her reaching across the aisle to Dems in Santa Fe has also drawn critics from the conservative column."

Interesting that Monahan points to her strengths as weaknesses. Rep Janice Arnold-Jones can explain and defend her vote against the death penalty. The simple truth is, there is no candidate more willing to explain and defend their position than she.

Her demonstrated ability to work across the aisle, though not appealing to the Parties, appeals immensely to the people.

Because of the difficulty in a frontal attack on her record on the issues, a lot of money is going to be spent trying to create an impression that Rep Janice Arnold-Jones is soft on criminals. They will offer as proof; her vote against the death penalty, even though that was not basis of her vote.

What she opposes, as far as I have understood her, is the spending more than 20M tax dollars to do it.

Voters may not agree with Arnold-Jones that 20M dollars might be better spent helping children grow up not to be murderers, than on killing one. But the political discourse is not headed in that direction because open and honest public discussions are her home field.

Her opponents will avoid a head to head on the issues of efficacy, effectiveness, and economy of the death penalty by resorting to relentlessly pounding on the vote, without once pointing to a flaw in the logic that justified it.

Voters will witness their own deliberate deception and then
ignore it when they cast their votes. Monahan is right about
those who will yell about her death penalty vote while ignoring
her death penalty position.

Candidates who tolerate and enable deliberate deception are
deliberate deceivers.

Why would anyone vote for someone who is manifestly dishonest?

Just because they are Democrat or Republican?

If there is open and honest political discourse, voters will grow to understand that there are good and ethical reasons to oppose the death penalty.

Monahan is right as well, about the "conservative column" among Democrats who cannot grasp good and ethical reasons to "work across the aisle".

If there is open and honest discussion, voters will appreciate the ability to work across the aisle. While working across the aisle isn't the will of the Parties, it is in fact, the will of the people.

There are candidates who are popular with the Democratic and Republican Parties.

And there are candidates who are are and will be popular with Democrats and Republicans.

Rep Janice Arnold-Jones is one such.




photo Mark Bralley