Ruskin v Poizner

Okay, let's see if I can do this rationally...

I live in the 21st Assembly District in California. Our Assemblyman has termed out and is running for State Senate, so two new guys are running. The Democrat is Ira Ruskin. He serves on the Redwood City City Council, has been mayor of our city (largest city in the district), and has a good record on the issues important to me. (Guess who I'm voting for?!?) His Republican opponent is Steve Poizner, a rich man who is out-raising Ruskin 4-1. (Another example of a Republican trying to buy an election in California. Haven't they figured out that it doesn't work?) It's been a pretty nasty race, especially for a State Assembly seat. It's also a Democratic district and has had Democratic representation for a very long time.

Lately these guys have been sending out mailers trying to affirm their positions and cut down that of their opponent, but this time Poizner really got to me. He has never served on a city council, but was a White House fellow, starting in September 2001... that means under THIS president. He states that he is a moderate Republican and is pro-choice and has gotten a pro-choice rating from Planned Parenthood.

Ruskin's campaign material points out that Poizner "contributed thousands of dollars to national pro-life council endorsed candidates". Guess what?!?! This isn't a lie. A simple check of the Federal Elections Commission website shows that Poizner has contributed $18,000 to political committees since 2000. Granted, he contributed $2,000 to Kerry in February 2001. However, he contributed $2,000 to George Bush in June 2003 and $2,000 to the Congressional campaign of Kris Kobach in Kansas. Who is this Kris Kobach person? Well, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The other donation in question was to a Kansas congressional candidate who served with Poizner in a nonpartisan White House fellowship program." So, Poizner is just giving money to his "bud". The implication being that since the program was non-partisan, the money must be, too. (Poizner's using this quote in his campaign literature, he's trying to get readers to believe that this is a logical progression.) But guess what? This "bud" has been endorsed by Kansans for Life "as an especially attractive candidate to pro-life citizens." (Right off Kobach's website!)

So, our pro-choice "rated" candidate is endorsing candidates attractive to pro-life citizens both in Kansas and nationally (because you canNOT tell me that George W. Bush is not anti-choice!) While the man is free to give his money to whomever he chooses (notice he gave the maximum contribution in all cases), if he is TRULY PRO-CHOICE why would he give money to candidates that advance the anti-choice agenda!??!!?!?