“I don’t think it would look good for the state,” she said. “I don’t think it would look good for the party, and I don’t think that the citizens would like to see their beloved representative-elect be expelled.”
As Steve pointed out in his post, Stacie Marie / Barry Laughton decided that disclosing her / his criminal past was of little interest to voters – it certainly wasn’t of much interest to the media to ask questions nor of the Democrats looking for bodies to run. (As Rush’s TSA parody says of the intensive interview process “He’s breathing!”).
He (when he was a he) ran for office a number of times here in the Lakes Region and never did well (yes, kudos to the press up here for covering these antics, and I think that Gail Ober of the Laconia Daily Sun did a great job on the piece exposing her (in a journalistic way) that got picked up by the Daily Caller (H/T: to Grokster Tom for seeing it).
You know, Stacie / Barry’s last quote in the UL piece seems just about right – can you think of a more absurd image? Here is this person, having just moved into the district, runs, and then calls themselves “beloved“. Really – beloved? Isn’t that a term reserved for those public servants that have, you know, actually done something for the voters? That have behaved well and re-elected a number of times over the years (Right or Left does not matter).
Voted in; yes. Making her/himself into a victim of circumstances (er, of one’s one making)? Nope. Just more of the same of self-esteem gone wild.
Really – beloved? Is this a result of our educational system that has over-emphasized “self-esteem”? Or is this just an outlier all the way around?
