The fact that Claire Levy had Edie Stevens Ms Scumbag as her campaign treasurer is not something that most people would hold against Claire. People will assume Claire did not know about this land grab prior to the recent articles.
Where Claire blew it was with this statement she made (from the Camera):
"They've asked me to sever my association with (Stevens) because they're concluding she must have bad character for exercising her legal rights," Levy said. "I think the response is very emotional — that's clear."
She said "it is unfair for outsiders to judge McLean and Stevens for their actions without knowing them."
"I don't really think it's fair for perfect strangers to draw conclusions about another person's character based on reports in the media about a lawsuit," Levy said. "There are all kinds of assumptions about their motivations and about improper influence, and all of that is just pure speculation by complete strangers."
During the City Council election I would constantly ask people I know who they were voting for and until the last week they not only didn't know who they were voting for, but could not name a single candidate. And in the last week most people would say 1 or 2 names and still showed very little interest. And most probably didn't bother to vote.
In the last several days I have had most everyone I know come ask me about this case (apparently because I follow politics I'm supposed to know more). Without exception, and with no prompting from me, everyone viewed this as a clear message that this is so indicative about how the political elite take care of each other in this town.
And then this morning I've run into 6 people and again with no prompting from me each of them brought up Claire's statement above from the paper and said that Claire has lost their vote. And these are all your typical politically apathetic voter - the ones that will usually blindly vote for the incumbent.
Does this mean Claire is toast? No. First a week is a lifetime in politics and Claire could decide to discard McLean/Stevens to save her own skin. Second, a primary challenger has to win among primary voters and many of those are part of the incestuous group that includes McLean/Stevens. Third, the Republicans would have to put up a strong candidate to beat her.
But she did take a safe seat and put it in play. And she did so in a large degree with the arrogance that shines through loud and clear in her statement above. Claire, we don't know George Bush personally either and we judge him just by media reports. And yet, most of us are very comfortable finding him to be an incompetent president. Your arrogance is no different than that practiced by the Republican administration in Washington.
As to "exercising her legal rights", Claire you need to learn that something can be legal and yet still be wrong. Most voters want a Representative that can make that distinction. As to is this legal, we need to wait and see how the appeal process plays out.
So what happens next for Claire? Well the caucuses are about 3 months off so if someone is going to primary her, the timing is perfect for it to be a strong credible challenge.
As to the Republicans, here is what you do. When it's time to select your candidate for this seat, wait until Bob Greenlee leaves the convention floor for a minute and then quickly vote to make him the Republican candidate to challenge Claire. That would be a great race.
ps - Claire, I sent you an email last night asking for your opinion on this issue and the email was bounced back as spam. So you may have received very few emails but that does not mean very few were sent.
Update: Another statement from Claire - she still doesn't get it.
