Dear Kim:
I am your constituent, Eddie Griffin, and I call you a “coward”... to your face and by email. You are afraid to face your opponent Wendy Davis. The fact that you were a no-show at last night’s debate signifies the type of representation we, in Senate District 10, have received of you... absentee representation.
According to this morning's Star-Telegram report:
"Brimer, R-Fort Worth, was a no-show Monday night to a scheduled debate with Davis at the Fort Worth Botanic Garden."
Why didn’t you show up, Mr. Brimer? Are you afraid to face your opponent Ms. Davis? Are you afraid to face your constituents also? Maybe you are afraid she will slap your face silly red on behalf of the constituents of SD 10.
As for your friend and supporter Mayor Mike Moncrief, who publicly supported you, he is hereby put on cc notice that he supports spineless jellyfish of a coward.
Your manhood, Mr. Brimer, cannot be covered by the manhood of another. Every man must stand, on his own two feet. The good ole boys cannot bail you out of this one. And it would be a shame for the Fort Worth Fire Fighters Association to come to your rescue.
Come forward and give account of your stewardship. Answer to your constituents.
And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Luke 16:2
Juana Byrd, Arlington writes:
Sen. Kim Brimer is so reluctant to face Democratic challenger Wendy Davis that he would rather file non-meritorious lawsuits than have the voters decide who is more qualified to serve as their state senator… Brimer is apparently fearful of running on his Senate record and wants to avoid an exchange of ideas with the formidable Davis. This is understandable, given his poor record and her excellent qualifications.
Fred Harper, Fort Worth writes:
The constituents of Senate District 10 should be able to choose their representation on the basis of the candidates’ position on issues important to them, not on political gamesmanship. Brimer’s silly games deny them that information and insult their intelligence.
Ms. Davis alerted us on September 19, 2008: Senator Brimer is hiding something. Otherwise, why would he spend 8 months talking to judges instead of constituents, hoping that the courts will decide this race before the voters have a chance to? The answer is simple: Senator Brimer knows that his record won't hold up in the court of public opinion.
John T. Johnson III, Arlington writes:
Case in point: Brimer was in a key position as a state senator, along with Chris Harris, to put some limits on just how badly the deregulated electricity market was going to be able to put the screws to us. They helped squelch every law out of the Regulated Industries Committee that would have somewhat protected consumers. Don’t believe me? Check it out. Their excuse? They didn’t want to regulate "free enterprise." What a joke!
Eddie Griffin wrote:
Has Mr. Brimer explained to his constituents how he has enriched himself while in office?
Brimer over a 6 year period gave his wife's realty company, Janna Brimer Realty over $170,000 for "rent" when in fact it was being used to purchase a condo. He eventually sold it for a nice profit of $300,000.
In 2007 4 elected officials, Senator Kim Brimer, Senator Jane Nelson, State Representative Vicki Truitt, and former State Representative Toby Goodman were spending their donors' money to purchase condos.
Fines that are pending are for Senator Kim Brimer, Senator Jane Nelson, and State Representative Isett. All have either used their donors' money to buy real property or paid their spouse for services, both are against the rules of the Ethics Commission.
Whatever happened to the fines? Nobody has ever explained.
And, this example from http://bayareahouston.blogspot.com/2008/06/keeping-campaign-cash-tx-state-senator.html:
According to The Lone Star Project, Brimer has been repaying himself for loans he made to his campaign. This in itself is nothing unusual. Many elected officials and candidates loan their campaign money and repay themselves at a later date with campaign funds. Only one problem...... Brimer paid himself more than what he loaned himself. From The Lone Star Project:
• Brimer loaned his campaign $46,000 during 1987 and 1988
• Brimer family members loaned the Kim Brimer Campaign an additional $10,000
• Brimer made a series of payments to himself totaling at least $83,953, reported as “loan repayments,” from 1988 to 1992
• As a result, Kim Brimer received at least $37,953 more than the amount he loaned himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment