I will be voting for Newman, and if he is going to continue in the footsteps of Bill Fuller, that’s good enough for me. But if one of the others wins, it won’t hurt my feelings either. I don’t see any downside from electing any one of these three obviously very qualified people.

Almost ALL of the REAL issues in this campaign have been proposed by Ms. Robertson.
* Open File Discovery
* Changes to the Grand Jury Process
* Management Skills vs. Trial Experience

The rest of the issues (whatever might be left?) and campaign rhetoric, are championed by all of the candidates.

I like Robertson’s ideas because they can be done quickly and with little or no cost.

the two guys have adopted the ” if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach. I believe it needs a little fixin’!

Vote YOUR belief tomorrow!

I am not particularly pleased with this endorsement of two candidates. It’s the prerogative of our host, but it isn’t very helpful to those who are making the same difficult decision. I am pleased that Michael Newman has been eliminated because I too have heard that he made some condescending comments at the forum last week. I also think the people of Danville need to consider whether Danville is better for retaining all the same policies for 40 years or if other jurisdictions have been more successful at coping with crime because they have implemented strategies like plea agreements in appropriate cases to keep police officers on the streets, open file discovery, and drug courts (if funding can be figured out).

My biggest concern is that in a three way election, we might have a majority voting for a change in Commonwealth’s Attorney policy by voting for Martin or Robertson and a minority voting for Newman that somehow works out to the minority position winning.