More From Heiner On East End Bridge

Isn’t it mind-boggling that Hal Heiner – the Republican – is taking a liberal position on an East End bridge?




Greg Fischer is still pushing the River Fields-approved plans.

Fischer supporters will attack in 3, 2… accusing me of pushing a Republican.

14 thoughts on “More From Heiner On East End Bridge

  1. I like it. I know it may have sunk Tyler Allen, but I still think the bridges are the single most important issue in Louisville’s long term future. It has to be done right.

  2. I consider this the most important issue in our upcoming election, I desperately wanted Tyler Allen to represent the Democrats but, as that didn’t happen and Jackie Green doesn’t have a chance I might find myself voting Republican for the first time in my life. The ORBP is a nightmare.

  3. What Edmund said.

    I tentatively support Mr. Heiner myself. He has shown himself to have the most open mind between the two major candidates. It also doesn’t hurt that Heiner is vastly more qualified for the job than The Other Guy*.

    *Void where prohibited (hopefully by the good voters of Louisville).

  4. While I strongly dislike Hal’s refusal to say he supports Fairness – only saying he wouldn’t work against it and realizes it’s up to the people, not him – I don’t think he’s a bigot.

    He’s not saying one thing and doing another. He’s not working to make the gays the devil. He’s not trying to proselytize. He’s not spreading hate.

    Unlike some Congressional candidate(s)….

  5. This is not a Liberal – Conservative issue
    it is a Elitist – Populist issue.

    For example Mitch McConnel is all River Fields, while Anne Northrup was the opposite taking the populist East End first position.

  6. “A bridge is not a good enough reason for me to vote for a bigot”

    Anyone who knows Heiner knows this is the farthest thing from the truth. If you know anything about Heiner’s family, you’d rethink your comments.

  7. Bullshit. He didn’t just refuse to say whether he supports the Fairness Ordinance, he voted against it. We’ve been calling Rand Paul a bigot left and right for being against portions of the Civil Rights Act? Why do we give someone a pass for being against the same protections for LGBT folks? Just because he says he isn’t going to attack us even though he doesn’t support non-discrimination against us does not give him a pass.

  8. Apparently you haven’t spoken to Hal about this issue. He’s not against protections for LGBT folks.

    He’s a pussy for not coming out and saying he full-on loves the Fairness Ordinance. But he’s not against protections for LGBT folks.

  9. He said, at the time (believing Republican horse shit spin), that protections already existed for the gays.

    His answer was stupid and he was ignorantly informed.

    But I’ve yet to hear him say anything homophobic or stand against our agenda of recruiting children in the womb.

  10. Well that is even a bigger concern, that he voted on discrimination protections without doing a basic search on the facts. He can change my mind on this whole issue by saying in public that he would not vote against it today. I’m all for people changing their minds and being given a chance to do so. But I don’t buy it when a politician courts various groups by privately saying one thing while having done another in public.

  11. I’m holding it against him – but he’s been honest about it and his beliefs. Hasn’t said one thing and done another in public.

    Unlike some other candidates.

Comments are closed.