30 October—It’s not very often we see a political campaign touting the merits of an opposition candidate. Never is more likely. But just last week I found two giant postcards on behalf of Jahana Hayes—one paid for by the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee, the other by the House Majority PAC—focused on only one of the reasons to vote for Jahana’s Republican opponent, George Logan.

The headline on both mailings quotes one of George’s statements: “I don’t think we need any additional restrictions on gun laws here in Connecticut.” Wow! Surprised me. It certainly looks like George said on 4 August 2021 that he’d favor more laws infringing rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Now, I don’t know how accurate the quote is, but I rather think George meant that we don’t need any additional restrictive gun laws.

That’s more like it. And it certainly makes sense when you consider that the giant postcards also point out that George, when he was in the state Senate, repeatedly voted with the NRA and voted against a ban on assault weapons and refused to commit himself on federal background checks for all gun purchases. He certainly had it right, though he could have opined that the background checks were nothing but a feel-good waste of resources.

The mailings also contain typical campaign hype about the way Jahana acted on select issues that’s not worth repeating. But evidently she “voted” for some stuff, “passed legislation” for other stuff, and “funded” yet other stuff. Lots of legislative candidates use that same confusing language.

It’s common knowledge that congressmen vote. But can a congressman single-handedly pass legislation and single-handedly fund whatever it may be? Isn’t it more of a concerted effort of a majority?

Still, George Logan should be grateful for the support Jahana’s magnanimous campaign has given his own. It’s probably helped push him ahead of her in the latest polls . . .