Why is Jay Esmay the guy to support?

Jay () has been chronicling his campaign through his blog (linked in the campaign sign above also). Jay () has not attacked other candidates like some candidates ( or ). Jay () has not lied to the faces of delegates like some (), does not have ethics issues like certain candidates () and is proven to be a competent candidate.

He () has made every engagement he has scheduled unlike others ( x 3, x 5, x 2).

Jay () is a straight shooter and says what he () means.

His () most recent blog entry was very interesting...and this is another reason I have endorsed him ().

Another evening of energizing talks with delegates. "Jeff" and I spent a few minutes talking. He relayed how one of the candidates had called him on the phone for a 45 minute talk and only strengthened Jeff's resolve not to vote for that candidate. We of course talked about the problems in Washington being caused by career politicians. I relayed how the other candidates and I are meeting Friday at the State Capital to sign another pledge to not run in the primary if we lose the endorsement.

This is at least the 4th pledge I've signed in addition to stating it another half-dozen times. Another Question for you Delegates: "Why do we have to make the same pledge so many times?" Answer: Because no one trusts politicians. And of course the wording is critical, because someone will look for a loophole to sneak their way into a primary.

This reminds me of an interaction we had with Bachmann. As we on the show were getting all of the candidates to ask each other one question of each other Bachmann's campaign was the most militant about "the exact wording" of their question. They e-mailed their question to the show ("will you promise to abide by the endorsement?") The morning that we scheduled to record these questions they tried to change the wording. "It has to be exactly this way: Yes or No, do you promise to abide by the endorsement of the 6th District Convention under any circumstance." Considering that I actually had recorded the answers already (based on the e-mail version) of the other candidates I informed Michele directly that I would not call everyone back to re-record everything. But Michele was SO hellbent on the exact wording of her question to the other candidates.

Jay continues:

Are you happy that this mentality is part of the system? Are you willing to have people represent you who believe the ends justify the means? And since their reelection is a good thing, whatever it takes to get elected is good, no matter what. I reject this.

I will go through any tribulation to win, but I will not compromise my principles. Victory without honor is not victory.

If you reject the, "ends justify the means" mentality too, then help me in this battle.

Now the reason I will vote for Wetterling or Tinklenberg over Bachmann is very simple...Bachmann's campaign is so intertwined with the "ends justify the means" mentality that she is willing to do longterm damage to her party simply to be THE candidate. Quite bluntly the "walk the walk" candidates are Jay Esmay () and Phil Krinkie (). The "political expediency is acceptable" candidates are Jim Knoblach () and Elwin Tinklenberg (no picture yet available, sorry). The "do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy-supreme candidate is Michele Bachmann (). The partisan hackery candidates are Michele Bachmann () and Patty Wetterling (again, no picture yet available).

You decide what person is one you want representing you.