Kent Boyd should think about some newer material when offering his opinion on the sheriff's race. What he calls "misconceptions" are only his lack of research into the qualifications John Turner is offering the citizens of Walla Walla.
Boyd writes, "White may not have any of the bells and whistles that Turner claims, but he hasn't embellished any of his credentials." Could that be because White doesn't have much to embellish?
His attempt at minimizing Turner's experience with law enforcement is both patronizing and transparent. I find it sad that he (and others) can only try and criticize Turner rather than giving sound and logical reasons for electing Bill White.
Boyd speaks of Turner not being a "certified law enforcement officer" in Washington state. How many times and in how many ways must it be said that all Turner has to do to become a "certified law enforcement officer" is complete a nine-week online equivalency academy to become certified. Other sheriffs in Washington state who have been in similar circumstances have done it and so can Turner.
That argument is both tired and empty.
Rather than try to tear down John Turner with cheap and boring slander, tell why Bill White is the better choice.
Compare what each candidate can bring to the office of sheriff and it's clear Turner is the logical choice.