Thursday, October 18, 2007
Supervisors' Party Affiliation
This week the Village News asked this question of the candidates: "Do you think your party affiliation, or lack of one, should be a factor in this election?". The candidates gave differing views on this question.
One of them, Dorothy Jaeckle, emphasized that she was a Republican. This makes her being a supervisor problematic. She has positively aligned herself with one set of ideologies of beliefs, and with one collection of persons and organizations, and therefore, she makes herself beholden to both. Therefore, I can expect her to be for limited government, controlled spending, and individual rights, which she states in her reply. (Note, however, that these attributes identify her as Libertarian, not Republican.) But because she identifies herself as a Republican, she identifies herself also with the ideas of intruding religion into government (so I can expect her to support "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance), denying marriage and marital rights to same-sex couples, denying women the opportunity not to have a child if she does not want to, with insisting on equal representation for creation theories in the schools, and with fighting this so-called "war on terror", among other things, because this is what Republicans in general, and at the national level, stand for. Further, by identifying herself as a Republican, she allies herself with those who would support unlimited material rights for individuals and groups, especially large ones such as developers, and so therefore, she would support the building of even more and more developments and sprawl in Chesterfield County, contradicting the premise of her campaign by which she overturned the developers' lackey, Jack Wilson. She has defeated the enemy, and now she is one of them.
By contrast, Ree Hart made no such claims about her being a Democrat. She says, "I don't believe anyone should just vote because of party affiliation". She does not mention that she is a Democrat or why she is that, but she instead says that party affiliation will not be a part of her addressing Chesterfield's problems: "Local issues are not partisan issues." She should have said "Local problems are not partisan issues." Problems such as growth, water shortage, and assessments are not issues to be argued over as in a political debate. They are problems that affect each of us, threatening our way of life here in Chesterfield County. Issues by their nature are partisan. Problems by their nature affect each of us without regard to ideology or party affiliation. In my belief, except for the unfortunate use of the phrase "local issues", she makes this point pretty clear, and she therefore is someone to consider in deciding who is to be our next Bermuda supervisor.
Roy Wallace also says that party affiliation will not be important to him. He does not make as clear a case for this as does Ree, but he does say that he is tired of big money in local politics. This is something that needs to be addressed in Chesterfield County: keeping money out of local governance. I don't know how to do it, and money and supported interests don't always win, as Dorothy Jaeckle's victory over Jack Wilson makes clear. But we do need to keep the money and interests away.
My ranking of the three candidate's replies are hence: Ree Hart, Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle. For the past three weeks the rankings have been thus:
1. Ree Hart, Dorothy Jaeckle, Roy Wallace
2. Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle, Ree Hart
3. Ree Hart, Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle
Overall this gives a ranking of Ree Hart, Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle. It still looks like vote for Ree Hart.
By the way, in the Matoaca District, there is a clear choice: Marleen Durfee. Marleen's reply on the party question is just as good as Ree Hart's, while the Democrat Bill Hastings just simply said why he was a Democrat, and shows how his principles are like those of the Democrats. Mark Tubbs, the Republican, hardly made an answer at all.
One of them, Dorothy Jaeckle, emphasized that she was a Republican. This makes her being a supervisor problematic. She has positively aligned herself with one set of ideologies of beliefs, and with one collection of persons and organizations, and therefore, she makes herself beholden to both. Therefore, I can expect her to be for limited government, controlled spending, and individual rights, which she states in her reply. (Note, however, that these attributes identify her as Libertarian, not Republican.) But because she identifies herself as a Republican, she identifies herself also with the ideas of intruding religion into government (so I can expect her to support "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance), denying marriage and marital rights to same-sex couples, denying women the opportunity not to have a child if she does not want to, with insisting on equal representation for creation theories in the schools, and with fighting this so-called "war on terror", among other things, because this is what Republicans in general, and at the national level, stand for. Further, by identifying herself as a Republican, she allies herself with those who would support unlimited material rights for individuals and groups, especially large ones such as developers, and so therefore, she would support the building of even more and more developments and sprawl in Chesterfield County, contradicting the premise of her campaign by which she overturned the developers' lackey, Jack Wilson. She has defeated the enemy, and now she is one of them.
By contrast, Ree Hart made no such claims about her being a Democrat. She says, "I don't believe anyone should just vote because of party affiliation". She does not mention that she is a Democrat or why she is that, but she instead says that party affiliation will not be a part of her addressing Chesterfield's problems: "Local issues are not partisan issues." She should have said "Local problems are not partisan issues." Problems such as growth, water shortage, and assessments are not issues to be argued over as in a political debate. They are problems that affect each of us, threatening our way of life here in Chesterfield County. Issues by their nature are partisan. Problems by their nature affect each of us without regard to ideology or party affiliation. In my belief, except for the unfortunate use of the phrase "local issues", she makes this point pretty clear, and she therefore is someone to consider in deciding who is to be our next Bermuda supervisor.
Roy Wallace also says that party affiliation will not be important to him. He does not make as clear a case for this as does Ree, but he does say that he is tired of big money in local politics. This is something that needs to be addressed in Chesterfield County: keeping money out of local governance. I don't know how to do it, and money and supported interests don't always win, as Dorothy Jaeckle's victory over Jack Wilson makes clear. But we do need to keep the money and interests away.
My ranking of the three candidate's replies are hence: Ree Hart, Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle. For the past three weeks the rankings have been thus:
1. Ree Hart, Dorothy Jaeckle, Roy Wallace
2. Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle, Ree Hart
3. Ree Hart, Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle
Overall this gives a ranking of Ree Hart, Roy Wallace, Dorothy Jaeckle. It still looks like vote for Ree Hart.
By the way, in the Matoaca District, there is a clear choice: Marleen Durfee. Marleen's reply on the party question is just as good as Ree Hart's, while the Democrat Bill Hastings just simply said why he was a Democrat, and shows how his principles are like those of the Democrats. Mark Tubbs, the Republican, hardly made an answer at all.
