It strikes me as odd that the Floyd County GOP chose the prelude to a holiday weekend to break the news that Brenda Scharlow is the party’s likely nominee to oppose incumbent 3rd district councilman Steve Price in the November election, but that’s the way it happened, and we though it best to defer discussion for a bit. Here's our Saturday posting, with a quote from the Tribune's story:
3rd district in the spotlight; Price to raid grandma's cookie jar for fall campaign.
Asked whether he was disappointed that he’d now have to fund a general-election campaign, Price replied that he’d long expected a challenge.
“I had heard that they were possibly going to run an independent, so I figured there would definitely be someone running against me somewhere,” Price said.
Indeed, as even Price is aware, planning for an independent campaign was (and remains) afoot. However, a credible Republican candidacy inevitably alters the dynamic; while CM Price came to office with a lopsided win against a colorless GOP opponent in 2003, both his Democratic primary wins have come during three-way races, most recently earlier in May when 63% of those voting chose either Maury Goldberg or Charlie Harshfield over Price's continued reign of error.
There are questions to be answered, and soon.
Given that in stated political thought as well as recorded council deed, Price has consistently performed in a fashion that is deleterious to the future interests of the city in general, and of his district in particular, just how important is it to the residents of 3rd district that he is returned to full-time rental property management in January, 2008?
Did we learn anything from our unfortunate failure to unify during the primary?
If we decide to run an independent candidate in the fall, do we risk yet another three-way split – and yet another Price victory with less than a majority?
Assuming that Scharlow’s platform is palatable (naturally, all bets are off if it isn’t, but recall that she very much needs progressive votes to win the race), do we support the Republican candidate as the best choice for unity, knowing all the while that those in the Democratic Party hierarchy who are closest to us will have no choice except to back Price, even if he is an ongoing embarrassment to them?
(Know that there are potential embarrassments other than Price, but we'll come to that in due time. Also know that the author once wrote in this blog that he’d sooner drink Miller Lite than vote for a Republican. Is defeating Steve Price important enough for me to drink Miller Lite?)
Or do you think it is somehow not proper to discuss these issues openly?
To the contrary, I believe it is fitting and proper that we do so, because to do otherwise is to play politics as usual – and isn’t that what we’re ostensibly against?
Whether you live within the 3rd district or elsewhere in the city, your thoughts on the preceding are much appreciated. If you don’t wish to post, send comments to the e-mail address in my profile and I will repost them pseudonymously.
I'll start...discussing it openly is indeed the right way to approach it. Thinking strategically doesn't require a clandestine approach since what we seek is 1. a responsive representative who will a)run and b)serve on the basis of issues, 2. a rep who shows an ability to learn, 3. a rep who prepares, 4. a rep capable of adjusting an initial decision when the facts require it, and 5. a rep who will take our phone calls.
ReplyDeleteThere's no reason to engage in subterfuge. That's the domain of politicians who would secure 500 absentee ballot applications in a district containing fewer than 500 voters.
But, in setting up a discussion of how many choices should be available in November, shouldn't the "discussers" have a cohesive vision of the end game? If it is to be a progressive vision, shouldn't the table consist of progressives alone?
I think we often make the mistake of assuming that those who befriend us share our views and those who declare enmity don't. Maybe not everyone who calls himself "Progressive" has a clear understanding of what that means. And assuredly not all who reject that label reject the propositions it represents.
A very good point.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as axiomatic that certain problems hereabouts are regressive in nature, i.e., going backwards.
I'd number among these an institutional unwillingness (or inability) to enforce the city's laws, leading to a decline of neighborhoods and an erosion of infrastructure, with accompanying absence of opportunity, lower living standards among certain segments of the populace, and an ascendency of predatory economic factors (i.e., slumlords) at the expense of those that add value to individual people, their property and their lives.
Progressivism in this context is the reversal of regression, plain and simple -- restoring rule of law, ending the housing anarchy, and developing the city in a fashion that best utilizes its available resources -- “progress by design” in New Albany, through implementing the principles of Smart Growth and New Urbanism in our neighborhoods. It's being green and working smart.
It's "just say no to no."
There's more, but I'm hurrying to work to sign paychecks before the mutiny strikes.
Would love to get into this discussion but I am having severe computer problems.
ReplyDeleteY'all can quit jumping up and down and celebrating now!!
Mark