Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Open thread: Elections for County Commissioners.

The election’s almost here, and yesterday we began to consider the local races.

As noted, NAC’s pants-down editorial board hasn’t undertaken a detailed consideration of anything, much less the candidates. We’ve been far too busy monitoring our Obama yard signs to prevent them being stolen by Roveing gangs of brown shirts.

So, we're randomly tossing out local contests for discussion, and today, the two races for County Commissioner.

The Tribune's hard work is more than sufficient to set the table. The newspaper’s questions and answers are extensive. There’s much to chew on, including the candidates’ views on the Kernan-Shepard commission local government streamlining recommendations, options for a new Youth Shelter, how to increase revenues, and public safety.

I’m no handicapper, but for my money, the more interesting of the two races is District 2, where the Democratic incumbent Freiberger is challenged by the Republican Party chairman Matthews, with the dean of county potty policemen hoping to be a spoiler. It is the latter, George Mouser, who provides the single best quote of this campaign courtesy of the Tribune:


HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A NON-TRAFFIC COURT CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES? IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN ALL RELEVANT INSTANCES.

“Only once; many years ago I paid a fine of $50 or less, for ‘putting fear’ in one or more trespassers on my property. In view of my timid disposition this was a ridiculous decision by the judge.”


Huzzah. Any thoughts?

ELECTION Q&A: Floyd County Commissioner - District 2

Charles Freiberger (D)
Dave Matthews (R)
George Mouser (Independent)

ELECTION Q&A: Floyd County Commissioner - District 3

Steve Bush (R)
Dennis Roudenbush (D)

42 comments:

Daniel Short said...

In my discussion with Mr. Matthews, he stated the following: "If Governor Daniels gets re-elected November 4th, as I believe he will, I believe he will begin his process of trimming local governments and their expenditures. I do not agree with all of these initiatives. However, there are certainly government expenditures at the County level that can be trimmed and made more efficient. I do not agree that we need only one County Commissioner, and I don't think the voters do either. However, there might be other county offices......for example, township assessors.....whose responsibilities could be covered by a central County agency, such as the County Assessor. If County governments are going to have their State funding trimmed, we will have to find efficiencies that we haven't tried before and find better ways to do business. I want our teachers, fireworkers and police agencies to have higher wages but this will have to be balanced with budget concerns in many other areas."

No dancing there. I think you will all agree that Dave has answered the questions that were asked of him, every time. I am voting for him not because he is a Republican, but because of his passion for Floyd County and his knowledge of the issues at hand.

Iamhoosier said...

The last week has caused me to change my mind on Mr. Matthews. And that disappoints me.

Daniel Short said...

Is that because he called it the "Democrat" party?

Iamhoosier said...

Nah, that's all4word's pet peeve.

ecology warrior said...

Like Iamhoosier, I also changed my mind om Matthews because of his obvious agenda of mixing religion with policy and politics. He can not a direct quote that he thinks floyd county is in dire need of spiritual leadership, he also stated in his q&a that god called him to run for commissioner. These things make me nervous about him as a potential public official

ecology warrior said...

typo, he can not deny a direct quote i meant to say

ecology warrior said...

on distric 3, no question my vote is for steve bush. He is hands down the most qualified and intelligent of any county commissioner candidates and I know of his character and ethics, they are solid in addition to his unique leadership ability. Bush is a breath of fresh air in Floyd County politics

Larry M. Summers said...

I have to agree with Ecology Warrior. Steve Bush is one of the most well researched and intelligent candidates. Also, his character is really beyond reproach.

The New Albanian said...

Since elements of the Dave Matthews/religion thread above surfaced elsewhere briefly, I'm going to reprint the explanation that Matthews sent (and hope that he doesn't mind me "speaking" for him in such a way).

There is really no way you can win a discussion like this. I do believe Christians have for too long not been involved in helping make a difference in our government. However, it appears that a specific comment was written in this article completely out of context with my thoughts and it does not reflect my true views of what a political leader should be.

I do not even remember saying that "the county is in dire need of spiritual leadership." I agree that is what churches and ministers are for...not what we vote for in our political leaders.

If elected, I certainly do not intend to hold church services during County Commissioner meetings. And that type of comment would surely suggest that I do not think current spiritual leadership from our churches is sufficient....again, nothing could be further from the truth. Let me simply say that I believe a good political leader should be one who has a secure moral foundation from which to lead. Our nation was founded on that type of leadership.

Iamhoosier said...

Combine the Courier Journal report with the statements in the Tribune and I am having a hard time buying his answer.

Here is the question that I posted after his "answer". (never saw a reply)

Iamhoosier said...
Assuming that Mr. Matthews is still reading this thread...

"Let me simply say that I believe a good political leader should be one who has a secure moral foundation from which to lead."

Could an agnostic or aetheist qualify in your eyes?

1:59 PM

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I wonder for whom each candidate is voting for President. The difference in the choices is striking and their choice could be very revealing in terms of their vision and judgment.

Were it not for just a couple of candidates in relatively benign positions, I'd seriously be considering voting straight ticket for the first time- something I usually caution against.

ecology warrior said...

i agree iamhoosier, I dont buy Matthews answer either, couple that with a couple of letters to the editor endorsing matthews citing is ministry and what else could one derive? he is using the church for a political campaign and tust you me if he got elected the church would have a way of driving his policy positions.

I dont trust him to keep the church out of the govt

edward parish said...

J-Gill wrote -
"I wonder for whom each candidate is voting for President. The difference in the choices is striking and their choice could be very revealing in terms of their vision and judgment.

Were it not for just a couple of candidates in relatively benign positions, I'd seriously be considering voting straight ticket for the first time- something I usually caution against."

I have never voted a straight pull. Why should it matter Jeff how a candidate for any office aligns themselves with the office of US President? It is all about local very small town politics that matters and hopefully nothing more. Word....

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Why should it matter Jeff how a candidate for any office aligns themselves with the office of US President?

It would tell me something about their worldview, Ed, and I would hope provide some insight into how they approach government and what they want the U.S., regardless of which slice, to look like.

Under current circumstances, a vote for McCain/Palin would show a lack of judgment that I'd have a difficult time overlooking in the polling booth.

ecology warrior said...

i agree with you ed, I consider each race separately, political party means nothing to me, after all I served in an appointed postion under the previous democratic mayor and supported randy hubbard against Doug England.

straight ticket means no thinking, I like being independant

ecology warrior said...

i disagree bluegill who you are voting for president sometimes is a vote against the other guy not a vote for who you are voting for, there will be clinton democrats voting McCain as a protest to obama

edward parish said...

Each person has his or her vote, not by party equality. When, will this area/nation see through old school ways of voting? I vote for the person, not the party. Many of "my(1950's)" age group does the same; get the drift dude?...

Give some of us, a small bit of chance of thinking on our own, instead of thinking we are braindead on politics. Only so many of ones suggestions actually sink in.

Think.....For mega change.

The New Albanian said...

there will be clinton democrats voting McCain as a protest to obama

Which is precisely Bluegill's point. A "Clinton Democrat" voting for John McCain is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. If that's not an indication of something ...

Jeff Gillenwater said...

As I mentioned, I generally agree that voting straight ticket equates to a lack of thinking. I'm not voting straight ticket.

But, with so little to separate most local candidates in terms of actual stated goals or ideology, I just keep getting the Palin question shoved through my head.

Do I really want to support anyone's ascendancy to power who would consciously put her in a position to be President?

It's certainly not the judgment I'm looking for.

Bayernfan said...

Voting for person over party nationally doesn't make sense to me at all. A national candidate is going to help push a party's ideas through and will agree, most of the time, with those ideas.

Party matters little in local elections, which is why there may be Republicans I will consider voting for. I understand Jeff's contention, the 'Palin Effect' works on me as well. I'll try to put that aside as I head into the voting booth on Tuesday next as I vote for local offices.

The New Albanian said...

Permit me to note that given the public utterances of Dana Fendley (for McCain) and the enormous McCain/Palin sign in Larry Summers's front yard, tomorrow's county councl thread might benefit from more discussion as to national ticket preferences.

Is Ted Heavrin going for Obama?

Larry M. Summers said...

I might add that that sign was stolen. I was going to wait until tomorrow when someone attacked my Presidential vote to defend myself; however, I must state that I am not voting for McCain because he is perfect.

I am voting for McCain because I believe he is less flawed than Obama. I am only supporting the least, I my humble opinion, flawed candidate.

Barrack Obama is the master of saying nothing and making it sound like he is masterfully changing the world. I have looked at his record and it does not match his rhetoric.

As for what I would like to do, my support for a Presidential candidate does not change the policies that I will work on during my term on the County Council.

We need new leadership. We cannot recycle the ideas of the previous council and hope that we will get a new result.

Is that not the definition of insanity?

"Insanity: the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing." -Albert Einstein.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I keep reading all the conservative pundits' scenarios of what will happen if Obama is elected. My general response to their "what if" lists is "Boy, I hope so."

Larry obviously feels differently. That's fine. It just means that I need to find someone else to vote for on the local level because he apparently doesn't represent my views.

Larry M. Summers said...

There is nothing that I can do on the local level to implement the socialist agenda.

Whether I vote for Obama or McCain, I simply cannot institute socialism like a Democratic super majority in both houses of congress and the white house could.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

My point, proven.

Marcey said...

I am so sick of the "socialist" rhetoric. Obama is not a "socialist", he is a democrat. Giving tax cuts to the middle class has been a democratic policy for many years. The reason for this is because the middle class has always been the majority in this country and when the majority has more money in their pockets the spend. When the majority of your population is spending it stimulates your economy. When you stimulate the economy then you have a strong economy. If we continue to over tax the working class of this country you will push them closer and closer to the poverty line and the economy will continue to tank.

Now if you still think that is a socialist policy, lets talk about Sarah Palin giving every resident in Alaska dividends from the oil company.

Ecology Warrior, I was a Clinton supporter in the Primary and if someone was supporting Sen. Clinton because of her positions on Health Care, the economy, the war, etc., etc. etc., there is no way in hell they can tell me that McCain is a better substitute for Sen. Clinton. McCain and Palin are the polar opposites of Hillary Clinton and in my mind the only reason they are supporting them is because of "sour grapes".

Larry M. Summers said...

Obama's policy of raising taxes on the wealthy to give money to individuals not currently paying taxes is income redistribution (i.e. Socialism). To say that that is not socialism is to stick ones head in the sand.

Randy said...

Larry, I don't dismiss your doubts. To say you don't have doubts would be insane.

But if the difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between a marginal tax rate of 35% and 39.6% for that portion of ordinary income above $250,000 a year is absurd.

As one who wishes you well, may I suggest that you already have 100% of the McCain voters. Oughtn't you be courting Obama voters now?

Bayernfan said...

Larry, your words are a bit disappointing to me. Not that I expected you to vote for Obama, we had that discussion. It's just that you've picked up the rhetoric of calling Obama a socialist which McCain/Palin and the RNC are using to try and scare people into voting Republican because it's become obvious their ideas aren't working, the constant references to Bill Ayers hasn't worked so now we move into the "Obama is a socialist/communist/Marxist" phase. I remember the Reps saying the same thing about Bill Clinton as well.

I thought you were a little more level headed than that.

Larry M. Summers said...

I understand why people are voting for Obama. He seems to have the country's best interest at heart. I do not believe he is secretly trying to hurt this country.

I do not want people not to vote for Obama just because of something I said. I just wanted to give you a couple reasons I am not voting for Obama.

The main problem I have is that someone would dismiss me without regard to the changes that I have proposed just because I do not support the same Presidential candidate as them. That seems absurd.

Larry M. Summers said...

Throughout this election, I have done my best to seek out the people with whom other Republican candidates have not spoken. As far as I know, I have been the only candidate, Republican or Democratic, that has put his/her neck on the line just to discuss issues with you.

I have continued to come here even when I have been attacked for whom I am voting for President. If I were not the precinct committeeman for New Albany 5, I probably would only have my signs in front of my house; nevertheless, I offered my services, and I must not shirk my duties.

Is it difficult to discuss national issues with which we may not agree and that I will not be working on at a local level? Yes. Is it fair that other local candidates, Democratic ones included, do not discuss why they are voting for whom they are voting while I am required to defend my positions? I wouldn't say that it was unfair; however, I would hope that others would step up to the plate.

Alas, I have been pretty much the only one in the fray on a regular basis.

B.W. Smith said...

Here's a sweeping statement for Wednesday:

To say that Obama is a socialist is to say that our income tax system (pay in brackets according to income), the purpose of which is to theoretically keep too much wealth from concentrating at the top, is socialism. That's absurd and shows a fundamental misunderstandnig of American history and economic theory. If you listen to the ENTIRE Joe the Plumber clip, Obama's comments about redistributing wealth are in the context of comparing flat tax to progressive income tax, which makes complete sense.

But, as they sharply pointed out on SNL, you can't expect folks to understand nuance when plumbers make more than teachers.

The New Albanian said...

ALERT - I'm working on today's posting about County Council races and will reprint this thread on the marquee. Give me until about 9:00 a.m. and resume the discussion there ... if you don't mind waiting.

Larry M. Summers said...

Just one more comment and I will completely leave the Obama vs McCain debate: it is not the increase in taxes to the wealthy that I have a problem with (even though I do not want anyone to have increased taxes), it is the fact that tax credits will be handed out to individuals that are currently not paying taxes.

Also, I do not think that reduction in middle class taxes can be solely claimed by Democrats. Again, I want to reduce taxes for the middle class; nevertheless, the individuals that are currently not paying taxes should not receive a check funded by the wealthy--accept it is via charity.

The New Albanian said...

Larry, please continue ... at the new thread.

ecology warrior said...

sorry wisman but just because you are democrat party chair does not mean you speak for the clinton democrat party primary voters, there will be plenty of those who will vote for Mccain because Obama is the worst choice, not because of sour grapes as you think, so dont give me your rah rah speech and label an anti Obama vote, by the way didnt you once tell me you thought the libertarian Melanie Hughes woukd be a good mayor now where is your democrat party loyalty?

Marcey said...

EW

First and foremost, a Democrat who understands the priciples and ideals of the National Democratic Party would never believe that McCain is a better choice than Obama, because McCain is for everything that we are against. I have talked to other Hillary supporters that were very upset about her loss who have gotten over the disappointment and are voting for Obama because they know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Obviously, that is something that you still do not understand.

In response to Melanie Hughes, my comment was that I really liked Melanie Hughes and I thought she brought a lot of good arguments to the table and I still believe that. Melanie works with my dad and I knew her before she even ran for Mayor and I have always liked her, but there were still issues that she and I have fundamental differences on and that is how I make my decision of who I vote for. Unlike you whose loyalties blow every which way depending on who you think might give you a position with a little power.

Oh, and by the way, it is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY not the democrat party.

ecology warrior said...

again youre in error wisman, i pride myself on being an independent and would support garner again with or without an appointment so take your perceived importance and put it to work for a change instead of wasting our tax dollars.

and by the way i am voting for thomspon for governor but dont forsee an appointment there, guess that blows your theory about how and why i vote for a candidate

ecology warrior said...

newsflash wisman, darrell mills brother indicated he is crossing party lines to vote for mccain, gee wonder what presidential appt he seeks since you think anyone who crosses party lines must surely be seeking a political appt.

Marcey said...

Tim, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say everyone that crosses over is looking for a position. I was only talking about you.

ecology warrior said...

again wisman I am not looking for a position with any republican i may vote for dont put hidden motives in my vote got it!

The New Albanian said...

EW, if you persist in addressing people by their last names sans civility, there will be sanctions.

Thank you.