Balance, please
In this recent discussion, I think we've got some anonymous posters who are sort of missing the point.
First ...
Heidi ain't got a clue about economic development. It ain't flower shops and coffee shops as she so proudly proclaims. Further, forget what you read in the paper about Novartis. The word in Atlanta is it's a pure lack of elected leadership and we won't see anything else with Heidi at the helm.
... and then this ...
What does Grow Green do for poor people? Do they have a mentor program? All G.G. does is make it more expensive to live in ACC by increasing our taxes.
OK for the first posting, to be fair, 'the word in Atlanta' is going to purely partisan pretty much regardless ... and seeing how the 'D' next to Heidi's name means she's not like the Republicans in power, they're not going to like whatever she puts forward. That's the reality of the hyper-partisan political environment we live in.
For the second posting, why should Grow Green be concerned with poverty? It's a special interest group whose mission is to promote responsible environmental practices, not champion the poor.
I don't think that's a bad thing and it's why, as Xon noted in an earlier discussion, it's always good to look at a variety of organizations and their endorsements before choosing your candidate because these types of organizations are typically looking on for one specific interest. I may sympathize with some of the environmental policies stated by Grow Green, but I'm not going to determine my vote entirely on what they tell me to do.
Basing your vote solely on what the Chamber tells you to do isn't any better, is it? It's one organization with an expressed commitment to promoting more traditionally conservative business policies, and if you favor more traditionally conservative business policies than be all means take what they say into consideration. However, it's just as shortsighted to go by what they say - or base your entire vote on something like economic development or the smoking ban or environmental policies - without carefully weighing all of the issues and constituencies in a race.
And, for the record, I don't necessarily think any of the candidates have been focusing on one or two special interests. If Charlie Maddox says he's going to be for all Athenians, I think he will be. I believe Heidi Davison has done a very good job of doing the same thing. Where they differ is in actual ideology and policy implementation, which is one of the reasons we have these little things called elections.
First ...
Heidi ain't got a clue about economic development. It ain't flower shops and coffee shops as she so proudly proclaims. Further, forget what you read in the paper about Novartis. The word in Atlanta is it's a pure lack of elected leadership and we won't see anything else with Heidi at the helm.
... and then this ...
What does Grow Green do for poor people? Do they have a mentor program? All G.G. does is make it more expensive to live in ACC by increasing our taxes.
OK for the first posting, to be fair, 'the word in Atlanta' is going to purely partisan pretty much regardless ... and seeing how the 'D' next to Heidi's name means she's not like the Republicans in power, they're not going to like whatever she puts forward. That's the reality of the hyper-partisan political environment we live in.
For the second posting, why should Grow Green be concerned with poverty? It's a special interest group whose mission is to promote responsible environmental practices, not champion the poor.
I don't think that's a bad thing and it's why, as Xon noted in an earlier discussion, it's always good to look at a variety of organizations and their endorsements before choosing your candidate because these types of organizations are typically looking on for one specific interest. I may sympathize with some of the environmental policies stated by Grow Green, but I'm not going to determine my vote entirely on what they tell me to do.
Basing your vote solely on what the Chamber tells you to do isn't any better, is it? It's one organization with an expressed commitment to promoting more traditionally conservative business policies, and if you favor more traditionally conservative business policies than be all means take what they say into consideration. However, it's just as shortsighted to go by what they say - or base your entire vote on something like economic development or the smoking ban or environmental policies - without carefully weighing all of the issues and constituencies in a race.
And, for the record, I don't necessarily think any of the candidates have been focusing on one or two special interests. If Charlie Maddox says he's going to be for all Athenians, I think he will be. I believe Heidi Davison has done a very good job of doing the same thing. Where they differ is in actual ideology and policy implementation, which is one of the reasons we have these little things called elections.
posted by Jmac at 9:33 AM
1 Comments:
Well said. Part of the obnoxious rancor of these elections is the labeling and the hot issue du jour. Balance is the answer but we are all biased that "our" groups offer the most balance. We need elected officials that are trusted by all these groups and can pick the best ideas from each and form coalitions and partnerships. I'm not sure I know who can do it, but I am sure that no one currently elected has done it, or else there wouldn't be so many people running for Mayor on that very platform. Did Grow Green, Bike Athens, Clean Air, the Chamber, the Flagpole or the Banana agree on any endorsements?
Post a Comment
<< Home