|
Post by brant on Aug 27, 2009 7:35:00 GMT -5
They are saying this just 'fell into her lap'? I don't care. She ran for the SB to serve four years. If she resigns from the SB it will be a betrayal to the people she voted for. I think it is obvious #204 was just a stepping stone for her to go on to higher offices and she really wasn't as loyal to the district as people like myself thought.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 27, 2009 12:25:31 GMT -5
They are saying this just 'fell into her lap'? I don't care. She ran for the SB to serve four years. If she resigns from the SB it will be a betrayal to the people she voted for. I think it is obvious #204 was just a stepping stone for her to go on to higher offices and she really wasn't as loyal to the district as people like myself thought. Seems like we need to queue up a new standard question for any future SB election forums: "are you willing to dedicate the next FOUR YEARS to an SB position"?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 27, 2009 14:01:20 GMT -5
Assuming that was not meant as sarcasm, I would agree it is a valid question to ask. I also wonder whether the candidates' political leanings were known during the campaign. (I can't recall the candidates specifically expressing them.) Ms. DeSart may have garnered fewer votes in this predominantly Republican area if people knew she was a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2009 16:43:53 GMT -5
SB is a nonpartisan race. I never recall a candidates "political leanings" in terms of party being an issue in a SB race. Nor should it. If people want to vote for (or against) a candidate because of a there party indentity, I think that is a pretty poor way to decide who to vote for in a SB race.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2009 16:45:12 GMT -5
Come to think of it.....in this last election i think some candidates lost votes because they tried to make it about "a political party"...the Slate!
|
|
|
Post by brant on Aug 27, 2009 17:19:59 GMT -5
Come to think of it.....in this last election i think some candidates lost votes because they tried to make it about "a political party"...the Slate! And that fell flat!
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 27, 2009 18:16:23 GMT -5
I disagree strongly. Social policy aside (though that too is important), there are critical fiscal issues that are decided by a school board. If a candidate is strongly liberal/Democratic -- meaning they love spending other people's money, they are pro-union, etc., wouldn't that information be useful to voters?
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 27, 2009 18:34:56 GMT -5
I disagree strongly. Social policy aside (though that too is important), there are critical fiscal issues that are decided by a school board. If a candidate is strongly liberal/Democratic -- meaning they love spending other people's money, they are pro-union, etc., wouldn't that information be useful to voters? Since you disagree so strongly, you go right ahead and work on changing SB elections into partisan races.
|
|
|
Post by mov4ward on Aug 27, 2009 20:08:31 GMT -5
I think we've seen over the last 8 years that conservative Republicans can spend money as well as liberal Democrats (and I'm a registered Republican).
It doesn't matter whether you label someone as a Democrat or Republican, it matters how they respond to the issues that are facing our local school board. And, based on questionaires and debates, we as a district elected those people whose answers reflected our personal views.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 27, 2009 20:57:25 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The goal is not to turn the elections into partisan races. It is to know as much about the candidates' philosophies as possible before voting.
And voters wouldn't necessarily vote along "party" lines...Mark Metzger is Republican and I have no use for him.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 27, 2009 20:58:47 GMT -5
Not by a long shot.
|
|