| Moderated by: Steve Adkins | Topic closed | |
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Are you satisfied with the outcome of the elections on a local, state and/or national level? Did you vote? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: Are you satisfied with the outcome of the elections on a local, state and/or national level? Did you vote? Absolutely*. Yes. *Although I was disappointed that both Ray Riffe and Susan Bray didn't win, I cling to the faith and belief that they both will have successful campaigns for higher office in their political futures. As a dyed in the wool yellow dog Democrat it was about time that our party and our country has something to celebrate. Change is just around the corner and best is yet to come! |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
Wholeheartedly agree with you, Jimbo!!! ♥♥♥ I hope these Bushies out here realize that EVERYONE doesn't share their opinions about "W", Hillary, the war in Iraq, etc. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member 
|
Nationally, Pappy is happy. Voter turnout was amazin'! I agree with Mr Jim and Macca, but would also add that I hope the tone o' reconciliation an' desire to work together I heard from several people doesn't fall apart before somethin' good can happen. I hope they can put the country first fer a change instead o' their parties, pacs or factions. I'm real happy Rumsfeld is movin' on. Pappy'll take that as a good sign long overdue. Locally, I'm glad BJ made it. I think it's only fair that he should have a few more years to try an' ketch me. Hee hee! Otherwise, looks like bidness as usual, more or less. |
|||||||||||
|
RayRiffe Member 
|
Of course I'm not 'completely' satisfied. I didn't win! But I am very satisfied to have the honor of being a candidate, of getting to make many new friends and for being a part of the political process. While my results weren't what I'd hoped for (I knew from the start that the odds were practically insurmountable for me to begin with), I am very satisfied with my campaign. I am also very satisfied that I stayed true to myself and my beliefs. I looked forward to tough questions, and I answered them. I'm confident that people appreciated my honesty and integrity, eventhough some may have disagreed. I don't mind disagreement, all I wanted to give and receive was respect. And for the most part I think my campaign was successful in that regard. I am also very satisfied with the national results! I am a Democrat and there have been times that it was tough to say so, but I never denied it. I guess a lot of Republicans now know how I've felt for the last 12 years. Perhaps now the word 'consensus', a word I was hoping to introduce to the Guilford County Commissioners, will be a word that will be introduced in the nation's capital. It'll be fun watching how they get it done! Last edited on Nov 10th, 2006 02:09 pm by RayRiffe |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Forgive me for taking this discussion in a different direction, but when did our political climate change so radically that respect for our leaders was cast aside? When did we decide that (just because we disagree with a policy or position) we can resort to name calling and rudeness? When did we decide that is was acceptable to refer to the President as anything other than "Mr. President"? Why is is deemed acceptable to refer to Senator Clinton by her first name when discussing issues. Certainly President Kennedy had his faults and detractors, but he was always (to my feeble recollection) addressed by the media as "Mr. President". Lyndon Johnson was despised by many for the Vietnam war, but it didn't change the respect provided to the office he held. I've seen the window stickers bashing one elected official or another - the most crude among them is the little boy "peeing" on the name or image of the individual or issue, and call it the right to free speech. That's simply sad that we cannot express ourselves any better than that. I could go on, and on with obvious examples - as I'm sure everyone else could as well. I yearn for the days where we could disagree with others on important issues and even elected officials without degrading the office held. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
RayRiffe wrote: While my results weren't what I'd hoped for (I knew from the start that the odds were practically insurmountable for me to begin with), I am very satisfied with my campaign.I believe you did run a very clean and acceptable campaign, Ray. You respectfully disagreed, but asked some pretty tough questions yourself. You also certainly did your best to get out and make yourself known to the voters. I saw you on many occasions in different locations. I think you pretty much did everything you could. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
mstone wrote: Forgive me for taking this discussion in a different direction, but when did our political climate change so radically that respect for our leaders was cast aside? When did we decide that (just because we disagree with a policy or position) we can resort to name calling and rudeness? You've brought up some really good points, mstone. I think part of what you're saying has to do with the day and age in which we live. I think part of that is because of the media. While it is certainly easier to get information from all kinds of sources 24 hours a day, sometimes in an effort to "get the story," the media has delved into all kinds of issues. Years ago, personal issues were so much more so -- they stayed personal. Today nothing is off limits. I also think people are ruder in general now than they used to be. People not only don't respect their leaders, they don't respect each other, generally speaking. Whether it's belching or cursing or calling the president by his first name, I think respect in general isn't what it used to be. Last edited on Nov 11th, 2006 02:34 am by S. Smith |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
I would say that as far as the political part of it , most politicians once they have had a little bit of power and " prestige" of holding office will do anything to get back. This can be shown by the former races between Jim Hunt and Jesse Helms. Glad I wasn't old enough to vote at that election,probably would not have ever vote again. We the people need to take back the goverment somehow, having people such as Howard Coble and Richard Burr and Elizabeth Dole and Mel Watt in office shows me that a nice guys can win. Of course then there are the Virginia Foxes and Jim Blacks who will do anything to maintain their perceived power. How did Jim Black get elected again, he is going to be indicted after the first of the year. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Good points. The more confrontational attitude toward politicians by the press really got fired up because o' Watergate, didn't it? After that the press was less willin' to take a politician's answers at face value. Then, as news talk shows evolved, they began to more agressively exploit our differences for their own gain and we've been slidin' downhill since. I agree we should show more respect for our leaders, or at least for the offices our leaders hold. That works both ways, though. Our leaders need to show more respect for us, dadgummit! That's right, I said dadgummit! I mean nationally and locally, too! Look at some o' these disgraceful attack ads we've seen lately. These from the leaders who want our respect??!! Come on! |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
FatPappy wrote: Our leaders need to show more respect for us, dadgummit! That's right, I said dadgummit! I mean nationally and locally, too! Whoa -- this has stirred Pappy up! Just watch those expletives. I don't want to have to edit and stick in "expletive deleted" (that's from Nixon's old tapes and the Watergate days, if anybody's old enough to remember besides me!)  I agree about the attack political ads. They are the worst!! They not only twist words, actions and their meanings, they out and out lie. I have no respect for anybody who runs this kind of campaign. Although local campaigns are generally pretty civil around here, they're certainly not immune. I think Ray Riffe did a great job of challenging his opponent, as did Susan Bray and Stuart Albright. I want to hear about the real issues, and I love a good debate -- but it can be done respectfully and professionally! |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member 
|
I think Vernon Robinson's ads were the most embarassing this year. They were so blatantly racist and inflammatory. I don't know what the answer is but I try not to vote for people who run ads like that. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
How about this for an idea... for any elected office you cannot spend any more money on campaigning than the job pays for an entire year. You can use your own money, or raise it from somebody else, but that's the limit. You wouldn't see too many attack ads on TV 'cus they cost so much. You'd see candidates much more willing to meet for face-to-face debates to get their name out there. Old fashion door-to-door campaigning would become an absolute necessity. Of course, I like the idea of term limits, too. It works great for the President. Nobody wants more than 8 years with any pres - no matter how popular or effective they are. Why shouldn't we send all the Raleigh and Washington clowns back home after the same period. That would absolutely hammer the lobyist group, but it would take the financial incentive out of staying in power for powert's sake |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
mstone wrote:How about this for an idea... for any elected office you cannot spend any more money on campaigning than the job pays for an entire year. You can use your own money, or raise it from somebody else, but that's the limit. I like it! |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
FatPappy wrote: mstone wrote: I like it too, but I don't think the idea will go over too well, especially in Washington. How would it work in local elections where they make little or no money? |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
Good point, Sandra. Those positions that pay little or no money would need a slight variance in the policy. That's more public servant than a political figure. I'm OK with picking a reasonable amount for this type of thing. Let's say $1500. At least all candidates for this office would still be on the same even playing field and you wouldn't price anyone out of running. Even on local positions, you have to wonder why someone would spend 5 or 10 grand on an election that pays a hundred dollars a month. I guess my point is that some people (local, state, and especially federal) spend 10X more money for elections than what they earn for the position. It's gotta be a power thing when you spend a half million dollars on a campaign that pays less than that for the entire term. |
|||||||||||
|
Waytago Member 
|
mstone wrote: Even on local positions, you have to wonder why someone would spend 5 or 10 grand on an election that pays a hundred dollars a month. I guess my point is that some people (local, state, and especially federal) spend 10X more money for elections than what they earn for the position. It's gotta be a power thing when you spend a half million dollars on a campaign that pays less than that for the entire term. Your final statement says it all. It's not the paycheck of the job, it's the power rush that goes along with it. |
|||||||||||
|
mstone Member
|
The problem with the "power rush" is that you'd think that someone that virtually buys their elected office position must have some grand master plan or vision for the area. I'm thinking eliminating hunger or maybe world peace. Most of these people have no orignial ideas and nothing to offer that says "Here's how to fix this problem." Unless you believe that the only way you can contribute to your community is to be an elected official (how short-sighted is that) why else would you buy a position. For the life of me I can't see it. Not a single candidate that spends this sort of cash in a local election comes into the position with any ideas or plans that would justify the means taken. If they have such grand ideas, let's hear them. There are multitudes of unelected, regular folks that make a larger impact on their communities every day by effort and volunteerism. These folks want a better community and understand service over being served. These are the folks that we should encourage to serve as our elected officials. Of course, such financial antics could explain a lot. People that will spend all that money on an election obviously believe that throwing money at anything will fix it - hence taxes, bond debt, and bigger government. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
I agree with most of what you've said about the power trip, especially if a candidate is spending their own money, which some do. But a lot of times, they're spending other people's money. People are often more than willing to make political contributions for various reasons. For instance, I know that people within the same party are very likely to make a contribution. If you're a Democratic candidate for county commissioner, other Democrats on the board might contribute to help get you elected, ensuring or at least hoping for a majority of like-minded Democrats on the board. Other Democrats in other positions that a candidate might know (DA, clerk of court, senator, representative, etc.) could also make contributions. In turn, they might hope you'd return the favor of either influence or money when their time for re-election comes up. The party system is definitely alive and well, even in the local scene and even in non-partisan elections. People also make contributions if they are perhaps hoping for favor in the future. For example, people in the building and development industry often make contributions in the hope that the candidate, if elected, would act favorably toward them in the future. I'm not saying they are buying votes, although it might be seen that way. I know one local elected official, who only makes about $200 per month, has come under criticism by some because he allowed a developer to pay for his political signs at election time at a cost of about $1,500. Does this mean he's sold his vote? I certainly hope not. In fact, he did absolutely nothing illegal and reported the contribution as required. But some in his community have chrged that he's pro-development and giving this developer preferential treatment. |
|||||||||||
