Bill Bishop Campaign Requests Apology
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Politics/Bishop-Controversy/i-KPDp3zZ/0/M/Bishop_Header-M.jpg)
I am writing in reference to a distasteful and disturbing show of what I would call a blatant departure from the principles and moral fiber that define our Republican party.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-jan-bill-bishop-campaign-requests-apology-
Wait, what?
Its not "my" Republican party. Its Bill Bishop's party. To show true character, he should leave this party that ejected his most ardent supporter (who forfeited his own campaign to support Bishop). You can blame it on money. And you can definitely blame it on principles, which in no way ran along the line of any Republican party I know. But it all comes down to Bishop's character, his campaigns strongest asset. Bishop has been played. And his party will continue to drag him like alligator bait. All the way to Lenny Curry's election.
Both parties are rotten to the bone. I vote third party or independent or not at all. Both parties spend like there is no tomorrow and care little about anything but winning.
The best thing that could happen to JAX politics would be a switch to nonpartisan elections. Then they need to repeal the term limits, at least for Mayor.
Mr. Wilson looks to be rather young, hopefully this will be a lesson to him in the so called 'principles' of the Republican Party. Principles, ideals and competence take a back seat to deal making and who your daddy was.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 20, 2015, 07:55:55 PM
The best thing that could happen to JAX politics would be a switch to nonpartisan elections. Then they need to repeal the term limits, at least for Mayor.
Mr. Wilson looks to be rather young, hopefully this will be a lesson to him in the so called 'principles' of the Republican Party. Principles, ideals and competence take a back seat to deal making and who your daddy was.
They've done that. The top 2 popular vote finals return in May for the Mayorial (runoff) election. Regardless of political affiliation. And providing all candidates have less than a majority of votes. As for the term limits, it actually provides the incumbent the option of doing whatever (political) objectives he desires with no (political) consquences as he's ineligible for re-election.
We could remove party affiliations from the official ballots. It may have an impact on elections things turn out.
As for term limits, there are positives and minuses. The biggest minus is that the people with experience get cycled out after a few years. And too often, these are incompetent do-nothing ribbon-cutters. Like we've got now.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 20, 2015, 08:40:53 PM
We could remove party affiliations from the official ballots. It may have an impact on elections things turn out.
As for term limits, there are positives and minuses. The biggest minus is that the people with experience get cycled out after a few years. And too often, these are incompetent do-nothing ribbon-cutters. Like we've got now.
You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did. Taking politics out for "leadership".
For term limits, the positives is the incumbent can do whatever he (politically) wants because of no fear of (political) consequences. For a Democrat looking to further his career, pushing feverently for a HRO legislation is ESSENTIAL for a job in DC. Especially when the future POTUS is standing beside you in March giving her glowing endorsement!
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 20, 2015, 09:23:23 PM
You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did.
How could Trotsky remove party affiliation from ballots if Lenin had already done it? Oh wait, you're just trying use an emotional appeal because you have nothing substantial to actually add. My bad.
I wish Bill Bishop would run as an independent. Even though Mayor Brown has disappointed me many times by his lack of leadership, there is no way in hell I would vote for Curry. Bill might be able to get my vote. For one, he isn't afraid to take stances on issues and back them up with rationale.
Quote from: brainstormer on January 20, 2015, 10:47:36 PM
I wish Bill Bishop would run as an independent. Even though Mayor Brown has disappointed me many times by his lack of leadership, there is no way in hell I would vote for Curry. Bill might be able to get my vote. For one, he isn't afraid to take stances on issues and back them up with rationale.
+100
You can remove party labels from the ballots. We do it for Judges, School Board, and Soil and Water.
We should have either a traditional party primary or do away with partisan labels that have become meaningless in local elections. I've voted for progressive Republicans (I was with Audrey) and conservative Democrats (Mayor Brown).
With no primary, party labels are meaningless in local races. IMHO, of course.
Plenty of places don't include party affiliation on the ballot. And if you're expecting Alvin Brown to come out in support of the Human Rights Ordinance or most any other important issue, you should probably prepare yourself to be disappointed.
Quote from: Gamblor on January 20, 2015, 09:57:39 PM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 20, 2015, 09:23:23 PM
You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did.
How could Trotsky remove party affiliation from ballots if Lenin had already done it? Oh wait, you're just trying use an emotional appeal because you have nothing substantial to actually add. My bad.
Read your history books. And think twice about editing your posts to prove your own substance over my historical facts. In terms of the totalitaristic Russian revolution, Trotsky actually eliminated the opposing (political) parties though Lenin provided direction. Under the pretext of my (deleted by you) quote, leadership over politics. And, to repeat myself, you wont remove political affliations from political offices.
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 20, 2015, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on January 20, 2015, 07:55:55 PM
The best thing that could happen to JAX politics would be a switch to nonpartisan elections. Then they need to repeal the term limits, at least for Mayor.
Mr. Wilson looks to be rather young, hopefully this will be a lesson to him in the so called 'principles' of the Republican Party. Principles, ideals and competence take a back seat to deal making and who your daddy was.
They've done that. The top 2 popular vote finals return in May for the Mayorial (runoff) election. Regardless of political affiliation. And providing all candidates have less than a majority of votes. As for the term limits, it actually provides the incumbent the option of doing whatever (political) objectives he desires with no (political) consquences as he's ineligible for re-election.
That is
NOT nonpartisan, that is unitary ballot. Nonpartisan is
NO party affiliation is listed on the ballot. No disrespect, but your comment about Castro, Hitler etc. is nonsense. There are plenty of cities nationwide that run nonpartisan elections. Houston and Nashville just to mention two. Political affiliation is meaningless at the local level. All it does is make the office a 'reward' for political power brokers. It brings a lot of money and people into the equation that seek only to advance a political party's 'scorecard'/power, without genuine concern for the governance aspect.
Being term-limited makes you a lame duck that has significantly reduced leverage/power over everything and everyone. Peyton was no more of a leader in his second term than his first. It is up to the individual themselves as to how much leadership/results they provide, regardless of which term they are in. It takes more than eight years to effectively transform a city, especially when most mayors need a year or two (at least) to learn the job and how to effectively use that power.
The Duval School Board elections are non-partisan.
I hope everyone remembers that it was the rules ideas and actions of the republican party and their so called morals that caused one of the worst econmic downfall in American historty and these men still support such ideas and actions...the republicans have nothing but racism and the ending of anything public...shame on anyone voting republican...remember what they did to us all...without shame
@Redbaron616, I disagree with people who strictly vote based on party. Usually it's for or against a particular party, but to dismiss either of those choices on principal alone is just as reckless IMO. Particularly with regard to local elections where people like myself are running who have very little affiliation with either party.
Speaking to the issue of non-partisan elections, locally I think it is a great idea. I've personally had people who I am certain share my ideals close their door in my face based entirely on party affiliation. There are people from both parties who I support, and people from both parties who I think aren't cut out for the offices they are seeking, but until we can start talking issues rather than party lines, nothing will get ever get done.
Quote from: Jtetlak on January 21, 2015, 10:38:30 AM
@Redbaron616, I disagree with people who strictly vote based on party. Usually it's for or against a particular party, but to dismiss either of those choices on principal alone is just as reckless IMO. Particularly with regard to local elections where people like myself are running who have very little affiliation with either party.
Speaking to the issue of non-partisan elections, locally I think it is a great idea. I've personally had people who I am certain share my ideals close their door in my face based entirely on party affiliation. There are people from both parties who I support, and people from both parties who I think aren't cut out for the offices they are seeking, but until we can start talking issues rather than party lines, nothing will get ever get done.
Thank you. I realize it saves time and effort to simply use 'labels' instead of brain cells, but it sure makes for lousy government.
Quote from: Jtetlak on January 21, 2015, 10:38:30 AM
@Redbaron616, I disagree with people who strictly vote based on party. Usually it's for or against a particular party, but to dismiss either of those choices on principal alone is just as reckless IMO. Particularly with regard to local elections where people like myself are running who have very little affiliation with either party.
Speaking to the issue of non-partisan elections, locally I think it is a great idea. I've personally had people who I am certain share my ideals close their door in my face based entirely on party affiliation. There are people from both parties who I support, and people from both parties who I think aren't cut out for the offices they are seeking, but until we can start talking issues rather than party lines, nothing will get ever get done.
Generally, I agree with the sentiment you expressed here, Jtetlak. In fact, I agree with it so much that I am one of those voters who has no party affiliation because I don't want the political parties to tell me who to vote for. (Yes, I do vote. I'm a Public Administration major, for crying out loud!)
However, at this point in time, I have a VERY hard time overlooking a Republican party affiliation in a political candidate because the party's platform seeks to deny basic human rights to women and the LGBT community. Now, I know that there are people in the Republican party who do not agree with the party on these issues, but they agree with the party on other issues that are more important to them, so they maintain affiliation. For me, human rights is the most important issue there is, and I'm not willing to overlook politicians' actions on this, regardless of party affiliation. The same goes for the parties themselves.
In other words, it's a deal breaker for me. Because human rights issues are so important to me, I don't feel that I can truly trust or respect a candidate that is willing to disavow the Republican party's position on human rights while at the same time seeking support and endorsement from that same party. It just doesn't sit well with me because it makes me feel like human rights are not truly important to that candidate.
So, that has resulted in me voting for many Democrats through the years even though I didn't really like them either. But the ones I voted for were the lesser of the two evils, so I went with it.
I think that the 2 party system is hurting our country because it is so polarizing. I would much prefer to not have to consider party politics when I consider a candidate. While ultimately I decide who to vote for after doing research about the candidates and their positions on the issues, I now consider their political party as a wild card position as well. If I like both candidates equally and one is a Republican and the other one isn't, I go with the non-Republican every time.
Maybe if the Republican party decides to start treating women and LGBT individuals as people entitled to full human rights in their platform, I may change my position on this. Until then, not a chance.
Jessica, I just want to point out to you that when we tried to update our local human rights ordinance to include support for the LGBT community in Jacksonville, in 2012, local Democrats had a lot to do with the loss. (So did some of the Republicans, don't get me wrong. But as a Democrat myself, it cut me to the bone when so-called Democrats like Kimberly Daniels, Reggie Brown, and Johnny Gaffney voted against human rights. And don't get me started on the actions and inaction the Mayor, also a purported Democrat.)
It was thanks to the Republican Council President at the time, Bill Bishop, that we got an up or down vote at all. To say nothing of the work of Republicans like John Delaney and Audrey Moran and so many of the Civic Council and Chamber types.
Point simply being: party labels are a pretty lousy barometer of how local leaders feel about social issues.
Well put @jessicpants. Personally, ensuring LGBT rights is the reason I got into this race. It's not the only thing about Jacksonville I want to make better, but it is the catalyst for getting me to run.
I understand your distrust of the two party system as well, and the worst part about it is that it almost requires anyone interested in running for office to choose a side. Having a non-partisan election would help focus attention on the issues that each candidate stands for rather than on who is in what party. Which would eliminate us electing what Jimmy points out are people who end up not standing up issues for what we thought they supported based on their party allegiance alone.
Quote from: Jimmy on January 21, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
Jessica, I just want to point out to you that when we tried to update our local human rights ordinance to include support for the LGBT community in Jacksonville, in 2012, local Democrats had a lot to do with the loss. (So did some of the Republicans, don't get me wrong. But as a Democrat myself, it cut me to the bone when so-called Democrats like Kimberly Daniels, Reggie Brown, and Johnny Gaffney voted against human rights. And don't get me started on the actions and inaction the Mayor, also a purported Democrat.)
It was thanks to the Republican Council President at the time, Bill Bishop, that we got an up or down vote at all. To say nothing of the work of Republicans like John Delaney and Audrey Moran and so many of the Civic Council and Chamber types.
Point simply being: party labels are a pretty lousy barometer of how local leaders feel about social issues.
Jimmy, I am very aware of the poor record that local Democrats have regarding the Human Rights Ordinance, which is why I said that I judge all politicians individually as well as the parties themselves for their respective actions. I agree that some of their behavior has been a betrayal to the community, to say the least. It sucks.
I also recognize that there are Republicans that act in opposition to their party with regard to human rights issues, and I'm glad that they do. Good for them. I would be more glad if they lobbied as hard within their own party to champion human rights as they do outside of it.
Like I said before, I treat political parties as "wild card" factors when it comes to picking who to vote for. Which means that I rarely have to rely on party politics at all to make my choice. Usually, my mind is made up well before the question of political party affiliation comes up. But when I do have to rely on party politics to make a choice, I refuse to support a candidate that is running on a platform from a political party that is in favor of legislation that deprives more than half the population full human rights.
As a gay democratic feminist, I certainly appreciate your perspective and your practices. :)
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 20, 2015, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 20, 2015, 08:40:53 PM
We could remove party affiliations from the official ballots. It may have an impact on elections things turn out.
As for term limits, there are positives and minuses. The biggest minus is that the people with experience get cycled out after a few years. And too often, these are incompetent do-nothing ribbon-cutters. Like we've got now.
You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did. Taking politics out for "leadership".
For term limits, the positives is the incumbent can do whatever he (politically) wants because of no fear of (political) consequences. For a Democrat looking to further his career, pushing feverently for a HRO legislation is ESSENTIAL for a job in DC. Especially when the future POTUS is standing beside you in March giving her glowing endorsement!
On my post here, I was obviously wrong. All posters were correct that, indeed, many ballots today there are no political affliations on elected offices that have no political impact. Accordingly, I stand corrected.
Quote from: -jerrycornwell on January 22, 2015, 10:14:09 AM
Quote from: jerry cornwell on January 20, 2015, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 20, 2015, 08:40:53 PM
We could remove party affiliations from the official ballots. It may have an impact on elections things turn out.
As for term limits, there are positives and minuses. The biggest minus is that the people with experience get cycled out after a few years. And too often, these are incompetent do-nothing ribbon-cutters. Like we've got now.
You can't remove party affiliations from the ballots. Thats what Lenin Trotsky Mussolini Hitler Castro did. Taking politics out for "leadership".
For term limits, the positives is the incumbent can do whatever he (politically) wants because of no fear of (political) consequences. For a Democrat looking to further his career, pushing feverently for a HRO legislation is ESSENTIAL for a job in DC. Especially when the future POTUS is standing beside you in March giving her glowing endorsement!
On my post here, I was obviously wrong. All posters were correct that, indeed, many ballots today there are no political affliations on elected offices that have no political impact. Accordingly, I stand corrected.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/52434783.jpg)
;D ;D ;D 8);D ;D ;D ;D