What do you have to offer the 109th in ideas and getting “important issues “resolved?
Which is strange because in the exact same critique one sees this:
We all know that the two of you are philosophically on opposite ends of the spectrum, Davis being a conservative Republican and you being a Democrat
First I don't buy the argument that my positions on bills would be so different from some of the Republicans in the district, that they'd vote for Davis--he wouldn't have had a primary opponent last year if that were a true writ large. As you acknowledge--Davis is a conservative Republican. He comes from the wing of the party that has so alienated Republicans that they are becoming "independents" in droves. But lets move on for now.
Anyways, I'll take the bait...which is it? Would I bring different voting record or not? You can't argue I won't bring anything different to the table and then concede I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. Well, actually, you can and did--but needless to say I'm perplexed by your logic on that one.
Different voting blocks, different negotiations, different agendas--these create different compromises and coalitions; these create different outcomes. Its obvious the status quo isn't working and Steve Davis is part of that status quo. I bring a new dynamic to the process. Davis has had a chance to make such a claim and things have gotten worse, not better, for citizens of this state during his tenure. I don't think Obama's victory was a stamp of approval for all his policies--I think it was a complete rejection of conservative Republicans whose policies have run this country (and this state) into the ground.
I won't represent my personal opinions if I'm elected. I'll represent a coalition of citizens who have an agenda and are empowering me to build the coalitions and compromises it requires to get things done.
As I said, I don't necessarily think i'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum as Steve Davis in my ways. We both argue that markets work--I just argue that his claims (which I'd call classical liberal) of how and why markets work best are often incoherent and unproven for industrialized societies. That's not a philosophical claim that's historical and hence verifiable claim. Some aren't willing to concede their philosophy when it comes to the real world. I tend to be more pragmatic than that and base my judgements on real world situations and am always open to arguments that prove me wrong.
But since you ask here are a few concrete examples of what is different....
Allowing voters to rank order candidates would create more coalition campaigning. Would help create incentives for 3rd party participation and most importantly would remove the costs of run-off's from our state budget. Run-offs are costly in of themselves for a turnout that is usually next to nihl. Why spend money on something that can be done on election day?
I would have been a co-sponsor. I would have travelled the state making voters aware of this important bill so that it would have made it to the floor. 60% of House races went unopposed in 2008. That is an atrocity for those of us who believe in a competition of ideas. If you believe that the best man for the job is not necessarily because of the party they come from but the skills and background they bring to the table then you can't be satisfied with the status quo.
I'm sick of the Republicans and Democrats sitting in a room somewhere protecting each others seats when redistricting comes around. That kind of deal making allows for ineptitude and corruption on both sides of the aisle. When I say its time to clean house I'm not speaking only of Republicans. Politics is about compromise and coalitions--with all the gridlock we have on important issues its obvious that the politicians we have now don't have what it takes to build those alliances and therefore we need to bring new leaders and new ideas to the table. This in of itself brings new voting blocks and coalitions.
As i've mentioned before... this isn't a partisan thing--leaders on both sides of the aisle have failed us. The ineptitude of the Democratic Party, and the bickering of Republicans, mean the the citizens of Georgia don't get the people's business done, and we end up watching the circus up at the Gold Dome. This is despite the efforts of many good people on both sides of the aisle. Its just time to bring new leaders to the table I'm not sure how changing voting blocks wouldn't be a change? Though it seems to be an a priori claim in of itself I'd be open to you empirically disproving the claim. I'm not sure if you can as I have yet to see any empirical studies on voting behavior that refuted such a claim but i'm open to see it.
Bringing new leaders with new ideas and energy is something I did with the Henry County Democrats--attend a meeting now as compared to two years ago when I showed up. This is something I can do at the State level when I'm elected. I got involved with the Democratic Party because I was fed up with their ineptitude as a political party. Because I'm a person that doesn't like to point fingers and would rather roll up my sleeves and work to fix problems I see. I'm fed up with the ineptitude and failure to make headway on important issues in the State Legislature--i'm putting my money where my mouth is and saying enough is enough.
The citizens of this district will get a choice in 2010--those who are happy with the status quo can vote for Steve Davis. Those who think our political system could use a reality check will vote for me. In the real world if you can't accomplish the tasks you are given by your employer you get fired. The citizens of the 109 have the opportunity to send one of those career politicians packing.
Redistricting and voter apathy is how career politicians like Steve Davis protect their jobs. The citizens of GA get fewer competitive electoral races--which creates more apathy and distrust of government. Works out great if you want to keep your job... works terrible for those of us who believe in competitive races and a functioning government.
- SB 31 -- I would have voted no.
For those who don't know much about this you can read more Update on SB31 If you think sending 70 lobbyists to make the same bad argument is going to win my vote you might want to reconsider. As a political scientist by training good empirical arguments can sway my vote--political pressure won't.
Those are just a few examples. Things aren't going to be wine and roses if i'm elected. I think nothing changes without hard dedicated work. I'm willing to travel the state working to build the coalitions and find the compromises it takes to get this state moving in the right direction again.
By the by--some guy saying a joke in a room of 12 people does not a smear campaign make.
Posted via email from Jim Nichols
No comments:
Post a Comment