Archive for bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Open discussion on just about any topic
 


       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Local politics
bieramar

Candidate Endorsements

Two St. Johns County law enforcement leaders have endorsed Mike Davis for State Representative District 17

Ponte Vedra Recorder
July 12, 2012

Sheriff David Shoar and St. Augustine Police Chief Loran Lueders have demonstrated their support of Davis' campaign.

Shoar praised Davis' civic involvement and leadership potential.

"I have known Mike Davis and several members of his extended family during the past three decades Mike has a long and rich history of civic involvement and professional experience that I am confident will serve the citizens of the district well," Shoar said. "I believe that all of us will benefit by Mike taking the next step in his public service by serving in elective office at the state level. Mike possesses both the vision and the ability to execute his vision, two attributes that are certainly necessary to be successful as a state representative."

Davis is president of A.D. Davis Construction, a family business. He grew up in St. Augustine and lives there with his wife of 23 years and their four children.

"I am honored to have the support of our local law enforcement. Sheriff Shoar and Chief Lueders are strong leaders in our community, and I appreciate their respect and confidence, as I have the utmost for them," Davis said in a statement. "Their relationships will be beneficial in helping better serve St. Johns County if I'm elected."

Davis has also been endorsed by Rep. Bill Proctor and Associated Industries of Florida.

He has served on many community boards and is past president of the St. Augustine Rotary, St. Augustine YMCA and The Arc of St. Johns.

For more information, visit http://www.electmikedavis.com.
-
Source: http://www.pontevedrarecorder.com...ns-law-enforcement-endorses-davis
====

First, I'm using this political endorsement article to raise a philosophical and political point of discussion - I'm not expressing an opinion on Davis, Shoar or Lueders or on their respective records in their current and previous jobs.  

I was raised in an era when many professional military men and professional civilian peace officers were not only publicly apolitical, but even avoided participating in the political process - they didn't register and vote.  Privately at home or with friends of course they expressed policy and personal opinions.  

Some famous examples are General Eisenhower, when he was courted by both the Democrats and Republicans to run for president after WW-II; and Sec'y of State Gates when he was nominated by Bush 43 (one of the positive highlights of Bush's decision-making, BTW).

Although other military and civilian professionals in both sectors of society have always taken the opposite path, and were active politically both in Parties and other prerequisite organizations such as the various Lodges, Kniights, etc..  

In my childhood, and during my early military service (1950s), the former were the most respected, with the latter viewed somewhat askance by a portion of the population simply because of the partisanship implicit in Party and "club" memberships.

In St. Augustine the Police Chief is appointed by the City Manager, who him/herself is hired by the elected City Commissioners.  That process and style of government is intentional in order to remove the Police Department as far as possible from political partisonship.  

My proposal is that both the City Manager and the Police Chief be proscribed from publicly endorsing political candidates - whether or not the candidates are affiliated with a political Party.

In St. Johns County the Sheriff - as one of the five county constitutional officers - is elected under the Florida Constitution rules and regulations (voters in some Florida Counties have created "home rule" by establishing Charter Governments), and is identified on the ballot as a member of a political Party, or as "NPA" (no Party affiliation).  

While my overall druthers is for all counties to have Charter Government home rule, instead of being bound to Tallahassee, under current law an Sheriff is allowed to declare, and run on, his political Party affiliation (including changing it).  

Notwithstanding that the Sheriff can declare political affiliation, I still propose that Sheriffs in Florida voluntarily avoid active Party politicking, including making endorsements, during their term of office (analogous to elected officials placing their investment portfolios in a blind trust).
scrutney

Re: Candidate Endorsements

bieramar wrote:
 

 

My proposal is that both the City Manager and the Police Chief be proscribed from publicly endorsing political candidates - whether or not the candidates are affiliated with a political Party.

<snip>

Notwithstanding that the Sheriff can declare political affiliation, I still propose that Sheriffs in Florida voluntarily avoid active Party politicking, including making endorsements, during their term of office (analogous to elected officials placing their investment portfolios in a blind trust).


i agree.
auntmartymoo

That surprises me, Scrut.  You're usually the person we can count on to carry the torch for free speech.

Being appointed or elected to office does not usually require a person to give up any constitutional rights.  To expect city employees to stifle their opinions (political or otherwise) would, at the very least, need to be disclosed PRIOR to their acceptance of their positions.  

Although I still see no need for putting shackles on their rights to free speech, unless there is a public safety issue.  It opens the door to other, even more inane possibilities...like exactly where do "endorsements" begin and end?  

What if the Sheriff always buys his wife's automobiles at Bozard Ford...and one of the Bozards decides to run for Mosquito Control Officer.  I guarantee some whack-job will squeal that it is an endorsement of sorts.  Or what if the Police Chief has lunch at O'Steen's every Wednesday...and someone affiliated with the restaurant decides to run for office?  Same ridiculous problem.

It's not hard to see how much of a nightmare this would create in a small town like St. Auggie.  Every single merchant transaction could be considered an endorsement of sorts.

Plus, why sit around thinking of ways to hamper free speech?
scrutney

auntmartymoo wrote:
That surprises me, Scrut.  You're usually the person we can count on to carry the torch for free speech.

Being appointed or elected to office does not usually require a person to give up any constitutional rights.  To expect city employees to stifle their opinions (political or otherwise) would, at the very least, need to be disclosed PRIOR to their acceptance of their positions.  

Although I still see no need for putting shackles on their rights to free speech, unless there is a public safety issue.  It opens the door to other, even more inane possibilities...like exactly where do "endorsements" begin and end?  

What if the Sheriff always buys his wife's automobiles at Bozard Ford...and one of the Bozards decides to run for Mosquito Control Officer.  I guarantee some whack-job will squeal that it is an endorsement of sorts.  Or what if the Police Chief has lunch at O'Steen's every Wednesday...and someone affiliated with the restaurant decides to run for office?  Same ridiculous problem.

It's not hard to see how much of a nightmare this would create in a small town like St. Auggie.  Every single merchant transaction could be considered an endorsement of sorts.

Plus, why sit around thinking of ways to hamper free speech?


i guess i should have clarified.
here is the point that bier made with which i agree:

Quote:
My proposal is that both the City Manager and the Police Chief be proscribed from publicly endorsing political candidates - whether or not the candidates are affiliated with a political Party.


as both are appointed positions it seems to me that it it might be the best way to defang the possibility of machine politics.
anyway...that's what i agreed with.

but you make some good points auntmartymoo, (as always) so i'll probably take some time and ponder what you've said.

and now, a rather bizarre transition/non-sequiter...i was at a party the other night and the citizens untited scotus decision reared it's ugly head.

i asked the assembled masses to raise their hands if they thought they were too stupid to cut through the fog of an average campaign ad.

not a hand was raised.

then i asked how many in the room thought that the average american was too stupid to cut through the dribble and goo of a negative campaign ad.
8 out of 12 hands went up.

not sure what it proves...but it proves something:
"i don't need it for me, but those dumbasses over there certainly need to be protected from themselves."
auntmartymoo

Ahhh yes.  And they would be right.  

A lot of their neighbors voted for a guy for president because he gave a good speech.
scrutney

auntmartymoo wrote:

A lot of their neighbors voted for a guy for president because he gave a good speech.


which begs the question:
what the hell happened to the good speeches?
all we get lately is that 'i wanna be your pal' patois.

i've got plenty of pals...i want a president.
bieramar

scrutney wrote:
auntmartymoo wrote:

A lot of their neighbors voted for a guy for president because he gave a good speech.


which begs the question:
what the hell happened to the good speeches?
all we get lately is that 'i wanna be your pal' patois.

i've got plenty of pals...i want a president.


But the reality is that this year a lot - probably the majority - of voters are going to vote for the image they'll have created, based upon their perceptions based upon the Campaign, PAC, and Super-PAC ads they view during prime time and sports entertainment viewing.  

Being "presidential" doesn't mean squat to most voters, except during waving-the-flag patriotic fervor during popular wars - and I don't see any in sight.

Being someone who appears to keep struggling to solve the continuing problems of personal and family security, and of home and hometown economics for all the "we, the people" will have more affinity than a millionaire who personally has none of those worries.

Right now Obama is that someone - in comparison to Romney - to almost every demographic group except older white menopausal men, and to a lesser extent, women, looking toward their last hurrah of defeating Obama.
auntmartymoo

bieramar wrote:
Being someone who appears to keep struggling to solve the continuing problems of personal and family security, and of home and hometown economics...


...and failing miserably.  Obama's image when it comes to this country's economic problems is one of impotence.  

Romney is already viewed as a problem solver who can better handle economic problems.  He's already beating Obama by 8 points on the issue, and he's just begun crafting his image through ad blasts.

Really Bieramar, your view of Obama is overly romanticized compared to the mainstream view. Voters don't care which wealthy candidate is wealthier.  They don't care who looks like he's working harder.  

They want the one who is least likely to make our economy worse.
scrutney

Quote:
Being "presidential" doesn't mean squat to most voters, except during waving-the-flag patriotic fervor during popular wars - and I don't see any in sight.


i beg to differ.
say what you will about reagan...he had the leadership ability that appealed to rank and file america. and to a large extent still does.

he made americans proud to be americans.
and not a war in sight...(okay, grenada and that lasted what? 10 minutes)

leadership.
reagan had it.
fdr had it.
kennedy had it.

smoke and mirrors?
maybe...but reagan resonated.

auntmartymoo

I agree.  Reagan resonated.  

But I think he resonated more after he was elected than on the campaign trail.

The exact opposite of Obama...he resonated on the campaign trail, but not so much in office.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."  The gaffe that will live in infamy.  I cant even imagine how many ads will feature this quote.

Romney has nowhere near the resonance and charisma of Reagan.  But there's no reason he can't re-create some of the Reagan optimism.  People who have been smacked down by a crummy economy need a lift and Obama's negativism is such a downer.  Blame blame blame...rich guys are the problem...no, republicans are the problem...no, business owners are the problem...there's a war on women...there's a war on birth control...

If that's leadership, surely it's the bottom of the barrel.

Edited to correct a gigantic grammatical error.

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Local politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum