Blogs » Politcs Plus » Nationalizing local races?


I don't usually concern myself with local politics. I will vote but I don't find the need to comment on every nickel and dime the city and county spends but Sunday's Advocate article titled "Uphill battle for local Dems" by Gabe Semenza got my attention. I had to reread the first sentence because I don't know what the author meant when he said” The Democrats own the presidency.” I thought it was a duly elected office and 69 million Americans made their choice. I guess, he meant that the Democrats are the majority party, since they control the executive and legislative branch. I am not trying to be picky but this is an example of a story that could be taken out of context. There many out there that think we have a dictator, knowing nothing about the three coequal branches of government. Then the author asked a leading question, I thought, when he wrote "but do recent local election patterns and unpopular liberal White House decisions spell trouble for Victoria County Democrats in November's General Election?” He never offered a hint of what Liberal White House decisions were made. If he would have said "perceived Liberal decisions” I would have to say he has a point.

I understand a straight party vote would benefit the local GOP but I can't for the life of me, see why someone would nationalize a local DA race. Representative, yes. Deborah Branch may have a good resume but she has not convinced me that she could keep this city any safer than our present DA. Saying that she could establish better relations with law enforcement, might be a good start. A lot of us graduated with some of the candidates, some are casual friends, acquaintances, former team's parents,we have read or heard of their good traits and other reasons that weigh more heavily than a party affiliation. Then there are those that we would never vote for. James Gleason, Victoria College political science professor said “When it comes to voting for local candidates the vast majority in 2008 set aside party differences and zeroed in on the person up for office.

While I agree with Mary Ann White, when she said that "a 31% base is a great start” I think she went a little too far when she said that "a Democrat backed Congress could release funds just ahead of November and perhaps stimulate grassroots support and sway votes.” Am I missing something here? Other than another conspiracy theory, was there a basis for that statement?