whatcha doin' FA? Making a Christmas list?

I really think these all go hand in hand. IF there is corruption it would be silly for Dems, both elected or seeking future office to ignore that.

On the other hand, normal folks have been known to strike out at the messenger of news they don't want to hear.

That old twenty-twenty hindsight thing.
We should have, we could have, we would have, but we didn't so now what do we do?

that should answer your question.

"Corruption" and "preservation" are not the same issue, although there is some overlap. The issue of who is allowing and encouraging the "Growth Crowd" to careen toward the wholesale ruination of the rural and scenic county is not the same as the issue of stealing and mis-appropriating public money.

I think focusing on the apparent ability of the Growth Crowd to buildbuildbuild regardless of the county's long-term future and regardless of what it really does to the educational system has real political potential. Lots of people care more about that than how many cars the sheriff has. Lots of people do not think the measure of good government is how little of it there is.

I think focusing on the apparent ability of the Growth Crowd to buildbuildbuild regardless of the county's long-term future and regardless of what it really does to the educational system has real political potential. Lots of people care more about that than how many cars the sheriff has.

Granted, but let's say because of this slowdown, construction is not a big issue at election time. My thinking is, there is no one on the national scene that I would want to relate myself to - in either party. If Evan Bayh was running, I'd hitch my wagon to his. But since Hillary seems a shoe in - would you really want to use the "party" locally? Of course I understand they would be used. Although, using Mr. Byah as an example, you would notice on his official website it's hard to even find a mention of his party.

Since things for the GOP have only gotten worse since '04, would you not want to keep the focus on the "anyone but the GOP" voters? And would you not feed those voters by keeping the pressure on the GOP by exposing them and their "issues"?

I guess my ultimate point is, I believe you would get more people out on election day running on the issues as opposed to "Vote Democrat". Is it more important to change policy or gain popularity?

I agree, but before you get to the positive, there is a mountain of negative, nasty, sometimes illegal stuff in the way. It may be time for folks who have been enjoying the sausage for years to finally see how it's made.

Fairview Angel wrote:
I guess my ultimate point is, I believe you would get more people out on election day running on the issues as opposed to "Vote Democrat". Is it more important to change policy or gain popularity?

I did not say anything about "Vote Democrat." I think Democrats would do well running against unchallenged growth (or for controlled, smart growth). So would Republicans, but local ones (with a few exceptions) are unlikely to do it because it is contrary to their core Worship the Market philosophy.

I think Democrats would do well running against unchallenged growth (or for controlled, smart growth). So would Republicans, but local ones (with a few exceptions) are unlikely to do it because it is contrary to their core Worship the Market

.

Have you not seen the for sale signs staying up longer and longer? I'm telling you, by the time the election rolls around, if you are focused on those with a "Worship the Market philosophy" you will be making it easy for those to point out a market that is down 40%.