Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterLetters to the Editor for Thursday, October 22, 2009
Published: October 22, 2009
Races grab the spotlight
Ends and means
What started out as a respectful, issue-oriented delegate’s race for the 23rd District has suddenly turned very ugly. I am afraid that the saying “the end justifies the means” has rung true for one of the candidates.
For some reason, Scott Garrett has decided to take the low road and has resorted to deceptive means to get elected. His recent campaign mailings have insulted the intelligence of voters by concentrating solely on smear tactics attempting to discredit his opponent.
Grossly distorting and misrepresenting the facts may be politically fashionable, but it will not get my vote. I, for one, prefer to know more about where the candidates stand on specific issues and their vision for the future.
Most elections come down to a matter of character, and I don’t feel very comfortable with a candidate who has resorted to negative attacks to promote his political ambitions. A seemingly nice man has become part of a nasty, mean-spirited political process that is all too common today. His true colors have come through and demonstrated his inability to represent his constituents in a civil, bipartisan manner.
In keeping with Garrett’s recent campaign theme, I also have a little “secret” for him: You may be a retired surgeon, but there is something terribly wrong with the way you operate. Your deceptive and misleading campaign tactics have completely turned me off. You have lost my respect, my confidence and my vote.
The folks in Central Virginia deserve much better, and we are very fortunate to have that in Shannon Valentine. She is a class act who continues to take the high road and a proven leader who represents us well in Richmond.
DAVID J. HOFMANN
Lynchburg
For Garrett
Our current delegate from the 23rd District, Shannon Valentine, is willing to increase taxes and take even more money out of my pocket and send it to the politicians in Richmond.
Scott Garrett, if elected as 23rd District delegate this November, will work to cut taxes.
That will take my money out of the pockets in Richmond and put it back in my pocket where it will do the most good for me and for the local economy.
That’s why I plan to do everything I can to help Garrett get elected in place of Valentine. He knows where my money belongs.
JAMES ELDRIDGE
Lynchburg
The politics of fear
Saturday, I received a four-page mailer from the Scott Garrett campaign. The cover featured a frightening face holding a finger over his lips, whispering “Shannon Valentine has a secret.” Let’s disregard the misleading contents and look at the mailer itself. That scary picture on the front cover, also repeated on the back, is an example of the politics of fear. The message is clear. “Shannon Valentine is someone we should fear.”
A Newsweek science article (Dec. 24, 2007) explains how our brains are hardwired for fear to overcome reason. The author summarizes 50 years of research with these words: “The evolutionary primacy of the brain’s fear circuitry makes it more powerful than the brain’s reasoning faculties.” Karl Rove and other political operatives working directly and indirectly to shape Scott Garrett’s campaign have become experts at fear-mongering to win elections. In the same article a political psychologist warns that “… the skillful use of fear is unmatched in leading to enthusiasm for one candidate and causing voters to turn away from another.”
It’s a simple strategy. Make voters afraid of a candidate and whatever the truth, it has no chance of being heard. No wonder the latest Garrett mailer features a face almost hidden in the shadows whispering “Shannon Valentine has a secret.”
I hope that in the few days remaining before the election, Garrett will repudiate his handlers and speak the truth about himself and his positions on the issues with no more fear mongering attacks on Shannon Valentine.
MEL WHITE
Lynchburg
Negative campaigning
You know the campaign of Scott Garrett has gotten too graphic when I have to screen my mail before one of my 9-year-old grandsons sees one of his ads.
It was bad enough when one of them asked why their neighbor was “being so mean” to Del. Shannon Valentine when viewing the “apples and oranges” television ad.
I had to draw the line at their seeing my mail, though, when one of them asked “What secret does Shannon Valentine have?” “Is it bad?” “What is going on?”
No one should have to explain to an elementary school youth that the “nice man” who lives down the street from them is telling lies so that he can win an election.
Garrett’s continued deliberate misrepresentation of Del. Valentine is self-serving and reflects the limited integrity he possess, as well as a drive for power that is truly disconcerting.
If, for whatever reason, you choose not to vote for Valentine, perhaps you should consider whether you really want Garrett representing Lynchburg in Richmond. Who’s to say he will do what’s best for us? It seems he only wants to do what’s best for himself, where she has a proven record of communication with her constituents and action in Richmond clearly in the interest of our district.
MARY JANE DOLAN
Lynchburg
Uncivil debate
Monday night, I was very bothered by the lack of decorum at the League of Women’s Voters debate between Del. Shannon Valentine and Scott Garrett.
Her supporters were rude with snickers and cat calls while Garrett was speaking. At times, they were “high-fiving” each other. Garrett didn’t seem to be affected by the childish behavior of Valentine’s supporters; nonetheless, their behavior was impolite and distracting to others in the audience.
If my children were to ever act in this fashion in public, I would certainly correct their behavior immediately. To exemplify her call for everyone to work together, I had expected Valentine to demonstrate leadership and ask her supporters to be polite and respectful of Garrett while he was speaking.
As it was, many of us in the audience had to try to focus on the dialogue between Valentine and Garrett in spite of the distractions.
DENISE PALYS
Lynchburg
For Valentine
It has become standard practice in an election for challengers to attack the incumbent rather than trying to sell themselves.
That is clearly the case in the race for the 23rd District since the challenger has nothing to sell.
Instead he has repeatedly harped on a non-issue that has become increasingly boring.
Seeing no reason to vote for him and every reason to vote for her, I will vote for Shannon Valentine.
JOAN MacCALLUM
Lynchburg
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
“Scoop” Malone here, reporting live from the 5th Street traffic circle. I’m whispering because I am undercover as a nearby shrub.
Just listening in on the Atheist gathering, everyone should be relieved to know that they are neither plotting intergalactic warfare, nor a sinister usurpation of the electoral process.
Rather, they are planning whose house to paper with the Roll of Power on Halloween.
They hadn’t decided yet, at press time; but judging from the discussion thus far, if you are a cosmo-not or former cosmo-not, I’d leave my flood lights on if I were you.
This portion of our broadcast brought to you by Bif Duran Banzai, private eye. If your house gets papered, he’ll serve the papers.
Back to You (Lie) in the studio.
Be sure to place garlic over your doors tonight. It is too quiet here - no word from Zeltar, 24, Fred, commando, Johnny…. man, someone get to 5th street and see what is going on…
Now that is a sad statement. “I am ashamed to be called a Republican so I will call myself an Independent and be a liar instead”. Sad.
The “we are Independents” vogue phrase that’s so much the current street vernacular might have more credibility if there were not so disproportionately many “Independents” who are actually registered to vote as Republicans. There’s a pretty wide perception that the term “Independent” is the current politically PC memo-directed term for “Republican.“
Great info Pack, thanks! Are you a dog nut? I have three and your name made me wonder. You make some great posts and I enjoy reading them.
Clare…your #2, the SSI/SSDI 1:2 ratio.
That sounds like an excellent deal, only losing $1 of the subsidy for every $2 they earn. That sounds like a good deal. The major problem is that most people on SSI (full disability) can’t work at all. And, the increased income will cause a reduction in housing subsidies (SSI is $647/month…housing is not possible on that kind of income so subsidy is provided). In my experience, some go to work (if they can find work) only to find that it exacerbates their disability and they need to stop again. SSDI is a higher rate of income and the same issues apply.
I hear you Clare, I have enough medical horror stories to write a book and I am only 51. I agree it is very frustrating and the ignorance is astounding. I do not know what system would stop such things and if a fee would do it, I can see doing that for the nuisances for sure.
I was in the ER with a kidney stone once and trust me when I say I was in horrible pain. I was bent over, could not walk, was vomiting and in all probability moaning. There was a patient, just literally caterwauling and screaming every few minutes and I finally asked the nurse if he was dying and why no one was helping him. She said, honey, it is a man with a kidney stone just like you and he has the same meds you do and he only thinks he is dying.
As for the liberal-conservative-republican-democrat stuff…whatever.
Taxes pay for services I want to have available: roads, police, postal system, public schools, paid fire and rescue, water treatment facility, snow removal, etc. I don’t access any of the public assistance programs, but I understand that catastrophe can and does happen, so I am okay with those being available - for short periods of time and for those who REALLY need it. I think those individuals who do access assistance should have to pay something.
When you have a specific need (i.e. a bridge) I think it’s acceptable (and fiscally responsible) to generate additional income for that specific need. Just like one might pick up an extra shift to get Christmas money. That’s a good thing.
I think each of us has the right and duty to vote, and we have the right and duty to see where our tax money is spent. That means going to City Council meetings, keeping abreast of changes in your neighborhood, researching the budget proposal, etc.
I don’t think that either party is the “Christian” party.
I find it really funny how some people think they know and understand our identities. I am a married, college-educated, employed, homeowning mother. I keep a roof over my own head and take care of my family and my church.
Here’s the really scary part - I VOTE!!! Every election, every time. Haven’t missed one yet.
Va Dem - I understand where you’re coming from. I had to go to the ER one Sunday afternoon not too long ago. I had fought against going to the ER, because I knew that I would have to wait behind people who really were not having an emergency. Unfortunately, I could not wait until Monday morning to seek medical attention and I had no other choice. As I lay in a bay, waiting for a doctor, I listened to a woman nearby who had brought in a child whom she thought MIGHT BE getting sick. I’m not advocating stopping an accident victim at the door, but some of the stupid visits have got to stop.
As for the maternity coverage provided by Medicaid, I’d even support a total deductible of $50, payable as $5 per month. I just think they ought to pay something.
Packer2Dogs;
I thought your post at 2:22 was interesting so I replying that that.
~What is a liberal?
A liberal is someone who (using broad terms which can vary based on individuals) belongs to the far-left Democratic Party. Liberals (remember I’m using this broadly) mainly believe in “nanny state” government, gay marriage, abortions, less guns, not God in Pledge of Alligiance, wealth redistribution, and much more. They differ from Blue Dog Democrats who are more moderate (Conservative). I do not think Liberal is negative connotation, no worse than Moderate, Liberatarian, Conservative, etc. IMO, I’d rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not.
~What is socialism and what parts of the US government today are actually a form of socialism? Is that right or wrong and what would you do about them?
“Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation. Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.“ Wikipedia
Parts of the US Government today that are forms of socialism include (but not limited to) Public School, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Heatlhcare (S-CHIP), Postal Service, etc.
Now, whether you think public education and the postal service and social security are right or wrong is based on individual opinion.
~What is conservatism and how has the Republican party changed in the last 30 years in its conservative views.
Conservatism is the political ideology based on upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not spending out of control, right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. Not all Republicans are Conservative and there are even Democrats who are Conservative (Blue Dog Democrats).
~Does conservatism automatically see all taxation as wrong? Where is the line? What is reasonable?
No, Conservatives do not see all taxation as wrong. They just do not see the need in tax-spend, tax some more-spend some more. They believe in paying off the debts owed to other countries so that we can start gaining revenue, making the dollar stronger, inflation less, less dependence on foreign countries, etc. Some taxation is of course needed to provide for those “social” prorams listed above.
~How do we provide for our infrastructure needs in times of rising costs, lower revenues, and more than significant budget cuts.
We provide for our infrastructure by cutting back services or unnecessary spending. Like cutting back on wants and keeping only what is needed. We need to stop excessive borrowing which lowers the value of the dollar which causes inflation. If you don’t cut the budgets and spending, you’ll have to raise taxes. If you raise taxes, more businesses will move overseas. They will cut employment or cut salaries/benefits. So, IMO, I say cut unnecessary spending, red tape, budgets; lower taxes; move business here; increase employment; when business moves back, you’ll have increased revenue, then start funding the wants.
Hope this helps!
~Firechick907~
Advertisement