Reichley Column: Going along to get along
Written by Charles Reichley
This paper’s 13th district race endorsement got me thinking about what makes a person a “good delegate.” In the endorsement, the editors had two complaints about the incumbent, Bob Marshall. First, they feel his focus on “social issues” means he can’t spend enough time on things that have “more direct effects” on his constituents. Second, they argue that his “approach to legislating” “has restricted his influence.”
On their first complaint, I’d say that first, his focus on “social issues” is important to a good number of his constituents, and the editors are too dismissive of the direct effects his successes have, I presume because the editors don’t share these concerns. Second, I’ve seen no evidence that advocacy for “social issues” has prevented him from proposing and supporting legislation on other important issues.
The endorsement cites two examples of high-profile and time-consuming efforts Marshall made: preventing an unconstitutional taxing authority and advocating for autistic children. Bob has also been active on transportation funding and other issues, such as concerns about new regulations of alternate onsite sewage systems. Last year he managed to represent us well while running for his party’s Senate nomination.
I’m a supporter of Bob Marshall and plan to vote for him again as I am pleased with his performance. Also, as the editors admit, Bob Marshall has served us with honor, intelligence, and passion — and I don’t think that is so common a quality in a politician that it should be lightly dismissed. But my purpose here isn’t to endorse a candidate, but to discuss my opposition to the “go-along-to-get-along” argument.
READ THE FULL TEXT at INSIDE NOVA
