tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6194583.post6131153566841890866..comments2024-03-22T13:06:27.366-05:00Comments on WataugaWatch: N&O Editorial Calls for Paul Foley To Resign From SBOEJ.W. Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17694324792688711136noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6194583.post-71523087118280582972015-07-15T18:03:57.797-05:002015-07-15T18:03:57.797-05:00Joan - that's interesting you read it that way...Joan - that's interesting you read it that way...I took it the opposite way. I read the subtext as "Why the heck is Kim Strach's husband getting the state contract to argue this case?" - doesn't make HER unqualified, makes hiring HIM the problem.<br /><br />It's like having so many things up here run by Eggerses. I like to spread the work - and power - around a bit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6194583.post-82464681509359053102015-07-15T07:31:08.558-05:002015-07-15T07:31:08.558-05:00Hey Jerry,
I'm sorry, but when I entered the ...Hey Jerry,<br /><br />I'm sorry, but when I entered the other comment it showed up under my husband's account -- thus under his name. I apologize for the misrepresentation on the name of the commenter. It was I, not Mr. Dubowski, who objected -- and I still object -- to the suggestion that Kim is compromised by her marriage. Again, she has a record. The fact that she is married to Phil Strach doesn't offer substantive information -- just innuendo. And no, you don't get to call it a "logical conclusion" based on word play about "pressure points." You can call it a logical conclusion when you make a logical argument. Again, my apologies for the fact that my husband's name shows up on my comment. (There's an ironic aside to be made here, but it eludes me for the moment.)<br /><br />Joan TroyLokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956946866784678681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6194583.post-60709719644695368742015-07-14T20:55:37.180-05:002015-07-14T20:55:37.180-05:00No where did I say "that by virtue of her mar...No where did I say "that by virtue of her marriage, Kim Strach is unfit to be director of the State Board of Elections." I did point out the rather amazing intertwining of personalities at almost every pressure point in North Carolina's current struggle for ballot access and against voter suppression. It doesn't look healthy to me. That is NOT a "sexist presumption." That is a logical conclusion.J.W. Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17694324792688711136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6194583.post-67588532256461723632015-07-14T19:47:03.694-05:002015-07-14T19:47:03.694-05:00I have a problem with the author's suggestion ...I have a problem with the author's suggestion that by virtue of her marriage, Kim Strach is unfit to be director of the State Board of Elections. I have a problem with this because it is an accusation resting in pure prejudice rather than any action Kim Strach has taken or not taken in her duty. The assumption underlying this accusation is that she cannot think for herself or act on her own because she is married to someone whose political ambitions are strongly held. But this assumption discounts the equally plausible proposition that Phil Strach cannot function well in his chosen profession (an activist for Republican values) because he is married to someone who bases her decisions on principles that have nothing to do with whether one is Republican or Democrat. It's remarkable to me that in 2015, I should have to point out the problem with this sexist presumption. But here we are. Kim Strach has demonstrated integrity and devotion to principle. Whether or not the Republican powers-that-be understood that when supporting her appointment is beside the point. She has a well established reputation for fairness. That should be acknowledged by anyone who professes to be an activist on behalf of good government.Mark Dubowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11826482257146037332noreply@blogger.com