The N&O editorial mentions that Foley recused himself from the investigation into Burns but fails to note that the "recusal" didn't last. According to the memorandum that SBOE Executive Director Kim Strach wrote on October 10, Foley continued to press SBOE staff for details about the investigation and demanded an advance copy of the findings.
Those "findings" are supposed to be released by Kim Strach tomorrow at a press conference in Raleigh. We're all ears.
Meanwhile, just for the "conflict-of-interest" file we're sure you're keeping on your laptop, Kim Strach's hubby, Phil Strach, in one of the attorneys defending voter suppression in that federal courtroom in Winston-Salem this week. Strach and Foley both served the NC Republican Party as general counsels.
|Paul Foley, far left (partly obscured). Phil Strach, 4th from right on|
the dais (seated)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
It's like having so many things up here run by Eggerses. I like to spread the work - and power - around a bit.
Post a Comment