Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Ramsey County Commissioner Jan Parker - A Highly Partisan Non-Partisan

Incumbent District 2 Ramsey County Commissioner Jan (Weissner) Parker's repeated claims of being "non-partisan" are nothing short of laughable. What is not funny is the burden her highly partisan actions on the board have placed on the taxpayers and property owners of Ramsey County - Jan Parker's 30 year record in government is one of an unapologetic command-and-control big government liberal.

Parker's claims of non-partisanship are even contradicted within the same campaign literature that asserts she is not partisan. Check out her endorsements: A common characteristic of these organizations is that they have a vested interested in the continued and unchecked growth of government. Put it this way: my guess is that none of these organizations include a significant number of members who also have a NRA, MCCL, or RNC membership card in their wallet or a "Bush - Cheney" bumper sticker on the back of their Hummer.

Also, the obligatory "who's responsible for this" text at the bottom of the union-label printed literature piece Parker is mailing out lists former New Brighton Mayor Bob Benke as a co-chair of her campaign. Mr. Benke can be characterized as a lot of things, but "non-partisan" and "limited government" are certainly not on the list.

It's true that the District 2 Ramsey County Commissioner race is "non-partisan" insofar as the candidates do not have a political party designation on the ballot. This does not mean, however, that the candidates are not partisan. The liberal media and the pop culture has cast the term "partisan" with a negative connotation. There is nothing wrong with partisanship when it reflects the beliefs and core convictions of the person the term is being applied to.

In the District 2 County Commissioner election, challenger Richard "Rick" Moses is honestly, openly, and proudly a partisan Conservative while Jan Parker is attempting to obscure her 30 year track record of command-and-control big government liberalism. Honesty is a highly desirable characteristic in an elected official and Jan Weissner Parker's claim of being "non-partisan" is clearly less than honest.

So why does Parker downplay or outright try to hide her liberal ways? Could it be that she realizes that the more people become aware of her record the less her chances are to continue at her lucrative taxpayer financed gig? Hop on over to "Mr. Dilettante" for a good take on this angle.

The choice in District 2 is clear: if you want a big government, tax-and-spend liberal County Commissioner then vote for Jan Weissner Parker. If, on the other hand, you're tired of the County's hand burrowing ever deeper into your pocket and infringing on your rights and liberty, Rick Moses is the candidate who will work to undo the damage liberal career politicians like Jan Weissner Parker have done. Please keep this in mind and make sure to get yourself and as many like-minded friends as possible out for the September 9th primary as the first step in electing a County Commissioner who puts our interests ahead of growing government and personal political longevity.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger Daria said...

Former Mayor Benke is not the only prominent New Brighton Parker supporter. A friend of mine reports that current New Brighton Mayor Steve Larson has a Parker sign adorning his front yard. Larson is the same self proclaimed non-partisan who appears in the very partisan and very liberal Kate Knuth campaign propaganda.

Given her record and who is supporting her I think it's safe to conclude that Jan Parker's political leanings are well to the left of center. It makes one wonder why she isn't a loud and proud liberal and finds it necessary to try and hide her liberalism from the voters.

- D

9/02/2008 8:40 AM  
Blogger T.W. Day said...

"There is nothing wrong with partisanship when it reflects the beliefs and core convictions of the person the term is being applied to." Assuming we're still using the English language, "it" in the above quote must refer to "partisanship?"

Webster's defines the word with "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance." I'd have to call "a biased, emotional allegiance" a fairly foolish quality.

I see a lot of Jan Parker signs next to Coleman and McSame signs in Little Canada. I'm not certain that a rational link between "liberal" and campaign signs can be made. I think Richard Moses' campaign would be better served talking about the county issues rather than throwing around useless terms like "conservative" (well defamed in the last 8 years of fool-dominated government) and "liberal."

11/01/2008 7:28 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

T.W.

Jan Parker's "non-partisan" claim wears very thin. She is a well left of center bureaucrat that is commonly referred to as a "liberal".

Your comments point out how the left has co-opted our language. There's nothing wrong with partisanship when it refrers to having the courage of one's convictions. It does not necessarily mean a blind, emotional allegiance. And a bias isn't always a bad thing - as economist Walter Williams says, all tests are biased toward those who know the answers.

Though history will be much kinder to President Bush than the partisan media has been, don't try to blame "conservatism" for the shortcomings of the Bush Administration. True Conservatism hasn't been around since Reagan left office. The "bi-partisan", get along, "moderate" Republicanism has been discreted but the only the left refers to it as "conservative".

As far as "fool dominated" government goes, you only need to look at clowns like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank, et al.

11/01/2008 9:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger