The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

8 February 2005

Visions of sugarplums

First, the obligatory Mark Twain quote:

In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made school boards.

I doubt if this was what drove Jennifer Puckett out of her District 2 seat after eight years, but she's history, and an election is being held today to replace her.

The local Republican Party is expressing unusual interest in this nonpartisan race. Then again, maybe it's not so unusual: one of the three other candidates is openly gay, and they hope to whip up some voter antagonism.

Which, in turn, makes my decision for me. I have no compelling urge to see a gay man on the school board, but I don't think it's the end of the world should one end up there, especially since he's just one voice out of eight. I do, however, take a dim view of the GOP's failure to comprehend the meaning of a "nonpartisan" ballot, so the least I can do is vote for the candidate they're targeting, a fellow named Jim Nimmo. Just as a reminder, you know. Nothing against the rest of you guys — I'm sure you're all sterling folks — but I have my rules.

Posted at 7:05 AM to Political Science Fiction


as per Nimmo's bio...I question a point of view that maintains that straight people are superior, and thus subjecting a class of kids to conditions of intimidation and harassment, thereby maintaining a fiction of superiority. is bravo sierra in the extreme. Straight people are not superior by any stretch, but at least as morality is concerned, {with conventional Judeo-Christian emphasis}they/we are not morally bankrupt with their/my "faggotry".

Posted by: paulsmso at 9:05 AM on 8 February 2005

I don't have kids in this district, but I have to assume that if Jim Nimmo thought Superintendent Bob Moore's nondiscrimination policy was working, he wouldn't be in this race.

And anyway, I'm more "Let's vote for the gay guy just to piss off the Republicans" more than I am "Let's vote for the gay guy because we need one right this minute." Not that there's anything rational about that.

Posted by: CGHill at 9:28 AM on 8 February 2005

Charles, I feel the same as you ... that little bit of GOP partisan sniping made my choice too.

As for the comment by paulsmso well it made me yearn to vote TWICE but since this isn't Chicago (or Florida) I can't :) I have, however made it a point to discuss this with 3 of my neighbors who would normally not have voted in such a race and encouraged them to get to the polls.

One does what one can ...

Posted by: Ron at 9:31 AM on 8 February 2005

Interesting. Houston's HCDP and HCRP have been meddling in "nonpartisan" elections forever. Both city council and HISD tend to have Republican and Democratic slates. Though that doesn't stop multiple Republicans or Democrats from running in a particular district, there is barely the pretense of non-partisan interest.

Posted by: R. Alex at 9:44 AM on 8 February 2005

I wouldn't have a problem if they ran these elections as partisan, either. I was quite miffed, however, to discover after the fact some GOP malingering in the Oklahoma City mayor's race. (Yeah, we knew who the Democrats were and who the Republicans were; but there's a reason there are no party labels on the ballots.) It didn't affect my vote, obviously, since I didn't learn about it until too late, and I still think I would have voted the way I did, and I have no doubt the Democrats have screwed around like this in years past, but I still would like to express my deep disgust, thank you very much, at these sub rosa shenanigans.

Posted by: CGHill at 10:19 AM on 8 February 2005