Recent Davenport Community School District Board Meeting — all seats filled overwhelmingly by opponents of mandatory masking — Speakers were 10 to 1 against mandates
Key issues for local elections — mask/vaccine mandates and “social emotional learning (SEL) learning / critical race theory (CRT) … and a proper understanding of the “freedom to choose” campaigns
Given what is now known about the ineffectiveness of masks as worn and mandates as implemented, the practically nil risk to school age children from the disease masks are supposedly worn to prevent, and the harm mask mandates do to student health, socialization, and teaching — any candidate unclear on the matter or compromising on the matter or in support of a mandate regime is unqualified for office
Sometimes for a given election, because of the inability, failure or refusal of candidates to be forthcoming, and instead to be lazy about getting their message out, to want to hide their positions, to be unresponsive to inquiries, to hedge or not be definitive or respond clearly to questionnaires — the decision as to whom to support comes down to just a couple of issues that may have risen to a sufficient level of community concern and awareness.
Such issues are important on their own, salient to the elected position and through political experience known or likely to be a fairly reliable indicator or proxy for a host of unstated positions. They are reflective of a basic philosophy that predicts approaches to various positions. Some might be dispositive or disqualifying others might be a reliable affirmation of supportability — a “qualifying”matter in the face of someone worse.
The matters of mask mandates and teaching of critical race theory (monitoring to insure it is not taught through subterfuge by teachers ignoring state law) are such issues at the forefront of this Tuesday’s local school board elections.
In Davenport there are two candidates who are running as write-in candidates because none of those on the ballot have committed to no mask mandates for grades pre-school through K and opposition to CRT indoctrination. There is one candidate, incumbent Bruce Potts who we are told has a Republican registration and who appealed to Scott County Republicans for support. To his credit he opposed the Lincoln School giveaway (see earlier posts) but who according to his statements to the QCTimes is OK with mask mandates for older children. Here are the relevant responses to the QC Times questions of the four people appearing on the ballot. They are not good, which is a key reason for write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn.
Beck: supports following the guidance of public health agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Gordon: Supports following the recommendations of the CDC and other public health agencies.
Potts: Supported choice on masking for older students, but proposed a mask mandate for elementary schools because younger students cannot yet be vaccinated.
Powell: Supports masking if that is what data indicates children need to be safe but said there needs to be compromise if possible — relaxing the requirement in some circumstances if it can be done, for example.
Note that all candidates listed on the ballot are OK with mandates in spite of state law, science, and good sense. Beck and Potts are incumbents. Neither deigned to respond to the more extensive on-topic River City Reader questionnaire for all candidates including announced write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn. The only announced candidates running for Davenport School Board who oppose mask mandates are Hannah Doyle and James Quinn. We encourage Davenport School District residents to write in their names on the ballot this Tuesday.
Party affiliation can to some degree, however imperfectly, serve as reason enough to vote for someone compared to a Democrat — School Board Candidate Potts for example appealed to Republicans recently at a Central Committee event. Generally speaking being a Democrat in America ought to be a disqualifier for races down through dog-catcher — whether or not the elected position is considered non-partisan. However such does not always mean not being a registered Democrat qualifies you.
As parties have developed — party affiliation serves to reflect degrees of comfort with government bureaucracies, the level and scope of government, the welfare state (manageability) of citizens and perfectibility, earth worship vs stewardship, national sovereignty, selective behavioral licenses and more. Democrats are a party captured by extreme leftists and which serves those interests. To a great extent then “party” is a proxy for the culture thing or at least to reflect understanding and appreciation of our constitutional republic.
Now if one is forced to pick between Democrats (no one else on ballot) one can properly take a position of picking the least onerous. The problem with that is that one is advancing a person still likely to caucus with a very bad gang and thereby serve to advance a host of bad ideas and people that can undo anything the “good Democrat” might be reasonable about. Being a Democrat is then largely disqualifying. That is especially true as regards a legislative body. But hold your nose and vote can apply.
This is not to say that RINOs deserve support in a primary (if one is a constitutionalist and platform-supporting Republican) when there are substantially truer candidates running for the nomination. Electability claims are usually bogus self-serving applications of a vague changeable concept that denigrates the party base that primary. If there i party unity then even a truer to Republican principles write-in candidate is electable.
When only a RINO has announced for the nomination party leadership ought to consider drafting a candidate, supporting a write-in campaign for the primary or focusing on pushing for party discipline. In a general election if the RINO is considered the go to person — for true-to-conservatism Republican — not voting or supporting the Democrat “to send a message” in most situations is shooting yourself in the foot or worse. But if a write-in or third-party candidate possibility exists that person can be a viable alternative although a big dose of practical politics pertains.
Fortunately that is not the situation for the local school board elections in Iowa. School boards are not organized along party lines as in a legislature. Advancing issues is what is key (however associated with party doctrine). Party is not identified on the ballot. Assuming the grapevine informs people of the candidates’ party affiliations a person with no affiliation could well be superior to a nominal Republican. And, as explained in previous posts, write-in candidates running on the right issue(s) can have a real shot in spite of not having the advantage of being on the ballot.
Two people running in the general election Tuesday in Davenport are right on the key issues – against mask mandates and opposition to the teaching in any subterfuge of so called social emotional learning (SEL) and its hate America concept of “critical race theory”. The announced write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn are better on those issues than any of the people listed on the ballot for the three open Davenport School Board positions and we hope you support them. A win by them would reverberate to great positive effect for conservatives around the state and around the country. We are now also told they are registered Republicans so there is no conflict for party voters.
What about the Freedom to Choose campaign supporting Hannah Doyle and James Quinn?
The pro-aborts do not own the term or concept “freedom to choose”
The pro-aborts have tried to market the term to their advantage as encompassing the freedom to destroy another human being in utero. To some extent it has been associated with them as if that is what they are truly about as regards abortion. But taking another human being’s rights away, taking away that human being’s choice to live is hardly a concept consistent with the term. Pro-aborts have also marketed themselves as being just as much for someone’s choice not to kill their child in utero as in . . “oh we would never force someone to have an abortion . . . we are just for choice in the matter . . . which means to take a pill . . . a saline injection . . . to submit to an abortionists curette to cut up the baby inside.
Well isn’ that liberal of them. Of course they would require you to pay for others to have it done which also belies their application of the term. Democrats are not really for the freedom to choose — never have been — they are just pro-abortion. Their position on COVID mandates proves it. You must wear a mask, take an injection . . .
And so the Freedom to Choose campaign supporting Hannah Doyle and James Quinn has nothing to do with the abortion issue — it is about a truer application of the concept — insuring that parents have the right to have their children wear masks all day or part of the day or whenever and wherever OR NOT. If parents want to send their kids to school and have them wear masks all day, if they feel they are so effective, have at it. If a parent recognizes the uselessness and the harm — well they ought to be free to have their kids not wear masks and thus protect their health and learning capabilities.
Write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn also oppose vaccine mandates at least as regards SARS-CoV-2,were it to be a requirement for Davenport School District students. There is solid science and common sense behind write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn – no forced injections or pills against ones choice — that is what the Freedom to Choose campaign is about in the context of the Davenport School Board election.
For candidate responses to the River City Reader (RCR) questionnaire regarding sub rosa teaching of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) the cover name for Critical Race Theory (CRT) now supposedly outlawed in Iowa we also note that write-in candidates Hannah Doyle and James Quinn clearly oppose it. Incumbent candidates Beck and Potts refused to respond to the RCR questionnaire regarding that matter.
Tomorrow hopefully more information on the Bettendorf candidates for School Board. If we do not get to it know that we support Melissa Zumdome and Analicia Gomes for their opposition to mask mandates, both are on the ballot. Candidate (incumbent) Richard Lynch introduced a motion to require masks. It failed to get a second. He would seem to be as horrible on the matter as candidate Beck in Davenport.
