Voting for someone simply “to retain a semblance of a two-party representative government system,” as Doralyn Marshall wrote in the US&J Mailbag, fosters candidates who are seriously ill-equipped for the jobs they seek. Prime example: Chris Jacobs.
Jacobs has held office for only three months and his voting record does not favor us, the people he supposedly represents. Jacobs voted against the USPS, against reinstating extended unemployment benefits and state and local funding to keep local taxes down, against pay raises for enlisted military, against parental legal power in cases of racial discrimination in schools, against expansion of energy grants to rural electricity cooperatives, and against saving tax dollars by funding National Parks with fees from mining companies! How does any of this benefit us?
Furthermore, Jacobs’ ethics are questionable: First he presented himself as a moderate Republican, then he was 100% behind Trump, and now, as Trump falters in the polls, Jacobs is pivoting yet again. Who is Chris Jacobs? Even he doesn’t know.
In sharp contrast, Nate McMurray has met with people in nearly every small town of our expansive congressional district and he understands what we want, what we need, and importantly, his list of successes while serving as Grand Island Supervisor shows he’s fully equipped to deliver. Moreover, McMurray’s message has been both consistent and perfectly clear: McMurray would work for us.
Republicans, independents and Democrats alike are voting for McMurray because he holds no fealty to party, but rather to the people of NY-27, the people he will serve. Our political parties should be incentivized by voters to put up exemplary candidates. Perhaps if we were less apt to fill in a circle just because it was beside an “R” or a “D,” we wouldn’t be chest-deep in our current divided mess.
KATHLEEN PACE, Clarence