The Loudoun Democrats say GOP types are “whining” because:
It seems that Miller wants very much to be seen as a “moderate” like his predecessor, in spite of his words and actions.
Once more partisan prattling gets in the way of the truth.
My complaint the other day about the WaPo article on Miller is simply that it was written primarily from the democratic point of view. Three individuals quoted…one independent, two democrats, no GOP, with one of the democrats being his recent and upcoming opponent. While not a hatchet job, it was not a balanced article. However, it was accurate, so the WaPo can claim an absence of malice. We know this is not a true claim, but c’est la vie.
What bothers me the most is this ongoing and bizarre effort of the Democratic Party to capture Harry Parrish as one of their own.
You see they have it backward. To me, this is not a matter of labeling Jackson Miller, it is a matter of the deliberate mis-labeling of the late Harry Parrish. I don’t think Jackson Miller wants to be seen as a moderate. He is a conservative, and stands by his views. I don’t know that I agree with him on everything, but he is what he is. Nothing wrong with that.
I do think Jeanette Rishell, wants to be seen as a moderate. She is a liberal who seeks to camoflauge her views. However, in a desparate attempt to gain office she tries to be seen as the natural heir to Harry Parrish. Her views and beliefs are not going to win her election in the 50th, so she tries to piggy back on a person who would never have voted for her in a million years. I think the Parrish family endorsement of Jackson Miller is telling in this regard. Given Harry’s longstanding support of his friend state Senator Chuck Colgan, a democrat, it would seem the family would have no problem endorsing a democrat to succeed Harry if they supported that person.
Harry was a common sense conservative of the Goldwater school, one who was believed in the power of the individual. When the democrats say call Harry Parrish “moderate”, what they really mean is “collegial”. Harry placed value in hearing folks out. He was willing to make common cause with the other party if it advanced the common good. That willingness defined his values, not his ideology. To suggest he was a moderate is and will continue to be silly.
The real overriding matter of concern here is that there is such a hyper-partisan state of affairs in Richmond that the mere willingness to talk to the other party is considered proof of being a “moderate”.
In general, I think it is fair to co-opt a comment of the Kingfish-just call Harry Parrish “suis generis”, and leave it at that.