Sunday, October 23, 2011
Editorial: Send Armstrong to the House
Ward Armstrong has a clearer understanding than his opponent of the challenges facing the region and a more pragmatic approach to solutions.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Voters in the newly drawn 9th House of Delegates District will choose between two incumbents — Democrat Ward Armstrong and Republican Charles Poindexter — with sharply divergent leadership styles and policy positions. While we have reservations about Armstrong's hyper-partisan tone, he demonstrates a clearer understanding of the challenges facing the region and a more pragmatic approach to achieving solutions. We give him our support.
Changes to his old district motivated Armstrong to move into the 9th, which includes most of Franklin County, parts of Henry and all of Patrick. The House minority leader, Armstrong makes no apologies for his in-your-face personality. "Bashfulness is not one of my stronger qualities," he told the editorial board in an interview this month. "I have never been afraid to stand up and speak out."
He has spoken out loudly and often on issues ranging from electric regulation reform, benefits for displaced Tultex workers and transportation funding, but he often undermines his own causes with his purple language and flamboyant behavior. He formed a study commission that included two former regulatory judges to recommend changes in utility laws, but his exaggerations and misrepresentations of Appalachian Power Co.'s finances have distracted from the valid issues raised by that panel.
Poindexter's low-key temperament is more suited to our taste in statesmanship. It has won him friends in the legislature and a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, which writes the state budget. "I don't go off on tangents," he told the board. "I can focus on what has to be done."
However, Poindexter has failed to take a leadership role in speaking out for the needs and interests of his region. He may yet find his voice, but we are concerned about the direction in which he might lead.
Poindexter's brand of conservatism is reflexive and unnuanced, a liability in confronting real-world problems. In his interview with the editorial board, he recited a long list of regulations he opposes on septic systems, sewage treatment plants polluting the Chesapeake Bay, and coal-fired power plant emissions. Asked to name a beneficial regulation, he managed just one: a new law requiring abortion clinics to meet hospital building codes. He acknowledged he has never visited a clinic to assess whether greater safety requirements are needed.
On transportation, Poindexter is willing to consider forcing counties to take over maintenance of some roads. Although he has declined to sign a no-tax pledge, he spoke favorably of only one revenue source, tolls, an impractical means of raising money for rural byways.
Armstrong has been a dependable supporter of regional projects like U.S. 58 and statewide transportation investments. He is skeptical of gas tax increases, but has sponsored legislation to boost auto titling and regional sales taxes. He understands the shortcomings of tolls and opposes efforts to dump road maintenance onto counties.
Like Poindexter, Armstrong is a social conservative who has supported a variety of abortion restrictions, but he opposed new clinic regulations out of legitimate concern that they would reduce access to prenatal care.
While we may not always agree with Armstrong's methods, we believe he chooses his battles based on a sincere desire to serve the needs of his constituents, and we find little fault in the causes he embraces.
