•   News  
• Business
• Entertainment
• Pics
• Blogs
• Sports
• Obits
• Redskins
• Real Estate
• Classifieds
• Jobs
• Search Local
• Shop
• Bride & Groom

I write in response to Kelly Bradshaw's letter ["'Independents' are usually Democrats in these parts," Dec. 9].

If it was so advantageous for Democrats to "hide" behind their "independent" label, what conceivable sense did it make for Republicans to also use the independent label?

Many who ran in the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors race chose to self-identify as independents, even though their party affiliation is clearly Republican. Why would these Republican candidates give up or turn their backs on their automatically implied advantage of more votes and thus a greater chance of winning by declaring themselves "independent"?

No politician would deliberately throw away votes. Obviously, if it was such an automatic advantage to run as a Republican, all Republicans would run under their party banner.

The reason I believe Democrats and Republicans run as "independents" is they want to communicate that they believe in forming alliances across party lines to accomplish the peoples' business. It is also a way to communicate to voters that they are independent of mind, and do not follow in lockstep any party-line dogma--which for both parties tend to be extreme, as opposed to the more moderate positions of the typical electorate.

So I think it is erroneous to characterize either Democrats or Republicans who run as independents as some kind of "wolves in sheep's clothing." They should be re-garded as people of intelligence whose aim is to represent a broad cross-section of all the people--many of whom think of themselves as voters who are indepen- dent thinkers, regardless of party affiliation.

So rather than hold these "independent" candidates in contempt or impugn sinister motives on them, I respect them, and wish for more bipartisan common-sense leadership in future county candidates.