VIDEO: Republican candidates for Buncombe commission make their pitch (District 2)

The Republican candidates for the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners in District 2 made their campaign pitches March 31 at the annual party convention.

Three candidates are vying for two positions in the May 8 primary: Mike Fryar, Christina Kelley G. Merrill and Bill Reynolds. The top two vote–getters will advance to the November general election, when they’ll face their Democratic opponents on the ballot.

Each of them were given one minute and thirty seconds to speak at the local party convention – here’s what they had to say:

In coming days Xpress will also have video of the Republicans running in District 3. (Only one Republican is running in District 1 so there’s no primary being held for that race).

Click here for a basic guide to the new election system for Buncombe County commissioners.

Video by Jake Frankel

About Jake Frankel
Jake Frankel is an award-winning journalist who enjoys covering a wide range of topics, from politics and government to business, education and entertainment.

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

7 thoughts on “VIDEO: Republican candidates for Buncombe commission make their pitch (District 2)

  1. mat catastrophe

    Let’s sum up and take a look at why these people are hopeless.

    Mr. Fryar:

    “Cut spending derp derp derp” – populations grow, demands on public resources grow, revenues must also grow. Cutting spending is a lame answer to modern problems. Time to bleed the rich. Period.

    Ms. Merrill:

    “I’ve had my foot on the pulse of the community” and apparently, I want to put my boot on the neck of the poor.

    Also, I’m tired of the “I worked hard with no help” line. It’s fine and good and I’m glad it worked for you but it doesn’t work for everyone.

    She also speaks in bullshit marketing cliches.

    Mr. Reynolds:

    “I’m still pissed about some old stuff that happened so long ago that no one really even knows what I’m talking about anymore.”

    Maybe the 85 people who spoke out against zoning just didn’t make a compelling argument. After all, this isn’t a direct democracy, it’s a representational republic. If you need the difference explained to you, you shouldn’t run for public office.

    • bill smith

      Also, the “I succeeded on my own” is never, ever true. Community, family, previous generations, fellow taxpayers, etc etc etc all pave the way for our opportunity at success.

  2. mcates

    Meanness and vitriol in the very first post.

    That’s unfortunate and does not create a space for useful dialogue. We should all want better for Asheville.

    • mat catastrophe

      If you want space for a useful dialogue, perhaps you should field candidates with better ideas. Or, rather, any ideas.

  3. Richard

    Although I am Independent I am not seeing where these Candidates are so off the mark as the previous comment so viciously accused.
    Candidate Merrill seemed to relate to the “poor” and hard working citizens, not sure that is a bad thing. We have enough people in Government that have never known what struggle really means. Raising taxes and going millions and millions into debt is not the answer to “populations grow”!If we have a growing population then there are more people paying taxes to offset the growth.
    Finally “not a democracy”??? Last time I checked this was the United States of America!

    • mat catastrophe

      Merrill’s argument rests on the old “it worked for me, so it should work for everyone” line. “I didn’t take assistance, so assistance is unnecessary” is, Bill pointed out, more than likely intellectually dishonest. No one gets by in life without some sort of assistance. It’s a myth, and it’s one that is perpetrated in the name of shrinking, or even shredding, what is left of the social safety net in the name of privatization and the destruction of the modern state apparatus in favor of the return to the long discredited laissez faire of the 19th Century.

      The key to her idea is “personal responsibility”, which is akin to shouting down to someone who has fallen overboard on a boat, “Learn to swim!” – after all, that is allowing someone in danger to pull themselves together without all that messy nonsense about community and human good, isn’t it?

      Sorry, that’s not an idea worth having a public debate over. We should be looking at how we can better serve the needs of the poor through effective programs like public works, re-training, and continuing education opportunities, not cutting families loose to sink or swim.

      As for growing populations adding to the tax base, that would be true if wages had not been allowed to stagnate and decline over the last forty years. This is the same reason why there is a supposed decline in Social Security coffers. More and more people are entering the tax base, but are contributing less and less in taxes because they are underemployed or underpaid. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of wage inequity stand around and say, “well, if only you could just cut more spending and slash taxes, maybe we could help”. Well, you’ve had over a decade of exactly that policy. So, where’s the help? (Here’s a hint: It isn’t coming.)

      And again, even though this is an incredibly tiresome point it apparently doesn’t cease to need to be stressed: The United States is not a Democracy. Not even close. People are elected to represent the population on boards and commissions and in legislatures and through executive branches. We don’t meet every week to discuss our problems and vote as a large group. We do that once every year or two and turn the decision making over to our elected bodies.

      After all, does not the Pledge of Allegiance say that we’re pledging “to the Republic” for which the flag stands for?

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.