Letter: Politics and politicians always part of Scarborough (July 25, 2008)
Editor:
I was surprised to read the letter from Sheilah Hillman [July 18] who stated that the wonderful Scarborough 350th Anniversary Parade was spoiled for her because of the participation of Senator Susan Collins. Too bad Ms. Hillman didn’t talk with the organizers of the Scarborough parade. She would have learned that politicians and politics is an important part of Scarborough’s rich history. Scarborough’s 350th parade followed a long tradition of Maine parades that celebrate their town’s heritage such as the one during Lobster Festival, the Potato Blossom Festival, Westbrook Together Days, Windham’s Summerfest, and the Moxie Festival, among others. Politicians are welcome at each of these festivals as they were in Scarborough. That is why Chellie Pingree and Charlie Summers, candidates for Congress, Senator Phil Bartlett and Representative John McDonough, candidates for State Legislature, also marched in our parade. In fact, Congressman Tom Allen and Governor John Baldacci were invited. We were disappointed they could not make it. While Ms. Hillman, a resident of Florida, is welcomed to her opinion that a politician spoiled the parade for her, singling out only one of the participating politicians is suspect. We certainly welcomed her to our celebration, but don’t rain on our parade!
Annalee Rosenblatt, chairman
Scarborough 350th Anniversary Committee
I think I understand where you both are coming from. We all get a little tired of politics being everywhere but as long as it is fairly equal then it's not so bad. Politicians in a parade is the least invasive way to experience them as we don't have to listen to them talk! Merely seeing their faces couldn't ruin a parade for anyone, I actually doubt it ruined it for you, Ms. Hillman. On the other hand, we should be thinking about which places are ok for politics and which places should exclude the noise of politics. This is an important issue but one that is tied directly to the individual right of freedom of speech. Limit political speech and you are limiting individual speech. Define political speech. Once you define it people will argue over the definition and try to include in the definition all speech they don't like. It's a big mess, let's just not go there.
Reply to this