Sunday, December 18, 2005
(still) not impressed
I wanted to write about this on Wednesday, but I had a lot of other breaking news to deal with that day and tried to catch up with the rest of work throughout the rest of the week.
Anyway, on Wednesday TUSD governing board member Alex Rodriguez announced his intentions to run for the seat in Congress being vacated by Jim Kolbe at the end of this term.
Here's what he had to say as he made his announcement:
Much has already been written about how deeply Rodriguez shoved his foot down his throat by failing to know even the most basic landscape of the race. Really, it didn't take me much effort to find out who was planning to run months ago, before anybody had filed with the FEC or the press started paying attention and even before Kolbe made his retirement announcement. Seriously, it's really easy. Alex? Meet Google.
I was already pretty unimpressed with Rodriguez when he ran for his seat on the TUSD board a year ago. Several non-profits got together and held a candidate forum for any person running for a local, state or federal office. It was not a forum BY candidates, but a forum at which those of us who work on women's issues could present our issues TO the candidates.
Needless to say, Rodriguez was one of the candidates who came to our forum. That in itself was a good thing. But when he came up to me after the forum and opened his mouth, most of my impression was badly tarnished.
First, he kept repeating my name. I find that incredibly annoying, especially when done by someone who just met me. Second, he just repeated the talking points on his brochure and didn't talk at all about any of the five or six speakers who just presented a wide range of issues to him. It's like he took a crash course in campaigning and forgot to be authentic or even appear interested in what the voters were saying.
Just repeating someone's name and blindly reciting bullet points does not signal to the person with whom you're chatting that you care about them. It just signals that you're a mindless automoton.
I didn't vote for Alex Rodriguez when he ran for the TUSD board and I won't vote for him - in the primary or the general - when he runs for Congress.
I'd prefer to have someone with some level of intelligence and empathy representing me in Congress and I'll finally get that chance in 2006.
For me right now, the real viable race is between Gabrielle Giffords and Jeff Latas, though I give credit to all who throw their hats into the ring.
Anyway, on Wednesday TUSD governing board member Alex Rodriguez announced his intentions to run for the seat in Congress being vacated by Jim Kolbe at the end of this term.
Here's what he had to say as he made his announcement:
"At a time when our country is fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, waging a global war on terror, and shoring up our homeland security, I am concerned that no candidate with both military and security policy experience in international security affairs has entered the race in the 8th Congressional District," Rodriguez said. "This is not a time for on-the-job training."
Much has already been written about how deeply Rodriguez shoved his foot down his throat by failing to know even the most basic landscape of the race. Really, it didn't take me much effort to find out who was planning to run months ago, before anybody had filed with the FEC or the press started paying attention and even before Kolbe made his retirement announcement. Seriously, it's really easy. Alex? Meet Google.
I was already pretty unimpressed with Rodriguez when he ran for his seat on the TUSD board a year ago. Several non-profits got together and held a candidate forum for any person running for a local, state or federal office. It was not a forum BY candidates, but a forum at which those of us who work on women's issues could present our issues TO the candidates.
Needless to say, Rodriguez was one of the candidates who came to our forum. That in itself was a good thing. But when he came up to me after the forum and opened his mouth, most of my impression was badly tarnished.
First, he kept repeating my name. I find that incredibly annoying, especially when done by someone who just met me. Second, he just repeated the talking points on his brochure and didn't talk at all about any of the five or six speakers who just presented a wide range of issues to him. It's like he took a crash course in campaigning and forgot to be authentic or even appear interested in what the voters were saying.
Just repeating someone's name and blindly reciting bullet points does not signal to the person with whom you're chatting that you care about them. It just signals that you're a mindless automoton.
I didn't vote for Alex Rodriguez when he ran for the TUSD board and I won't vote for him - in the primary or the general - when he runs for Congress.
I'd prefer to have someone with some level of intelligence and empathy representing me in Congress and I'll finally get that chance in 2006.
For me right now, the real viable race is between Gabrielle Giffords and Jeff Latas, though I give credit to all who throw their hats into the ring.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Very well written blog article. Let's seriously take a look at this race and it becomes very apparent, to me at least, that it will be decided on issues.
It's clear that Latas is out there talking about the issues and actually has a handle on them. I hope that people will stick their collective heads out of their foxholes to see that no amount of money can make up for lack of experience.
Maybe then Gabrielle can complete her move to Houston to marry the astronaut. You know that she was on her way there when Kolbe pulled out...didn't you??
It's clear that Latas is out there talking about the issues and actually has a handle on them. I hope that people will stick their collective heads out of their foxholes to see that no amount of money can make up for lack of experience.
Maybe then Gabrielle can complete her move to Houston to marry the astronaut. You know that she was on her way there when Kolbe pulled out...didn't you??
# posted by 
: 12/19/2005 8:51 PM
: 12/19/2005 8:51 PM
That's actually apparently not true. Gabrielle stated emphatically that she had no such plans to move. It was misreported and retracted.
Thanks for your comment. I too hope this race will be decided mostly on the issues, but there also must be an element of who can win a general election, too. So far, Giffords and Latas are the only two declared candidates who fulfill both those requirements in my book. I look forward to a spirited debate.
Thanks for your comment. I too hope this race will be decided mostly on the issues, but there also must be an element of who can win a general election, too. So far, Giffords and Latas are the only two declared candidates who fulfill both those requirements in my book. I look forward to a spirited debate.
AZ District 8 will surely be one of the hottest races in 2006 ... and we have a front-row seat. That means issues will be debated, which means there is hope for progress.
Personally, I'm more interested in someone with a vision. "Electability" as a priority requirement for my vote seems to me to be a willingness to settle for "second best"". I'm looking for a candidate who isn't afraid to tackle unpopular issues when that is the right thing to do.
Anyone can compile the top ten issues from the latest surveys, but leading our nation toward a better future requires more than just memorizing talking points. My experience was different from that of the original blogger.
I was in Kosovo during the same period of time that Mr. Rodriguez was in Bosnia. In a recent discussion with him, I was impressed that he saw through the thinly veiled traditional arguments and grasped what were - and still are - the key issues for American security. I hope the other candidates will also be willing to address the challenges facing America's security in the 21st century.
By the way, military expertise and an understanding of security issues are two separate animals. Anyone who thinks they are two names for the same topic isn't fit for public service in a national office.
Personally, I'm more interested in someone with a vision. "Electability" as a priority requirement for my vote seems to me to be a willingness to settle for "second best"". I'm looking for a candidate who isn't afraid to tackle unpopular issues when that is the right thing to do.
Anyone can compile the top ten issues from the latest surveys, but leading our nation toward a better future requires more than just memorizing talking points. My experience was different from that of the original blogger.
I was in Kosovo during the same period of time that Mr. Rodriguez was in Bosnia. In a recent discussion with him, I was impressed that he saw through the thinly veiled traditional arguments and grasped what were - and still are - the key issues for American security. I hope the other candidates will also be willing to address the challenges facing America's security in the 21st century.
By the way, military expertise and an understanding of security issues are two separate animals. Anyone who thinks they are two names for the same topic isn't fit for public service in a national office.
Like I said, I look forward to a spirited debate. It's Rodriguez' job to win my vote by convincing me that he is competent, just as it is anybody else's in the race.
And being right on the issues isn't enough. You can have all the vision in the world, but it means nothing if you're not in a position to execute that vision. That's why the ability to win is just as important as being right in my book, unless we're talking about building up the base for another 24 years...
Post a Comment
And being right on the issues isn't enough. You can have all the vision in the world, but it means nothing if you're not in a position to execute that vision. That's why the ability to win is just as important as being right in my book, unless we're talking about building up the base for another 24 years...
Links to this post:
<< Home
