More on Ed Vaughan's candidacy
Who knew there was such passion surrounding Ed Vaughan's bid for the Athens-Clarke County Commission? My comments elicited some clarifying emails in support of Vaughan, as well as others that said the Athens Grow Green Scorecard reaffirmed their more negative positions of the man.
What I've heard in support of Vaughan ...
That his statements regarding the openness of local government meetings were taken out of context and that he was actually referring to the consent agenda ... which is passed without public comment. And that Grow Green focuses solely on one issue, where those elected to office have to deal with numerous issues ... often meaning they have to find a balance between strict allegiance and downright indifference.
What I've heard against Vaughan ...
And this is sort of a direct rebuttal to the first point supporting Vaughan (and I had thought this was protocol anyway), but that public input is permitted before taking a vote on the actual consent agenda ... and that commissioners are allowed to remove any item from the consent agenda prior to the voting meeting.
What I've heard in support of Vaughan ...
That his statements regarding the openness of local government meetings were taken out of context and that he was actually referring to the consent agenda ... which is passed without public comment. And that Grow Green focuses solely on one issue, where those elected to office have to deal with numerous issues ... often meaning they have to find a balance between strict allegiance and downright indifference.
What I've heard against Vaughan ...
And this is sort of a direct rebuttal to the first point supporting Vaughan (and I had thought this was protocol anyway), but that public input is permitted before taking a vote on the actual consent agenda ... and that commissioners are allowed to remove any item from the consent agenda prior to the voting meeting.
posted by Jmac at 7:42 AM
8 Comments:
By the way, the President of Grow Green was on WGAU yesterday, and said outright that they gave one candidate a low rating because he was more interested in poverty and affordable housing than their issues.
If that's true anonymous, that's lousy on their part.
Though, I do suppose, at the same time the organization has to rank candidates according to their views specifically relating to Grow Green's issues, which are environmental.
Big-picture-wise, it stinks. However, as far as an environmental advocacy group goes, they're doing their job.
Right, it's paradoxical, but how else can it be. The special interest group is just that, an advocate for a special interest. The city's political guardians have an obligation to balance many different values/interests/concerns, and so are obligated to do more than just focus on whatever particular thing the special interest group is pushing. But this means that they, by definition, will score lower with that interest group.
A candidate who doesn't score at the top with any particular interest group is probably well on their way to being the wisest person for the job.
So how is it that when the Chamber supports business interests they're assholes but when grow green says feed the poor to the trees, they're some kind of heroes.
I'm not saying the Chamber is not a bucket of assholes. I just saying Grow Green is just as bad when it comes to thinking their way is the only way.
I don't think it's a matter of either organization thinking 'their way is the only way' but rather that they have a specific niche they advocate for.
Those policies they endorse do have an impact on other issues more often than not, which is why it's important to find candidates which aren't beholden to one particular group (as Xon alluded to).
As an aside, comparing the Chamber to Grow Green is sort of apples to oranges the way I see it. Economic and development policies which impact business do, on the whole, have a larger impact on things like poverty and the environment than Grow Green. Not saying the latter's policies don't, but not to the degree the Chamber's does.
I listened to the forum on the radio tonight.
Heidi gets the way things are connected. Kelly Girtz does too.
The others are neanderthals.
I can't pick a favorite in district 1 but I don't live there so I can not vote anyway. Garland seems to know more but is frightening.
However, whatever, Ed Vaughn seems to have taken his medication before the forum tonight. He seemed a lot less bat-shit crazy.
These forums are really crap! 1-minute answers seem to favor those that have nothing to say.
Tom Chasteen actually seemed reasonable tonight but if you have been around for a while you should know that he is lying about every so-called leadership position he tries to claim.
The mayor's race is really Heidi versus how many clowns you can fit in that little car. DeRose is the worst of the worst. If he gets more than one vote then the election was rigged.
I wish I liked Ed Vaughn... well, okay, I do actually like him, I just wish he'd quit running for office.
I was really glad to hear Heidi do so well against both Charlie and Tom, and found Kelly Girtz a little condescending for some reason...had to LOVE Alvin Sheats for being the LEAD candidate, lol
I worked on Maxwells campaign against Alvin and was hoping for a "feel the dynamus" moment... anyone else remember that slogan from Alvin? I don't think I'm spelling it correctly... anyway,
Doug Lowry did really well too, had to love it that he finally retracted his weird anti bar stance... and if you want wacky, just spend MORE than 5 minutes talking to Richard DeRose (gosh I wish he weren't crazy!), or James Garland (gosh you have to like him until you realize he's serious about all that libertarian crap).
Great forum, can't wait for the next one, Monday, and there's a chamber one coming up too.
aquariusrizing
This from Ed's supporters:
"That his statements regarding the openness of local government meetings were taken out of context and that he was actually referring to the consent agenda..."
This is what is posted on the Grow Green web site:
"He also claims that the Commission’s “consent agenda” is crafted behind closed doors as a way to make controversial decisions without public scrutiny; in reality, the consent agenda contains non-controversial items that commissioners agree are likely to pass unanimously, and is put together at a televised public meeting where public input is taken. Video of this speech is available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibXqwOWWwnI"
So, how is this out of context?
Of course, Grow Green is primarily focused on evironmental issues but they evaluate candidates on a broad range of "evidence" and topics. Grow Green is merely concerned that Ed has almost everything wrong when he speaks and in his printed materials and on his web site.
Anybody can get a few things wrong or say something that doesn't come out quite right a few times but, this is clearly more egregious. Getting most things wrong is not a great way to campaign.
I remember hearing Ed when he first started campaigning and several times over the course of a couple of months, he continued to incorrectly identify the district that he was seeking to represent. How basic is that?
I suppose Ed is a nice enough guy though I don't really know him but he is clearly not commissioner material.
Grow Greenie
Post a Comment
<< Home