Last week was the mailing of the highly anticipated Richardson Coalition PAC's 2011 Voter's Guide. Richardson voters can be forgiven for eagerly checking their mailboxes for the competing guide, the Richardson Citizens Alliance PAC's 2011 Voter's Guide. After all, the RCA has a war chest of $50,000 (all donated by one man), surely enough to pay postage for a mailing of their own. But so far, my mailbox has been empty. Maybe my voter's guide got lost in the mail. But, the RCA Voter's Guide is available on the RCA website.
After the jump, let's pore over the copy there.
The first thing to notice is the list of candidate endorsements:
- Place 1: William Gordon
- Place 2: John DeMattia
- Place 3: Scott Dunn
- Place 4: Karl Voigtsberger
- Place 5: Dennis Stewart
- Place 6: Steve Mitchell
- Place 7: Diana Clawson
No surprises here. Financial statements filed with the state already show $3,000 donations by the RCA to each of the five candidates in the contested races. If there is any surprise here at all, it's that the RCA endorsed the two candidates in uncontested races, even though neither of them seems particularly aligned with the RCA's anti-government, anti-tax message.
Place 1. The RCA says Gordon is knowledgeable and intelligent and cares and relates to voters and has vision and character. It says he's made of sugar and spice and all things nice (OK, I made that last part up). It just asserts all these wonderful traits without providing any examples of them for voters to make up their own minds on the subject. It could have told us, but doesn't, something about Gordon's lawsuit against the city. Instead, it's silent on what is arguably the best example of his philosophy of government. As for Bob Townsend, RCA doesn't offer any criticism at all. The RCA simply says it's time for change. Why? Who knows?
Place 2. The RCA mentions DeMattia's experience. Yep. The RCA compliments his "clear vision" without telling us what that vision is. As for Mark Solomon, the RCA points to misstatements about taxes and Eisemann Center finances. The misstatements have not been satisfactorily explained, but the RCA may be stretching it to conclude that Solomon "may not grasp basic budget issues."
Place 3. Dunn is unopposed in Place 3. By coloring in the circle after Scott Dunn's name in its overview of recommendations, the RCA hands him a talking point for his 2013 re-election campaign. He'll be able to say he was recommended by both the RCA and the Richardson Coalition in this race.
Place 4. The RCA says that Voigtsberger will get Richardson "out of the red." That he "understands that the city should not grow faster than the family budget." The RCA offers no evidence that Richardson is in such financial trouble or what credentials Voigtsberger has to rescue Richardson from its supposed predicament, other than that Voigtsberger is "a numbers guy," whatever that means. The RCA says Laura Maczka would "serve Richardson well." Yep. The RCA accuses Maczka of lacking an understanding of the issues, but provides no examples.
Place 5. The RCA praises Stewart's service to the city (yep) and his refreshingly candid speech (yep). The RCA says Stewart has positions on just about every issue but fails to say what any of those positions are. As for Kendal Hartley, the RCA plays mind reader by saying "we get the impression that he doesn't really want to be a Councilman." Where did that come from? Not from anything Hartley might have said but from the RCA's perception of Hartley's speaking style. The RCA fails to even mention, let alone criticize, any positions Hartley has taken on any issues of importance to Richardson.
Place 6. Mitchell is a sitting council member. Elsewhere, the RCA has nothing good to say about the actions of the current council, which makes their praise of Mitchell ("served admirably," "active and visible," "put Richardson first") sound discordant. But, as with Scott Dunn, by coloring in the circle after Steve Mitchell's name in its overview of recommendations, the RCA hands him a talking point for his 2013 re-election campaign. He'll be able to say he was recommended by both the RCA and the Richardson Coalition in this race.
Place 7. The RCA says Clawson "cares about Richardson" and "has a proven track record" as president of an HOA. The RCA fails to give any evidence that Clawson understands citywide issues, the concern about her candidacy identified by the Richardson Coalition. The RCA faults Alan North for not campaigning, saying they know nothing about him. Yep. As for Amir Omar, the RCA does more mind reading, accusing him of having "obvious political aspirations" without offering any evidence of this. The RCA criticizes Omar for his role in getting corporations and non-profits to donate thousands of trees and hours of labor to the "Tree the Town" program (since expanded to dozens of area cities as the "Tree North Texas" program). Apparently, the RCA thinks being against "Tree the Town" is a winning political strategy. Good luck with that.
Of the endorsement arguments for the seven places, five fall within the usual bounds of acceptable political spin, if you remember to take anything any PAC says with a grain of salt. Always remember, the RCA is a political action committee. They don't claim to be an impartial source of information. The public shouldn't expect balanced treatment, but we ought to demand that the information not be misleading. The arguments given for Place 5 and Place 7 fall outside that standard. Instead of focusing on facts and evidence, the RCA presumes to know the minds of the candidates and ascribes to them bad motives. For the other three contested races, the RCA deals in generalities. It's impossible to analyze their claims because they lack specifics. On the plus side, the RCA Voter's Guide doesn't sink to the level of character assassination that some online sources of RCA support do. Overall, I give this political mailer three Old Glories (out of five).
No comments:
Post a Comment