[Vision2020] Challenge to the candidates: What's up with Weber & Lambert?

[Donovan Arnold]

"Candidates for council are obligated to answer any
and all questions from the public. To say otherwise is
to suggest that council members work for only a select

few."--Joe Campbell

Sounds backasswards to me. I think if a candidate
spends time only catering to the few with less than
honorable questions they are ignoring the larger of
the community and focusing only on the few futilely. A
council member is not obligated to please individual
members of the community, they need to look at the
entire community first. 

"I am aware that some questions are biased. In such
instances, candidates have as an option to explain why
they think a question cannot or should not be
answered. Such a response would provide valuable
information."

Two problems here. One, the candidate does not
necessarily have the option of being able to explain
that the question and process is biased OR may not be
able to successfully explain the bias of the question
to a biased audience that cannot see past their own
bias. Two, the explaining of why it is biased may be
more politically damaging than just not answering it.
For example, what is the point of a liberal Democrat
going to a Republican debate headed by a well known
Republican conservative with an audience of
Republicans to answer questions like, "Why do you want
to tax people out of their homes?". It just is not
worth their time and energy and does not serve the
community as a whole to be spending their time answer
those kinds of questions in that type of setting. 

"Silence provides no information at all"

Again, I disagree, silence can be a very powerful tool
and most communication experts will disagree with you.

"and without information no one 
is in a position to make an informed decision."

So you are admitting that you making a decision
against them is an uninformed decision?

Finally, I think that there are other ways, better
ways, of getting to know candidates than through
Vision 2020 questions.

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold 









In spite of Donovan's comments, I repeat my point:
Candidates for 
council
are obligated to answer any and all questions from the
public. To say
otherwise is to suggest that council members work for
only a select 
few.
But they work for us all and as such candidates for
council should 
answer
to us all.

I am aware that some questions are biased. In such
instances, 
candidates
have as an option to explain why they think a question
cannot or should
not be answered. Such a response would provide
valuable information.
Silence provides no information at all, 

Weber and Lambert should respond to the questions
asked by Vision 2020 
or,
if they feel as Donovan does, they should explain
exactly why they find
the Vision 2020 questions to be biased. Unlike
Donovan, I just don't 
see
this view as even plausible (note that Donovan
provided no support for
this view either) but I am open-minded. If Weber and
Lambert can 
explain
to me what's wrong with the questions I am more than
willing to listen.
What I can’t listen to is silence!

I don't want to find out the views of Weber and
Lambert on, say, the 
Third
Street bridge option after the election. I want to
find out now and use
this as a basis for determining whether or not they
are the candidates
that I want serving on council.

A failure to respond is itself a response. It shows
that one does not 
care
about the concerns of at least a segment of the
electorate. This does 
not
bode well for one who wishes to serve the public.

Joe Campbell

--- josephc at mail.wsu.edu wrote:

> In spite of Donovan's comments, I repeat my point:
> Candidates for council
> are obligated to answer any and all questions from
> the public. To say
> otherwise is to suggest that council members work
> for only a select few.
> But they work for us all and as such candidates for
> council should answer
> to us all.
> 
> I am aware that some questions are biased. In such
> instances, candidates
> have as an option to explain why they think a
> question cannot or should
> not be answered. Such a response would provide
> valuable information.
> Silence provides no information at all, and without
> information no one is
> in a position to make an informed decision.
> 
> Weber and Lambert should respond to the questions
> asked by Vision 2020 or,
> if they feel as Donovan does, they should explain
> exactly why they find
> the Vision 2020 questions to be biased. Unlike
> Donovan, I just don't see
> this view as even plausible (note that Donovan
> provided no support for
> this view either) but I am open-minded. If Weber and
> Lambert can explain
> to me what's wrong with the questions I am more than
> willing to listen.
> What I can’t listen to is silence!
> 
> I don't want to find out the views of Weber and
> Lambert on, say, the Third
> Street bridge option after the election. I want to
> find out now and use
> this as a basis for determining whether or not they
> are the candidates
> that I want serving on council.
> 
> A failure to respond is itself a response. It shows
> that one does not care
> about the concerns of at least a segment of the
> electorate. This does not
> bode well for one who wishes to serve the public.
> 
> Joe Campbell
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs