LOCALS: OK homies, if you love a good political row, here comes one: It seems to have become necessary to take local candidate for PUD board member, JIM MILLER, to task. As is evident on his page unless he has edited it, he opened a thread on the local Enloe Dam restoration issue. He remarked largely against restoration, and then he pointedly asked for open “comment” thereupon. I responded with a rebuttal on the Enloe Dam issue that was originally a recent column in one of the local newspapers I wrote for. As the text will show, Jim then responded with an involved treatise as to his concern for the “debt ceiling” he feels that the PUD will incur if it proceeds to renovate Enloe dam. I asked for evidence of his assertion. I didn’t challenge the assertion - I have no idea if it’s correct or not, it may be accurate for all I know, I just wanted to see his proof, because we all know that in politics anybody can, and will, say anything. I was and still am perfectly prepared to believe JIM’s assertion if it proves to be true. JIM demanded my email address so he could send me the proof. I wrote that, as political candidate JIM had opened a political issue of his own volition on a public forum, had pointedly asked for comment thereupon, and had answered my publically posted response with a theretofore undiscussed ‘debt ceiling’ assertion, all on the public forum, it was thus incumbent of him to provide the proof of his assertion on the very same public forum. Seem too much to ask? Apparently JIM thought so. On Facebook email, JIM fired me a cluster of four documents, two fairly short but wholly irrelevant to his debt ceiling assertion, and two very long treatises, none of which addressed his debt ceiling assertion remotely as he phrased it, let alone proved anything about his assertion. He made no effort to point out where in all that data that his assertion was proved. He just said “accept this as proof.” Say ... what? I wrote back on that thread that the public didn’t need to be shotgun-smothered in irrelevant and/or bulk data, that what the discriminating voter needed was for him to point out specific objective evidence where his specific assertion was validated. Seem reasonable? Well, dang, I thought so too, but JIM responded by declaring that I had “not read” his data (something he could not possibly know, of course; I had in fact read them all). He demanded I do so, and then he made a potentially fatal political error. Having falsely slammed me before the thread readers he then cut me off from comment on that thread, requiring me to re-engage here. We could have handled this between us JIM, but you burned that bridge just because I asked you to back up a campaign assertion with something resembling evidence. Mistake. Prior to JIM raising the Enlow Dam issue, I had (and have still) never met nor had any contact with his incumbent opponent in the PUD board election, so far as I know, whom JIM says is one David Womak. But now I’m going to. I herewith invite Davids response. I was perfectly prepared to vote for JIM, and I still may - after I’ve examined both candidates. JIM may yet prove to be the best candidate for the office in my view. But ohhhh ... JIM. Not a good way to start a political career, buddy. In politics you don’t state it publicly if you’re not prepared to back it up publicly, or your opposition will eat your liver with some fava beans and a fine Chianti. Again, all this is in black-and-white on the pertinent thread on JIM’s page if he hasn’t removed it. If he has, you might wish to wonder why.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 02:32:35 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015