In the past few days, both the Gazette Times and The Advocate have used the same sloppy, inaccurate and biased language to describe the current race for Benton County Commissioner. They have both stated that whichever Democrat wins the primary election is essentially certain to be the next Benton County Commissioner.
Needless to say, as the unaffiliated candidate in the race, and the candidate who is absolutely planning to win the race, I object to this injection of opinion into what is supposed to be news coverage. This is not science; this is politics. Science may dictate that the sun will indeed come up in the east each and every day, or that ice will start to melt once the temperature rises above freezing, but science doesn't dictate the results for the decidedly more fluid and chaotic world of politics. It's more malleable, and more unpredictable. (Let's remember all the examples, including some high profile recent examples, where an election just "couldn't" turn out a certain way - then did.)
Mike McInally at the GT tried to make the point that Democrats have "a lock" on the position here. When I pointed out that, in fact, the majority of voters in Benton County are not registered as Democrats, he tried to counter that, somewhat bizarrely, by noting that 4 out of 10 voters are registered as Democrats. To which I replied, exactly - nearly 6 out of 10 voters are not registered as Democrats. He also seemed to assume that all Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate. I beg to differ. I intend to be more appealing to Democratic voters than their own candidate - whomever that might be.
Meanwhile, The Advocate, such as it is, seems to get their news from...Well, frankly, I don't know where. They certainly haven't talked to the people who work in the county elections department. Their description of the situation showed a basic misunderstanding of the whole electoral process. They described the chain of events as being: Hold the primary, swear in the new commissioner, and then they immediately start serving with the "sitting electeds" already holding seats. In other words, their description bypassed the general election entirely.
Needless to say, as the unaffiliated candidate in the general election, I object to this injection of misinformation into the discussion. The Advocate also stated that independent or unaffiliated candidates "may" enter the race later - without mentioning me, the unaffiliated candidate already in the race. When I pointed that out to them, they said I wouldn't be a candidate until I filed my paperwork to run. So I pointed out to them that I was, in fact, the first candidate to file to run for this seat.
In response to that, they changed their story, and said that, wait, I'm not a "real" candidate because I haven't turned in the signatures I am required to gather yet. So, once again, I informed them of the facts: I cannot turn in the signatures until May 30th - at the earliest. That is the law. To which they replied, essentially, "See? Then you haven't filed!" So I explained to them, again, that yes I have filed. I filed first. That's how I got the forms I am using to collect signatures. You don't get those forms until you...Say it with me, file to run for office.
In any case...You can see how running for office can be both frustrating and exhausting. But I'm in this for the big picture and the long run. I'm still going to be the most experienced, most creative and most energetic candidate. I'm still going to run a campaign propelled by the power of good ideas and high ideals. And, speed bumps or not, I'm still going to win this election. The issues facing us are too important, and too time-sensitive, to just revert to the status quo.
Thanks to those of you who have sent notes of support after the above mentioned "irregularities." And thanks to the warm reception last night at the forum. I was just there to observe, but welcomed the chance to try and clarify some of the confusion (see above) about my candidacy.
Needless to say, as the unaffiliated candidate in the race, and the candidate who is absolutely planning to win the race, I object to this injection of opinion into what is supposed to be news coverage. This is not science; this is politics. Science may dictate that the sun will indeed come up in the east each and every day, or that ice will start to melt once the temperature rises above freezing, but science doesn't dictate the results for the decidedly more fluid and chaotic world of politics. It's more malleable, and more unpredictable. (Let's remember all the examples, including some high profile recent examples, where an election just "couldn't" turn out a certain way - then did.)
Mike McInally at the GT tried to make the point that Democrats have "a lock" on the position here. When I pointed out that, in fact, the majority of voters in Benton County are not registered as Democrats, he tried to counter that, somewhat bizarrely, by noting that 4 out of 10 voters are registered as Democrats. To which I replied, exactly - nearly 6 out of 10 voters are not registered as Democrats. He also seemed to assume that all Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate. I beg to differ. I intend to be more appealing to Democratic voters than their own candidate - whomever that might be.
Meanwhile, The Advocate, such as it is, seems to get their news from...Well, frankly, I don't know where. They certainly haven't talked to the people who work in the county elections department. Their description of the situation showed a basic misunderstanding of the whole electoral process. They described the chain of events as being: Hold the primary, swear in the new commissioner, and then they immediately start serving with the "sitting electeds" already holding seats. In other words, their description bypassed the general election entirely.
Needless to say, as the unaffiliated candidate in the general election, I object to this injection of misinformation into the discussion. The Advocate also stated that independent or unaffiliated candidates "may" enter the race later - without mentioning me, the unaffiliated candidate already in the race. When I pointed that out to them, they said I wouldn't be a candidate until I filed my paperwork to run. So I pointed out to them that I was, in fact, the first candidate to file to run for this seat.
In response to that, they changed their story, and said that, wait, I'm not a "real" candidate because I haven't turned in the signatures I am required to gather yet. So, once again, I informed them of the facts: I cannot turn in the signatures until May 30th - at the earliest. That is the law. To which they replied, essentially, "See? Then you haven't filed!" So I explained to them, again, that yes I have filed. I filed first. That's how I got the forms I am using to collect signatures. You don't get those forms until you...Say it with me, file to run for office.
In any case...You can see how running for office can be both frustrating and exhausting. But I'm in this for the big picture and the long run. I'm still going to be the most experienced, most creative and most energetic candidate. I'm still going to run a campaign propelled by the power of good ideas and high ideals. And, speed bumps or not, I'm still going to win this election. The issues facing us are too important, and too time-sensitive, to just revert to the status quo.
Thanks to those of you who have sent notes of support after the above mentioned "irregularities." And thanks to the warm reception last night at the forum. I was just there to observe, but welcomed the chance to try and clarify some of the confusion (see above) about my candidacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment