I have reviewed Mr. Gordon's platform on his website and I think it's good. I endorse him for Place 1.
I am pleased that his approach appears that of a pragmatic and economic nature rather than that of a culture warrior. I believe this is the way forward for a successful, responsible/transparent, civil city where all residents get along and contribute to the common good.
I should say that this is an endorsement for Mr. Gordon rather than one against Mr. Townshend personally. I have met Mr. Townshend a couple of times in civic situations and he seems to be a decent fellow. He has treated me fairly and appropriately when we interacted. I appreciate his willingness to serve on the Council.
I have not met Mr. Gordon (that I am aware of) and am endorsing him based on his platform. I also believe his activism in the past has been the irritating sand that began the growth of the pearl -- greater transparency in city governance. Last, and probably least, I've been increasingly willing to "throw the bums out" as they say; inject fresh blood. Try something different. I've heard it said that the definition of crazy is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."
My concern from a governance point of view is that service on the council in the last few years is nearly indistinguishable from dancing to the Mayor's and City Manager's tune. Not talking about Mr. Townshend specifically, but I want councilfolk up there, not marionettes. I want discussion, not rubberstamping. I want people who actively fight for the minimal, appropriate, informed, and transparent use of taxpayer funds. I'm talking about stewardship of taxpayer resources.
Note: I do not know that an endorsement from a blog like this has any positive value for Mr. Gordon. Since I want his campaign to succeed I would pull this post if he found it to be counterproductive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Nice choice, although I would have either left the spot blank or voted for the dog catcher before I would have casted my vote for Bob Townsend. Not too fond of WG, but he'll do.
Bob Townsend has nothing to show for this 10 years on city council, other than playing 'puppet' for Gary Slagel. Word has it that he is gruff, uncooperative, profane, and, generally, unfriendly to anyone other than his family (and who knows about that). Richardson residents can - and should - do a lot better by casting their votes against Bob Townsend. It's time for him to go.
Yeah, I've heard BT can be a bit rough. I've never seen/heard it in person so I don't know that for certain.
In situations where I have incomplete information I try (not always successfully) to either suspend judgement or make judgement with a qualifier.
I am honored by the endorsement. So many of the blogs in Richardson appear to be biased. Many of them I no longer read for that very reason. But this one has always appeared to be exceptionally fair; subsequently, an endorsement from this blog actually means something! Thank you.
I am not running against Bob Townsend. I am running for the City of Richardson. My focus is on job growth and economic revitalization, and I've the energy, commitment, and background to help Richardson accomplish both.
Bob has had ten years to accomplish his goals on Council. It's simply time for someone else to give what they have to offer to the City, and I believe I have a lot to offer.
Too bad he wasn't at the Forum this evening. Hope I can see him @ another one...
Sorry he missed TWO forums. . .but we were told he was out of state recruiting business for Richardson. Sounds good. . .just will have to keep the "conflict of interest" in mind. Remember Gary was critized for many of his own business dealings vs city business. . .he needs to keep his own business trips seperate from his "recruiting for the city" trips!!! Maybe this was just for the City!!
My understanding was that the trip during the HT forum was to bring biz to Richardson, but I TOTALLY agree about the personal/governmental seperation thing.
Bloggermouse, I want to compliment you on your “method” of endorsing William Gordon. Now, of course I endorse Bob Townsend for more reasons then him being my children’s Grandfather. But your endorsement was how I wish all endorsements were written. . .not only fair and honest but willing to retract if not in best interest of your candidate. So many bloggers do so much harm to who they support by their personal attacks. It did not work well for candidates in 2009 and we will see about Election 2011. You were as fair as a Blogger could be in fact I even read the endorsement to Bob and Lynn. They appreciated your fairness. Hope you have the opportunity to see the two together in more forums. I am very excited about the new seats being filled(Place 3, 4, &5 and maybe more) and see Bob as the experienced councilmen ready to work with the new ideas of our first timers. Thanks again. My new pic is for my Anonymous friends on other Blogs!!
All your endorsements and good words did not have any effect on the actual voter turnout. All the RCA candidates were crowding the entrances to the early voting sites hoping to sway opinions at the last minute, which instead had an adverse effect on the voters. You saw the results. RC always has had majority of the residents with them and more importantly, were able to get them out to vote. RCA, Firefighters etc. have more of lip-sympathisers than actual grass-roots people. Some agreed to run for office only when promised $3000 per candidate, by RCA. That alone indicated their candidates seriousnes and sincerity.
Moreover, I do not know what you got impressed by, but if you looked at Gordon's election history for the last about 11 years, you'll see that he is just hungry for power. You have no guarantee that after getting elected he would have kept fighting for fiscal conservatism, transparency etc. and not join the other councilmen and city Admin. After all, a lot of the past one-term council members have done just that, after they got elected, so they were promptly booted out and kept out. No wonder, they all ganged up behind Gordon this time, to extract vengeance, but to no avail.
So, you all need to wake up and go do your own research, talk to people who have known Gordon for many many years now, so as to know what substance he is really made up of. If he really is a straight lace, man of principles, that he makes people believe, he is.
This time around no one can point fingers at Eisemann and his four friends and say that RC or Eisemann's money got their full panel elected by a wide wide margin. It was RCA that out spent RC many times over, doing all those TV ADs, YouTube documentaries and what have you.
>All your endorsements and good
>words did not have any effect on
>the actual voter turnout.
I'm not sure how you would quantify this.
I'll point out that if small-potatoes blogs like this really had zero effect then readers wouldn't read them and certainly wouldn't comment on them.
A correction: I wrote one endorsement, not endorsements plural.
>All the RCA candidates were
>crowding the entrances to the
>early voting sites hoping to sway
>opinions at the last minute, which
>instead had an adverse effect on
There are many things to address in your comments, but I am somewhat short of time and am reluctant to engage the entire lengthy comment.
I will address a few ideas packed into that one sentence.
1. I was not and am not affiliated with the RCA, RC, or other PAC. I'm not sure that the letters "RCA" appear anywhere in my writing before this comment.
2. Are you claiming that only RCA-affiliated candidates were present at the polling stations trying to talk to people? The person most famous for meeting folks at polls is Mr. Omar, and I don't remember him being an RCA candidate.
3. When you say "crowding the entrances" are you claiming candidates were campaigning inside the 100' distance markers?
4. I find running the gauntlet of candidates to be annoying; it feels like stepping onto a used car lot with all the hard sell, forced smiles, and desperation. That's one reaseon I voted at the red brick school building where all such hucksterism was absent. Just me and my voter's card.
Mr. Gordon,
You say here that you are not running against Bob Townsend, that you are running for the City of Richardson." That is Great News, but in the very next paragraph you start hitting at Bob Townsend. What gives? You are questioning his 10 years of service on the council. If he wanted to, if could be enjoying his retirement and grandkids etc. instead of serving citizens and fielding brickbats from the likes of yourself.
You say he has had 10 years to accomplish his goals. How could you say that, seeing the wide margin he won this election by? The people have experienced him and his service to the citizens, as compared to yours, and so they gave you what you deserved through the ballot box. Is that not how democracy works? In fact, you had an upper hand with all the resources you were provided by your "sponsors", Townsend did not have half of that. Or, maybe you took voters to be stupid enough to just watch your YouTube explanation about your lawsuit, take your word as the absolute truth and agree to vote for you? You have run for office many times in the past, both for the Richardson ISD Board and Richardson City Council, without luck in either. Do you mention all those facts on your website? But regular, long-time voters do know your history and it is they who make or break it for you all politicians. Do you still not get it ? All your running for office did was, be a thorn in the side for poor old Mr. Townsend for a few weeks, that is all. Are all your platform issues, allegations of wrong-doing, mud-slinging going to change a bit as to how things are done at the City Hall? No!
In fact, your political history and your law-suit etc. and your being tied-together to the other RCA sponsored candidates spoiled their chances too. Ms. Clawson and Mr. Stuart would have done much better on their own, not being linked to you by the RCA umbrella.
As to your platform and your statement "My focus is on job growth" : Have you ever explained in any of the forums or your YouTube videos as to how you, as a city councilman would have achieved this? Could you please make a video and post it, explaining in detail what you would do or would have the elected council do, to create jobs for local jobless citizens? When an experienced, knowledgeable, long-term Mayor like Slagel can categorically admit that neither the city council nor the city can do anything in that regard, cannot force the local businesses directly or indirectly to give job preference to local citizens, irrespective of the tax-breaks and other incentives they might be getting from the city, you little inexperienced first-timer can do it? Pray, tell us how, Wise One?
This is tiresome.
Tiresome, Huh? Sure, your candidate lost, so let us shove the reasons underthe rug and go hunt for new stuff to trash the incumbents with.
Maligning an experienced incumbent's name, calling him a drunkard, abusive, etc.etc. Instead of learning from the mistakes of his political battles of the last 12 years, he thought this time around running for office as a group, on Mr. McDowell's money would get him in!
After their crushing defeat, he knows what is in store for him, at City Hall, so he sends a sweet letter to the blogs, in the hopes that the City Council and Staff will forgive and forget.
You endorsed him Sir, did you not? You had very high praises for that inexperienced kid, while I kept saying folks go do your own research, instead of listening to the sweet talk coming out of his smiling mouth. He is not what he makes it appear to be. SO, please forward my posts to him, to ponder upon and reply and retire from harrasing public servants any more.
Dude, I'm not trashing anyone.
I am very tired.
I am turning on logins required for comments. I encourage you to continue posting with an account. I may address your points after I get caught up on sleep.
Post a Comment