Candidates' Evaluations Sports, posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Jan 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I just completed a telephone conversation with a reader referred to me by your office. The individual, as resident in San Ramon, wanted to know my thoughts on evaluating political candidates. As we talked, we developed agreement on several areas of evaluation:
1. Credentials as education, professional experience and certifications in public policy, public law and government budgeting was the primary concern in our conversation because voters must have justification of their choice based on core capabilities.
2. Government experience and track record was the second area of evalidation of candidates and is used to find in-common values with voters from history in government service or office.
3. Relationships became our critical definition of who a candidate will serve once in office and the background of those supporters and endorsements are considered equal to the candidate’s own resume.
4. Money becomes the most telling definition of a candidate because campaign money determines who the candidates owes if they are elected.
It seems your reader is looking for EMCEB publications and websites to profile candidates for all levels of office in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties based on these developed evaluations. In the final moments of our conversation, your reader was wondering if the abrasive commentary of town square forums could be set aside for contributions of how candidates’ supporters see their candidates measured under these evaluation criteria.
It seems there is some interest beyond tabloid commentary to have the value of each candidate be a topic of the town square forums.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jan 20, 2012 at 4:09 pm
More campaigning Hal? Or are you lobbying now?
Nothing personal, but I have such a difficult time believing that the Danville Express would be giving out referrals and directing folks to you for political advice. The word “unbelievable” comes to mind.
You still have not grasped what a town square forum is all about.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Jan 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Maybe Editor, Informed Resident has provided a reality for your review this year of the Town Square Forum operations as Emily and Dolores did in prior years. If the town square forum is defined by Informed Resident(s) authors' abuse of commentators, then you have full example of why your forum doesn't work.
"You still have not grasped what a town square forum is all about" seems to only define the exclusive abuse of commentators by a very small collection of authors, likely less than 10, and simply put, establishes that no forum exists.
But, as your readers among neighborhoods, news services and communities continue to reflect on the absence of forum, in their entertainment from tabloid result, it could be time to actually take control of your website and its reputation.
In this exchange, you were offered criteria as a result of a referral that asked for your introduction to me. Fairly, my support of your reader was only to create criteria for important contribution by forum participants.
Who is the editor of the Danville Express, you or Informed resident(s) authors and participants? That is for you to decide.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jan 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm
You wrote; "Who is the editor of the Danville Express, you or Informed resident(s) authors and participants?"
Yet you are trying to set the rules?
C'mon you have to see how utterly hypocritical you have become. Please stop trying to be a school yard monitor and embrace the fact that other people have opinions which in many cases will differ from yours. You just need to get past that and then this forum will work for you too!
Posted by Flint's shadow, a resident of another community, on Jan 20, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Sounds like Hal #5 got loose in the cranial board room discussion that went on there.
You sure about point 3? Because as stated in the other thread, associating with a wackadoodle group is probably not a resume booster for draftee Keller.
Adding Alameda Co. into the mix is an interesting twist in the plot. Should we warn the fine folks over the hill to put on their seat belts in anticipation of runaway CSDI train? Wait....what's that I'm hearing in the distance from the west?
"Oh, the humanity!"
Yeah, my thoughts exactly, Buddy. Pull that belt tight!
Posted by Ralph N. Shirlet, a resident of another community, on Jan 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm
As you try to regain control of this exchange, let us look at how it started in your offices and request to understand the evaluation methods of majorities in neighborhoods. A very reasonable referral knowing the available talent of subscriber news services.
In distractive methods, campaign supporters try to dislodge what started in coversations with your Pleasanton offices and were deflected to me by referral. In respect for Dolores, I joined your reader in focusing the evaluation methods for all candidates.
Now this exchange has attracted the distractive nonsense, in repetition, of Informed Resident(s) and their companion authors. Without anything but attack, the commentary drifts away from criteria set by you in EMCEB's referral.
Posted by Oz, a resident of another community, on Jan 21, 2012 at 9:50 am
The wizard sees personal attacks by jjjj , Informed resident, and Flints shadow desperate. These hooligans from the MNP hit group are getting nervous that a challenger will be coming on line very soon. The wicked witch of the East may soon fly away on her broom or just melt away.
Posted by Whip Baker, a resident of another community, on Jan 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm
We, here at the American White Potato Society, want to thank the many supporters of Mary Piepho, who ever she is, for the do-loop humor that plays over and over again like much of the situation comedy that populates faux (FOX) snooze (News??). Same attitude, same lack of content and the same assaults.
Congratulations for sponsoring humor that will stand the test of time or vice versa.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jan 22, 2012 at 10:33 am
Mr. Potato Head,
You may have missed this news write up while you were distracted during your other daily activities.
"What makes this an interesting item is the fact that Piepho is a Republican, even though her supervisorial seat is non-partisan...
There is speculation that Piepho may be in line for a seat in the state legislature down the road. So far she denies it, but if she does choose to run, with the kind of support she's gathering today, she may be the only Republican in the county with a shot at winning a partisan race."
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Jan 22, 2012 at 11:43 am
Again, content from Informed Resident(s)' author illustrates a potential result when Joan Buchanan, if re-elected, terms out. With two or more years, Mary could focus her staff on services to district 3 communities and neighborhoods to build an opportunity to be the political consortium's choice to replace Joan.
First, Mary must be re-elected in a current campaign that illustrates commitment to communities and neighborhoods in district 3. How Mary conducts her 2012 campaign will leave a fresh impact that will last into 2014 and beyond.
As editor, you may wish to research why Democrats are supporting Mary and what immediate convenience to the status quo is served by her re-election? Certainly, the same Democrats would not support Mary for state election unless she changed party, as rumored.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jan 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Sorry to disappoint you once again Hal [removed], but the simple fact remains that Mary Piepho is popular (liked and respected) amongst both Republicans and Democrats. Further defined by her ability to work across the aisles which makes her extremely electable.
This is well known and demonstrated by her actions, support and penned by the writer in the article in which it appeared.
Let's address the obvious;
The irony remains that Mary Piepho has been instrumental for the much needed “change” which often is the subject matter of your ire. She has in fact been quite a departure from the “status quo”.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Jan 22, 2012 at 5:55 pm
This exchange belongs to the news process and its invitation to you. We need to return to the issue of this exchange: "What do your readers, as voters, use as evaluation methods to determine their choice of candidates?"
That is the focus beyond dsitractions offered by sponsored commentators.