This year I asked to see who was on the panel to interview me. They actually sent a response. Of the 8 or so...none were Republican. Most were self described ultra libbers. So, I decided not to go. (Actually, I had already decided not to go:o)Instead I made a few comments here and there as only I can do.
I won't spend time going into it. But, part of my theory after watching the group is that they will give a great rating to a Republican only if that Republican is already the projected winner. They will never give a Republican a great rating if there is a tough opponent.
The News Tribune had something on this as did the Times although I have not seen that yet. (Campaigning keeps your time focused on other things.) All this is somewhere in the press. And, this year there was encouragement on the part of the Senate Republicans not to participate until the League was more balance. a letter e Here is what one reader wrote to my email.
"Hi, Senator Roach. You're correct about the Muni League candidate ratings.
I was on their candidate panel in 1999 and became totally dismayed at the process. I dropped my interest and trust in the Muni League immediately afterward. They have zero credibility with me.
The Muni League selected the questions the panelists asked of the candidates.
For instance when Greg Nickels, running for re-election to the county council, came in he was was polished and slick and had snappy, refined answers. I could not veer from the list to ask a serious question.
I couldn't ask questions in an effort to convince me that Nickels - or the other candidates - were genuine, sincere, forthwith and deserving of a council position.
In other words, why bother with a live candidate evaluations? They could have done it by written and mailed questionnaires to the candidates.
In my opinion it was one giant, pre-determined process that is geared toward the Muni League's political goals.
Hi, Senator Roach. You're correct about the Muni League candidate ratings.
I was on their candidate panel in 1999 and became totally dismayed at the process. I dropped my interest and trust in the Muni League immediately afterward. They have zero credibility with me.
The Muni League selected the questions the panelists asked of the candidates.
For instance when Greg Nickels, running for re-election to the county council, came in he was was polished and slick and had snappy, refined answers. I could not veer from the list to ask a serious question.
I couldn't ask questions in an effort to convince me that Nickels - or the other candidates - were genuine, sincere, forthwith and deserving of a council position.
In other words, why bother with a live candidate evaluations? They could have done it by written and mailed questionnaires to the candidates.
In my opinion it was one giant, pre-determined process that is geared toward the Muni League's political goals."
No comments:
Post a Comment