Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Dear Anthony: Further about my draft

From: Rob Shattuck <>
Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Subject: Further about my draft
To: Anthony Cook <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Scott Beason <>,, "" <>

Dear Anthony,

This is further to the email and draft I sent you yesterday.

I don't think the other candidates are going to answer anything.  

What I would like to do, if I could, is put a link at the end of my 600 words, which link would take interested readers to my campaign website where I would like to have discussion of questions 2 and 3, and even more discussion of question 1.

To advance my goal of informing the Editorial Board as much as possible, I am going to proceed with more discussion of question number 1 in this email.

This additional discussion works at helping readers (and the Editorial Board) decide whether Congress has stopped functioning for the American people, to such an extent so that the follow up questions should be asked of, why has that happened, and what can be done to try to fix it.

Here is additional evidence to consider about question 1, which to a great extent comes from the other candidates.

I think it is fair to say that the other candidates have harped ont the out of control national debt and what our children and grandchildren are going to be saddled with.  In his opening statement in the WERC forum, Chad Mathis stated that the national debt is over $17 trillion, "and that's why today I am announcing my agenda for fiscal responsibility . . .."  Will Brooke referred to the failure of Congress to pass budgets.

I agree,  This is big failure by Congress, and it contributed hugely to the F grade I gave Congress.

The other candidates have pointed out numerous other shortcomings of government and Congress.

This has been coupled with the other candidates emphasizing in their campaigns that the ways of Washington need to be changed, and they have put in the forefront in their appeals to the voters that they, respectively, are the best of the candidates for changing Washington.

There has, however, been a problem with this, which is that it has led to some of the other candidates putting out fatuous nonsense, and I have said so. See (i) Dr. Mathis is fatuous and stupid, (ii) Open letter to Representative DeMarco, and (iii) Dear Dolores. At the meeting of the Editorial Board with the candidates, I solicited the specific candidates to comment on what I had said about them. Two of the candidates said nothing, and the third said he did not think anything I had said called for a response. Readers and the Editorial Board can decide for themselves about the candidates' fatuous nonsense, or not.

Readers (and the Editorial Board) trying to answer question 1 for themselves can thus consider this:  What candidate would put himself in a position of talking fatuous nonsense about being able to change Washington, unless it was clear that there was a great need for changing Washington, and the candidate knew it and thus considered it very important to say something about it to the voters?

So, while the other candidates have steadfastly refused to answer my question 1 expressly, their own campaigning should be very suggestive to the voters that the other candidates have a great deal of agreement with my answer to question 1 (Congress has stopped functioning for the American people).

Let's leave the question dangling, if the other candidates agree with me, what their problem has been in giving an express answer to question 1.

I would also like to touch on Gary Palmer's pitch about his network of local think tanks and his wanting, with respect to problems that Congress is unable to its job regarding at the Federal level, to push them down for handling at the local level. I don't know how far Gary is prepared to carry this idea, such as whether Gary thinks that is basically what will take care of the entire out of control national debt that Congress is unable to do its job about.  To me, this idea of Gary's of pushing down to the local level seems very, very limited in scope, and much more than that idea is needed. I hope Gary will elaborate on this.

Also, I want to comment on Gary's reference in the WERC forum to the possibility of the Republicans taking control of the Senate in the 2014 elections.  I will save that for later.

This is enough "food for thought" for today.

Thanks, Anthony.



No comments:

Post a Comment