I thought this was very, very interesting. Rocky trades jabs with Jowers - News
Kirk Jowers- Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics vs. Rocky Anderson- controversial mayor of Salt Lake City.
I also couldn't help but wonder which of the two leaked the entire contents of their emails to the Chronicle.
Politics are frustrating. I can see both of their arguements. They both have valid points. They have both engaged in name calling, which is stupid. The both of them should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I feel bad for Rocky Anderson (or other democrats in Utah) because he's one of the only democrats in a VERY republican state. I can't imagine how frustraing that would be.....I think a lot of the time (not all of it) he is made out to be worse than he actually is because he has different views. I am sure their are thousands of republicans (many in Utah...Chris Cannon, Chris Butters,ect) who have called people worse names. Its just how politics go..... unfortunatly
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I don't always agree with his tactics. But, in the end I think its helpful for Salt Lake City to have an official from the "other side of the isle". Especially someone as far left as Rocky is.... thats a pretty radical thing for Utah. Without politicians like Rocky Anderson(from the left and right) politics wouldn't be functional and Salt Lake City would be.... well, Provo. No offense.
My eyes have been opened so much recently to the sad truth about a lot of aspects of politics. One thing that I just don't understand is what can ever be gained by personally attacking another person. Both Jowers and Anderson undermined their credibility by engaging in base character accusations. It just frustrates me so much because I admire BOTH of them for so many reasons and I'm starting to be very disillusioned.
ReplyDeleteYou and me both Barbara. The latest political climate is making everyone question that validity of politics. The presidents approval rating is at 24% and I think that it shows the American peoples distrust and frustration for our goverment and politics. I can't blame them..... we're in a war full of corruption, we saw thousands of people lives shatterd by the mishandeling of Katrina (still being mishandled), Reublicans and Democrats are more divided than ever, religion and politics are getting dangerously close, goverment officials are leaking information, US Attourneys are being fired, the list goes on and on......
ReplyDeleteAnderson and Jowers are both acting out of frustration because of this horrible current political environment. You are either a democrat or a republican... you are either with us, or against us. There seems to be no middle ground anymore..... Eveyone is on the defense. If that makes sense.
ack. i have been such a big rocky fan in years past. but im sorry to say i have to agree with jowers on this one... lately rocky has come off as a very narcissistic pain in the arse. and honestly, im all about standing up for what you believe in and protesting against what you think is wrong. and i love me some democrats. but sometimes i want to tell rocky to shut his mouth. he sounds like a whiney, ignorant, child and his main concern seems to be just trying to get his face on national tv. and his nationally broadcast debates as of late...HILARIOUS. i swear, the man sounds like a total moron.
ReplyDeleteHave to say that I agree with Andrea on this one. While I think that Rocky has done some tremendous things for Salt Lake City--revitalizing downtown (which has now moved to 400 West and the Gateway center), giving Salt Lake a good left shot in the right arm, and always speaking up for those of his constituents who might not be heard otherwise, he has strong-armed, bullied, and mud-slung his way through politics too much to be considered a statesman in my book. The more and more that he takes time off to go and protest Bush (which, by the way, is on the tax payer's time clock if not on their dollar) he appears to be trying to get face time so that he can finally land that nationally recognized job in the white house or on some federal commission of something or other that Rocky happens to be "passionate" about right now. Ross, as he is affectionately referred to in the Vogeler home, has fired too many of his employees or run them out of the city/county building to be anything other than a bully. Don't even get me started on his interactions with the LDS Church.
ReplyDeleteAs for feeling bad that he's one of the only Democrats in a very Republican State, I have no sympathy for the man. He was elected. That means that the electorate majority wanted him to be there. The people that matter, the citizens of Salt Lake City proper, put him there and are the only ones who should be able to speak on his mayoral actions. However, he puts an enormous target on his chest when he starts to put his foot into state and national matters. As for Chris Cannon and Chris Butters "calling people worse names," Cody, they probably have, but not out in the public sphere and definitely not in their political role as representative or other elected official. Also, it's not so much how strong it was this time with Ross, but how frequently he does it. Name calling and mud-slinging seem to be two of his favorite arrows in his quiver. Also, to argue that without Rocky's extreme leftist attitude "politics wouldn't be functional" is a very naive belief. Our government (federal and individual state entities) was set up to allow the people (ie democracy) to elect their representative (ie republic) leaders. I'm certain that if every candidate had similar beliefs, ideologies, political leanings, etc., America would not simply implode on itself. And while that may not lead to healthy debate and dialogue, HEY, it was up to the PEOPLE to vote for them. Salt Lake City elected Ross, and we thus have the right to criticize and praise, demand that he do better, work more, Bush-hate less, or even Bush-hate more if we wanted. He's supposed to work for us, regardless of his political leanings. To assume that it's even necessary to have two sides on any given issue (left and right, blue and red) is naive. Since when was there only two ways to fall on some issue. The problem we run into most, and I think you addressed this well in one of your comments, is that there is no middle ground anymore. Everyone just yells at each other, says "F*&# you, Senator" or on their own decides to usurp Presidential Power and take a little ambassadorial vacation in Syria.
Real statesmen (and women) just don't seem to be very popular in Washington, or at any level of government for that matter. It's too bad that heated, healthy debate has resorted to hot, sickly rhetoric.
PS--religion and politics have ALWAYS been bedfellows, even in our "secularized" America. If you're referring to our current Presidential debate and our slew of religious/nonreligious candidates or that of Roe v. Wade, etc., I believe that one of the biggest issues facing JFK when he was running against Nixon was the fact that he was Catholic. And that was 44 years ago. Furthermore, you cannot separate belief from a person, nor should you have to. If an official is to accurately represent those she was elected to represent, how is she supposed to keep religion out of the debate if 99% of her constituents oppose abortion vehemently, but only for religious reasons? Is she supposed to go with the 1% who favor it because they use reason instead of belief when upholding the "right" to abort? It's only when Government begins to make its presence felt in religion or vice versa does that line get crossed. I think so far government has done an excellent job in trying to stay out of people's religions. Religion, on the other hand, has not felt the same constraint, and constantly lobbies for this side or the other. However, if you look at the Constitution carefully, only one amendment addresses this, and not vaguely: the First says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This seems to affect more the relationship of Congress to religion than that of religion to Congress, i.e. "The Legislative Branch will not pass any law forbidding the establishment or free exercise of any religion." (This gets muddy when you have groups who try to legalize their activities under the guise of "religion.") Anyway, I've written way too much. Bless you both for taking an interest in this!
I love getting everyone's brains going! I really appreciate the fact that you all commented on this because the thing that frustrates me more than ANYTHING in politics is the enormous apathy affecting this nation. People shy away from politics because it can involved heated discussions but that is cowardly and selfish. We need to be more invested in what goes on around us. Mayor Anderson does seek the limelight a bit too often for my taste, but I'm grateful that he's an example non-complacency. We have sacrificed too much as a nation for the right to vote to let it go to waste. We have got to take the time to learn about issues, candidates, and legislation, even if it's only a quick review of the special election edition of the paper. And we must VOTE! It's so sad that people don't vote. It's so easy between absentee ballots, early voting and the polls being open all day!! That's really the only thing that gets me riled up- when people refuse to have a voice.
ReplyDeleteAlso, and I'm sure no one will read this, but it's actually VERY common practice to fire US Attorneys for NO reason at all. In fact, when Bill Clinton came into office, he ordered Attorney General Janet Reno to fire all of the current US Attorneys, which I believe she did. No one seemed to make a big deal out of that, though, because that's how it's been done. When you can be fired without reason, it's pretty difficult to have any moral high ground to stand on, seeing as how you could be fired without reason anyway and thus had no ground to stand on in the first place.
ReplyDelete