Monday, September 05, 2011

Political Nonsense From Sittenfeld

P.G. Sittenfeld has a well organized and well financed campaign for Cincinnati City Council.  He also has quickly learned how to make nonsensical statements on important political issues.  Here's his answer to the Enquirer's question on where he stands on the Streetcar:
P.G. Sittenfeld: The city's focus right now needs to be on basic services ahead of streetcars, but the reality is, this project is now in the hands of the voters, and I will respect the direction they give us in November.
Yes, experts of all political views would agree that this answer is a prime example of "bull shitting." That's the act of pretending to take a stand on something, but actually saying things in such a confusing way that you can deny to supporters of both sides of the issue that you are not against their side. Does my definition come across like double-talk? Well, that's the point.

I personally call Sittenfeld's statement political cowardice. I don't know who is advising him, but it sounds like a professional who is well schooled in how to be for and against everything, simultaneously. That is the most shallow and worthless manner a politician can exhibit and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of anyone with a brain.

Since far too many people lack functioning brains, P.G. stands a good chance of becoming yet another bad member of city council, one more focused on getting elected than actually doing anything for the City.

What's even worse, P.G. appears to not want to get involved with the anti-Rail ballot initiative, based on his "in the hands of voters" line. What P.G. now needs to first realize is this isn't just an anti-streetcar issue, this is an anti-rail issue. Then he must take a stand on it. Is he part of the anti-rail delusional fringe of Cincinnati politics or is he with the majority of sane people who are NOT looking to ban all rail from Cincinnati for another generation?

9 comments:

  1. I enjoy reading this blog, and think it often has solid insights, but those insights will pack more punch if you demonstrate you've done your work. Assuming you've ever taken the time to visit the Cincinnatians for Progress website, you know exactly where Sittenfeld stands on the anti-rail initiative...http://endorsements.cincinnatiansforprogress.com/

    Hold yourself to the same standard as a journalist that you'd like from Sittenfeld as a candidate. If you do, it probably calls an updated entry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cincyblog, long time reader first time commenter. How can you fault P.G. for not taking a stand on the streetcar? It is a divisive issue and he wants to get elected. If he has mixed feelings about the idea (as any sane person would) then why would he want to be an outspoken advocate for it? And as a democrat who wants to count on YP support, he is not going to actively oppose it. I know I know we are really talking about the anti-rail initiative and not the streetcar per se. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure, the enquirer asked about the streetcar and not the ballot initiative. I read into his answer the following: I really don't care, if the voters make it illegal for the city to spend money on rail for the next ten years, I'm not going to lose any sleep, and if we end up building the streetcar then god bless. According to the above poster, P.G. has the Cincinnatians for Progress endorsement - as long as he doesn't plan to get in the way of the project and doesn't plan to advocate either way, how is that disingenuous? He has shown himself to be a pretty smart and savvy guy on the campaign trail and could probably be an effective councilman. Now answer me this, who would you rather have representing you, P.G. or Chris Smitherman? And don't get me started about Laure Quinlivan...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peyton,

    Actually, no, it doesn't warrant an update. It supports my point. Sittenfeld has apparently told CFP he agrees with them on the issue, but he turns around and makes the comment to Enquirer that clearly infers he thinks the vote is all about the Streetcar. He is trying to appeal to everyone and make them think he believes different things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cincinnatus,

    I absolutely fault any political candidate who cares more about getting elected than taking a stand on big issues. I want candidates with Character, and character starts with honesty and the willingness to get their hands dirty on the issues. It is an interesting exercise for a political science class discuss how a candidates might manipulate their way into office, but when you see it real life and done so brazenly, it makes me want to vomit.

    Why do you want a candidate that is only about getting elected? That makes him no different than Smitherman or Winburn.

    You miss-read the poster, CFP is not giving out endorsements, instead CFP has gotten an endorsement on the anti-rail issue from Sittenfeld.

    What is funny, is that you say all of that but end with a shot at Quinlivan, who I infer you think is bad, yet would be politically similar to Sittenfeld on most issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fair enough about the CFP endorsement - the link wasn't working last night so I couldn't really see what he was talking about.

    I do expect political candidates to take a stand on issues, but I don't expect them to take a stand on every issue. Bottom line, there are many more issues that are more important than the streetcar.

    Yes, Quinlivan and P.G. are politically similar on the surface. As I stated before (facetiously), I don't want to get started on why I have a problem with her. You're the journalist, so perhaps you should look into why people who agree with her on many of the issues might take issue with her as a member of council.

    ReplyDelete
  6. this clown has the granma vote in the bag. A nice boy, nice smile, so pleasant nd he LOVES Cincinnati.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no problem with Sittenfeld's stance on the streetcar and it not indicate in any way to bad character. To suggest anything else is ludicrous. You having that opinion is exactly why I'm not a streetcar supporter and I am more and more inclined to vote it down. I'm not saying it isn't important but there so many more pressing things in this city besides the streetcar. I like Sittenfeld. I don't like Quinlivan. It has nothing to do with the streetcar. She is rude as hell. I've witnessed it. Now THAT says a lot about character. I can give a rats-you-know-what on where she stands on other issues. To base your vote in November solely on the streetcar is really insane. PG is smart, proven to be for the people (evidenced by his day job) and in touch with different communities. He's not making the streetcar the focal point of his campaign and I think that's awesome. only the candidates and voters who don't understand all of the pressing issues will do that. It's called being small-minded, ironically enough. He's a YP that is evironmentally conscious, serious about inclusion and he's intelligent enough not to get bogged down by this streetcar issue. Rock on Sittenfeld!! You have my vote!

    ReplyDelete
  8. ^You are Sittenfeld. No, basing a vote on the streetcar issue alone is voting for someone who engages facts versus one who operates only in a swirl of rhetoric. And Laure Quinlivan has bigger balls than Sittenfeld and the rest of the men on council combined.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PG and LQ both belong to Crossroads Church. Check PG's candidate bio on Dem Party site:
    "He is an active member of Citizens on Patrol; a school leader for the Adopt-A-Class program; a board member of the Freestore Foodbank; a member of the Faith Community Alliance; and a MEMBER OF CROSSROADS CHURCH".
    In 2009, LQ listed the Crossroads pastors as endorsers on her site, & on the campaign trail she publicly declared she was a Crossroads member. A gay friend told me earlier this year about homophobic comments made in a sermon at Crossroads(he never went back). I found video/audio for a sermon in March 2011 about sex vs love, by Pastor Mingo (endorser of LQ in '09):
    http://www.crossroads.net/my/media/playVideo.php?idMedia=1355. Around 14 min,37 sec, he says GOD is pro-sex only in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. At 15 mins,40 sec he says sex with someone of the same sex is not God's intent. There are many churches that welcome gays in this area. It troubles me that 2 endorsed Dem candidates worship at a church that has fundamentalist views on gay relationships.

    ReplyDelete

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.