Thursday, February 9, 2012
Mike Zinkin Seeks Only The Endorsement Of the People
The following is reply that Mike Zinkin made the the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association regarding their inquiry as to whether they should consider endorsing his candidacy:
---
Dear Mr. Castelhano,
Thank you for considering me for a potential endorsement from your organization. However, for reasons cited below, I must decline your invitation to be provided with an endorsement.
I have been on record that the only endorsement I am seeking is from the Citizens of Oro Valley. My campaign is being financed by citizens and I will not accept either an endorsement, or any contributions from any “special interests” group.
If I would be so fortunate as to be elected, even given the fact that I did not have your organization’s endorsement, I can assure you that it will not have any bearing on any decision I make as a member of the Council. If, during my tenure on Council, there is anything that comes up that you feel would be of mutual benefit to the Southern Arizona Home Builders and the Town of Oro Valley and its citizens, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would look forward to discussing any such matter with representatives of your organization.
Thank you again for your invitation and I sincerely hope you understand and appreciate my reasons for declining your invitation.
Michael Zinkin
---
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Mike.
What a pleasure having you run for office! Thanks for your integrity.
---
Thinker,
A special interest group is any group that can gain financial benefit from the election of an official.
The OVPolice Association gains direct benefit,for example, because the police department reports to the Council. So,by endorsing a Council Member they are, in effect, endorsing a future "boss." In effect, their support of Napier and Solomon is a conflict of interest on the part of Napier and Solomon. They should simply not have accepted the Police endorsement.
LOVE and its readers have absolutely no financial gain from the election of any official.
You know the difference.
Your posts on this are simple "games".
---
OVOT,
Candor and integrity make you quiver. You just don't know how to handle a transparent candidate who's willing to go on the record saying he will not take contributions from special interests. YOU questioned, "What's wrong with taking money from vested interests?" You said it all with that question. You just don't "get" moral fiber.
Thank you, Mike!
Richard....That is YOUR definition of a special interest group. I would completely agree with you if you left out the word "financial". Ths group that supports the Naranja Park is a special interest group. Yet they gain no financial interest in their support. The group that attempted the recall movement was a special interest group. Did they benefit financially? But even using your troubled definition the OV Police Association does not financially benefit from the election of any candidate. Show me or direct me to ONE document that demonstrates how that association financially benefitted from the election of any Oro Valley official.
DV.....You are the only person I have run across in 67 years who said that I shied away from candor. Frankly your assessment is really funny. Most would say that I am far too candid at times. And as far as integrity, I'll let my 67 year record of achievement speak for itself.
What is a vested interest in your mind? I have a vested interest in this community. Therefore I support those candidates who I believe will continue to keep this community on the path that I believe to be the best. Tell me what is wrong with that? Like Richard you have your OWN definition and that does not automatically equate to it being accurate.
I could care less if a candidate chooses not to accept endorsements. That's their choice. AND there are some endorsements that may be damaging. But so far in 16 years I have not seen this community suffer from any endorsement given to any candidate, elected or not. The proof is in the results not your incessant hand wringing.
Oh, for the love of God, will Thinkerbell EVER stop pushing HIS definition of "special interest groups" on us while insisting that everyone else's definition of it is wrong.
Here are a few taken from the Internet:
A person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators in favor of one particular interest or issue.
An individual or group who are concerned with some particular part of the economy and who try to influence legislators or bureaucrats to act in their favor.
A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an item of legislation, an industry, or a special segment of society.
Once again, our Oro Valley neighbors will have to decide whether two senior citizens (Zee Man & I) have any agenda other than to allow the citizens to learn what goes on politically, in our town government.
Unlike the OVPD which demands almost 50% of Oro Valley's total budget, whose unions know which candidates will allow them to do as they please, regardless of the economical impact it has on us, we have no personal agenda.
The cops proved they are concerned about themselves when they showed up en-mass at council meetings, in both uniform & plain clothes, but all bearing sidearms making sure not one single cop got laid off during a recent budget crunch.
Mike Zinkin, along with Bill Garner, as well as Brendan Burns will owe no Special Interest Group anything when they are elected.
For a better Oro Valley, please vote for Mike, Bill & Brendan.
Richard......I suspect that there are times when you see something posted on the blog that you read and just shake your head and wish it wasn't there.
From a very unlikely source, my point has been made...in spades I might add.
"A person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators in favor of one particular interest or issue.
An individual or group who are concerned with some particular part of the economy and who try to influence legislators or bureaucrats to act in their favor.
A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an item of legislation, an industry, or a special segment of society."
Richard.....do you see the word "financial" in any of these?
Does the LOVE blog and many of those who post on here fall into this category: "A group of persons working on behalf of or strongly supporting a particular cause,...."? It's a rhetorical question.
art...And as usual you never disappoint...."Once again, our Oro Valley neighbors will have to decide whether two senior citizens (Zee Man & I) have any agenda other than to allow the citizens to learn what goes on politically, in our town government."
YES YOU DO. You attempt to influence the outcome of an election. However you do it legally, unlike Mr. Garner in the last election who violated Arizona State law in his shenanigans in the 'wastewatergate' episode.
And if we use the lovely Victoria Cowgirl's definition (I really should send her a Valentine present for posting that)you and Zeeman are a special interest group as is this blog.
And while I have art's attention, I would repeat my previously inquiry about where was art when the unfortunate ferlin incident occured. A really bad case of total silence.
Have a great weekend folks. I know I will.
The reason the LOVE Blog is not a special interest group is because the blog consists of a random group of people who happen to show up on any given day to read an article and post their thoughts. It is not a group of people who ALL work together in the same industry, for example. And we don't ALL have the same "agenda" for what we'd like to see transpire in our town.
Some of us are pro-business. Some of us are not. Some of us are pro-environment. Some of us are not. These are just two examples.
Therefore, because this blog is NOT a special interest group, such as the Chamber of Commerce or the Fraternal Order of Police for example, when someone makes a comment here that could be considered "hate speech" it does NOT reflect on the rest of us who post here nor does it reflect on the candidates who have been endorsed by this blog.
If a candidate is endorsed by a group such as the NPCCC, for example, and a member of that organization made a "hate speech" comment, then that candidate would have an obligation to speak up about it and reject their endorsement.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE WITH THE LOVE BLOG. NONE OF US, CANDIDATES OR NOT, ARE GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO POSTS COMMENTS HERE!!!
And THAT is the reason that they did not need to "disconnect themselves from the support/endorsement of this blog."
Thinker, the ONLY reason you found it "very interesting" that none of the candidates endorsed by this blog spoke up about the comment is because you like to create fictional stories with fictional characters whenever the actual characters have too much integrity for you to accept.
Oh, my! such brilliant comments from Art and VCowgirl while I was formulating my response to "Thinkerbelle"...gotta love that name!Genius creativity from VC! Pls excuse my pause while I respond to OVOT.
Thinkerbelle aka OVOT,
"Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected...to verdicts handed down in courts...to the quality of our roads, schools and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions of tax dollars every year."
Where is that quote from?, you ask. The FBI website on public corruption. Their 2012 budget is
8.1 billion dollars and public corruption is their 4th priority.
How much do you think the Jack Abramoff and related cout proceeddings cost? Abramoff, the lobbyist with deep connections and effective "gifts" got jail time and a hefty fine. Public corruption is a costly Federal priority.
You, Thinkerbelle, don't see anything wrong with government officials taking money from special interests, but the US government feels so strongly about this that it allocated $8.l billion dollars in 2012. Maybe this is not the country you want to live in, OVOT. Those are your tax dollars they are spending on something you have no problem with!
Three headline cases cited on the same page include:
1. NJ Dept. of Corrections official pleading guiilty on extortion.
2. Cincinatti CDC official sentenced to four years for accepting bribes.
3. Springfield- Former police chief sentenced for stealing evidence and accepting bribes.
Say, OVOT, aren't you and Chief Sharp close friends???
Meanwhile I value a candidate whose campaign donations in 2010 were transparent, a model for careful and effective spending, and a caring human being besides. While this posting started with Zinkin, I fully support Garner and Burns as well because like attracts like. The best way to keep FBI from investigating OV's elections results is to back the candidates without special interests' backing.
cox--you are really a disgrace.
Bill Garner has so much more intelligence and integrity than you can ever hope to have.
Mike Zinkin is too smart for you, and your mean spirited attitude.
Crawl back in your hole and stop making a fool of yourself with your asinine comments.
"Intellectual jousting" to air all sides of local political issues is what LOVE is all about. Why? To provide full disclosure to all aspects of political decisions, to educate and elaborate the issues thoroughly before Election Day so that voters can make informed decisions. Established press reflects biases. LOVE is OV's free alternative press for the discerning.
OVOT is correct that LOVE hopes that elected officials will integrate thorough reasons for their decisions. Yes, of course, LOVE tries to influence ideas with facts. However, he is wrong, no bribes, no financial perks are exchanged to "sweeten" their thinking.
Blogmasters,
OVOT's whining about LOVE's influence on politics validates your effectiveness. OVOT writes. Wonder if he regrets not starting his own blog and envies your success.
OV Cares...I forgot to tell you in my last post that I found your last post, "Thank you, Mike", to be very interesting.
DV... Public corruption is a very big issue. And I am very glad to see that you are aware of such things. I would point out however that of all of the cases you cited, none involved an elected official.
And I am sure you are familiar with the difference between legal contributions and illegal contributions and bribes. If you are suggesting that any of the contributions to local candidates were illegal, please come forward with something more substantial than innuendo.
And since you mentioned public corruption, the FBI and their budget, let's ponder this fact. A portion of their 2010 public corruption annual budget was expended locally investigating Councilman Garner's involvement in the Wastewater tapegate incident. But then I am confident that you are pretty familiar with that little escapade. If not there are documents that are available that could refresh your memory. There is clear evidence in that case that the political corruption lines were crossed.
art......Hopefully I have regained my number one ranking. Your 'artful' comments are touching.
DV....Your last post is amusing on many fronts.
I quote: "Yes, of course, LOVE tries to influence....." I would refer you to a previously posted definition of SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. Again I quote, "A person, group, or organization attempting to influence...."
"Whining about LOVE's influence", I think not. I would refer you to the recent failed recall effort as a clear and convincing piece of evidence of the influence of the LOVE Blog. If that isn't clear enough for you then I would refer you to the last Town Council election results.
Lastly, I would also refer you(and others)to the campaign financial reports, which are readily available on line, of the candidates endorsed by this BLOG. You will find the names of BOTH "Blogmasters" among the contributors.
One cannot read OVOT's posts without getting a headache. I think this guy gets it, and is just playing the devil's advocate role to get a rise out of everyone.
If he thinks his posts benefit his candidates, than he has made an incorrect assumpation. The more he posts, the better me and several others feel about getting the right people on the council.
If the LOVE Blog was unable to influence the outcome of anything, then OVOT would not waste his time posting comments here every day. He is a frequent poster here because he is worried about the influence that this blog has on the voters.
He claims that, "the last Town Council election results" are proof that this blog is not influential.
Using that logic, then this blog WAS influential in 2008 when Terry Parish and Helen Dankwerth failed to get re-elected, Bill Garner DID get elected, and Salette Latas got elected with more votes than any council candidate previously.
Sorry Thinkerbelle, but you can't have it both ways.
Thinker states that the Blogmasters (Dick and Art) have contributed to the candidates that are endorsed by this blog.
Yes, but they have contributed as INDIVIDUALS. It's not the same as when the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce contributes to a candidate. When THEY contribute, it's because they are expecting that candidate to vote in favor of anything that the CofC members want.
So, yes, there IS a financial gain to be made by certain special interest groups. Businesses are in business to MAKE A PROFIT. That is financial. Therefore, ANYTHING that they request of a town council is always requested with financial gain in mind.
Dick or Art will not get any FINANCIAL gain by contributing to a candidate who wins the election.
It's no surprise that when a candidate gets elected who was endorsed by the police, or the CofC, or some developer, then that person always votes in favor of anything that the police or the CofC or the developer wants.
OVOT,
Please review Jack Abramoff, and all of his ties if you prefer only to discuss elected officials.
Yes, there are published campaign contributions and "bribes" that are not part of the record.
2012 Budget is $8.1 billion of which public corruption is a part.
Garner, no matter how you try to viilify him is beyond reproach. He is honest, hard workinng and unrelenting. Please prove to this readership YOUR allegations. My hope is that the Blog will soon publish on that topic.
On that subject, Hiremath who lied to citizens in writing and in person, on a just playing field, should be fired for lying.
Also, in June,2010 a report about the outcome of the Mayoral election was submitted to the Democratic party. It asserted the statistical impossibilty of Hiremath's election, a "fixed" election result. Perhaps, you would like to see their math, OVOT and Zeeman might print that for all readers.
Elections should be about persuasive viewpoints based on reason, not dollars. Contributions especially large ones, suggest more influence. This Blog tries to educate and persuade. "special interest groups" infer something more.
Fear,
If Cox is "smart/stupid" maybe his strategists need to review their goals. What do they think they are gaining?
VC,
Yes, Thinkerbelle validates the blog's achievements, its independent thinking and discerning voters. Yes, blogmasters make personal not organizational donations.
OVOT,
It's time for your nap.
DV....Trying to keep this bunch enlightened can be tiresome.:-)
For the record, my point in presenting various definitions of "special interests" was to show that if you ask half a dozen people for a definition of something, you will get half a dozen different responses.
Of the three I presented, one mentioned focusing on "one particular issue," another mentioned focusing on "the economy," and another mentioned focusing on a particular "industry."
I don't disagree with Dick. I believe that SOME special interest groups DO gain financial benefit from the election of certain individuals.
Also, the phrase is SPECIAL INTERESTS (plural) or SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (also plural). Dick is an individual...not plural. Therefore, if he contributes to someone's campaign, that contribution did NOT come from a special interest GROUP!
Post a Comment