DFL ACTIVIST: "COLEEN ROWLEY SHOULD RECONSIDER HER CANDIDACY FOR THE 2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT"
I received this email from a dedicated reader of Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
##
Coleen Rowley should reconsider her candidacy for the 2nd congressional district.
I have become one of many in a long list of people that cannot support Coleen Rowley for Congress. Contrary to the spin generated by the Rowley campaign, it is for none of the reasons that have been alleged by Shawn Towle.
As far as Sean Towle of Checks and Balances is concerned, he really owes his readers an explanation of his relationship with Rowley's Financial Director, Ellen Stankiewicz, before he assists the Rowley campaign with such favorable articles.
On a personal level Coleen Rowley is a nice, down to earth person. Most people are also not bothered by the fact that Rowley previously supported Republicans.
Contrary to Kelly Doran who tried to be slick in his attempt to paint himself as a "lifelong Democrat," Rowley was honest and explained her transition. For that reason she has distinguished herself from an opportunist like Doran.
Yet Rowley has not felt comfortable answering questions from reporters or potential supporters about issues other than the war and related issues. Many people really don't think that Rowley knows exactly where she stands on other issues. She has professed to be pro-life in one article then in a few others she professes to be against the "criminalization of abortion".
So it is not clear that she would vote against many of the anti-abortion measures that would limit a woman's ability to have a safe and legal abortion.There are more serious problems with Rowley's candidacy and campaign that appear irreversible. People's perceptions of the campaign have been identified by national political analysts and scholars who have no horse in the race and no axe to grind.
For example:
* Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report said, "Rowley has not really proven to be a very formidable candidate" citing her "anemic fundraising." And yet Rowley exhibits the basic problem with her candidacy by ignoring the facts of her ranking with other candidates and argues that the fundraising numbers are not anemic.
* Barry Casselman, a Minnesota-based political analyst said, "she hasn't shown any political skill… Rowley's campaign doesn't make any sense…"
* Roll Call pointed to Rowley "being a bit one-note and lacking in political savvy."
* The Minnesota Campaign Report reported, "Being a maverick is all well and good, but not knowing what you are doing can be deadly."
* Stu Rothenberg of a non-partisan Washington D.C. newsletter, stated, "I don't really hear as much buzz about this race…she's not as far along as I thought she might be as a campaign, as a candidate…" Rowley again ignores basic campaign requirements and defensively argues that "her campaign doesn't adhere to common wisdom" and attributes criticism to people being "sensitive and they want their advice taken."
Rowley had the unprecedented luxury of an audience with practically every person in Minnesota politics from here to Washington and she squandered the opportunity by rejecting all the wisdom offered to her. Those people were not looking for work or an ego boost; their only motive in taking the time to speak with her was their universal desire to see a promising new candidate succeed.
The chorus of advice was pretty basic;
* The need for a campaign plan and a campaign manager
* What she would need for a staff
* What contributors and volunteers expect from a campaign
* The amount of money that she needed to raise,
* That she would need to actually ask people for money personally, and
* How to communicate with the media and constituents, etc.
However, almost without exception, Ms. Rowley dismissed and sometimes even defensively attributed negative motives to the people offering the advice. Essentially, Rowley is doing the same thing that she has criticized George Bush of doing. She is bound and determined to go it alone no matter what the consequences to her, her campaign, the party, or the constituents she wishes to represent.
She has even professed (in front of audiences) that she doesn't care if she gets three percent of the vote. Rowley doesn't appear to connect the fact she will need others to work, volunteer and contribute to her campaign and they really do care.
If she is not going to make a commitment to run a campaign to win, then she'll find very few people that are willing to make a financial or volunteer commitment. Under any other circumstances attempting to do something by yourself would be admirable if you were willing to teach yourself how to do it.
However, in refusing to learn from books, people with experience, or experts, it is a ridiculously futile exercise no matter what the project is. If someone wanted to build a house themselves, they would have to come up with an actual plan and learn many basic trades.
Rowley has been doing the equivalent of rejecting those basics and is trying to build something with no plan and no knowledge. If that same person were responsible for producing shelter for others, it would be completely irresponsible and even negligent to reject offers of assistance and advice from experienced trades people. The same goes for a person that is seeking to represent a political party and a significant number of Minnesotans in Congress.
When people refuse to educate themselves, it is no longer naiveté, it is stubborn arrogance that will not translate into good representation for the district, even if something were to happen to Kline and she was elected. As a result of that kind of that stubborn arrogance a lot of time and money has been wasted in a floundering rudderless campaign. Rowley gives the appearance that she only wants to represent herself and her issues. There appears to be no understanding that she is a congressional candidate seeking to represent other people who have issues of concern.
This is evident when Rowley won't quit talking long enough to actually hear people's concerns. When it was suggested that she should broaden her focus, and discuss issues that matter to the district, aside from the war, she responded in the Star Tribune by erroneously accusing Democrats of wanting to cede foreign policy and national security to Republicans.
She doesn't seem to understand the damage that this kind of talk has on other Democratic candidates, which is at the heart of why she should be reassessing her candidacy. Her public words and mistakes have consistently put a negative light on the DFL and its candidates. She cannot realistically think that she is going to get the support that she needs from the very Democrats she is publicly criticizing.
Even her web's legal disclaimer is additional evidence of her ego getting in the way of her knowledge and ability. By stubbornly demanding to control every detail of the campaign she has made herself look foolish. She uses a commercial disclaimer which disclaims the contents of the website and thus disclaims her own positions on the issues.
"Coleen Rowley for Congress makes no warranties or representations about the accuracy or completeness of this site's contents…assume no responsibility for errors and omissions in the content or materials…the content or materials are provided as is without any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied…further do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information…make no commitment to update the information contained herein…any listing or organization is for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as an expressed or implied warranty or endorsement…"
While many legal professionals have had a good laugh, it is just another symptom in a long line of problems.In the latest Rowley debacle, she approved a website picture of John Kline in a Nazi uniform. It is really sad to say but Kline had it right in his response when he said that Rowley "shows a lack of perspective, a lack of seriousness and a lack of good judgment."
She exacerbated the problem when she qualified her public apology to Kline in the Star Tribune by claiming he was incompetent. It is actually pretty embarassing to see this kind of campaign from what was such a promising candidate. For those reasons and many more, I personally believe that Ms. Rowley should reassess her candidacy and consider what is best for the 2nd Congressional District.
Kim Millman
S.D. 40
##
Coleen Rowley should reconsider her candidacy for the 2nd congressional district.
I have become one of many in a long list of people that cannot support Coleen Rowley for Congress. Contrary to the spin generated by the Rowley campaign, it is for none of the reasons that have been alleged by Shawn Towle.
As far as Sean Towle of Checks and Balances is concerned, he really owes his readers an explanation of his relationship with Rowley's Financial Director, Ellen Stankiewicz, before he assists the Rowley campaign with such favorable articles.
On a personal level Coleen Rowley is a nice, down to earth person. Most people are also not bothered by the fact that Rowley previously supported Republicans.
Contrary to Kelly Doran who tried to be slick in his attempt to paint himself as a "lifelong Democrat," Rowley was honest and explained her transition. For that reason she has distinguished herself from an opportunist like Doran.
Yet Rowley has not felt comfortable answering questions from reporters or potential supporters about issues other than the war and related issues. Many people really don't think that Rowley knows exactly where she stands on other issues. She has professed to be pro-life in one article then in a few others she professes to be against the "criminalization of abortion".
So it is not clear that she would vote against many of the anti-abortion measures that would limit a woman's ability to have a safe and legal abortion.There are more serious problems with Rowley's candidacy and campaign that appear irreversible. People's perceptions of the campaign have been identified by national political analysts and scholars who have no horse in the race and no axe to grind.
For example:
* Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report said, "Rowley has not really proven to be a very formidable candidate" citing her "anemic fundraising." And yet Rowley exhibits the basic problem with her candidacy by ignoring the facts of her ranking with other candidates and argues that the fundraising numbers are not anemic.
* Barry Casselman, a Minnesota-based political analyst said, "she hasn't shown any political skill… Rowley's campaign doesn't make any sense…"
* Roll Call pointed to Rowley "being a bit one-note and lacking in political savvy."
* The Minnesota Campaign Report reported, "Being a maverick is all well and good, but not knowing what you are doing can be deadly."
* Stu Rothenberg of a non-partisan Washington D.C. newsletter, stated, "I don't really hear as much buzz about this race…she's not as far along as I thought she might be as a campaign, as a candidate…" Rowley again ignores basic campaign requirements and defensively argues that "her campaign doesn't adhere to common wisdom" and attributes criticism to people being "sensitive and they want their advice taken."
Rowley had the unprecedented luxury of an audience with practically every person in Minnesota politics from here to Washington and she squandered the opportunity by rejecting all the wisdom offered to her. Those people were not looking for work or an ego boost; their only motive in taking the time to speak with her was their universal desire to see a promising new candidate succeed.
The chorus of advice was pretty basic;
* The need for a campaign plan and a campaign manager
* What she would need for a staff
* What contributors and volunteers expect from a campaign
* The amount of money that she needed to raise,
* That she would need to actually ask people for money personally, and
* How to communicate with the media and constituents, etc.
However, almost without exception, Ms. Rowley dismissed and sometimes even defensively attributed negative motives to the people offering the advice. Essentially, Rowley is doing the same thing that she has criticized George Bush of doing. She is bound and determined to go it alone no matter what the consequences to her, her campaign, the party, or the constituents she wishes to represent.
She has even professed (in front of audiences) that she doesn't care if she gets three percent of the vote. Rowley doesn't appear to connect the fact she will need others to work, volunteer and contribute to her campaign and they really do care.
If she is not going to make a commitment to run a campaign to win, then she'll find very few people that are willing to make a financial or volunteer commitment. Under any other circumstances attempting to do something by yourself would be admirable if you were willing to teach yourself how to do it.
However, in refusing to learn from books, people with experience, or experts, it is a ridiculously futile exercise no matter what the project is. If someone wanted to build a house themselves, they would have to come up with an actual plan and learn many basic trades.
Rowley has been doing the equivalent of rejecting those basics and is trying to build something with no plan and no knowledge. If that same person were responsible for producing shelter for others, it would be completely irresponsible and even negligent to reject offers of assistance and advice from experienced trades people. The same goes for a person that is seeking to represent a political party and a significant number of Minnesotans in Congress.
When people refuse to educate themselves, it is no longer naiveté, it is stubborn arrogance that will not translate into good representation for the district, even if something were to happen to Kline and she was elected. As a result of that kind of that stubborn arrogance a lot of time and money has been wasted in a floundering rudderless campaign. Rowley gives the appearance that she only wants to represent herself and her issues. There appears to be no understanding that she is a congressional candidate seeking to represent other people who have issues of concern.
This is evident when Rowley won't quit talking long enough to actually hear people's concerns. When it was suggested that she should broaden her focus, and discuss issues that matter to the district, aside from the war, she responded in the Star Tribune by erroneously accusing Democrats of wanting to cede foreign policy and national security to Republicans.
She doesn't seem to understand the damage that this kind of talk has on other Democratic candidates, which is at the heart of why she should be reassessing her candidacy. Her public words and mistakes have consistently put a negative light on the DFL and its candidates. She cannot realistically think that she is going to get the support that she needs from the very Democrats she is publicly criticizing.
Even her web's legal disclaimer is additional evidence of her ego getting in the way of her knowledge and ability. By stubbornly demanding to control every detail of the campaign she has made herself look foolish. She uses a commercial disclaimer which disclaims the contents of the website and thus disclaims her own positions on the issues.
"Coleen Rowley for Congress makes no warranties or representations about the accuracy or completeness of this site's contents…assume no responsibility for errors and omissions in the content or materials…the content or materials are provided as is without any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied…further do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information…make no commitment to update the information contained herein…any listing or organization is for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as an expressed or implied warranty or endorsement…"
While many legal professionals have had a good laugh, it is just another symptom in a long line of problems.In the latest Rowley debacle, she approved a website picture of John Kline in a Nazi uniform. It is really sad to say but Kline had it right in his response when he said that Rowley "shows a lack of perspective, a lack of seriousness and a lack of good judgment."
She exacerbated the problem when she qualified her public apology to Kline in the Star Tribune by claiming he was incompetent. It is actually pretty embarassing to see this kind of campaign from what was such a promising candidate. For those reasons and many more, I personally believe that Ms. Rowley should reassess her candidacy and consider what is best for the 2nd Congressional District.
Kim Millman
S.D. 40
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home