The first time I interviewed then-Redlands City Councilman Pete Aguilar in 2009, I wanted to knock on his suit and ask, “Is anybody in there?”
In my 20 years of newspaper reporting, I’ve interviewed thousands – if not 10,000 – politicos of all kinds, ranging from sitting congressmen to aspiring school board candidates. Rarely in that time have I ever come across an empty suit like Aguilar.
Empty suits are easy to spot in politics. They are the ones who are running to become somebody rather than statesmen, who run to accomplish something. Aguilar clearly fits into the first category.
For those who have never had to sit down and talk with somebody like Aguilar, his recent behavior clearly reinforces what I first thought of him when I was a reporter covering Redlands for The Press-Enterprise.
Most recently, Aguilar – coasting on being the liberal establishment candidate – did not even bother to submit a candidate statement to the well-read and trusted Voter Information Guide and Sample Ballot. The so-called “voter guide” is how voters get acquainted with upcoming elections. He is so arrogant about having the inside track among Democrats that he blew off unfamiliar voters heading into the June 5 primary.
Also, Aguilar chose to ignore conservative voters -- his future constituents if he wins -- altogether in April when he blew off a well-attended candidate forum of the Redlands Tea Party Patriots.
At least liberal candidate Justin Kim had the balls to appear. It takes guts to stand before unlike-minded voters and tell them that he would cut the military. I would never vote for Kim, but if he were win the new congressional District 31 seat in November, I would have mountains of respect for him.
C’mon Democrats. Aguilar is the best you’ve got? At least pick a Kim on June 5 – a candidate with some character.
Oh that's right, he wrote the occupy redlands resolution. And voted to raise your water rates, continued fat union contracts, worked for Gray Davis, a credit union that went into recievership, his small business is a LOBBYING FIRM and much much more.......
This may be the reason why he did not submit his candidate statement on the Voter Information Guide and Sample Ballot. Perhaps he and his Occupy comrades consider all of us as being illiterate and not worth the time to submit a formal candidate statement. He spend more time on helping the Occupy group write up a resolution than on formulating a thoughtful candidate statement. Wonder what he will (or will NOT) do if he becomes our Representative .... He won't tell us because he considers us too stupid to read ...
if geography is an issue that leverages your vote, how "local" must a politician be to gain your vote?
Prior to this campaign, have you actually known Kim to be "working his xxx off?" As for locality, Kim lived (not lives) in Loma Linda ... unless he was commuting to and from Washington DC as a non-litigating attorney. If you actually met both of them, the articulate (and non-verbal) skills are distinguishing. Also, as for being "local" politicians at the House congressional level, where do you suppose Lewis or Baca actually live? at the Senate level, where do you suppose Feinstein or Boxer live? Most legally-voting American citizens do not converse with their "local" congressperson on a monthly basis...we assume that our representatives represent us at the national level. If you want a congress person to know your local concerns, then you are actually allowed to communicate that at the local office. As for Kim, nice guy but even my plumber is a nice guy.... I vote based on synchronous ideas and solutions - not looks or whether they speak nicely... study the candidates (see http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/04/12/justin-kim-congressional-candidate-speaks-spectrum)
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H2CA31125
That said, Phillip has pointed out that Miller does have local cred (Rancho Cucamonga). That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that he has to answer to the national party and PACs that got him where he is.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H2CA31125 At least Miller does not speak from both sides of this issue ....
(I verified Facts' source... appears to have verifiable and good data): "The National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that a third of addicted gamblers had been arrested for a crime, compared to four percent of non-gamblers. A federally funded study by researchers at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas of people arrested for crimes in Las Vegas and Des Moines reported in 2004 that nearly a third of pathological gamblers “admitted having committed robbery in the previous year. Approximately 13 percent had assaulted someone for money.” "
"Unions and Special Interests" language was added by Councilmember Harrison, Mayor Petes' body language said he did not like that- but went along with it to get the resolution passed. While absoluely No One expects any of the three who voted for that resolution to abide by it themselves...it highlights how elected representatives know what is best and makes rules and resolutions for others to live by while excluding themselves.