Recent Comments
Re: “Feedback 7/18”
So, what do people think of the whole voter turnout in primaries thing? Or are we just sharing our favorite Rachel Barnhart stories now?
I mean, should be we be trying to get more primary voters out? Or is voting in primaries something we're happy to have around 20% of eligible voters do on a nice day with four candidates in the running?
Re: “Feedback 7/18”
By the way:
The "no experience, not qualified" card gets played pretty selectively, I've noticed. Many people have been elected to Congress as their first elected position, in fact, so we know that the job can be done by people who haven't served on the school board or whatever it is Rachel was supposed to have done first. I don't think anybody really believes that Robin Wilt's unopposed run and six months on the Brighton Town Board was some kind of intensive preparation for a Congressional seat, but I don't remember hearing anything about her being unqualified for lack of experience. So what is this really about?
It's about people who just don't like Rachel Barnhart, for whatever reason. They don't forgive her for running against Lovely Warren, or against Harry Bronson, or against Jim Sheppard. They don't like that she openly criticizes MCDC and local Democratic party leaders. They're mad she publicly opposes their friend's or family member's pet development project. They're still steamed about something she tweeted or a story she did half a dozen years ago. They don't like that she's outspoken and doesn't pull her punches. And they're furious that not liking her hasn't made her go away.
You don't have to like Rachel Barnhart, but for the sake of everybody else who might ever try to do anything without having first run for school board: stop pretending that it's about her qualifications or her background or her abilities.
Re: “Feedback 7/18”
Did anybody even read this article? Or do CITY readers just see Rachel Barnhart's name and decide it's time for a hate-fest?
She's not engaging in any whine-fest about losing--she's talking about the way our primary system perpetuates a cycle of low voter turnout. She wrote it in response to an article blaming low turnout on voter apathy, because she thought that wasn't fair to voters. The fact that even well-funded candidates conserve financial resources by courting only "likely" primary voters, and that candidates with less have to target even narrower bands of potential voters DOES affect general voter awareness and engagement.
Did people not read the local news coverage in the run-up to the primary, noting that a large number of eligible voters were unaware that an election was happening? When nobody's trying to get your vote, because they don't expect you to vote, chances are...you're not going to vote. "The majority of eligible voters in a primary never get a call, a visit, or a piece of mail." Are we really going to pretend that doesn't have any impact on turnout? You know, because Rachel said it and you can tell she's a charlatan because she used to be on TV, and ugh we just can't stand the way she's always talking about issues and running for office, who does she think she is?
Re: “Our choice for Rochester mayor: Lovely Warren”
"Once again we have a campaign where the name-recognition of an on-air personality is being substituted for experience."
This couldn't be more inaccurate.
Unlike Brooks or Funke, Rachel Barnhart's journalism career was extremely self-directed and her focus was on issues of important public interest. Local stations treated the city like it didn't exist except for crime, didn't spend much time covering government and politics, and were especially reluctant to risk access to civic leaders by scrutinizing their activities. Barnhart was willing to step on toes, ruffle feathers, and make trouble with her superiors in order to cover the stories most important to this community, to make sure that real investigative reporting was happening and to keep a critical eye on our local government. This isn't a "substitution" of "life experience" for "hands-on" experience--it IS hands-on experience with government and public service. It required a genuine commitment to this community and to principles of good governance, transparency and accountability.
Both locally and nationally, the Democratic Party is in dire straits because it has only been willing to promote from within. "Paying your dues" and "waiting your turn" has shut out and burned out many talented potential leaders. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has embraced candidates who are mid-career professionals from all kinds of backgrounds--and they're winning elections. If our party continues to dismiss people with vision and dedication to our principles because they didn't start their political careers at "the bottom rung" and spend years stuffing envelopes for party veterans fighting off primary challengers, we're never going to get out of this rut where we need an inspiring candidate but we've got nobody to run except jaded political insiders nobody wants to vote for anymore.
Re: “Barnhart says big tax cut will lead to more prosperous city”
Rachel Barnhart chose to set a different tone from Chief Sheppard in her campaign announcement, using a format that allowed people live access to a detailed presentation. Perhaps she isn't "all flash and no substance" after all? I suppose if you preferred the event Sheppard held, AND if the format of a candidate's announcement is that big a factor in your vote for mayor, you have everything you need to make up your mind already.
One thing you really can't say, if you're actually interested substance, is that there are "no details" available on her plan. The "TV personality with no ideas" mantra may have served her opponent's supporters well in the State Assembly race, but it isn't any more true now than it was then, and if Rachel Barnhart can get over losing to Harry Bronson, it might be time to get over her running against him and actually look at what she's proposing. If you go to her website you can review her detailed policy platform, which reflects her extensive institutional knowledge of Rochester city government and finances. She developed that knowledge over the course of two decades as local TV broadcast media's first public interest reporter (doing reporting that she pushed reluctant station managers, who were more interested in puff pieces and ratings, to air). She's also been on various local radio shows for the last 24 hours, explaining how those proposals will work. If her last campaign is any indication, she'll be knocking on a lot of doors and talking to voters about her plans as the race progresses, so I'm sure that if you still have any questions after reading her platform, she'd be happy to discuss them with you. If you don't care to do any of that, that's up to you, but it will be because you aren't interested--not because she hasn't come up with a substantive, comprehensive plan for debate.
Re: “Feedback 7/18”
"So, how about the actual article attached to this comment thread?" isn't really the same thing as "but her emails."
If people are having too much fun trashing the person who wrote the article to bother with the article itself, I guess that's good for CITY to know. They can just run an empty column that says "by Rachel Barnhart" each week and let everyone play in the comments.