June 18, 2014 3:06 pm ET
Candidate declines to change his response
Source: Standing Firm on Shaky Ground
First, I want to point out that I am a fair individual. I believe in fair play, and I believe in giving someone a fair chance.
With that said, my efforts at fairness in this instance have been, for all intents and purposes, rebuffed.
So, now I can have a clear conscience. Mr. DiCara can’t say that I didn’t tell him so. He can’t say I blindsided him. After reading his e-mail rebuttal, I flat out told him that I felt he needed a redo … and I wasn’t talking about changing the color of his tie or a new hairstyle.
After reading Mr. DiCara’s rebuttal, I thought to myself, “Self, this is not good. This seems ill conceived.” Hence, I was emphatic in asking him to do it over; however, as in the first go-around, I did not hear from Mr. DiCara.
So, in my spirit of fairness, I am more than happy to publish any rebuttal I receive. However, to those that will send such a rebuttal, you should be forewarned that you should do your homework first.
Without further ado, here is Mr. DiCara’s rebuttal, folks, along with my response:
“Buzz, as you know early voting began yesterday so I was unable to check my email yesterday. Regarding The Fort Howard property, I have said from the beginning that if I am fortunate enough to be elected to the Council I will not accept any proposals that do not place the needs of our Veterans first. Any project that involves that property would also have to have the support of the community first. Period. As far as I know, there are no plans submitted as of yet. I have heard rumors and ideas but before I see a plan in writing there really isn’t anything to comment on. As far as the question of the Government Center, I would invite you to look at the public statements that I have made since the beginning of my campaign. The fact is, the message from the County has changed repeatedly throughout this process. I have been working closely with members of the community on this issue. Their message to me is simple: if this project can be stopped then it should. If it can’t, then we need to make sure whatever happens to the property has the community’s input and support. Complex issues such as these require serious study and thought, not one line sound bites from politicians looking to score political points. I think that the positive response I have received from the community that is directly impacted by this project speaks for itself. As always, please feel free to print this email in its’ entirety in your blog. Sincerely, Joe DiCara.”
For those who believe that I did not give adequate time for Mr. DiCara to respond, I want to point out some facts. There is no politician that I know of who does not check his/her email for a full day. I sent Mr. DiCara two emails regarding my concerns about his statements. The first was on 6/11/14 at 7:04 pm, and the second (which included a deadline for a reply by noon) on 6/12/14.
Cue the crickets—I received no response.
Now, the only comparison I can make is to Lois “Gee, what happened to my emails???” Lerner. Maybe it was another “Obama Administration” moment.
But I digress on that. Let’s move on.
Here are my responses:
This comment is a real winner: “I will not accept any proposals that do not place the needs of our Veterans first.” Mr. DiCara, I hate to inform you, but we are way past the proposal stage. We are now into the “put the shovel into the ground” stage—you know, bricks and mortar and all that stuff. I’m sure the vets appreciate your remark, but I don’t think it’s true. I think back to the line in the action flick, “Clear and Present Danger;” when Harrison Ford discussed the president’s “old Washington two-step,” he replied, bluntly, “Mr. President, I don’t dance.”
Let me translate for the political machine (i.e., the “O” team). The push for Fort Howard is a goal that will require securing the votes needed to stack the deck, since it will leave both the vets and the taxpayers out in the cold.
Guess who controls the PUD process to the development of Fort Howard? As you know from my previous blog, the answer is Councilman John Olszewski Sr.
Now maybe Mr. DiCara thought I was ill informed. The alternative is that he forgot to do his homework. But, since he raised the issue, I pose this question to him: “Who is this secret developer you are talking about that will make it all ‘hunky-dory’ for the vets?”
Apparently, the answer is so secret that Mr. DiCara could not tell me.
Being the nice guy that I am, I said a few choice words to the effect of “B.S.” It is one thing to be misleading, but this stunk to high heaven.
Now, as to Mr. DiCara’s claim about the GC (Government Center), he told Scott Collier—who is running as an independent against John Olszewski Jr.—that the issue was a “done deal.”
Just exactly how am I supposed to get another meaning from that message?
I guess a lot of anger can change a politician’s mind really fast, but Mr. DiCara’s tune changed keys rather quickly.
Two more quotes and I’ll rap this one up.
First one: “… from politicians looking to score political points.” In baseball, they call that a “whiff.” In basketball, they call it an “airball.” In football, they … well, you get my point, I think.
Lastly, we have this final ditty: “I think that the positive response I have received from the community that is directly impacted by this project speaks for itself.”
I’m not a mind reader, so I’m guessing that this is another multiple choice answer where you choose from the responses “B” and “S.”
Anyway, there you have it, folks. A rebuttal, published as it was received, with some of my commentary attached at the end.
Take it for what it is worth…