Update: see Angelica’s response to this piece at the end. Sometimes I’m just left shaking my head. Now I’m “tweet hating”?
I was shot over an email last night asking if I was the “bully.” I guess I was. I kind of had to laugh. I’ve never directed a post to the Angelica’s personal twitter account (and later, I found quite by accident, she blocked me, despite this fact) but have directed tweets to the National Women’s Political Caucus of Silicon Valley of which she is the current president if I remember my information accurately.
The first thing I want to address, is I’m not trying to scare anyone. I’m trying to let voters know a few facts about the incumbent which NWPC chose to endorse without research into the quality of her work. Secondly, if you know anything about this blog, you know that I have a number of contributing authors and have built a little group working on this blog and have an ever growing number of people who have joined us as sources of information — we are not all boys. We are women and we are men, we are law enforcement, we are community supporters, we are us and we are representative of our community. If you read the comments, our Facebook page, our twitter — we are clearly not monochromatic in our group… not in race, color or gender, or even political beliefs; we have grown to span all areas of our community. Kevin has broad reach, because he is willing to give everyone a fair voice at the table and that over 90% of his former co-workers – regardless of such facades as gender or color or politics — support Kevin should tell people that as a community, their voices will be heard too.
But on to this complaint that I’ve bullied someone (because I will admit, it was me, Casey Thomas, behind the tweet). No one gets the right to be a political leader and not have their position questioned. A little advice for everyone here: If you can not elucidate your support when questioned, calling people a bully is not going to gain you any respect. A little introspection into why you’re supporting someone you can’t argue in support of may be warranted here. NWPC endorsed a candidate, a poor candidate at that… yet their president expects, in our great democracy, for people to remain silent in the face of that endorsement, while they freely question others? That’s not how it works.
So here’s the accusation:
Okay… for starters, I’m supposed to know she’s sick and approach accordingly… and that a friend passed away (I am sorry for your loss)… and again, use proper social networking etiquette without this knowledge.
I’m fairly certain, other than the handful of people close to me on this project, I haven’t made my gender a matter of knowledge. Careful you don’t fall into your own mind trap with those assumptions, Angelica.
I’m personally impressed at the assumption that KJ supporters are all men, clearly one has only to look at Jensen’s endorsement lists, or the list that came out yesterday of law enforcement leadership endorsers that included a number of strong, respected women from the highest ranks of law enforcement leadership endorsing him.
The claim that I’m “bullying” because Angelica is “proud to endorse a pro-choice candidate.” Ummmm… WTF? Let me count the ways this is just disturbing:
1. I never mentioned “choice” as an issue, as far as I am aware, neither has NWPC_SF until this point. Curious as to why they would now?
2. I would love to know how a non-legislative position like Sheriff is relevant to the matter of “choice.”
3. You haven’t the first clue if I am pro-choice or not, yet that is the attack you choose rather than to answer any of the questions? Shameful for women, shameful for voters. If one endorses a candidate they should be able to defend that decision with more than that.
4. It’s strawman arguments like the “choice” argument launched here that do the most detriment to the rest of us by failing to provide valid information for voters to make valid decision, hoping we can drive candidates on sheer emotion without fact. Both sides have their emotional drivers, and people who want good candidates need to look past those when appropriate.
So every one must be curious by now, what horrible thing have I done to this poor person who was just supporting a candidate of her choice? What have I done that they can make a national campaign out of how not to behave? Well here you go:
This tweet came after a tweet at approximately 12:30 AM announcing Laurie Smith’s fall-flat campaign video by NWPC_SV as you can see. The author (apparently Angelica) should have put a warning that all responses would be considered offensive and “bullying.”
For the record, here are the remainder of my “bullying” tweets to NWPC_SF:
So please, if I have asked or addressed anything inappropriate here towards an organization that has endorsed a poor candidate on the sole basis of being female, please tell me. Am I wrong to feel that there should be more than gender behind a decision to endorse a candidate responsible for our public safety? Am I wrong to believe that if an organization endorses a candidate they should be able to tell those that follow them why they support that candidate? Am I wrong to believe that if an organization endorses a poor candidate, choosing to ignore the failures of that person in office, that they should be called out on that failure?
Let me be clear in my philosophy here, my own gender aside (make all the assumptions you want about it, Angelica):
I absolutely believe women are underrepresented in government and in business. Being approximately half the population it’s shameful they aren’t half the political voice of this nation — be they professional women, homemakers or something else. Our legislation affects women and they should be a part of making it, regardless of their roles in society. I did notice the recent bashing by NWCP_SV of women who remain homemakers… choice is about choice… a lot of choices, from staying home with the kids, to aiming for the Oval Office and women should be proud of being able to have all those choices. Not just the “pro-choice” choice.
I believe in “choice” on the basis that what personal decisions you make are yours and mine are mine, and what works for me, may not work for you, but that is what women fought for. But in endorsing the incumbent, you’re making a “choice” that affects me and potentially nearly 2 million other people in the county. I think when there are questions, as a self-proclaimed political entity aiming for leadership for women, you have an obligation to answer those questions with integrity rather than hide behind stereotypes and allow women and their position to be further degraded by that kind of behavior.
I believe that above all, when dealing with political candidates, the best candidate should be endorsed. I don’t think their gender is a primary factor in considering ideas and visions for the office their running for. Ideas come from men, from women, from children, from Republicans, from Democrats. I believe in pragmatism and I believe until we stop listening to lies and misrepresentations (like calling political questions to an organization who makes political endorsements “bullying”) and start listening to the candidates and holding them accountable for their actions at the voting booth, regardless of party, we will continue down this pathetic path of finger pointing and self-victimization by our political entities.
Here’s the problem Angelica, your organization has endorsed a candidate, who happens to be a woman (the only kind of candidate your organization endorses), who is apparently “pro-choice” (as if that is relevant to the conversation), who has cost justice to the families of any number of children and young women — young women like Audrie Pott and Sierra Lamar. She has treated women in her own office as less than, promoting not one single woman to Assistant Sheriff or higher in 16 years and only promoting women to the level of Captain during the last election season when she was called on it. She has allowed sexual harassment to be a problem within her office, using it to her advantage even at times to manipulate the people involved to her own means rather than do the right thing. What has she done, other than be a woman, to advance women? Because I know a lot of women in the Sheriff’s office and many feel that she has set woman back, not move them forward. Are you even aware of that? Does it even matter to you?
Sheriff Smith hasn’t even been in her office for any recognizable period of time since before Thanksgiving, yet we’re still paying her for all that time she’s not even doing her job at this point.
NWPC wants to endorse women candidates? I get it, I do. It’s important and as a women’s organization, they should endorse every solid, female candidate they can find. But if Darrel Issa’s philosophy was transplanted to a woman (with the changed position in “choice”) and she was the only candidate running against Kevin Jensen, would they endorse her just because she was a woman?
The expectation that endorsements come from ideas and not gender is what will gain women (and men, for that matter) respect in politics. Not telling one gender they aren’t eligible for your endorsement and certainly not endorsing candidates who have performed a specific job at a substandard level. As a nation, we must lift everyone up and demand only the best in our elected officials, not just our chosen biases.
So while Angelica will probably consider this post more “bullying,” I hope that some people, both men and women, learn that we need to set aside gender, we need to set aside party, we need to set aside the preference to live in our echo chambers and we must move all of us forward.
We must be able to point to a candidate and say more in support of them than their gender, religion, color, or position on “choice.” While all or any of those may be important at some level, they, in reality, are the facade we need to get past.
So to be blunt, either lead or get out of the way, Madam President, but don’t stand there complaining that some one confronted your ideology with legitimate questions you can’t respond too.
Here’s an idea for NWPC_SV, since you stand behind your candidate, the incumbent, how about your organization hosting the debate? If you think she’s the better candidate, then put her out there and prove it to the women who trust in you and follow you. Bet you won’t.
A Proud Political Pragmatist
Angelica’s response to this blog post. My hashtag… #BUYACLUE… and that’s the last I have to say about NWPC_SV. What a shame when we as women do more damage to ourselves through our own actions than we prevent others from doing.