Drinking with a Glassman
by Arnie Bermudez on Jun. 22, 2010, under Arts, Politics, Random humor
- Rodney Glassman
That’s right, the crooning councilman wouldbe making an appearance at Drinking Liberally that evening to discuss his stance on the issues. The evening started out with very exciting events unfolding or as others like to call it “drama.” I found David Morales there of Three Sonorans Blog . David informed me that camera’s were not allowed as per the establishment. I verified this with the owner, and then set my phazer to “stun”, I mean set my camera to “audio record”. Then I got the opportunity to catch up with Blake Morlock former Citizen political reporter and all-around good guy. He now works for Rodney Glassman after he was one of the many unfortunate casualties of cutbacks when the print edition of the Citizen was on its deathbed. Then the big man himself arrived. I was stoked, a little too much, probably. I set up my camera and started audio recording. Big mistake. As one of the organizers pointed me out to the crowd and said “no cameras, please stop filming”. It was such an awkward moment as everyone turned and looked at me and things got embarrassingly silent. All I could do was apologize and shut the recorder off. I sure am glad no one had any torches and pitchforks. Mr. Glassman continued to speak and I came to my senses, and decided to begin audio recording again. This is where the problems arose. Everyone, started giving me the evil eye again, I had to explain to Drinking Liberally that I was audio recording, yes, cameras now have the technological capacity to double over as a digital recorders. Still, I got a “could you turn the camera off” from a member of the audience. I also clarified with him that I was not VIDEO recording.
Mr. Glassman delivered a decent speech, very polished, in fact, too much. It’s obvious that he is running against John McCain.
- John McCain
I don’t condone drinking but if you want to get plastered take a drink every time he says John McCain or the word ”pork”. I guarantee alcohol poisoning before the end of the audio segment. First couple of minutes were not captured due to being told to shut off “camera” .
I am always amped to go see candidates and politicians talk, I don’t particularly care for most politicians but its always fun to sift through the lies and try to decode their double talk and evasive answers. Its like a ”Where’s Waldo” book of lies. I have never liked flaky indecisive people, which is why I am so disappointed in McCain. Unfortunately, to my dismay Rodney seemed to be playing the same game. I found it quite intriguing that a candidate with his vast amount of wealth is asking for contributions this early in the game, the guy is loaded. He bought an RV for crying out loud. Being the ignorant buffoon that I am, I am probably wrong on this, but it seems to me that if you have the coin to spend on 5 UA degrees (most people can’t afford ONE), an RV and wrap it up with your name, a previous campaign (city council yes, I am aware he got some donations then too), he could at least fund his primary race. I know McCain has about as much money as Uncle Scrooge so he would probably need contributions then.
Immigration part 1 (10:05)
A member of the audience asks him about his Arizona Illustrated appearance and the question asked by Jim Nintzel3 separate times. What Mr. Nintzel was trying to ask was if deportation to the country of origin was going to be part of his solution. Mr. Glassman says it would be “illogical,” ”we need to enforce the laws,” “they need to get to the back of the line.” He did offer other solutions, but not once did he deny deportation. He did the same when this member of the audience asked the question. In fact, he took it a step further, and blamed the audience member for not understanding and further avoiding having to give a straight answer. In the world of professional psychics this tactic is called “repackaging,” meaning you take the information you were given and rephrase it making the person believe it was you that came to that conclusion. Its also used to turn “misses” (wrong guesses) into “hits” (correct guesses). It basically goes like this, “I’m not wrong, you just misunderstood.”
Immigration part 2 (15:31)
He is asked about SB1070 and this time he doesn’t even let the audience member finish and again repackages and blames the audience member for not understanding. The bold audience member presses on, however, and states that he understands that Glassman does “not support” SB1070, but he specifically wants to know if he “opposes” it. Meaning will he fight it if need be. This requires a straight answer from the candidate. Mr. Glassman dismissed it as “semantics”. Not supporting something doesn’t mean you are going to fight against it. This is never more obvious than in war time, many times the U.S. has taken that stance we don’t support a conflict, but we also don’t get involved and try to fight against it and stop it. We just let it carry on. At 16:32 an obviously frustrated Glassman just says “next question”. Yet, the audience member, not satisfied with his dismissive answer pressed on and then Glassman lost crowd control for the first time at 16:45.
Former staff tries to save him (20:42)
I can only guess that seeing how bad he was doing with the immigration issue someone decided to throw him a bone. This someone was Katie Bolgera former staff member and council aid for Rodney Glassman tried to divert attention towards other topics such as the environment and economy. Why not let the unfamiliar audience members ask the questions? This is also a tactic used by tricksters and magicians when they plant a member of their staff in the audience to help them carry out an illusion.
Gay Marriage (25:28)
Probably the most important moment but most unnoticed. The most important part of communicating with a politician is to listen to what they are NOT saying. At this point, another member of the audience asks him about gay marriage. He specifically says not “unions” and not “partnerships” but “marriage”. Again like the immigration question Rodney deflected by citing his generous contributions to the LGBT community and how he is on record saying that the word “marriage” belongs to the religious institutions. This answer is a MONUMENTAL cop-out, here’s why. The LGBT community is fighting for equal rights, not similar rights, not new rights, but equal. Also, there are the atheists members of our community that want to get married and have been able to. Leaving it up to the religious institutions means atheists can no longer get married and that the LGBT community will have a harder time getting married and not be protected under the law, because then it would not be the responsibility of the government to marry people. Furthermore, what about the LGBT atheists? He does a good job reminding us of his record, but not ONCE does he say members of the LGBT community should be allowed to be married. Its basically separate but equal, you’re allowed to drink water you just have to use a different fountain. Its highly condescending and insulting. He then name drops Karen Uhlich,
- Karin Uhlich
the only openly gay city council woman, and everybody clapped. If you really believe in that say it, everyone should have the same rights, religion be damned.
Debate (time 29:07)
The next problem is when he says he wants all people “to have a seat at the table,” a great idea, except when that table is at a debate. I know, I know he said he would have a debate before the primary is over, but did you catch the part where he says he’s in negotiations with “credible” organizations? Mr. Glassman has been invited to debate by balls to the wall Democratic candidate and reporter John Dougherty and has yet to answer him. Is he not “credible” then? If he is in negotiations with Mr. Dougherty why not just say so? For a guy that boasts his record of working with others he sure has been doing great job ducking his fellow democratic candidates. Its a very passive-aggressive move on his part.
Immigration part 3 (time 29:51)
This is where things went haywire yet again. David Morales decided to ask a question on where the “back of the line is?” More specifically “is it in Mexico?” When Rodney could not give him a straight answer Mr. Morales pressed him to answer with a “yes or a no.” I am not going to side with either on this one, but Glassman lost crowd control again, on the same issue and it wasn’t immigration. The issue I am referring to is dodging the question and trying to get away with a roundabout answer. He could have shut Morales down by just answering with a “yes” or a “no”. Instead, in frustration Rodney chose to dismiss him by falling back on the “next question” reply. Which had he learned from his previous time is very unproductive. Again he was pressed and his supporters said he said “no” but Mr. Glassman never said that, he said it would be ”illogical” it’s a subtle but very evasive maneuver. Moreover, if he runs against McCain or Hayworth, guys like Morales will be a dime a dozen and they will be worse than Morales. Glassman needs to be prepared with more than just dismissive tactics and evasive rhetoric, because at this point if he wins and goes up against McCain, my vote will go to the broken maverick and not the crooning councilman.
In closing, I was a little disappointed with Rodney Glassman, he was mildly impressive when he was running for council due to his novelty. I made exceptions to his blunders because of his inexperience. This time around he is still at the same level he was 2 years ago despite all his resources he has not significantly improved and is playing with the same deck he had before. I was leaning towards his competition already, but after this, I am now officially endorsing Randy Parraz.
Arnie Bermudez
“I didn’t ride the bus to school. I had a big yellow limo with a retractable stop sign come pick me up.” -Me
Pingback: The debates are set for the US Senate candidates in the Democratic primary - Desert, Science and Hot Dogs: The Three Sonorans