Today I was interviewed by the morning show host that people used to listen to. I thought the interview went well. He was trying to trap me with his questions, but his questions were easily anticipated, and I'm told I did a good job of representing the case against this sales tax increase.
His last question was to challenge me to name one project in this package that you think is a good idea. At some point in the interview, I reminded him that the vote on September 9th is not about whether we like all or some of the projects, but whether we should raise the cost of nearly everything so we can have these projects now. In response to his challenge, I thought of a number of projects that I like, and decided to mention the 61st Street road widening project. I said that I knew the road, it's near my work, I drove it often, and it needs widening, but it doesn't need to be funded now. It can wait until the next "third penny" (2006) or city bond issue (2004) or for a renewal of "4 to Fix the County" (also in 2006).
I didn't get this mentioned, but that project is also a good example of a practical, useful, but utterly non-visionary project that has been lumped into this mess they call a vision.
I didn't bother listening further and went on in to work. Later that morning, a coworker said he heard me on that station, complimented me, and said that the host (the one that people used to listen to) replayed a clip of my comment about 61st Street and said that it showed where my mind was at -- that I was totally focused on my own needs and didn't care about anyone else.
If I were selfish, wouldn't I try to get people to raise their taxes so I can have this project now? Isn't it selfless of me to urge people to defeat this tax increase, even though it contains a project that would benefit me personally?
It is typical of this host (the one that people used to listen to) to wait until after the interview is over, and the guest can't respond, to attack the guest. Much easier to debate a straw man (in the form of a selected sound bite) than a live human being. That kind of approach to the issues is why this guy is the host people used to listen to.
My colleague wondered whether the host's wife, a lobbyist, was making any money off of Vision 2025. I told him I hadn't heard that she was involved in any way. He just assumed that she must be on the "vote yes" payroll since her husband was attacking the opposition. That assumption seems to be widespread, which is another reason that this host is the one people used to listen to.
