I'm not a TV guy. Someone asked me if I watched Fox news and I had to admit that I actually don't even know what channel Fox News is on. My kids like a show called "Psych", and because it's often on in the background, I'm somewhat familiar with it. As you can imagine, we carefully screen the shows that our kids can watch. Psych is pretty cute, it's a detective show, but isn't overly violent or realistic. The dialog is pretty witty and usually harmless.
Occasionally however the writers of Psych decide to try to appeal to an older demographic by having one of the main characters call someone a "bitch" or say they are going to "kick someone's ass."
The fake show of toughness is so out of character for a family friendly show that it's laughable--except that my kids are watching, so I don't find it funny. I also don't think the older viewers are going to switch over from The Sopranos or Sex in the City because Gus said "ass."
So the show ends up with the worst of both worlds--parents don't want their 11 year olds watching it and older teens still think it's a kids show...which naturally brings me to Vernon Parker.
Vernon Parker is the Mayor of Paradise Valley and he's running for Governor. I've met with several times and he strikes me as a true gentleman. He's pleasant, articulate, soft spoken and talks convincingly about his faith as well as his background and vision.
But today I got a press release from his campaign in which he blasted the Governor for going on a "junket." (She's at the Republican Governor's meeting in Austin.)
He then switched to a Capitol update: “Governor Brewer is right about one thing: we do need a ‘tough leader for tough times.’ But today’s failure is yet another example why it is not her,”
"Today's failure" is apparently a reference to the legislature waiting until Monday to finish the current special session.
Parker continues the "failure" theme: “Republicans will not beat a career politician like Terry Goddard with a failed one from the GOP.
So now Brewer is a "failed" politician.
That's not Vernon Parker talking. It's like Shawn and Gus bragging that they will kick someone's ass. The older kids aren't impressed and the younger kids have to turn the channel and after a few such incidents, no one is watching.
If Parker wants to be himself, that would be ideal. If he wants to be the Sopranos, that's fine I guess, but it's not the real Vernon Parker. If Parker decides to be his gentlemanly self most of the time and the Sopranos occasionally, pretty soon he's going to find that no one is watching.
You're right. Parker is a gentleman and a good man. The "voice" of his press releases is that of Jason Rose. That speaks for itself.
Posted by: DGN | November 19, 2009 at 09:49 PM
When is the Executive Branch most definitely a part of the the Legislative Branch? During a special session.
Ken, call your office.
Posted by: Winnie | November 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Counter example: Andrew Thomas. I heard a lot about this guy (from mutual friends) and spoke with him a couple of times before he first ran for AG. These were not quick conversations at a fundraiser, but actual one-on-one conversations about work, politics, etc. My impression of him (admittedly reinforced by the fact that he was a eucharistic minister at my church) was very similar to your impression of Parker.
Then he ran for AG, and then for Maricopa County Attorney, and in both campaigns took a negative, scorched earth approach that seemed completely out of character with the guy I had met. And yet, you can't deny his political success.
So, either I was wrong about Andy, and he's not the guy I thought he was, or I was right about him, and you can be one thing in your personal life and another thing in your political life and still succeed. And if it worked for Andy, why can't it work for Vernon Parker?
Posted by: Special Agent Johnny Utah | November 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM
SAJU:
2002 didn't work out so hot for Andrew Thomas. He got creamed by Goddard in an otherwise GOP cycle.
Posted by: Dave | November 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Dave: Yeah, but he won the GOP primary, which is what Parker is trying to do. Greg seems to doubt that Parker can win the primary being a nice guy who runs a mean campaign, but Andy Thomas did it...
Posted by: Special Agent Johnny Utah | November 20, 2009 at 02:22 PM
Parker's whole campaign is a joke, he's nothing but an opportunistic politician that has no business running for Governor. Being mayor of Paradise Valley carries about as much responsibility as being on the PTA.
It's hardly a platform to run for such high office, especially since it's an unpaid, unelected position.
Also, what "conservative" gets a federal, taxpayer-grant (over a million dollars) for a "minority" owned business?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/washington/07sbiz.html?_r=1
Posted by: BradEasley | November 20, 2009 at 03:57 PM
I've met Vernon too, and you are right, he is a genuinely nice guy - very authentic. But I think he is fed up with our state's leadership, and I can't blame him. Brewer has not been the leader I would have hoped for and she is squandering a significant opportunity with a GOP legislature. While Vernon is a very nice man, I don't think he is afraid to call it like he sees it, and I respect that.
Posted by: Jen | November 20, 2009 at 04:00 PM
The other question is who is going to run for the AZ congressional district 9?
http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/11/20/bosse-enters-race-for-gop-nod-in-new-hampshire’s-satirical-00th-district/
Greg? You running?
Posted by: elephant | November 20, 2009 at 04:09 PM
BTW Brad, I disagree with your characterization of Mayor Parker.
First of all, he was elected into office, http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/docs/Election/R1163.pdf. While the council may have selected him to be Mayor, he was still elected to sit on the council - that hardly seems "unelected" to me. http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/townhall/Election2008.htm. Furthermore, looking at the voting record, he obtained the highest number of votes, making him the clear choice as the city's Mayor.
Regarding his business dealings, while I think most conservatives would prefer that the grants not exist, I see no harm in getting one as long as they do. Why should that money only go to liberals? I'm a capitalist and a conservative, and taking legitimate grants that are going to be given out regardless seems like good business sense to me.
Posted by: Jen | November 20, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Yep, smells like a Rose alright. I know that stench anywhere.
Posted by: Zelph | November 20, 2009 at 04:58 PM
Special Agent Johnny Utah -
Interestingly enough, your comparisons between the Parker and Thomas campaigns have another thing in common: both are (and have been) run by Rose.
Posted by: TinyElvis | November 20, 2009 at 06:19 PM
Jen,
Vernon was never elected by voters to be mayor of Paradise Valley.
His campaign is trying to deceive people on this point. He likes to brag how he won election with 67% of the vote. It was decided by 6 people on the town council, and he got 4 votes, one vote over a majority. What a landslide!
I feel someone shouldn't run for the office of Governor unless they've proved themselves in front of voters first.
Posted by: BradEasley | November 20, 2009 at 06:20 PM
The purpose of running is to not only win but to deny your opponent that chance.
SAJU, people that are "nice" are not that attracted to the competitive nature of electoral politics. Let's differentiate between the jobs themselves. There's a difference between running for prosecutor and for city council in a place like Paradise Valley. For Thomas, his issues were life and death issues, and crime. I'm sure if Parker ran for a law-enforcement post he'd seem a lot less nice as well.
Also, candidates have got to get it through their heads (and insiders like SAJU as well) that the candidate can only meet precious few of the voters he needs. With a million R's in AZ, a statewide candidate 300 days away from the election has to contact 3,300 people per day every day to hit them all. No one is even going to approach one-tenth of that.
It's the voters you don't meet who are the important ones.
Posted by: Winnie | November 20, 2009 at 06:41 PM
This post generated one of the best back-and-forths I've seen in the local blogosphere. Minimal name-calling, thoughtful points from many of the responders. I felt like I learned useful information about Parker and the process itself. Good work, folks!
Posted by: Bill | November 20, 2009 at 06:57 PM
Why anyone would let Jason Rose run anything is beyond me. He's great at collecting fees, terrible at actually winning.
He's the biggest reason why Napolitano got a foothold in this state after losing in a landslide against her when he ran McGovern's campaign for attorney general.
Whether it's theme restaurants like Nixons, development projects like Los Arcos, or hapless campaigns like Parker's, Rose is great at pretending to be some guru, but there's not much behind all the smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Jack Crowley | November 20, 2009 at 07:06 PM
VERNON: FIRE ROSE!
Posted by: All Us Bad Guys | November 20, 2009 at 07:56 PM
You actually called a black man 'articulate,' one of the most condescending habits of white GOP patricians. That doesn't bother ANYONE?
Posted by: jervais | November 21, 2009 at 03:19 AM
Greg - Did you give the same, "Be Nice" speech to David Schweikert?
Jervais - Your own prejudice is showing. Stop projecting.
Posted by: Travis | November 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM
I just want to agree with you on the Psych point - my wife and I love the show, but the occasional language-drop is just silly and restricts the audience that we encourage to watch it.
I think the current state of politics creates an incredibly difficult decision for very nice people - to beat an incumbent, you almost always have to go negative, and the studies show negative campaigning works. At least when it comes to challenging incumbents, nice guys finish last. So what's one to do?
Posted by: Surprised | November 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM