Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Another (Uninspiring) Candidate for CA-04

Michael Hamersley has thrown his name in for CA-04. A quick look over his website made me want to, as I did with Rea, run screaming, though for different reasons. Whereas Rea comes across to me as just weird and mildly creepy, not to mention an unabashed senior-panderer, Hamersley is seemingly lifeless. Completely stiff, completely uncharismatic. He and his people attempt to sell him as an ethical man, a whistle-blower, etc. I don't care how "ethical" this guy is based on the whistle-blowing incident, he will fall flat with Red county voters. Someone without charisma, without even the sense to put a photograph of himself on his campaign website, will never win in Red territory. And with all the talk about his ethics, it's amazing how cold and scientific it seems. See below:
"I find it exceedingly difficult to fathom that no illegal quid pro quo existed when John Doolittle 'earmarked' millions of dollars for a Department of Defense contract that was awarded to a man he calls his 'close friend,' Brent Wilkes, who contributed $85,000 to Mr. Doolittle's campaign coffers and political action committee in close temporal proximity to the awarding of this contract. At the very least, this conduct is highly unethical." Hamersley said.
All his ethics talk is wrapped up in cold, legal jargon... There's no humanity to it. There's no outrage. Ultimately, there's no value-appeal - which should be easy with a topic such as ethics - and there doesn't seem to even be a sense amongst him and his people that values appeals should be made.

In the end, I want to hit Hammersley over the head with a copy of Don't Think of an Elephant. But then, I'm not sure I want him to even be in the race. I don't want him to steal the candidacy from under
Brown. I don't want to run the risk of the idiotic Dem establishment running an uncharismatic stiff over an inspiring candidate, as they did in '04.

4 Comments:

At 2:12 AM, Blogger Charisma2006 said...

Wow Zac,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you really should get your facts straight before wrongfully bashing people.

You might want to start with learning to spell my name correctly. I see you paid close attention to the website information. Second, your comment "[s]omeone without charisma, without even the sense to put a photograph of himself on his campaign website" is flat wrong. First of all, there is a picture in the Volunteer section of the website that is anything but "stiff" as you put it. http://www.hamersleyforcongress.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Hamersley.woa/wa/page?name=Volunteer
I guess you missed that too.

Second, we have been in the race for less than two weeks. We thought it more important to get the message and ideas up first. You may find the packaging most important, but solid ideas and solutions is what is going to get us out of the mess we are in--not glossy campaign photos.

If your Brown supporters would stop blocking me from entering the debates/forums, the voters will be able to appaise my charisma first hand. What are you all so afraid of?

It really was not necessary to post the Brown banner at the bottom of your posting, your bias is blatantly obvious. Your fear is also. I think your line "But then, I'm not sure I want him to even be in the race. I don't want him to steal the candidacy from under Brown" says it all. If I am so "stiff" and uncharismatic" as you put it, why are you so worried that I may steal the race from Brown?

Did you click on the link in our website to watch my interview on the PBS Frontline progam? Did I appear uncharasmatic and stiff to you there. Why don't you call up Tanina Rostain who wrote the chapter in the law school textbook about my whistleblowing? She interviewed me several times. I spoke to students at Yale and New York Law School during one of the interviews. Why don't you get her opinion about my "charisma" and your view of me as "lifeless."

I would be glad to give you the phone numbers of 100 of my friends and work associates. Feel free to ask them anything you want about me. I am quite sure that not one of these persons will describe me as "uncharismatic" or "lifeless." If that is not enough, I have delivered speeches to several large audiences over the past two years. Would you like a copy of the responses/commentary. It's ironic that many of the respondent's used the words "charismatic" and "inspiring" to describe the lecture. As for your comment about "no outrage." My friends and colleagues will tell you that you are unlikely to find anyone else who is more "outraged" by corruption or lack of integrity.

I plan on attending the forums even if your associates are successful in keeping me off of the podium. So why don't you introduce yourself at one of these events so that you can evaluate my charisma, outrage, and stiffness first hand before making uninformed remarks. I'll show you some of that charisma your looking for. If your still not satisfied, why don't you bring that copy of Don't Think of an Elephant so you can at least get your chance to bop some charisma into me.

You comments about Lisa Rea are equally off the mark, RUDE, HURTFUL, and just plain WRONG! [How's that for OUTRAGE???? I called each of the candidates this week to introduce myself, genuinely wish them good luck and extend a hand. Lisa Rea answered her phone, and we had a very engaging converstation. She is warm, polite, friendly, and genuine. She is an excellent candidate! You are an absolute ass for saying those things about Lisa. It's a good thing for you that she is a public figure, or your comments would be teetering on the brink of defamation. If you had a shred of dignity, respect, or sense, you would call her and apoligize. By the way, that's a courtesy I have yet to receive from your candidate. He never returned my phone call.

As I told Todd when I put in a call to your candidate, I had planned on running a very positive campaign. I pledged to refrain from saying anything negative about either candidate. Thanks for the wake up call. I guess this is good practice for the general election. Thanks.

Your messing with the wrong guy, Zac.

Michael Hamersley
Candidate, California 4th Congressional District

 
At 2:53 AM, Blogger Charisma2006 said...

Okay Zac, I'm doing your work for you. Why don't you check out what these bloggers had to say this week regarding me and my press release--which is posted on the website. Their comments are about 180 degrees from yours. Perhaps you should remove the Brown colored glasses?

Cali wrote "I like the strong statements about Doolittle's arrogance and his "it's all about money" attitude. I also like the tone of the release. Atticus Finch meets Patrick Fitzgerald. Eager to learn more about him. And, yes, after many years of Doolittle facing no opposition he has a primary challenger who is a great candidate as well as three Dem challengers. Both Charlie Brown and Lisa Rea bring something to the table in challenging Doolittle and providing real choices. And, frankly, Hamersley the whistleblower could be the perfect foil for pay-for-play, ethically challenged Doolittle."

"Michael,

I want to wish you the best success in your quest to defeat John Dolittle. I checked out your website. Especially enjoyed this page:
http://tinyurl.com/kmw77

I can see you have two personality characteristics that will help you in your campaign:

You're tough and you have a sense of humor!"

Jim Loper wrote: "I worked with Mike when we were both in the M&A practice at KPMG. I was very much looking forward to having him be the leader of our local practice, had things been otherwise. He is tough and he does have a great sense of humor. He is also very smart. More importantly, however, he IS ethical. Your district, and the nation, would be well-served by having Mike as your representative. In spite of my political affiliation, I wish him success in his campaign."
Jim Loper | 03.21.06 - 10:25 pm | #

 
At 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think Charlie Brown is charasmatic?! That alone undermines your credibility. Also judging candidates by their websites is absolutely ridiculous. What are you 12 years old?

 
At 10:03 AM, Blogger Zac said...

My oh my... Someone else out there who's threatened by my opinion. Wow. I must really be more important than I thought. Thank you for taking the time and energy to come by my site and anonymously avenge my wrongs. It was certainly worth your effort. I have changed my mind. I now hate Charlie Brown, and I will now devote my life to the service of his almighty, charismatic, ethical self, Michael Hamersley.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home