Matt Zeller has been making the rounds of media outlets in the 29th in preparation for his official announcement tomorrow. Here's the D&C story covering his visit to the Rochester paper.
Tue, 04/27/2010 - 13:33 — Up in Prattsburgh (not verified)
I fear this will be misinterpreted as patronizing, which I don't mean it to be, but there is something refreshing, albeit naieve, about Matt Zeller's candor in explaining his positions on some of the surely to be more controversial issues (same-sex marriage; a woman's right-to-choose; gays in the military). I mean, it truly is refreshing to see someone not weighing their words, etc. Maybe, just maybe, as we crawl about in the aftermath of the Massa Disappointment (to put it lightly) Zeller's "amatuerism"? will become acknowledged as the AUTHENTICITY he refreshingly brings. We'll see. I wish him well. And as for these stupid carpetbagger accusations...ridiculous. Mayor Reed and colleagues better come up with some more convincing stuff than that.
Tue, 04/27/2010 - 14:05 — Rottenchester
I think that any candidate who seems to be thinking about the issues and not repeating talking points has a leg up on Reed. That's Reed's big weakness.
But -- in the end, Zeller's weighed words need to come out in a way that voters will endorse.
Tue, 04/27/2010 - 13:53 — ElmerJK (not verified)
"On the health insurance reform bill that passed Congress in March, Zeller said it's "not a fair question" to ask whether he would have voted for it." - not a fair question? What rule book is he using?
As for the question on health insurance bill, when he said it's not a fair question to ask whether or not he would have voted for it....because it's water over the dam!
And I would caution everyone reading these news interviews to remember that not everything that is said makes it into the edited version!
"Weighed" (sic) words? I think his manner of speaking shows a serious thought process, rather than someone just blurting out whatever comes to the top of the head or whatever they've been told to say to get votes. Clearly Zeller has put his education (BA in Government, Double Masters degrees in Public Administration and International Studies - both from top schools) and his military background into his consideration and explanation of the issues.
Couldn't disagree with you more. Voters will have to decide who they trust to vote for them on the issues in Washington -- most people don't want a fence-sitter, which is exactly what Zeller appears to be. All the education in the world doesn't make for good congressman. Military experience is something Eric Massa used to claim his right to the seat, so I wouldn't use that as much as you seem to be using it.
If you can't answer how you would have voted on, in our Vice President's words, the BFD of health care reform... then not sure anyone needs you in DC.
I can see some waffling on lesser issues, but not health care. Zeller was clearly trying to sit on both sides of the fence with that answer and it's not something the majority of voters in the district will be looking for in... whenever the election is held.
Comments
I fear this will be misinterpreted as patronizing, which I don't mean it to be, but there is something refreshing, albeit naieve, about Matt Zeller's candor in explaining his positions on some of the surely to be more controversial issues (same-sex marriage; a woman's right-to-choose; gays in the military). I mean, it truly is refreshing to see someone not weighing their words, etc. Maybe, just maybe, as we crawl about in the aftermath of the Massa Disappointment (to put it lightly) Zeller's "amatuerism"? will become acknowledged as the AUTHENTICITY he refreshingly brings. We'll see. I wish him well. And as for these stupid carpetbagger accusations...ridiculous. Mayor Reed and colleagues better come up with some more convincing stuff than that.
I think that any candidate who seems to be thinking about the issues and not repeating talking points has a leg up on Reed. That's Reed's big weakness.
But -- in the end, Zeller's weighed words need to come out in a way that voters will endorse.
"On the health insurance reform bill that passed Congress in March, Zeller said it's "not a fair question" to ask whether he would have voted for it." - not a fair question? What rule book is he using?
Not mine - that's a fair question.
As for the question on health insurance bill, when he said it's not a fair question to ask whether or not he would have voted for it....because it's water over the dam!
And I would caution everyone reading these news interviews to remember that not everything that is said makes it into the edited version!
"Weighed" (sic) words? I think his manner of speaking shows a serious thought process, rather than someone just blurting out whatever comes to the top of the head or whatever they've been told to say to get votes. Clearly Zeller has put his education (BA in Government, Double Masters degrees in Public Administration and International Studies - both from top schools) and his military background into his consideration and explanation of the issues.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weighed
a. To balance in the mind in order to make a choice; ponder or evaluate:
Are you on Zeller's staff?
Couldn't disagree with you more. Voters will have to decide who they trust to vote for them on the issues in Washington -- most people don't want a fence-sitter, which is exactly what Zeller appears to be. All the education in the world doesn't make for good congressman. Military experience is something Eric Massa used to claim his right to the seat, so I wouldn't use that as much as you seem to be using it.
If you can't answer how you would have voted on, in our Vice President's words, the BFD of health care reform... then not sure anyone needs you in DC.
I can see some waffling on lesser issues, but not health care. Zeller was clearly trying to sit on both sides of the fence with that answer and it's not something the majority of voters in the district will be looking for in... whenever the election is held.