equivocation nation

It's kind of a moot point now, but PTS received an e-mail from Jim Brokenbek on Friday titled "Misrepresentation" and reading as follows:

Like John Kanelis, you have misrepresented my position regarding downtown revitalization. I didn't say I'm opposed to it. I said I'm opposed to spending tax money on it, unless and until, other long-unmet needs are addressed. Those with "obsessive downtownitis disorder" should be expected to go to the tail end of the line and wait their turn like other taxpayers have had to do -- in some cases for at least 81 years.

Jim Brokenbek
Mayoral Candidate

For the record, here's what we said regarding Brokenbek's position:

Jim Brokenbek: Exceeded Expectations. I expected "Brokenbek Mountain" to be another vanity candidate, bleeting his way to the altar to be sacrificed, so when I say he exceeded expectations that's not saying much. He took John Kanelis to task for misrepresenting his position. I'm always in favor of taking Kanelis to task. If I understand correctly, he thinks Kanelis said he didn't support downtown revitatilization, and he claims that characterization's not completely accurate. He's not against it, he says, he just thinks the money should be spent in other neighborhoods. Um, I hate to agree with Kanelis, but how, exactly, is that position supportive of downtown? Maybe I'm not getting something here . . .

Brokenbek Mountain supports single-member districts, which is good, but his damning of downtown with faint praise, his crotchety-old-man demands for noise ordinances everywhere and his wacky idea for an "I-40 visitors center" won't win my vote away from Debra.

From the Amarillo Independent's transcript of the debate, here's what Brokenbek said:

I wanted to speak quickly to the downtown revitalization. I am for the revitalization of the entire city of Amarillo and I want to respond to John Kanelis’ article in (the April 22 Amarillo Globe-News) that misrepresented my position.
I am for downtown revitalization as far as tax money is concerned only until and unless we meet some other needs of our city. And I can tell you a lot of those.

I just don't see how my characterization of Brokenbek's downtown position ("He's not against it, he says, he just thinks the money should be spent in other neighborhoods") differs from his own statement ("I am for downtown revitalization as far as tax money is concerned only until and unless we meet some other needs of our city. And I can tell you a lot of those") . But, whatever. He didn't complain about us calling him "Brokenbek Mountain." So maybe he wasn't all bad.

spacedark