10-24-2008, 09:02 AM
Questioning the motives, timing, sincerity, and rectitude of a politician's actions and statements is a 100% appropriate and very American thing to do. Refuting those questions is also appropriate and American. However, making negative assumptions about the character of people who raise such questions and doing so by using terms such as "back biting" and "lowest" is not very becoming IMHO.
A little bit more history here might be useful. I distinctly remember that two years ago during her first campaign, Ms. Naeole was asked about traffic problems on Highway 130. She said something to the effect of "I didn't know we had traffic in Puna. I will have to look into this." Quite a few people found that statement shocking. Am I the only one who remembers it? Anyway, it's two years later and re-election time, and now we are hearing that she finally wants to do something about it. If anything was done in the meantime, perhaps the Councilwoman should have made her constituents more aware of it. We might have joined her in lobbying the DOT. (Not that they would listen to us, mind you.) I personally joined her in lobbying the DNLR by writing to them about the lack of sanitary facilities at Puna recreational sites.
Emily Naeole, her staff, and supporters need to know that she has disappointed, dismayed, and in some cases even insulted some of her constituents. I know the persons who are questioning her motives in this thread, and they are not mean or "back-biting" individuals. They simply expect a higher level of representation that what they have been getting. I once did not share their opinion and even thought fondly of Ms. Naeole, but have changed my opinion after much observation and reflection.
Tiffany, I still respect you and think you have been the best thing going for Emily Naeole. I do not, however, agree with the content or tone of your latest posting here.
Cheers,
Jerry
A little bit more history here might be useful. I distinctly remember that two years ago during her first campaign, Ms. Naeole was asked about traffic problems on Highway 130. She said something to the effect of "I didn't know we had traffic in Puna. I will have to look into this." Quite a few people found that statement shocking. Am I the only one who remembers it? Anyway, it's two years later and re-election time, and now we are hearing that she finally wants to do something about it. If anything was done in the meantime, perhaps the Councilwoman should have made her constituents more aware of it. We might have joined her in lobbying the DOT. (Not that they would listen to us, mind you.) I personally joined her in lobbying the DNLR by writing to them about the lack of sanitary facilities at Puna recreational sites.
Emily Naeole, her staff, and supporters need to know that she has disappointed, dismayed, and in some cases even insulted some of her constituents. I know the persons who are questioning her motives in this thread, and they are not mean or "back-biting" individuals. They simply expect a higher level of representation that what they have been getting. I once did not share their opinion and even thought fondly of Ms. Naeole, but have changed my opinion after much observation and reflection.
Tiffany, I still respect you and think you have been the best thing going for Emily Naeole. I do not, however, agree with the content or tone of your latest posting here.
Cheers,
Jerry