I'm a software developer by profession and I work at a software company. We are currently in the hiring process so I've been involved in interviews. At many software houses, the interviewing process is pretty intense, probably more so now than normal because of the economy. But you don't want to hire an unqualified candidate because its expensive to train someone and there's a significant difference between a really great worker and a dismal one and it's hard to let someone go once they're hired. So, many companies error on the side of not hiring someone whose qualified in order to avoid hiring someone who is not.
But its really not rocket science to pass these interviews. There are some basic, core computer science skills that we look for - knowledge of the language, knowledge of data structures (trees, linked lists, arrays, hash tables), ability to solve algorithm problems. These are all fundamental skills, but we want to make sure the candidate really knows how to program and has a deep enough knowledge of the software profession. Does that mean that every one we hire will be an all star? No, but at least we have some level of confidence that they should make a reasonably strong enough contribution.
So, really as voters in a political election, we are in essence interviewing our elected officials. We are involved in the hiring process. I'm wondering what are those basic skill sets that a politician has to have to be considered minimally qualified for an elected office? If a candidate cannot show proficiency in these skills, they should be summarily dismissed regardless of ideology. Here's my quick list:
1) Public speaking skills - this is why the debates matter. I want to see how an elected official performs under pressure. Can they sell themselves, can they sell the issues they believe in? Do they seem capable and able to work with other people to drive consensus. Maybe for some offices, this matters less than others. Maybe the State Treasurer can be a little weak in this area if they show strengths in budgets, not sure.
But our Governor, Attorney General, legislative positions. They don't have to be Martin Luther King Jr, but they should show competency. Which is why Jan Brewer's performance should be more of an issue than it may turn out to be. Granted, its just one gaffe and she has shown herself reasonably competent elsewhere, but surely this is a concern.
And its why, if you watched the LD17 debates, there are only three candidates running for the house: The two Democrats: Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo and Steve May on the Republican ticket. The other Republican running was awful, same for the green and libertarian candidates. They were just wasting my time and they took time away from the other candidates. I really wanted to hear more back and forth among the top 3.
2) Command of the Issues - This goes without saying right? You should have a solid grasp of the issues relevant o the office you're running for. This is exactly why Sarah Palin was a sham candidate. And again, this is why debates matter, this is a candidate's chance to show command of the issues. And in the debates, I want good questions and thoughtful answers. I want to see that the candidate has been thinking about these issues for a long time and shows some signs that they have experience grappling with the issues in the real world. This is why I wish every candidate would agree to as many debates as possible, and I wish voters would punish candidates who refuse to do at least a minimum number of them. Politicians should also be punished if they resort to superficial talking points.
The presidential candidates participated in countless numbers in the run-up to the 2008 elections. And having a lot of chance to engage with each other forced presidential candidates into substance. I loved it and I tried to watch every one.
3) Ethics - Despite what libertarians and libertarian leading Republicans may think, politicians matter. These positions are important and a bad politician can do real damage to our state and our nation. We should be choosing from the best each party has to offer. Do we need to know about every mistake a politician has made? No, but we want to know if the candidate has the people as her priority and not the power or prestige of office. People change and I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but its fair to bring up , but its fair for the voters to be made aware of them. Again, this is why debates matter because it gives the opposing candidate an opportunity to bring up evidence of ethical concerns.
And, yes, Ben Quayle, your public postings on questionable website matter. Voters may choose to overlook these (and in some cases deservedly so), but they are points to consider, and voters need to know about Tom Horne's SEC violations for example. Do they make Tom Horne unelectable? Not necessarily, but its fair to bring up. Also it's also why Bill Clinton's indiscretions were concerning (although the Republicans took the witch hunt way too far).
I think that's about it (off the top of my head). The best case scenario is when both parties nominate qualified competent candidates who know the issues, who are capable of defending them, and we get interesting, deep and substantive debates, to the point where I can say, well, I prefer this candidate because my views are aligned closer to their positions, but either way, Arizona is probably going to be pretty well served.
I'm not sure this happens often enough, and it definitely doesn't seem to be happening in this election.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Attorney General Debate
I have a lot to say about the LD 17 House debates (I only mentioned the one man Senate show last post), but first you must watch the attorney general's debate here:
First of all, I really don't understand Tom Horne's career path - from what appears to be a pretty deep and prominent career as a lawyer to a sudden (and to me right now an inexplicable) jump into 8 years as Superintendent of Schools, and now back to Attorney General. I think he spent some time in the legislature, but I can't seem to find out these details in my quick perusal of google. It seems like, to me, he's trying to climb the political latter - I don't think he's done a good job as our Superintendent by the way and for good reason, he was completely unqualified to do it. He's probably more qualified for this position, but if the debate is any indication, he seems to be playing some pretty harsh deological cards.
Felicia Rotellini, on the other hand, brought it. I was first introduced to Rotellini with brief introduction of her by the Republic:
"Whoever the Republicans deliver to the general election will be badly damaged by accusations. If those GOP hopefuls are paying attention - and, rest assured, they are - there is one Democrat they don't want to face: Felecia Rotellini.
She will bring it on.
In this field, she is the ferociously smart prosecutor who has clocked significant time in the courtroom taking down lawbreakers and unwinding the complex strands of financial fraud.
As superintendent of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, she slapped $5 million in fees and fines on Western Union for violating laws meant to cut off funds to Mexican cartels. In 1999, she was lead litigator in the successful case against accounting giant Arthur Andersen for failing to protect investors from the Baptist Foundation fraud."
And so, I was anxious to see this in anxious. Please watch the debates, she brought it. From the get go, she was on the attack. Horne accused her of getting into the mud, and I can't really comment on the details of what was said in the debate without more research. But it all sounded relevant enough to me. But most importantly, isn't this what you want out of your public prosecutor? She seems perfect for this position.
I feel a little too partisan (something I'm trying hard not to become) to be so consistently Democrat so far, but in this case, I think Rotellini is the superior candidate.
And truthfully, at least in my voting areas, I think the Democrats have honestly the superior candidates - but there's still a journey to take and more candidates to analyze.
First of all, I really don't understand Tom Horne's career path - from what appears to be a pretty deep and prominent career as a lawyer to a sudden (and to me right now an inexplicable) jump into 8 years as Superintendent of Schools, and now back to Attorney General. I think he spent some time in the legislature, but I can't seem to find out these details in my quick perusal of google. It seems like, to me, he's trying to climb the political latter - I don't think he's done a good job as our Superintendent by the way and for good reason, he was completely unqualified to do it. He's probably more qualified for this position, but if the debate is any indication, he seems to be playing some pretty harsh deological cards.
Felicia Rotellini, on the other hand, brought it. I was first introduced to Rotellini with brief introduction of her by the Republic:
"Whoever the Republicans deliver to the general election will be badly damaged by accusations. If those GOP hopefuls are paying attention - and, rest assured, they are - there is one Democrat they don't want to face: Felecia Rotellini.
She will bring it on.
In this field, she is the ferociously smart prosecutor who has clocked significant time in the courtroom taking down lawbreakers and unwinding the complex strands of financial fraud.
As superintendent of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, she slapped $5 million in fees and fines on Western Union for violating laws meant to cut off funds to Mexican cartels. In 1999, she was lead litigator in the successful case against accounting giant Arthur Andersen for failing to protect investors from the Baptist Foundation fraud."
And so, I was anxious to see this in anxious. Please watch the debates, she brought it. From the get go, she was on the attack. Horne accused her of getting into the mud, and I can't really comment on the details of what was said in the debate without more research. But it all sounded relevant enough to me. But most importantly, isn't this what you want out of your public prosecutor? She seems perfect for this position.
I feel a little too partisan (something I'm trying hard not to become) to be so consistently Democrat so far, but in this case, I think Rotellini is the superior candidate.
And truthfully, at least in my voting areas, I think the Democrats have honestly the superior candidates - but there's still a journey to take and more candidates to analyze.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Legislative District 17 Debates
Interested in the full two hours? Check it out here.
The Senate debate takes up the first 30+ minutes. Unfortunately, only the Democratic candidate, David Schapira bothered to show up. He was an incumbent in the House, now he's running for the Senate.
His opponent Wendy Rogers posted on facebook: " Stayed out late this evening going door-to-door . . . 7 precincts left to go. Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance. Shouldn't it be about what the voter wants and not the candidate?"
What? That is weak. Here's her website. Just quickly glancing at her bio, she seems like an impressive person. Its baffling why she would not want to show up to the debates. Here's "random musing's explanation:
"Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.
When asked if she supported or opposed 'Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother,' not only did she circle 'Support,' she expanded upon that answer by adding 'Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother.'"
Ummmm...yeah. That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale."
Ok, so about Schapira:
First, some background: He's been a high school teacher and now teaches at ASU. His focus has been with education and wants to work across the aisle and has, signing 2 bills in the past year into law that relate to education. What were they? I'm interested. He owns two small businesses. Apparently, being a small business owner, a member or former member of the military, or a teacher or all of the above are prerequisites for a political career :-), sorry Shapira only 2 out of 3 for you.
Shapira's campaign motto should be let's avoid being "penny wise, pound foolish". He uses this phrase to pound our current Republican dominated legislature particularly pointing to the cutting of kid's care (providing health care to children of poor families) and all day kindergarten.
He uses this phrase again in the notion of preserving and maintaining our state parks - this is important because you want to keep our state beautiful and interesting if you want to attract people - people who will move here or visit here. Drastically important in keeping our economy vibrant.
His take on where our legislature blew it:
- A CAP was placed on the rainy day fund and the money was given in tax breaks. I think I remember this, but have forgotten. The rainy day fund has been an issue I've mentioned before that we need to save during boom times so we can spend counter-cyclically during busts.
- Arizona has given massive tax breaks to the wealthiest (Democrats always say that, but Republicans do seem to support those believing the rich are the drivers for our economy and should do as little funding of government services as possible, since they magically know how to spend their money better than the rest of us)
Some additional highlites:
He made the point that the worst things you can do in tough economic times is to raise the sells tax which is an attack agaisnt Brewer's sales tax proposition. Well, since that debate, the Republic claims that the sales tax has not decreased spending. Probably because small hikes in the tax rate applied broadly are not enough to change the behavior of consumers - the price hikes were not noticed in other words.
His main point, over and over again, was on education - to protect educational spending. He ripped the legislature for cutting $2 billion in funding to our schools over the last two years. And the made the interesting point that, again, Brewer's sales tax proposition was really a threat. You don't pass it and we'll cut schools further, to the tune of $800 million. I knew that, still voted for it :-).
My overall impression was that David Schapira was impressive, passionate and had a strong command of the issues. He definitely has my vote and support this election.
And still I'm baffled that Wendy Rogers chose not to show up. Maybe she believes the ones with the largest and most yard signs deserves to win the election. I'm wondering if people out there vote on that metric.
By the way, I will listen to the rest of the debate, which will focus on the candidates running for the two up for grabs house seats and post later.
The Senate debate takes up the first 30+ minutes. Unfortunately, only the Democratic candidate, David Schapira bothered to show up. He was an incumbent in the House, now he's running for the Senate.
His opponent Wendy Rogers posted on facebook: " Stayed out late this evening going door-to-door . . . 7 precincts left to go. Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance. Shouldn't it be about what the voter wants and not the candidate?"
What? That is weak. Here's her website. Just quickly glancing at her bio, she seems like an impressive person. Its baffling why she would not want to show up to the debates. Here's "random musing's explanation:
"Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.
When asked if she supported or opposed 'Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother,' not only did she circle 'Support,' she expanded upon that answer by adding 'Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother.'"
Ummmm...yeah. That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale."
Ok, so about Schapira:
First, some background: He's been a high school teacher and now teaches at ASU. His focus has been with education and wants to work across the aisle and has, signing 2 bills in the past year into law that relate to education. What were they? I'm interested. He owns two small businesses. Apparently, being a small business owner, a member or former member of the military, or a teacher or all of the above are prerequisites for a political career :-), sorry Shapira only 2 out of 3 for you.
Shapira's campaign motto should be let's avoid being "penny wise, pound foolish". He uses this phrase to pound our current Republican dominated legislature particularly pointing to the cutting of kid's care (providing health care to children of poor families) and all day kindergarten.
He uses this phrase again in the notion of preserving and maintaining our state parks - this is important because you want to keep our state beautiful and interesting if you want to attract people - people who will move here or visit here. Drastically important in keeping our economy vibrant.
His take on where our legislature blew it:
- A CAP was placed on the rainy day fund and the money was given in tax breaks. I think I remember this, but have forgotten. The rainy day fund has been an issue I've mentioned before that we need to save during boom times so we can spend counter-cyclically during busts.
- Arizona has given massive tax breaks to the wealthiest (Democrats always say that, but Republicans do seem to support those believing the rich are the drivers for our economy and should do as little funding of government services as possible, since they magically know how to spend their money better than the rest of us)
Some additional highlites:
He made the point that the worst things you can do in tough economic times is to raise the sells tax which is an attack agaisnt Brewer's sales tax proposition. Well, since that debate, the Republic claims that the sales tax has not decreased spending. Probably because small hikes in the tax rate applied broadly are not enough to change the behavior of consumers - the price hikes were not noticed in other words.
His main point, over and over again, was on education - to protect educational spending. He ripped the legislature for cutting $2 billion in funding to our schools over the last two years. And the made the interesting point that, again, Brewer's sales tax proposition was really a threat. You don't pass it and we'll cut schools further, to the tune of $800 million. I knew that, still voted for it :-).
My overall impression was that David Schapira was impressive, passionate and had a strong command of the issues. He definitely has my vote and support this election.
And still I'm baffled that Wendy Rogers chose not to show up. Maybe she believes the ones with the largest and most yard signs deserves to win the election. I'm wondering if people out there vote on that metric.
By the way, I will listen to the rest of the debate, which will focus on the candidates running for the two up for grabs house seats and post later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)