Home > Nevada Elections 2010 > The Scoop On Donna Graves (Update)

The Scoop On Donna Graves (Update)

[NOTE ADDED 5/10/10 @ 1pm:  People are emailing myself and Donna accusing me of having an agenda, so I will clear that misconception up right now.   There is no agenda other than to change how we “do” politics, because up to now how we’ve conducted politics and elections hasnt worked too well for us.  Platforms are great – but we must get at the ideals/philosophies BEHIND THE PLATFORMS in order to properly know and understand the candidate/politician.  That is my only agenda – to change the dialogue and focus of the dialogue so we know who we are voting for.]

Arguably, my first discussion about Donna was critical right out of the gates, and it turns out my gut suspicions about her were spot-on with regards to her level of openess.   She may be a wonderful individual, but I have severe reservations about her politics BECAUSE she is unwilling to directly answer certain questions about her political ideals and philosophy.

In our on-going discussions, she has clearly given her opinions about specific city issues such as homelessness, budgetary concerns and the like.  Generally, I agree with her on these very specific pet-issues with some exceptions of course… what I am having trouble with is her unwillingness to answer penetrating questions that might be considered controversial.

In my mind, the really tough issues center around raising taxes during a border-line regional depression, advocating for keeping city employess on the payroll at almost any cost, finding ways to bail out home owners caught up in mortgage problems, immigration and whether or not to enforce federal law (illegal immigration issues) within our city limits and things of that nature.  Donna’s stances, or lack thereof, on these issues are cause for concern for voters, or should be.

I have repeatedly asked Donna about her political philosophy and views on larger issues of the day such as immigration, and she out-right refuses to answer such questions and equivocates at every opportunity to avoid answering my specific clearly defined questions.

My only question is, “why would she avoid answering these philosophical questions?”

She states she has no intention of running for higher office beyond City Council, and since that is her current goal and only stated ambition she assumes that voters should be happy with her City-centric policy ideas and ignore her personal political philosophy.

The problem with this idea of hers is, we voters do not know what we are getting if she refuses to address larger “issues of the day”and continually avoids giving answers about her political philosphy.  Furthermore, if we voters have no idea if she’ll vote (as she’s stated) leftist on one issue, conservative on another issue and centrist on other issues, how are we to have any confidence in her as a leader when she refuses to define herself?   Where is the stability and steadiness leaders need to demonstrate in such inconsistent voting patterns?

Her refusal to be “pigeon holed” (her words) and continued claims that she is non-partisan ring hollow in an age of politics where the voters have been scammed by politicians of every stripe at every level of government, from local to federal officeholders.  When I encounter the sorts of dodging and avoidance I’ve seen from Donna, I am immeidately wary and suspcious about her intentions and whether or not she is trying to hide something.  She seems to not understand this concept, let alone recognize the undercurrent of distrust that permeates the electorate these days.

Personally, I am tired of the Obama-style politics that is practiced upon voters wherein the politicians pretend that they are “better than they actually are” (mask wearing, basically) in their bids to win votes and keep themselves safe from public scrutiny and tough questions about their core beliefs and ideals.  Donna’s reactions to my questions gives me the same level of discomfort as what I’ve experienced in listening to Obama, Reid, Pelosi and even certain Republicans.

Admittedly, I have been tough on Donna through my persistence and continuing repetition of my questions about her core beliefs, ideals and philosopy.  But, if she cannot answer these tough questions and find it within herself to DO THE RIGHT THING and be honest with voters about her ideals and philosophy, then she DOES NOT deserve the votes of anyone until she can achieve honesty about herself in front of others.

I know she wont like my conclusions and I know she will either hear about this article or read it for herself at some point.   I hope she understands I hold no ill will towards her and that if ever she encountered trajedy and needed help, I would stand with her neighbors and friends to provide encouragement and support for her and her family.  

My only hope is she’ll do some introspective work to find the answers I (and others) seek from her, or accept that she needs some more time to get her ducks in a row before she makes another bid for public office if she is not elected.

See you on the battlefield.

Advertisements
  1. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    return2commonsense :As for the political affiliations of Donna, I’m pretty certain she is a registered democrat and to be part of the DNC these days one has to either accept a leftist agenda or be willing to ignore that leftist agenda that is now a very real part of the DNC platform.

    Your right wing colors shine true…claim, claim, claim with no merit!!!

    • May 10, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      No merit? What Obama, Reid and Pelosi have done as Democrat Party members is of no consequence and has no bearing on where the DNC is at this time?

      That is a laughable claim on your part. I just gave you evidence by pointing to Obama & Co, then all you can do is retaliate with “right wing colors” as if that is some sort of insult?

      Seems to me you’d be one of those who actually believes the lies about Tea Party folks being racists and terrorists.

  2. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    return2commonsense :No, Shawn – I want to know who I am voting for, that’s it. You’re reading something into my intentions that isnt there. I want to know WHO Donna is and my way of learning that is to ask her what her philosophy and ideals are. So far, she has refused to engage in those discussions by giving me indirect answers that cater to her pet ideas, or simply give none at all.
    As for the political affiliations of Donna, I’m pretty certain she is a registered democrat and to be part of the DNC these days one has to either accept a leftist agenda or be willing to ignore that leftist agenda that is now a very real part of the DNC platform.

    Now you refuse to answer the questions, and claim I’m reading into intentions that aren’t there. Strikes of hypocracy. Are you claiming I’m twisting your words?

    • May 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm

      I’m not the one running for office, Shawn – Donna is.

      You are trying to turn the issues on me, by claiming you’ve asked me questions that I havent addressed (which I have) and leveling a false charge of hypocrisy against me. Pretty shallow tactic if you ask me.

  3. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    “Shawn, I am not playing rhetorical games here and this is a news/commentary blog, so whatever Donna has said about me is in error.”

    All I’ve done is read her information available and the content of your blog, including the post’s in which you delete to further an agenda at the expense of a candidate I find intriguing, and definitely worlds above the others.

    • May 10, 2010 at 5:00 pm

      Shawn, Donna may be a great candidate… she could be.

      What I dislike is her avoidance of questions about her core beliefs, an issue I have addressed in a previous response to you a little while ago.

      Your harassment here and loaded questions (a weak debate tactic designed to put someone on the defensive by distorting what they have said) wont change anything.

  4. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Under your idealogy, we should also scrap the 16 amendments that came from majority respresentation, and hold to the original Bill of Rights.

    “The Constituiton of this nation IS THE VERY REASON why this country has achieved so much and has become so much. The rule of law, rather than the rule of men, is what has kept this nation ahead of the rest of the world where freedom, prosperity and opportunity are concerned.” as you state has had success because it is flexible, to meet the needs of the many.

    So if the president is in support of amendment to the constitution, you will disobey your commander and chief?

    • May 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm

      Shawn, I did not say “we should scrap the amemdments or the bill of rights.” I never insinuated such a thing – those Amendments were IN LINE WITH the Constition and intent of the Founders. See where I’m going with this?

      The President takes the same oath I have taken – if an amendment is repugnant to the Constitution, no I wouldnt support the President nor the amendment in question. I am under no obligation to obey unlawful orders, ever.

      The Constitution is successful because it caters to freedom, individual liberty and allowing people to be who they wish to be, not because it is flexible, whatever that means.

  5. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    I see you hide behind your agenda deleting previous comments to suit “your” needs, as Ms. Graves stated.

    Are you stating that the constitution cannot be amended (not shouldn’t, but couldn’t), under majority representation in your statement, “What we arent in agreement on is when majority opinion (how is that really measured?) contradicts the Contitution, I will be on the side of the Constitution… always.”?

  6. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    So, what I’m hearing from you, is that if you get into office, you are going to follow your core beliefs, and not actually represent what the majority of the people you were elected to represent believe. Screams of dictator ship, and is contrary to the principles of our constitution that you so uphold. A person who has so little discipline to not follow the doctrines of majority respresentation to further their own agendas is what we already have in office. Because of this, you will not receive my consideration in 2012.

    I want a candidate that is going to listen to my, and my neighbors, concerns, and represent the majority, the stakeholders. I give them the benefit of suggesting the most practical solutions to problems. Party lines aren’t practical in my opinion, and the constant back and forth produces very little good for the people and our country.

    If a candidates philosophy and ideals is that they respect the constitution, and respresent the public majority, and can set aside their own ideals to represent that majority, is that wrong?

    • May 10, 2010 at 4:11 pm

      Shawn, I will follow my core beliefs and I will listen to my constituents. There is no dictatorship or any other such extremism here.

      I am a constitutionalist – and I am quite up front about what I believe. So, on one half of what you say, we are in agreement. What we arent in agreement on is when majority opinion (how is that really measured?) contradicts the Contitution, I will be on the side of the Constitution… always.

    • May 10, 2010 at 4:25 pm

      Shawn, do you actually believe that, for example, a communist believer who gets into office is going to vote as you want them to?

      The answer to that question is a resounding NO, Shawn. They are going to follow their core beliefs in favor of agendas that further their political ideals.

      Do you honestly think Obama and Dems are following what their constituents want?

      Again, the answer is a resounding NO. Poll after poll shows that Obama & Dems are at odds with The People.. especially on healthcare, immigration, Cap & Tax and a great many other issues.

      Why are Obama & Dems at odds with The People?

      The answer is simple. Obama & Dems are following their core beliefs. This is what happens when The People dont look at a politician’s core beliefs and dont ask the deeper questions that go to the core of who they are electing to REPRESENT them.

  7. Shawn
    May 10, 2010 at 3:35 am

    What is your agenda? I am a non-partisan that considered running for office locally, and feel you are pushing hard for answers for a specific, and destructive, agenda.

    Every politician should be able to put aside their personnal belief system, and represent the majority of the citizens. That is the real core of democracy, not the party politics that has led us to to ruin of now. Do you agree with this?

    • May 10, 2010 at 7:32 am

      Shawn, my agenda is to get to know the candidates – nothing more, nothing less – via penetrating questions that get to the heart of who a candidate is and what they believe in. That’s it

      People are people and a person’s core belief system cannot be shoved aside as if it doesnt exist. To believe a person gets into politics free of their own biaes and philosophies is naive in my opinion. I’m sorry if that offends, but that is exactly how I see it.

  8. May 10, 2010 at 1:28 am

    A candidate cannot hide behind the label of “non-partisan” to avoid questions about their philosophy and ideals.

    • May 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm

      Shawn, I am not playing rhetorical games here and this is a news/commentary blog, so whatever Donna has said about me is in error.

      The Constitution has a specific way to be amended – that’s what will be done.

      The Constituiton of this nation IS THE VERY REASON why this country has achieved so much and has become so much. The rule of law, rather than the rule of men, is what has kept this nation ahead of the rest of the world where freedom, prosperity and opportunity are concerned.

      If the majority wants to get rid of the Constititon or change essential elements of it to create a communist nation, for example, hell no – I will not be voting such a thing. My OATH OF OFFICE is to protect and defend the Constitution… I take that promise/pledge VERY SERIOUSLY.

      I’ve taken this oath a number of times as a member of the US Army… my oath is my bond, my word is my commitment.

      • Shawn
        May 10, 2010 at 5:00 pm

        return2commonsense :Shawn, I am not playing rhetorical games here and this is a news/commentary blog, so whatever Donna has said about me is in error.
        You are playing a rhetorical game of the constitutionalist, otherwise known as the Tea Party, another conservative grouping of people dissatisfied. What you hope to get in office is a person who represents only your groups “core beliefs”. If your group becomes a majority, than so it shall be that you may gain ground for that which you stand. But to single out the one candidate that has no affiliations to Dems, Repubs, Libs, Teas, independants, or Greens, while not lambasting them also, is purely spiteful.

        • May 10, 2010 at 5:05 pm

          No, Shawn – I want to know who I am voting for, that’s it. You’re reading something into my intentions that isnt there. I want to know WHO Donna is and my way of learning that is to ask her what her philosophy and ideals are. So far, she has refused to engage in those discussions by giving me indirect answers that cater to her pet ideas, or simply give none at all.

          As for the political affiliations of Donna, I’m pretty certain she is a registered democrat and to be part of the DNC these days one has to either accept a leftist agenda or be willing to ignore that leftist agenda that is now a very real part of the DNC platform.

          CORRECTION (5/10/10, 11am): Donna has finally clarified that she IS NOT a democrat and HAS NEVER registered as a democrat.

  9. May 10, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Also, it is quite clear that supporters of Donna’s are trying to flood this blog w/ votes/comments to TRY to squelch honest discussions and a review of the evidence.

    I would ask that people read my comments and questions, then compare Donna’s responses and evaluate objectively whether or not she has answered my questions.

    She may be a reasonably decent candidate, but she has not proven herself to me because her CAREFULLY worded answers and avoidance of topics I’ve asked her about remain a serious issue that reflects upon her integrity. In other words, her unwillingness to answer MY QUESTIONS about her PHILOSOPHY and IDEALS as reflected in specific topics (such as Arizona’s immigration law) makes me even more concerned about her.

  10. May 10, 2010 at 1:19 am

    She answered the following two questions?

    1) So, if illegals & their supporters marched on city hall and pressured you to vote to make Reno a haven city, you’d ignore them and vote NO to such a demand?

    2) Do you favor Arizona’s law, including the amendment that followed it’s passage?

    The answer is, she DID NOT answer my specific questions and she has hid herself behind the “non-partisan” claim to avoid my questions about her philosophy and ideas.

  11. May 9, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    Transcripts Of Private Messages to back my assertions:

    Donna Graves May 5 at 4:04pm Report
    Derrick –

    It was just brought to my attention that you had written a blog about me, yet it’s not updated. I feel like you twisted my answers to go the way you wanted them tom which is not very honest.

    Just my observation.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 7:55pm
    That is why I have asked for some face time with you.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 8:00pm Report
    Derrick – I have enjoyed talking with you and love that you post comments on my fan page. I feel that tax payers have a right to know what’s going on with our city council. I am the only candidate that is willing to talk about the tough issues we face. I don’t just post “puff”. Not everyone will agree with my views and that is their right, as it is for you to blog. I just don’t think you have been fair, and it is fact you did not update your blog. Good luck in all you do.

    I will keep reading, so keep posting.

    Donna Graves

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 8:05pm
    I will re-write my blog when we’ve had a chance to get some of my other questions answered – I will be fair, that is assured. I just want some transparency, is all, before I re-write my blog entry, about the questions you have indicated dont matter so much.

    Given the current political climate, the questions I’ve asked are very important to voters because the answers that you give will be indicative of where you stand on peripherial issues that are important.

    In addition to my previous questions, one will be immigration – people will want to know what your views are… I want to know, that’s for sure.

    What are the tough issues that we face, and why wont “people” talk about them? I’m a bit confused on this one.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 8:07pm Report
    Well I’m confused as well, I don’t see a blog where you ask Zadra the same questions you had asked me. Don’t think our definition of “fair” is the same.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 8:17pm
    I havent gotten to her yet – you happened to be the first one I came across and I can only do so much writing at a time… in due time I’ll catch up.

    HEAR ME on this, Donna – if you’re not a leftist/progressive/liberal, I dont want you getting blind-sided by these types of questions… and you will be asked these types of questions, I can guarantee it. And, if you’re not a leftist/progressive/liberal the last thing I want is for you to look foolish to a wider audience than just my blog readers.

    I hope you see my point and can appreciate my concerns & corresponding desire to help you, assuming you’re not left of center somewhere.

    National issues and current events figure into local and states races like never before BECAUSE people do use responses to these questions to evaluate who you are and what you stand for. So, I encourage you to entertain my questions and consider the gravity of the responses you give where a larger audience is concerned… an audience that is more critical and worried than ever before.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 8:26pm Report
    I truly am non-partisan. I grew up Republican. After the last 2 elections I changed my party. I have received criticism over it. I am not a union drummer nor will I vote majority. I care about Reno. Plain and simple. I like you have had life experiences and worked in a unique career. I have had the task of managing communities, CPA’s and HOA’s. I have owned a small business and now I work a very large budget. I make the tough choices. I have the backbone to ask what the other candidates won’t. I have tried to be very transparent. I feel I am the only candidate that is. Our incumbent is part of the problem and the other candidate doesn’t have solutions. I know I have an uphill battle, and that is fine with me. I know how to work for what I want. I am very scared that this election will be a popularity contest and not based on the issues. I don’t have the money to put out big signs, I can’t order t-shirts or car decals. I prefer for people to vote for me without all that.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 8:30pm
    Oh, there is no doubt that Zadra is part of the problem, and I can empathize with your concerns – but I am left with wondering, “what questions will you ask that other candidates wont?”

    And, am I to assume you’ve changed to Democrat? If so, would you characterize yourself as conservative, centrist (what would that mean to you) or left of center????

    Donna Graves May 5 at 8:40pm Report
    No I am non-partisan, I will say it over and over. I have a mind of my own, I do not agree with voting based on a party. Have you read the FB of the other candidates? They don’t discuss issues, I talk about the homeless shelter, RTC, STAR bonds and the list goes on and on. I also want to bring up that I have NO union endorsements. I have said numerous times that we need concessions, I have also stated that with those concessions the unions need assurances.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 8:48pm
    Ok, how about simply telling me if you’re conservative, centrist (please explain what that means) or left of center…

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 8:49pm
    Do you have a list of the other candidates – not just current office holders running again, for the FB pages?

    Watch – I’ll ask them the same questions.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 8:51pm Report
    I refuse to be pigeon holed with that question. If I don’t agree with something, I’m not going to vote for it. Plain and simple. I know in our society we are more comfortable labeling things, people and emotions, doesn’t mean it’s right.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 8:56pm
    Donna, you’re refusing to be transparent – no one is so “non-paritsan” that they have no views on anything, let alone cant answer a question about their personal views.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 9:02pm Report
    My personal views are all over the internet. I have never held back on any issues. Show me where any other candidate talks about tough issues.

    I am non-partisan. I’m not going to label myself with left, right, center. Because on some issues I will be left, others right. Some will be center. So tell me how do you label what is right for Reno? You seem to be ther expert on it. Why do you care so much about labeling someone rather than looking at their background, experience and views. I don’t see where you can stomach telling a city not to vote for someone because they on’t allow you to label them. If anything Derrick it shows you I will stand up against others. I won’t vote majority and fall in line like the current council did. I don’t agree with the direction they have us headed. I am suprised you ae.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 9:05pm
    I’m asking about your views – I’m wondering why you’re so reluctant to share your views and political philosophy on issues of the day.

    If you’re going to run for office, tell us what your political philosophy is – left, center, right – and discuss some issues like IMMIGRATION and other current events of the day so WE THE VOTERS can get a feel for who you are and what you believe.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 9:13pm Report
    I do share my views on topcs of the day. I post to my FB page. Did you see anyone else talk about the homeless shelter? Nope. Just me. That’s because I feel its an important topic. Are you not seeing all my posts? I won’t be seeking election past Reno City Council, I suggest you talk with the state level cadidates in regards to immigration.

    Do you have a “feel” for the other candidates? I’m sure the answer is no.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 9:17pm
    As for what is right for Reno, the answer is simply this: a more limited govenment that doesnt spend so much, provides for public safety first before all things… with budgetary fluff a distant second… is a conservative responsible perspective.

    Immigration is a tough issue, I suppose, if you arent sure what you believe and why, not to mention if you’re not prepared to defend your point of view. I am and can defend my point of view on the issue with total confidence that I am on the correct side of the issue.

    I can tell you that the correct thing for Reno is less taxes and smart spending of what resources the city does have, for infrastructure and business enticements. I can also tell you that the correct thing for Reno is conservative spending, because that is the right thing to do for the residents.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 9:21pm
    Immigration is a very relevant issue for city officials, Donna – you will be lobbied by illegals and their representatives, if elected.

    As for other candidates, yes I do have a feel for them and my inclinations were confirmed with Ed yesterday. Ed’s a straight shooter who is the “salt of the earth” type of candidate I can back and will help whenever he asks for it. He’s honest, he’ll tell it like it is and he will discuss peripherial issues like immigration and supposed non-city issues to give listeners perspective on who he is.

    I dont see you doing what Ed does, either because you dont know or you are unsure of why you believe as you do and consequently you wont take a chance and be open about your philosophies.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 9:26pm Report
    Think what you want. Write what you want. That’s the American way. I have stood by what I write on my website and my FB page. Obviously you are biased and won’t change your mind till you get your way. So unless you have any other questions, I think we are DONE.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 9:35pm
    All I’ve asked for is some answers to help put you in context – if you say you’ll “vote one way on one issue, left on another, right on another” how do we know you’ll vote for the right thing when it matters? Such answers mean voters CANNOT know you or have confidence that you’ll stand for the right things, instead of what piques your interest in the moment and caters to your whims of the day.

    See my point?

    Donna Graves May 5 at 9:41pm Report
    You want someone to cater to you and bow down. I’m not that type. How do you know I will do what’s right? Because I have been running successful companies and communities for years and years. I have created and maintained large budgets. Being linked to a party doesn’t mean you will make the right choice. Let’s look at the current council, mostly Republicans. I see you are a Republican as well. So are you saying that because you know their party that they have done what’s right for Reno? Are you saying that they won’t just do what piques their interest? Or cater to their whims? Oh wait that’s what they ARE doing right now. See my point???????

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 9:49pm
    Donna, I dont really care what your party affiiliation is – I know some conservative democrats who are people of integrity and honesty.

    As for the current council, they have screwed things up and I wont make excuses for their chicannery and malfeasance because they happen to be GOP members. They have demonstrated they will do what they wish, regardless of what the voters want – Ed and I discussed this at great length already and we recognize that trait in them.

    That’s why we are a different breed than they are – we stand apart – but we are both very principled and we arent afraid to unveil out political philosophies and views about current events of the day, such as immigration.

    In your latest response you have tried to restate and reinterpret what I’ve said in other places, to twist something out of my comments and questions THAT ISNT THERE in the first place. That’s very tortured logic, at best and wholly dishonest from an objective assessment.

    What I am saying is, being linked to a particular political philosophy and personal belief sytem WILL INDICATE HOW YOU WILL VOTE ON ISSUES important to voters and the City.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 10:09pm Report
    Vote for who you want to. But I stress to look at their business background. As someone who has no real experience won’t know how to handle such a hard task as our budget.

    “Twist something out of my comments and questiions THAT ISN’T THERE” seems like exactly what you did to me. And I don’t twist words. Show me once where I did. You seem very defensive. Good luck in your race, where you are going to run for senate right? Yes I will be watching that very closely.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 10:16pm
    Donna, I didnt twist anything – I’ve asked for answers on relevant issues and for an explanation about your political philosophy & you refuse to give it.

    As for twisting words – you did twist what I said in trying to say this: ” I see you are a Republican as well. So are you saying that because you know their party that they have done what’s right for Reno?”

    That’s a fun tactic – distorting by asking a question designed to undermine my point of view by implying my conclusions is/are in your question. That’s distortion and a leap of logic.

    I havent decided firmly on what to run for yet – Senate is one option – and I can assure voters that I wont dodge questions and that I will be honest and transparent about my beliefs and what I stand for.
    Donna Graves May 5 at 10:22pm Report
    You state on you FB fan page you will be running as a Republican, thats not a twist in words. I was only stating what YOU wrote. I have been transparent the entire time. When I say I won’t be bullied or pigeon holed by you, I mean it.

    “That’s a fun tactic – distorting by asking a question designed to undermine my point of view by implying my conclusions is/are in your question. That’s distortion and a leap of logic.” You seem more and more aggressive. If I didn’t know better, I would say you seem to have anger towards me. You being in the medical field, what type of practice again??

    When you run, I will be watching. I wish you all the best of luck in all you do. Have a wonderful night!

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 10:23pm
    OMG – you twisted wy saying, “So are you saying that because you know their party that they have done what’s right for Reno?”

    I never implied that conclusion at all, Donna.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 10:28pm
    Donna, I have asked you repeatedly about political philosophy and you have repeatedly dodged the questions – that isnt transparency, that’s avoidance. Any objective person can see this.

    Furthermore, I am not trying to bully you – I am trying to understand you… if you choose to call that pigeon holing, then so be it. You have resisted my efforts to figure out who you are including what drives you, inspires you and guides you in politics and life.

    I find this avoidance disturbing, to be completely blunt.

    I seem more and more aggressive? That’s an interesting conclusion to jump to considering I’ve not demonstrated any aggression in my questions – only persistence – which you have incorrectly deduced as anger or aggression.

    Good luck.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 10:31pm Report
    thats a question Derrick not a twist. And it’s my point. A party doesn’t make someones views or votes right. If you want to meet me, see that I am a real person. I have a husband and a daughter. I own my own home and carry a very hard career. I don’t work in a luxury comunity. I show up everyday and make the hard choices. That is more than I can say for Zadra. You want to paint me into a box, and I have never lived my life that way.

    Donna Graves May 5 at 10:37pm Report
    What drives me is what is deep inside. I have always had a tenacity in me. Maybe upbringing. What inspires me changes. I want to do what is right for us. Me, you, my daughter. I fear for her future here in Reno.

    I am not avoiding you, if I was, you wouldn’t have heard from me. The statement “OMG” meaning oh my go, correct? Seems aggressive to me. I know I only say that when I am beyond frustrated.

    Derrick Johnson May 5 at 10:53pm
    In my mind, you have indicated that you are unwilling to discuss your core beliefs and principles, and THAT is what is so disturbing here in our conversations.

    My observation is, you have a few pet issues and undefined claims about who you are, what you believe and what you stand for… i.e. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

    Either you know the answers to my philosophy questions, or you dont. If you dont know, just say so – if you do know and wont discuss those issues through issues such as IMMIGRATION, for instance, I have to conclude you are hiding your true self from the voters.

    Derrick Johnson May 6 at 8:36pm
    So, if illegals & their supporters marched on city hall and pressured you to vote to make Reno a haven city, you’d ignore them and vote NOT to such a demand?

    Do you favor Arizona’s law, including the amendment that followed it’s passage?

    Derrick Johnson May 6 at 8:36pm
    NOT = no

    Donna Graves May 6 at 9:40pm Report
    Derrick

    I would not condone any illegal activity. Illegal immigration is still a crime. I would stand up for what is right as I have in the past and will continue to do. I have a long history in cleaning up communities in regards to various illegal activity. I don’t think I could have been so successful without laws and enforcement behind me.
    Sent via Facebook Mobile

    Derrick Johnson May 6 at 10:56pm
    You are being VERY careful in your answers, Donna – too careful, I think.

    Now, please answer my two previous questions.

    Derrick Johnson May 8 at 12:40pm
    Perhaps I should simply leave you alone, so if I am having trouble letting go please excuse me for that.

    Now, even your competitor wont answer my questions – and that goes for several of the other council members as well, whether they are up for re-election or not.

    I think this trait of avoidance that I’m finding is both interesting and very troubling, especially for people who say they wish to represent voters. This is not the time to play dodge-the-question given the mood of the voters and the level of political/rhetorical games politicians are willing to play. What makes these games so bad is, they are at the expense of the voters and their children.

    Ed has no such qualms, that is for sure. I think it would be better for you, and far more honest, to say there are simply questions you wont answer (without excuses, such as “this is non-partisan” or whatever you might dream up) and leave it at that.

    Am I harsh? Perhaps. But given the transgressions of the politicians who have come before you, you are called to a different standard of conduct and transparency.

    I believe you have avoided seeing this message in favor of your own drive for power/influence, which really boils down to the same self-serving political brinkmanship we’ve seen the last 20 years and more. I am calling you on this. You can get mad at me for it, despise me for it or hear the message and respond by doing the right thing for a change.

  12. May 9, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    John, Donna HAS NOT answered my questions – she has avoided my specific questions about her philosophy and views on things such as Arizona’s recent immigration law. SEE TRANSCRIPTS BELOW.

    You are accusing me in a general way, but you are not being specific let alone explaining what Donna has answered. In public, she gives generalized answers, but in private she avoids answering specific questions so as to avoid having her answers used against her OR she simply doesnt want to reveal what she really believes.

    She cant have it both ways. So, in answer to your question, what do I have against Donna… my beef with her is her flat out avoidance of answering questions about her philosophy and ideals. At the city/local level, she may have SOME of the right ideas but we still do not know who she is or what she believes on a variety of topics. Put more specifically, politicians have made it a habit to avoid answering questions about their politics & I see the same pattern being played out in Donna’s answers & non-answers. This is what I have “against her,” as you put it.

  13. John Andrews
    May 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    What I don’t see in your blog is the full truth. As a resident of Reno Ward 2, I have taken the time to read and research the candidates. It looks to me you are not telling the truth about Ms. Graves. I read her answers to you on Facebook. I also saw you posted some questions for the incumbent Sharon Zadra, which to this date has not bothered to answer one of your questions. So my question to you is. . .what do you have against Graves and why are you not telling the whole truth? Because from what I can see here, you are telling people to vote for the incumbent, who has NOT answered your questions, but Graves has? That makes NO sense.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: