We received a comment on yesterday's post about our blogging, tweeting councilmember, Sam Pedroza. The reader thought Sam's reasoning lacked substance, which has been one of the complaints about the dear boy: Nice guy, Good Time Charlie, great to have a beer with (not too many), and not the sharpest pencil in the box.
Hmmmm, that might explain why he thinks anything critical of his viewpoints is "negative" and should be ignored. Anyway, here's the reader's letter:
DATE: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:06 PM
SUBJECT: sam pedroza...
TO: Claremont Buzz
...is where information goes to die. I love that video clip on blogs -- he doesn't give any reasons for anything, never makes an argument of any kind, but just says that, yeah, uh, I gone to that one meeting thing, and they said that, uh, so, uh, city council blogs, like, don't do that, 'cause of it was real strongly discouraged. Do you think he even knows that he's just repeating statements without justifying or explaining the reasoning behind them?
If he gets any dumber, he just may have a career in politics.
One thing about Sam's ability (or lack thereof) to construct a substantive argument, it does explain that tweet about Pedroza being an "empty vessel." We predict that in politics he'll go far.
Posts
