Like a successful bureaucrat who has to be all things to all potential bosses in order to claw one’s way up in a government bureaucracy, Jodey Arrington has once again taken what should be a clear stance on something and turned it into a paragraph of obfuscation
Jodey Arrington
Here it is as reported by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal from a candidate forum: “It concerns me that we are debating adequacy in the courts; whether or not our state has met the constitutional threshold of adequate funding of our schools,” he said. “So, we want adequate funding for adequate educations, we want adequate graduates who are going to be adequate leaders for our state — unacceptable.”
What is unacceptable? The debate, the lawsuit, the funding, the goals, what? Arrington once again tries to sound decisive and forceful but says absolutely nothing. He obfuscates his real positions on a regular basis – or, maybe he doesn’t really know what his positions are on key issues. Like an Obama statement, Arrington’s big spiel is meaningless on its own and seems designed to allow the listener to insert his own meaning.
Like an Obama statement, Arrington’s big spiel is meaningless on its own and seems designed to allow the listener to insert his own meaning.
He did the same on water issues in the forum where his key quote was reported by the AJ as “It’s the lifeblood of our economy — as water goes, so goes agriculture and so goes the energy industries and as they go, so goes the economy of Texas,” Arrington said.” OK, so what does that mean? Does it mean he supports private property rights as guaranteed in the Texas Constitution and recently re-affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court? Or, does he mean that he supports so-called local-government control of landowners’ property as he’s said in other venues? Again, it’s a statement that sounds good but doesn’t tell us anything about how Arrington will vote.
Read the AJ story on the forum and compare Arrington’s generalist answers to the specifics offered by Charles Perry and you’ll see the difference between a bureaucrat and a straight-shooter.
SD28: Arrington says nothing, with forceful sounding words
Like a successful bureaucrat who has to be all things to all potential bosses in order to claw one’s way up in a government bureaucracy, Jodey Arrington has once again taken what should be a clear stance on something and turned it into a paragraph of obfuscation
Jodey Arrington
Here it is as reported by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal from a candidate forum: “It concerns me that we are debating adequacy in the courts; whether or not our state has met the constitutional threshold of adequate funding of our schools,” he said. “So, we want adequate funding for adequate educations, we want adequate graduates who are going to be adequate leaders for our state — unacceptable.”
What is unacceptable? The debate, the lawsuit, the funding, the goals, what? Arrington once again tries to sound decisive and forceful but says absolutely nothing. He obfuscates his real positions on a regular basis – or, maybe he doesn’t really know what his positions are on key issues. Like an Obama statement, Arrington’s big spiel is meaningless on its own and seems designed to allow the listener to insert his own meaning.
Like an Obama statement, Arrington’s big spiel is meaningless on its own and seems designed to allow the listener to insert his own meaning.
He did the same on water issues in the forum where his key quote was reported by the AJ as “It’s the lifeblood of our economy — as water goes, so goes agriculture and so goes the energy industries and as they go, so goes the economy of Texas,” Arrington said.” OK, so what does that mean? Does it mean he supports private property rights as guaranteed in the Texas Constitution and recently re-affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court? Or, does he mean that he supports so-called local-government control of landowners’ property as he’s said in other venues? Again, it’s a statement that sounds good but doesn’t tell us anything about how Arrington will vote.
Read the AJ story on the forum and compare Arrington’s generalist answers to the specifics offered by Charles Perry and you’ll see the difference between a bureaucrat and a straight-shooter.