DEAR EDITOR:
So it begins!
Eilien Barrit’s unstinting praise of Connie Rogers (Letters –
April 5) is a sad continuation of Mrs. Rogers’ carefully crafted
plan to return to City Council.
DEAR EDITOR:
So it begins!
Eilien Barrit’s unstinting praise of Connie Rogers (Letters – April 5) is a sad continuation of Mrs. Rogers’ carefully crafted plan to return to City Council.
The concern: crafted by whom?
While Mrs. Rogers may deserve Miss Barrit’s adulation for past glories, it doesn’t reflect her as Gilroy has endured her in past months. Miss Barrit asks: “Why is this gentle woman targeted so frequently and viciously? What insecurities plague the Mark Zappas of the world causing them to resort to character assassination? What has happened to intelligent, good humored, courteous and constructive dialogue?”
As one you casually pigeonhole as a “Mark Zappa of the world”, Miss Barrit, let me answer your questions.
Why is Mrs. Rogers “targeted so frequently and viciously?” Simple. She supports positions that work against Gilroy residents’ best interests (her almost hysterical advocacy against Wal-Mart, including lecturing City Council not as concerned citizen but as union mouthpiece, is but one example). In doing so, she reflects no concern for the community – only an ever-increasing commitment to the union’s agenda. When any individual acts with such righteous zealotry, those who speak out are not being “vicious” – they’re exposing the wrong – and more and more what Mrs. Rogers has been saying and is doing is wrong. The real problem: she skillfully presents her views wrapped in purity of intentions. Exposing such games takes strong words.
“What insecurities … character assassination”? Are you implying Connie Rogers is so virtuous as to be above criticism? Do you fully support her positions promoting those outside-Gilroy unions and demand residents blindly accept her tenets as Holy Writ? Mrs. Rogers, as anti-Wal-Mart crusader, shows little character and less class in speaking against Gilroy’s best interests.
Your backhanded implication those who speak against Connie Rogers lack “intelligence, good humor, courtesy and constructive dialogue” reflects self-serving arrogance. Most anti-Rogers letters show the paucity of her positions and reflect thoughtful concern about her anti-Gilroy stances. Mrs. Rogers, by aligning herself with this community’s whiners – call them Gilroy First! – accepts support from the outside-Gilroy unions. In Mrs. Rogers case, her intent is clear: return to City Council where joining with the union’s already bought-and-paid-for zealot, Paul Correa, the two can increase efforts through their Council positions to bully Wal-Mart until, they hope, it will submit to union control.
Which is more “vicious”, Miss Barrit: concerned Gilroy citizens speaking out against a non-ending union-financed campaign to buy control of a City Council for its own self-serving purposes or those willing to sell out Gilroy’s future all in the name of union “solidarity”?
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, April 13 to ed****@ga****.com
