Reader Christopher Hall wrote:

Why is it so easy to question whether Mr. Kern is coming or going? Here, Mr. Kern says ‘The problem is, there is no consensus — on anything!’ but in the previous blogs he mentions the consensus is that Coffey is done and Gentry’s got smooth sailing ahead. Oh, but Mr. Kern wasn’t talking about a broad consensus amongst politicians working for the public benefit as he discusses above, he was talking about the consensus of insider wealthy special interests who fund elections to get their choice candidate elected. // Of course the problem is that he’s picking and choosing what consensus shall apply to, and this ambiguity is dishonest if not shady. And it is this type of behavior that makes people think politicians are not using their power to compromise as much as they are using it to confuse and compel.

Mr. Hall — You are right. I used the word consensus in two different context and I should perhaps clarify that.

In the context of Mr. Coffey I was stating that it is the opinion of those who watch and follow politics that he cannot be elected. I don’t think I ever said Mr. Gentry has smooth sailing ahead. In fact I think he has a tough campaign. But I did say I believed he is the best candidate against Mr. Aguirre.

In the second reference “There is no consensus — on anything,” I was not referring to politicians or insiders but to the public at large. I believe they are generally divided on most issues and the job of the politician to bring both sides together.

My apologies for the ambiguity.

By the way, you can simply ask me what I mean n without the pejoratives such as “dishonest if not shady.” I’ll do my best to answer.

— JOHN KERN

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.