The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-3rd)
Grade: F (Scored 8 out of 55 = 15%)
The Details of Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s Grade
Record:
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues.
Score for “Record”: 2
The Congresswoman started out as a Blue Dog Democrat with what seemed to be a fiscal conservative direction. Unfortunately, the color of the dog is changing as a whole. I’m not sure what you’d call the “dogs” anymore, but it wouldn’t be Blue. Her recent vote FOR the 2700 page health care bill scores her low points here.
Leadership:
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.
Score for Leadership: 0
In every encounter that I’ve had with Congresswoman Dahlkemper, I’m left with the impression that she is weak. I don’t see her as a leader . . . not even a little. When given the opportunity to stand up and lead (as was the case with the complaint against her staff), she failed.
General Intellect:
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.
Score f or General Intellect: 5
I think the Congresswoman is intelligent, but she may be a bit obvious about it. I’ve seen her flaunt it as a way to belittle some. She is intelligent but she doesn’t carry it well.
Capability:
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?
Score for Capability: 1
The Congresswoman may be book smart, but she has a long way to go in the Capability Department. She seems unable to make difficult decisions on her own and she seems unwilling to take a stand when necessary.
Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.
Score for Likeability: 0
I’ve met the Congresswoman many times. She has no people skills to speak of. She doesn’t remember names or faces, and she generally doesn’t go into a venue alone (for fear of being left in an uncomfortable social situation). I have heard her referred to numerous times as “a wet rag”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a “wet rag” would score a zero in the likeability department, right?
Electability:
Electability is defined as the candidates ability to win the election in November.
Score for Electability: 0
I personally think that the Congresswoman is done in public office. She has alienated many of her constituents in the 3rd District. She will lose if she gets a half-decent opponent in the fall.
Transparency and Accountability:
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.
Score for Transparency and Accountability: 0
Kathy Dahlkemper has never responded to any direct request from me. I’ve sent letters and I’ve sent email messages and posts to her website. This is a complaint that I’ve heard throughout the District. She not only fails to provide detailed answers to questions . . . she simply fails to respond at all.
Public Service:
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.
Score for Public Service: 0
See “Transparency and Accountability” above.
Desire to Represent “The People” of his District:
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?
Score for Desire to Represent: 0
Based on her record and her refusal to answer questions from the people of the District, I give the Congresswoman a ZERO. I get the impression that her ambition is to please a more broad base of constituents that exist outside of the 3rd District.
Scrappy Factor:
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.
Score for Scrappy Factor: 0
Scrappy doesn’t apply to the Congresswoman. She is not the “push up her sleeves” sort of gal.
Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test:
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.
Score for the Litmus Test: 0
Would I like to sit down and have coffee with this woman? My answer is the same as it was in 2008. No thank you. To be fair, however, I didn’t want to have coffee with Phil English either.
In Closing . . .
The fact that Congresswoman Dahlkemper has created the interest of 6 candidates on the Republican ticket should not be a surprise. She is a very weak candidate. She managed to win her seat in 2008 because people were sick and tired of Phil English. In all honesty, Phil English should have considered running against her this year. He could have run the campaign on the “do you miss me yet?” question.
For the sake of comparison, even Senator Robbins scored higher than Congresswoman Dahlkemper . . . which is really saying something. You have to be a pretty bad public servant to score lower than Bob Robbins.
Enough said!
As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives
HERE ARE THE COMBINED RESULTS OF ALL STATE LEGISLATORS (that represent Mercer County):
RESULTS FOR THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE FIGHTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATIN WILL BE POSTED BEGINNING ON MONDAY OF NEXT WEEK. KEEP AN EYE OUT HERE!
.
Mercer County Conservatives 