Congressman Tom Perriello spent less taxpayer money than any other Virginia congressman, Brian McNeill points out for the Daily Progress. His office spent $1,073,000 last year. Though Perriello spent the third largest amount of money on mailings to constituents, that’s probably because he held more town hall meetings about health care than any other congressman (21 in all), which required a lot of letters to promote. Between Perriello’s frugality and enormous number of town hall meetings, his opponents sure look foolish claiming that he’s free-spending and inaccessible.
Comments are closed.
Then he promptly ignored what his constituents told him. What good were all those town halls?
I have been bombarded with 499 franking mailings. I suspect the reason why is because it’s not addressed to me — it’s addressed to Mrs. Kenney. Moving to the district in 2006 and a married woman from points north… that’s a typical demographic to hit for a new Democratic congressman.
As for the town halls, those were mostly advertised in local weeklies and earned media.
All this having been said, there’s nothing really wrong with 499 mailings — after all, their original purpose was to keep constituents informed, not to campaign. Unfortunately there are too many federal pols that use them for precisely that purpose. Perriello, sadly, does not seem to be an exception.
How do you know he ignored them? Do you know what his position was prior to the town halls, how it differs from his current position, and what percentage of the speakers expressed opinions for or against health care reform? Because, if you don’t, then neither you nor anybody else have the faintest idea of whether he “promptly ignored what his constituents told him.”
I attended one of those town halls. Overwhelmingly, speakers told him that they wanted health care reformed. A vocal minority didn’t want any funding for abortion. Perriello wound up becoming known nationally as an opponent of abortion funding in the health care bill—requiring that a majority of senators assure him in writing that they’d oppose any abortion funding.
On a related note, one particularly extraordinary thing was what he did at his forums: encouraging everybody to put their signs at the front of the room, behind him.
Note the “Wanted” sign, with a “prohibited” logo displayed over Perriello’s face. Note, too, that the anti signs are significantly outnumbered by pro signs, an indication of the sentiment in the audience.
Perriello, I’m a fan. And that’s something I can’t recall saying in a genuine way about a politician in *ages*.
Wow. He had everyone put their signs up at the front of the room behind him?
Wow.
Waldo, while the Charlottesville crowd was probably split something like 60-40 (or maybe even 70-30) in favor of the bills at the time, using a count of the signs behind him isn’t a good metric.
One person (or group) made a bunch of “pro” signs–the purple, aqua/blue-green, red ones–which were being handed out to people in attendance.
I don’t doubt the sentiment of the CVille/Albemarle crowd, but using numbers of signs isn’t a good method. Also note that while the Charlottesville town hall was by far the largest, it was also the only one that was overwhelmingly seeming in favor the bills. Other ones (especially down southside) were much less in favor.
But there can be no denying that Rep. Perriello is personally frugal and accessible. I don’t agree with him all the time, but that dude’s a hard-working son of a gun.
(Wait, am I allowed to say “gun” in reference to Perriello… I’m so confused with all these new speech rules.) ;-)
So, you’re basing your belief that a majority of 5th District voters are in favor of the health care bill on the general sentiment at the Charlottesville town hall?
Really?
Wow.
I,
So, you’re basing your belief that a majority of 5th District voters are not in favor of the health care bill on the general sentiment at any of the town halls?
Really?
Wow.
Since I didn’t state or imply that, I cannot understand how you came to that conclusion. In fact, I stated exactly the opposite; that was the point of the first paragraph.
Pubs, your initial (stupid) point in the very first comment was that Congressman Perriello didn’t ignored what his constituents told him at the 21 town hall meetings. Waldo’s response was meant to debunk that by pointing out that (a) he did not encounter only opposition to the bill at these town halls by any stretch of the imagination, and (b) not only did he not ignore dissenting, he actively helped share those opinions by having everyone put their signs at the front of the room.
Much like humor, having to diagram it for you kills it a little bit.