Turn out stunk at the meet and greet the candidates

[Gay]

My brother went to this meet and greet the candidates at St Columba Church and said taking away those there to debate over the NCMC, there was maybe at best 20 people!

 

This was not a good candidate forum!

 

I believe when there are too many candidates running for an office, there is less interest in it than if just two people are going at it.

 

My brother said the whole neighborhood surrounding the church was saturated with Rees flyers and inside the church despite the fact Rees did not show.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Gay Republican

[bfrankdc]

I thought it was pretty funny that Bob Malson, President of the DC Hospital Association (a group that Rees claims is endorsing him...see my other post)....indicated that he received an email from Candidate Rees apologizing for his absense due to being sick. The laughter from the audience over this statement was unforgettable, especially given Rees's pre-forum pronoucements against public appearances. Priceless quote from Malson, " I guess there is something about Jonathan Rees that I don't know".

 

B. Frank

 

My brother went to this meet and greet the candidates at St Columba Church and said taking away those there to debate over the NCMC, there was maybe at best 20 people!

 

This was not a good candidate forum!

 

I believe when there are too many candidates running for an office, there is less interest in it than if just two people are going at it.

 

My brother said the whole neighborhood surrounding the church was saturated with Rees flyers and inside the church despite the fact Rees did not show.

[Gay]

Bfrank, I called my brother and asked him if the audience laughed over the statement from Mr. Malson as to why Rees did not show and my brother says this remark on your part is absolutely false.

 

It is clear from my reading of matters here that you do not like Rees but to lie about something takes away from your credibility and taints anything you say.

 

If you are going to oppose someone then do so with the truth not lies.

 

 

I thought it was pretty funny that Bob Malson, President of the DC Hospital Association (a group that Rees claims is endorsing him...see my other post)....indicated that he received an email from Candidate Rees apologizing for his absense due to being sick. The laughter from the audience over this statement was unforgettable, especially given Rees\\\'s pre-forum pronoucements against public appearances. Priceless quote from Malson, \\\" I guess there is something about Jonathan Rees that I don\\\'t know\\\".

 

B. Frank

Edited March 22, 2006 by Gay Republican

[bfrankdc]

Then ask Mr. Malson.

 

Since I was there, and you are hearing this from "your brother", why don't you ask someone independant who was there.

 

To add to the truth, Mr. Rees made numerous statements about the ineffectiveness of public debates and forums, and under no uncertain terms stated that he was not going to attend or particpate in them. Given such strong statements about such public appearances, why did Mr. Rees send Mr. Malson a note stating that he was not attending the event because he was ill?

 

If there was any event hand tailored to Mr. Rees's strengths as a candidate, this was it, yet no Rees.

 

B. Frank

 

Bfrank, I called my brother and asked him if the audience laughed over the statement from Mr. Malson as to why Rees did not show and my brother says this remark on your part is absolutely false.

 

It is clear from my reading of matters here that you do not like Rees but to lie about something takes away from your credibility and taints anything you say.

 

If you are going to oppose someone then do so with the truth not lies.

[Gay]

I just sent an email to Mr. Malson and to Professor Cheh who I know personally along with her husband and I called her home and caught her before leaving the house at 7:30 and she said nobody laughed over anything.

 

My brother does not lie and he said the audience was very subdued, there was no laughter over Rees not attending and my brother said all the candidates sucked except professor Cheh whose statement was a bit more upbeat.

 

I have read most everything you posted here and your hatred for Rees is clear but when you lie about a matter that makes you look worse than the person you are attempting to mock.

 

With only 20 people showing this kind of supports Rees beliefs that debates or forums are not good venues!

 

 

Then ask Mr. Malson.

 

Since I was there, and you are hearing this from \"your brother\", why don\'t you ask someone independant who was there.

 

To add to the truth, Mr. Rees made numerous statements about the ineffectiveness of public debates and forums, and under no uncertain terms stated that he was not going to attend or particpate in them. Given such strong statements about such public appearances, why did Mr. Rees send Mr. Malson a note stating that he was not attending the event because he was ill?

 

If there was any event hand tailored to Mr. Rees\'s strengths as a candidate, this was it, yet no Rees.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

So why did he send Mr. Malson a note sayng he was ill when he knew in advance that he was not going? What did he have to hide by lying to Mr. Malson - a person who is supposedly endorsing Mr. Rees candidacy?

 

B. Frank

 

 

With only 20 people showing this kind of supports Rees beliefs that debates or forums are not good venues!

[goldengirl]

Just to verify B. Frank's statement regarding the laughter. He is correct. My sister was at the forum and she relayed the exact occurence to me. My sister does not lie.

[Gay]

I spoke to Robert Malson a few minutes ago and here is what he said:

 

1. Nobody laughed but a couple of guys did snicker which he did not know what they were snickering about;

 

2. That he asked is there something I do not know;

 

3. That after the candidates left and these jerks also left, his assistant saw these same people outside the church talking with candidate Sam Brooks;

 

4. That he concluded these rude people were planted there by Sam Brooks; and

 

5. Two of the candidates told Robert Branson that Sam Brooks pulled this stunt of putting plants in the audience in his last campaign to harass his opponents.

 

Robert Branson who heads the ward 3 Democratic party said that in their next round, they would transmit a warning to Brooks that if it happens again, he will be asked to leave along with whoever disrupts the process.

 

I was also told that a woman snapped a picture of the main culprit snickering with her phone camera and was told by one of the candidates to email it to Rees so Rees will finally know the faces of the people who have been posting lies about him.

 

I suspect that it was Bfrank who did the snickering and Rees now has a photo of him. I guess Bfrank is no longer a faceless name.

 

Maybe there is some truth behind Rees claims that all of you are allies of Brooks.

 

I guess all of you are so afraid Rees is going to win that you will go to any extent to lie about him and disrupt the process.

 

It is funny that there is so much fear of this Rees guy that a few devote so much time to this but it does make good reading.

 

It is my opinion that Sam Brooks has no chance of winning this race no matter what he does or any of you do and all is a waste of time.

[bfrankdc]

1. It was both males and females snickering.

 

2. He has received an email as to what he didn't know.

 

3. I didn't talk to Sam Brooks before, during or after the event.

 

4. I don't know Sam Brooks. Last night was the first time I saw him, and the other candidates, in person, see #3.

 

5. I don't know a Robert Branson.

 

6. I saw no one using a camera phone, but if that happened, then you now know I am not Sam Brooks, as was demonstrated when I looked you square in the eyes while you were posting you now definately illegal campagin posters (since they all say that Mindy is your campaign manager, and we know that to be false, per your website -- at $25 per infraction, those will add up pretty quick, espcecially since you have pledged not to spend more than $500 on your campaign).

 

What two candidates told this to "Robert Branson"? Please provide specifics.

 

I am glad the rest of this is on the record for all to see and enjoy.

 

B. Frank

 

I spoke to Robert Malson a few minutes ago and here is what he said:

 

1. Nobody laughed but a couple of guys did snicker which he did not know what they were snickering about;

 

2. That he asked is there something I do not know;

 

3. That after the candidates left and these jerks also left, his assistant saw these same people outside the church talking with candidate Sam Brooks;

 

4. That he concluded these rude people were planted there by Sam Brooks; and

 

5. Two of the candidates told Robert Branson that Sam Brooks pulled this stunt of putting plants in the audience in his last campaign to harass his opponents.

 

Robert Branson who heads the ward 3 Democratic party said that in their next round, they would transmit a warning to Brooks that if it happens again, he will be asked to leave along with whoever disrupts the process.

 

I was also told that a woman snapped a picture of the main culprit snickering with her phone camera and was told by one of the candidates to email it to Rees so Rees will finally know the faces of the people who have been posting lies about him.

 

I suspect that it was Bfrank who did the snickering and Rees now has a photo of him. I guess Bfrank is no longer a faceless name.

 

Maybe there is some truth behind Rees claims that all of you are allies of Brooks.

 

I guess all of you are so afraid Rees is going to win that you will go to any extent to lie about him and disrupt the process.

 

It is funny that there is so much fear of this Rees guy that a few devote so much time to this but it does make good reading.

 

It is my opinion that Sam Brooks has no chance of winning this race no matter what he does or any of you do and all is a waste of time.

[truthseeker]

This is really his best work yet B. So many "I heards" and "someone else saids"....so much re-parsing..it's a classic!

 

(http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=8138)

 

I know two people who attended and their version of events matches yours exactly. My friends do not lie either :-)

 

Bring on the ad hominem remarks now..

[bfrankdc]

While I will not stoop to reposting emails as Mr. Rees does, suffice it to say that even Mr. Malson characterized the reaction as "laughter".

 

I stand by my original posting.

 

B. Frank

 

I spoke to Robert Malson a few minutes ago and here is what he said:

 

1. Nobody laughed but a couple of guys did snicker which he did not know what they were snickering about;

 

[Gay]

Again, I was not there and anything I say is pure hearsay.

 

Again, I have too agree with only 20 real voters of interest, it clearly was a turn out that was a waste of time for a candidate when there are around 39,000 voters in our ward.

 

All of you might think debates are important but I too feel they will not make or break a candidate considering 99.9% of voters never attend them.

 

 

While I will not stoop to reposting emails as Mr. Rees does, suffice it to say that even Mr. Malson characterized the reaction as \"laughter\".

 

I stand by my original posting.

 

B. Frank

 

 

I think it should be obvious that Mr. Rees strenght is in marketing/mass distribution and from where I can see out there, he is doing a bang up job.

 

 

Then ask Mr. Malson.

 

Since I was there, and you are hearing this from \"your brother\", why don\'t you ask someone independant who was there.

 

To add to the truth, Mr. Rees made numerous statements about the ineffectiveness of public debates and forums, and under no uncertain terms stated that he was not going to attend or particpate in them. Given such strong statements about such public appearances, why did Mr. Rees send Mr. Malson a note stating that he was not attending the event because he was ill?

 

If there was any event hand tailored to Mr. Rees\'s strengths as a candidate, this was it, yet no Rees.

 

B. Frank

[goldengirl]

Again, I was not there and anything I say is pure hearsay.

 

Again, I have too agree with only 20 real voters of interest, it clearly was a turn out that was a waste of time for a candidate when there are around 39,000 voters in our ward.

 

All of you might think debates are important but I too feel they will not make or break a candidate considering 99.9% of voters never attend them.

I think it should be obvious that Mr. Rees strenght is in marketing/mass distribution and from where I can see out there, he is doing a bang up job.

 

Just out of curiosity, how does Mr. Rees maintain such a low cost campaign (under $500) with his marketing/mass distribution?

[bfrankdc]

This directly contradicts your earlier pronouncements calling me out, when I was there and you were relying on your "brother" to provide facts.

 

I like that you are also backtracking on the supposed conversation you had with Mr. Malson.

 

Now, to your post, the thing that you/Rees fail to understand about these gatherings is that any opportunity for voters and "opinion leaders" and the media to see all of the candidates together at one time allow for good compare and contrast evaluations.

 

Further, the Ward 3 Democrats are essentially the gate keepers for opinion leaders for this particular race given all of the candidates are infact running as democrats.

 

While the turnout was small (more like 40 than 20), this was not a Ward 3 electoral event. This was a regular monthly meeting of the Ward 3 democrats, where the candidates were offered the opportunity to introduce themselves to the membership.

 

Given the topic of the evening was supposedly Mr. Rees's "sweet spot", logic would dictate that he would be there if he were serious about representing Ward 3 on the City Council.

 

By his pronouncements prior to the forum for planning on skipping it (see "the grim reaper" http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=8201), and then lying to Bob Marlson, the President of an organization whom Rees has claimed will endorse (or has endorsed) his candidacy, seems at best, a little odd.

 

I guess if taping laser printed flyers (supposedly from the Dominican Republic, or Puerto Rico, depending on which reference of the Candidate you want to cite) that have possibly illegal disclaimers on them as a "bang up job", then I guess we will have to disagree about what makes an effective political campaign.

 

B. Frank

 

Again, I was not there and anything I say is pure hearsay.

 

Again, I have too agree with only 20 real voters of interest, it clearly was a turn out that was a waste of time for a candidate when there are around 39,000 voters in our ward.

 

All of you might think debates are important but I too feel they will not make or break a candidate considering 99.9% of voters never attend them.

I think it should be obvious that Mr. Rees strenght is in marketing/mass distribution and from where I can see out there, he is doing a bang up job.

[Gay]

I am not backtracking. You said laughing. Mr. Malson said snickering.

 

I think the voters have other ways of being seen than just these small gatherings just as the media does.

 

Have you ever read the book (Winning A Campaign Without Ever Having To Debate Your Rival)? Go and do so sir as I would rather meet a candidate face to face and have a five minute chat than see one in a large gathering.

 

Going also to a debate does not determine seriousness but only in your book does it.

 

Everybody has their own game plan, style and way of reaching people and nobody can say it is right or wrong.

 

IF DEBATES ARE SUCH WONDERFUL PLACES FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE SEEN WHY DOES 99% OF THE VOTERS IGNORE DEBATES AND WHY DO EXPERTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE NOW CONSIDER THEM WORTHLESS PLACES TO WIN VOTES?

 

 

This directly contradicts your earlier pronouncements calling me out, when I was there and you were relying on your \\\"brother\\\" to provide facts.

 

I like that you are also backtracking on the supposed conversation you had with Mr. Malson.

 

Now, to your post, the thing that you/Rees fail to understand about these gatherings is that any opportunity for voters and \\\"opinion leaders\\\" and the media to see all of the candidates together at one time allow for good compare and contrast evaluations.

 

Further, the Ward 3 Democrats are essentially the gate keepers for opinion leaders for this particular race given all of the candidates are infact running as democrats.

 

While the turnout was small (more like 40 than 20), this was not a Ward 3 electoral event. This was a regular monthly meeting of the Ward 3 democrats, where the candidates were offered the opportunity to introduce themselves to the membership.

 

Given the topic of the evening was supposedly Mr. Rees\\\'s \\\"sweet spot\\\", logic would dictate that he would be there if he were serious about representing Ward 3 on the City Council.

 

By his pronouncements prior to the forum for planning on skipping it (see \\\"the grim reaper\\\" http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=8201), and then lying to Bob Marlson, the President of an organization whom Rees has claimed will endorse (or has endorsed) his candidacy, seems at best, a little odd.

 

I guess if taping laser printed flyers (supposedly from the Dominican Republic, or Puerto Rico, depending on which reference of the Candidate you want to cite) that have possibly illegal disclaimers on them as a \\\"bang up job\\\", then I guess we will have to disagree about what makes an effective political campaign.

 

B. Frank

Edited March 22, 2006 by Gay Republican

[bfrankdc]

If you want to parse "snickering" versus "laughing", that is your right. Mr. Malson used the word "laughing" in his email to me. That is a fact. Since I was there and you were not, then I don't see where you have the right to make any characterizations about the situation.

 

I would guess the candidates all have their strategies about how they will engage the electorate. It just seems odd that Mr. Rees would tell everyone ahead of time that he was going to skip a candidate opportunity, and then lie to one of his supposed endorsements about his presence, or lack there of, at a function.

 

Where did I say that attending functions like last night (which still was not a debate) was the only way to establish serious credibility in a race? I merely pointed out that given the topic at hand, the the participating entities (Mr. Rees's "endorsements"), that Mr. Rees's presence should have been a no-brainer.

 

Why did Mr. Rees lie to Mr. Malson? Is lying to an supposedly endorsing organization the actions of someone who is worthy of a vote?

 

B. Frank

 

 

I am not backtracking. You said laughing. Mr. Malson said snickering.

 

I think the candidates have other ways of being seen than just these small gatherings just as the media does. I know two of the candidates are often being invited to coffee parties or the like.

 

Have you ever read the book (Winning A Campaign Without Ever Having To Debate Your Rival)? Go and do so sir as I would rather meet a candidate face to face and have a five minute chat than see one in a large gathering.

 

Going also to a debate does not determine seriousness but only in your book does it.

 

Everybody has their own game plan, style and way of reaching people and nobody can say it is right or wrong.

 

 

I think even the most sardonic of political scientists would dispute your 99% claim. Look at the combined television ratings of the 2004 Presidential debates. At the local level, the Mayoral functions in the Fall and to date have been very well attended (remember the one you went to while your children posted on line at DCist in your place?). WUSA televised a forum earlier this winter. Eventhough it was a weekday morning event, the tracking numbers on it were pretty good.

 

Traditionally the Ward and ANC debates sponsored by the WPCA, CPCA, CCCA, the Tenley and Palisades groups all are fairly well packed. I anticipate that it will be the case again this year.

 

What better place for the electorate to compare and contrast styles and substance of the candidates, than to see them at one place and one time. Will every voter attend at least one ddebate? Of course not. But to dismiss them completely, and further to lie to the DC Hospital Association, a group that has been touted as one of your endorsing entities, seems to me to be flushing any sense of credibility down the commode.

 

B. Frank

 

 

IF DEBATES ARE SUCH WONDERFUL PLACES FOR A CANDIDATE TO BE SEEN WHY DOES 99% OF THE VOTERS IGNORE DEBATES AND WHY DO EXPERTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE NOW CONSIDER THEM WORTHLESS PLACES TO WIN VOTES?

[Gay]

I do not know what Mr Rees said. Mr. Malson said his organization has decided to let each of its member hospitals endorse who they want as this time round they will only offer an endorsement for mayor.

 

Meet and Greet, Forums or Debates are not venues for credibility of candidacy nor avenues to win an election and I think modern day political scientists will tell you that.

 

I liked the coffee and donut meeting I was invited to at Ron Bitandos house when we all got to meet Linda Cropp. That is far better a venue to win votes in my book.

 

I would suspect it was you who started the laughing if you call it that based upon your demeanor here and your overt dislike for Mr. Rees.

 

You wrote a bit back that you were face to face with Mr. Rees but did not introduce yourself. Why? Afraid he might attack you like a mad dog over your behavior here?

 

 

 

If you want to parse \"snickering\" versus \"laughing\", that is your right. Mr. Malson used the word \"laughing\" in his email to me. That is a fact. Since I was there and you were not, then I don\'t see where you have the right to make any characterizations about the situation.

 

I would guess the candidates all have their strategies about how they will engage the electorate. It just seems odd that Mr. Rees would tell everyone ahead of time that he was going to skip a candidate opportunity, and then lie to one of his supposed endorsements about his presence, or lack there of, at a function.

 

Where did I say that attending functions like last night (which still was not a debate) was the only way to establish serious credibility in a race? I merely pointed out that given the topic at hand, the the participating entities (Mr. Rees\'s \"endorsements\"), that Mr. Rees\'s presence should have been a no-brainer.

 

Why did Mr. Rees lie to Mr. Malson? Is lying to an supposedly endorsing organization the actions of someone who is worthy of a vote?

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

I have seen firsthand the irrational actions Mr. Rees takes towards those who challange his (often erroneous) positions. I have cited several examples, but the evidence is dramatic both on this forum and on several Yahoo listserves. I do not wish to personally subject myself to such dramatic behavior as being accused of being a Nazi, a communist, being subjected to bodily threats or having employers faxed or emailed by Mr. Rees.

 

B. Frank

 

You wrote a bit back that you were face to face with Mr. Rees but did not introduce yourself. Why? Afraid he might attack you like a mad dog over your behavior here?

[Gay]

In other words, you are a hit and run coward!

 

My view of this situation is, people are attacking Mr. Rees because they fear him because if Mr. Rees was no threat or had any chance of winning, nobody would say a word about him.

 

All of you concede you fear of Mr. Rees by your actions and it can be read no other way and masking your cowardly ways and by saying you are seeking the truth is utter BS in my book because two of the other candidates have an ugly past and you are not attacking them.

 

 

I have seen firsthand the irrational actions Mr. Rees takes towards those who challange his (often erroneous) positions. I have cited several examples, but the evidence is dramatic both on this forum and on several Yahoo listserves. I do not wish to personally subject myself to such dramatic behavior as being accused of being a Nazi, a communist, being subjected to bodily threats or having employers faxed or emailed by Mr. Rees.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

What other two candidates have ugly pasts?

 

Oh, and you never responded earlier to my question of what two candidates "told 'Robert Branson' that Sam Brooks pulled this stunt of putting plants in the audience in his last campaign to harass his opponents."

 

B. Frank

 

In other words, you are a hit and run coward!

 

My view of this situation is, people are attacking Mr. Rees because they fear him because if Mr. Rees was no threat or had any chance of winning, nobody would say a word about him.

 

All of you concede you fear of Mr. Rees by your actions and it can be read no other way and masking your cowardly ways and by saying you are seeking the truth is utter BS in my book because two of the other candidates have an ugly past and you are not attacking them.

[Gay]

I was not told which two. I was told that Rees had told Malson to ask Kwame Brown and Harold Brazil about the heckling they got from people that came to those debates with Brooks.

 

Guall lied about his past, lied that he had been endorsed by Mayor Williams and Cathy Wiss has not be factual about her work history or the fact that while she has a law degree, she never used it.

 

 

What other two candidates have ugly pasts?

 

Oh, and you never responded earlier to my question of what two candidates \\\"told \\\'Robert Branson\\\' that Sam Brooks pulled this stunt of putting plants in the audience in his last campaign to harass his opponents.\\\"

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Interesting, Mr. Malson was actually very receptive to the email and background information (by virtue of links to Jonathan Rees's own words) that I provided to him.

 

On Cathy Wiss and Eric Gaull, it is the first I am hearing of it.

 

I suspect the research on the candidates will parse out the truth. I will say however, that if someone has a Law Degree, they have earned the right to be referred to as an attorney or Lawyer. Same with a doctor, etc. It is very different than say a political candidate who has a long history of 'pro se' representation.

 

B. Frank

 

Rees has forwarned Malson of this behavior and asked him to speak to Kwame Brown and Harold Brazil to confirm it. That is what I heard.

 

My understanding is, Cathy Wiss is misrepresenting herself as while she has a degree in law, she rarely used it and has not practiced in years. Also Eric Gaull was caught lying last time out about being endorsed by Mayor Williams and he was not.

 

 

I was not told which two. I was told that Rees had told Malson to ask Kwame Brown and Harold Brazil about the heckling they got from people that came to those debates with Brooks.

 

Guall lied about his past, lied that he had been endorsed by Mayor Williams and Cathy Wiss has not be factual about her work history or the fact that while she has a law degree, she never used it.

[factchecker2]

Please clarify.

 

I was not told which two. I was told that Rees had told Malson to ask Kwame Brown and Harold Brazil about the heckling they got from people that came to those debates with Brooks.

 

Guall lied about his past, lied that he had been endorsed by Mayor Williams and Cathy Wiss has not be factual about her work history or the fact that while she has a law degree, she never used it.

[Gay]

Yet some lawyers would take offense to an inactive lawyer holding themselves out as being lawyers.

 

What I think is going on here and I will repeat it again: You guys are terrified of Rees, you cannot stand the thought that he has probably done a better job of reach across our ward with his silly paper as you call it, you know your prefer candidate cannot match it so your only way to stop him it this crap here.

 

You are not going to stop any candidate Bfrank with what you are doing and you are living a dream if you think you can.

 

I am almost 70 years old, I have seen my fair share of campaigns and unless your prefered candidate can match and do better, all your efforts will be in vain.

 

 

Interesting, Mr. Malson was actually very receptive to the email and background information (by virtue of links to Jonathan Rees\'s own words) that I provided to him.

 

On Cathy Wiss and Eric Gaull, it is the first I am hearing of it.

 

I suspect the research on the candidates will parse out the truth. I will say however, that if someone has a Law Degree, they have earned the right to be referred to as an attorney or Lawyer. Same with a doctor, etc. It is very different than say a political candidate who has a long history of \'pro se\' representation.

 

B. Frank

[bfrankdc]

Gay Republican, I think you are misinterpreting my intentions. I am not trying to stop anyone, nor am I supportive of any candidate in this race. What I am opposed to is individuals who cast off lie after lie, without any substance behind them, in an attempt to bolster their standing. Tell the truth and everyone will be happy. Keep lying and continue to be called out on the lies.

 

B. Frank

 

Yet some lawyers would take offense to an inactive lawyer holding themselves out as being lawyers.

 

What I think is going on here and I will repeat it again: You guys are terrified of Rees, you cannot stand the thought that he has probably done a better job of reach across our ward with his silly paper as you call it, you know your prefer candidate cannot match it so your only way to stop him it this crap here.

 

You are not going to stop any candidate Bfrank with what you are doing and you are living a dream if you think you can.

 

I am almost 70 years old, I have seen my fair share of campaigns and unless your prefered candidate can match and do better, all your efforts will be in vain.