Chandler Woodcock seems like a nice guy. With his bowties and corn pone, “aw shucks” humor, he comes across as genuinely likeable—that is, until you look at where he stands on the issues.
- Supports the teaching of creation, as science, in public schools
- Opposes a woman’s right to an abortion
- Is pro-TABOR, a pathetic “slash and burn” attempt at corralling taxes in Maine; the only thing TABOR will do is hurt those on the margins in Maine
- Talks in vague terms about reforming state government, a government that he has been a key part of for the past six years, as a state senator
- His program for job growth seems unsustainable, given his penchant to cut taxes across the board; how the hell can you fund R & D, when, under Woodcock’s tax policies, there won’t even be money to maintain our roads?
On top of all of his, Woodcock seems unable to structure his schedule (or maybe it’s muster the courage) to attend forums in front of people who may not share his views. The bow tied wonder’s latest dodge, involved a forum sponsored by Portland’s NAACP, at the Westbrook campus of the University of New England, on Thursday. Prior to that, he missed a forum sponsored by the Women's Policy Center (who probably wanted to speak to him about his views on abortion) and the Maine Education Association (who probably had a question or two for Chan).
While I admit that my title is a bit over the top, Republicans, from Woodcock, all the way up the Republican ladder, to the man at the top, GW Bush, have a disturbing track record at snubbing people of color. The previous Republican gubernatorial challenger, a man with more “urban” sensibility than the small town Woodcock, “handsome” Peter Cianchette, also apparently had scheduling issues when it came to speaking before the NAACP, back in 2002.
In a statement issued by Democratic Party chair, Ben Dudley, Woodcock’s apparent lack of leadership is questioned.
“Avoiding those with whom you disagree isn’t leadership. Leadership is about listening to all sides of an issue and working with all parties, even those you disagree, to achieve the common good.”
Despite spokesman Chris Jackson’s protestations and cries of “foul,” Woodcock has spent his entire campaign being vague and relying merely on the bowties and his corny humor to obscure his obvious lack of any real ideas on how to run the state of Maine. Whatever your inclinations are towards the other three candidates (I'm not counting Phillip NaPier, "The People's Hero" other than for comic relief), they are quite clear on the issues and their direction for Maine.
As they say, actions speak louder than words. Certainly, the impression that Woodcock left with one group is that he doesn't care about their issues.
Rachel Talbot Ross, the president of Portland's chapter of the NAACP had this to say about the snub.
"I think it's irresponsible of (Woodcock's) campaign to allow us to think that he doesn't care about the constituencies we represent."
Note to Woodcock:
While Maine is a fairly white state and Farmington is even whiter, snubbing Portland’s NAACP and its constituency isn’t a savvy political move. The fact that two Republican candidates in a row have skipped the NAACP’s forum, I think, speaks volumes about the party and is one indicator that Woodcock is just another right-wing Republican ruled by a narrow agenda. Add to this the fact that the agenda of many Republicans benefits only the wealthy, powerful and predominantly white male base that keeps propping up the party and you have a pretty good reason not to choose that direction for Maine, a direction that is by-and-large, ruled by ideological straitjacket.