Patricia Babcock | Horton: A Syrupy Version of Hill
By Signal Contributor
Friday, October 19th, 2018

In response to Gary Horton’s piece of Wednesday, Oct. 10, entitled “The Definition of Authenticity”:

Katie Hill is being purported as one of us because she lives in this area and authentic for the same reason. These facts which are being heavily advanced, in no way make her authentically able to represent this valley in government. What does she believe?  What does she stand for? Is she going to represent all of the people in this valley and their needs and concerns?

I found most of Mr. Horton’s comments as appealing to the emotions of the reader, using the term “one of us” five or six times along with terms like “steely-eyed,” “authentic” and going over and over where she was born, her relatives and how a guy from Starbucks said he knew her in high school. Again I ask, how do these rah rah statements indicate her ability to represent SCV in Congress?

Politics, political ads and rhetoric today are so convoluted and even tortuous that I choose to find out for myself by doing a little research and investigating. So I went to Katie’s page, Katie Hill for Congress, and read what was there, then clicked on “For more detailed information on Katie’s positions on the issues, please click here,” where I learned that Katie supports Planned Parenthood and universal preschool, and identifies as a bisexual, saying “I will be the only openly bisexual woman in the House of Representatives.”

There is nothing on her page that addresses California taxes and the outbound migration because of high taxes here; high rents; SCV growth, human trafficking, illegal immigration and the impact of new housing tracts on our already overburdened roads, water, electric and schools. There is nothing that tells me she stands for a better Santa Clarita Valley or state of California.

So Mr. Horton, please don’t give me a syrupy version of Ms. Hill. Give me an honest, straightforward review for both sides of the fence as to what a candidate believes, stands for and intends to advance if they get elected. To make Ms. Hill look like a sweet little gal from SCV is a deliberate attempt to garner votes for those who do not know any better or are unable to decipher the views and sometimes well-hidden agendas of candidates.

This kind of persuasion tactic is a shameless endeavor to sway people to your choice for a candidate. And if I may say so, a very unintelligent premise.

What we need in California, if it is to survive, are people who do not have an agenda but rather care for the prosperity, good and health of the state. A place where we don’t look to political insight but wisdom to guide and clarify. A place where one group of people are not in control but we have leadership that passionately cares for all the people and their needs. A return to common sense, decency, courtesy, purity, honesty, good sportsmanship and even righteousness. 

I remember a very different Santa Clarita Valley. Now it seems to have become just another town that is a pawn in the great political arena. We need a candidate who sees with fresh eyes for restoration of this city and state. We have become so myopic in narrowing everything down to whose side wins and think that therein lies peace, that we have, in truth, lost sight of the very things that are important to this state’s well being. Life must come back to the heart. 

We have been in the state of heart failure in California for a long time. Bills and laws are passed that benefit only those with secret agendas. Bills that do more to tear down than build up. Bills that commence to consume, damage and dismantle what little is left of what once made California a great place to live. From what I have learned of Ms. Hill, I do not think she is this kind of candidate.

I would urge readers to take time to discover what candidates do stand for, what they are planning to do if elected and thereby to vote responsibly, not emotionally.

How I would love to see an honest evaluation of what candidates believe, stating everything they stand for with direct clarity so everyone can understand and then decide for themselves.

If I am included in “one of us,” then Ms. Hill is not one of us.

Patricia Babcock

Santa Clarita

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

Patricia Babcock | Horton: A Syrupy Version of Hill

In response to Gary Horton’s piece of Wednesday, Oct. 10, entitled “The Definition of Authenticity”:

Katie Hill is being purported as one of us because she lives in this area and authentic for the same reason. These facts which are being heavily advanced, in no way make her authentically able to represent this valley in government. What does she believe?  What does she stand for? Is she going to represent all of the people in this valley and their needs and concerns?

I found most of Mr. Horton’s comments as appealing to the emotions of the reader, using the term “one of us” five or six times along with terms like “steely-eyed,” “authentic” and going over and over where she was born, her relatives and how a guy from Starbucks said he knew her in high school. Again I ask, how do these rah rah statements indicate her ability to represent SCV in Congress?

Politics, political ads and rhetoric today are so convoluted and even tortuous that I choose to find out for myself by doing a little research and investigating. So I went to Katie’s page, Katie Hill for Congress, and read what was there, then clicked on “For more detailed information on Katie’s positions on the issues, please click here,” where I learned that Katie supports Planned Parenthood and universal preschool, and identifies as a bisexual, saying “I will be the only openly bisexual woman in the House of Representatives.”

There is nothing on her page that addresses California taxes and the outbound migration because of high taxes here; high rents; SCV growth, human trafficking, illegal immigration and the impact of new housing tracts on our already overburdened roads, water, electric and schools. There is nothing that tells me she stands for a better Santa Clarita Valley or state of California.

So Mr. Horton, please don’t give me a syrupy version of Ms. Hill. Give me an honest, straightforward review for both sides of the fence as to what a candidate believes, stands for and intends to advance if they get elected. To make Ms. Hill look like a sweet little gal from SCV is a deliberate attempt to garner votes for those who do not know any better or are unable to decipher the views and sometimes well-hidden agendas of candidates.

This kind of persuasion tactic is a shameless endeavor to sway people to your choice for a candidate. And if I may say so, a very unintelligent premise.

What we need in California, if it is to survive, are people who do not have an agenda but rather care for the prosperity, good and health of the state. A place where we don’t look to political insight but wisdom to guide and clarify. A place where one group of people are not in control but we have leadership that passionately cares for all the people and their needs. A return to common sense, decency, courtesy, purity, honesty, good sportsmanship and even righteousness. 

I remember a very different Santa Clarita Valley. Now it seems to have become just another town that is a pawn in the great political arena. We need a candidate who sees with fresh eyes for restoration of this city and state. We have become so myopic in narrowing everything down to whose side wins and think that therein lies peace, that we have, in truth, lost sight of the very things that are important to this state’s well being. Life must come back to the heart. 

We have been in the state of heart failure in California for a long time. Bills and laws are passed that benefit only those with secret agendas. Bills that do more to tear down than build up. Bills that commence to consume, damage and dismantle what little is left of what once made California a great place to live. From what I have learned of Ms. Hill, I do not think she is this kind of candidate.

I would urge readers to take time to discover what candidates do stand for, what they are planning to do if elected and thereby to vote responsibly, not emotionally.

How I would love to see an honest evaluation of what candidates believe, stating everything they stand for with direct clarity so everyone can understand and then decide for themselves.

If I am included in “one of us,” then Ms. Hill is not one of us.

Patricia Babcock

Santa Clarita