After reading Sen. Sinclair’s legislative update and then comparing it to Sen. Rozenboom’s – which was pretty much verbatim – I asked him via email whether his update included any original thoughts on this session. You'd hope your elected official would be working hard for their constituents, not just regurgitating the party-line each week.
His reply was to ask me to define what an "original thought" was, because "I don’t think most of us have truly original thoughts.” What? It sounds to me that not only does Rozenboom (and Sinclair, for that matter) not take the time to engage with constituents regularly, he also has no desire to give us honest, helpful updates about what's happening in the Iowa State Capitol. About what he's advocating for us, because he shouldn't be expected to have an original thought?
As a former educator, it reminds me of students that change a word or two from the encyclopedia hoping the teacher doesn’t notice that they plagiarized the entire paper. But what really struck me was his comment that he didn't think people have truly original thoughts. Original thought, to me, is just having the common sense to be a critical thinker — to ask questions. No wonder Republican legislators were so easily led to pass an awful voter suppression law in the beginning of session by the Heritage Action. Even a staffer for Heritage remarked, “We made sure activists were calling the state legislators, getting support, showing up at their public hearings, giving testimony… Little fanfare. Honestly, nobody even noticed. My team looked at each other and we’re like, 'It can’t be that easy.'”
I guess this is what happens when we elect people who have no intention to be thoughtful, balanced or facts-driven leaders. Rozenboom, Sinclair and their colleagues didn't ask questions and allowed an out-of-state organization to dictate Iowa law. Senate District 20 deserves better. Maybe someone who can muster an original thought.
Suzy Card, Pella