Wednesday, October 10, 2007


Council-at-large forum at Xavier University Thursday night. Sponsored by The League of Women Voters. There will be one more forum next Tuesday. More at G Bitch Spot.

Also, Rob Couhig started interviewing the candidates on his 6 a.m. show this week. he's only done three short interviews so far, not very informative, but easy enough to find.

Uninformative, but Kaare Johnson unwittingly demonstrates the reason why I'll vote for Clarkson or Boulet. As he puts it, he doesn't have an ego. He walk across Perdido street if he needed an answer from an official. He wouldn't issue a subpoena.

Most of the other candidates made similar comments about the need to work together at last week's forum. You'd think that the recovery was progressing wonderfully until the subpoena was issued. "It takes two to tango" might be the correct thing to say to fighting fifth graders, but the council bent over backwards to accommodate the mayor for over a year.

This is a typical attitude that see everywhere in government and the press coverage of the government. People do the most outrageous things for years on end and everyone's "colleageal." Suddenly, someone says "enough already with all this collegiality! I want some answers!" So, then the person demanding answers and the way they are demanding the answers becomes the issue. I wish people would see that it doesn't matter how you ask the questions, they are going to sidestep, crawfish, accuse you, whine, threaten or whatever is in their arsenal of tactics. That's what they do. I say, hit them with your demands for answers. When they get up, hit them again. Repeat as necessary, or whenever you get the chance.
If you've narrowed it down to Clarkson or Boulet, and you're inflexible with that...

please, vote for Clarson.
Actually, I'm leaning more to Boulet after listening to Clarkson on Couhig this morning. I got the impression that she saw what a positive reaction Boulet's "time for the council to take charge" statement got at the first forum (before Brown deflated her balloon) and decided to steal her thunder. Now clarkson seems to be in work with the mayor mode.

Frankly, I don't understand the attitude that you and some other bloggers have. You all acknowledge that Nagin's leadership isn't getting the job done, that it's actually making things worse, but you all seem to prefer candidates who want the council to work with the mayor to the one who clearly states that the council needs to take charge.

I'm mad about the Nagin endorsement, and I do think that it shows bad judgment, but we're not talking about a normal four year term. We're deciding who is going to be least likely to wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait some more, until the administration finally has no choice but to accept a ridiculously overpriced contract proposal.

I don't need the apology that some of you seem to want, but I would like some more specific criticisms. Hell, in tonight's debate she talked about how the administration responded to one of her criticisms by finally doing something. She needs to make some more of them.
I too am vacillating between Boulet and Clarkson. After last night's forum at Xavier, I was more pro-Boulet. However, I am thinking that I might want to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Willard-Lewis in a runoff. I am getting concerned that Boulet and Clarkson will split the non-hypen vote, leaving W-L to do battle with the Boulet-Clarkson winner. What's the buzz on this?
I don't need an apology from Boulet either. People endorse candidates, that's how politics works. It's not like she's still defending him. She knows he's out of his mind. Er, doesn't she?
No, she doesn't. And therein lies the problem.

And it's not the apology -- it's the idea that she could be so very, very wrong, and continue to support and defend him up until the day she threw her hat into the ring for Oliver's seat.
Ashley, Boulet is the only candidate who's willing to say that Nagin is the problem. Clarkson started to at the Loyola debate, but now she's hedging. Some of the rest are actually saying that the council isn't trying hard enough to get along with the mayor. How much proof do they need that the mayor doesn't operate in good faith, and the council will to continue to get burned if it continues to operate as if he does?

I don't like Boulet either( for defending as recently as February, more than the endorsement), but she's the only candidate who even comes close to saying what we need to hear.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Old Favorites
  • Political Boxing (untitled)
  • Did Bush Take His Ball and Go Home
  • Teratogens and Plan B
  • Foghorn Leghorn Republicans
  • Quote of the Day
  • October's News(Dec.1)
  • untitled, Nov.19 (offshore revenue)
  • Remember Upton Sinclair
  • Oct. Liar of thr month
  • Jindal's True Colors
  • No bid contracts