Thursday, November 15, 2007
When did you cast that vote, Cynthia?
Cynthia Willard-Lewis has started running an attack ad in the at-large race. Attack ads based on an opponents record are one thing, but attacks based on a poorly-worded answer to a question have always struck as an insult to the voter's intelligence and they usually involve selective editing. CWL's ad isn't available online, but it's based on the interview that Oyster discussed last week and it involves selective editing. You can listen to the answer in its entirety and decide for yourself whether Clarkson's answer to the bribery question was merely a clumsy misstatement, or if you should be shocked -- as the commercial asserts.
However, the commercial also claims that Willard voted to "initiate and fully-fund" the Inspector General's office. That struck me as odd, because, if you listen to the video at Oyster's, you'll hear CWL call for a "fully funded" IG's office, but she hedges by saying that the office should be "appropriately" funded. I don't recall the term "fully-funded" being used in last year's budget debate. As it was reported last year, the council voted $250,000 to start the office, Midura wanted more, Hedge-Morrell wanted less, and Fielgood called $250,000 an outstanding start. I got the impression that Willard-Lewis sided with Hedge-Morrell, but I may have been wrong.
As far as CWL's eagerness to take credit for "initiating" the office, well...
excuse me getting off topic, but why exactly should we care about who James Carter endorses?
I had hoped to do a post with more reasons to vote for Clarkson tonight, but won't be able to. Oyster and Celcus both make strong (as strong as can be made) cases for voting for Clarkson, even if you can't get enthusiastic about that vote. Adrastos puts it succinctly:
I won't be able to post about it until tomorrow night, but anybody who's still undecided might want to think about riverfront development. I've discussed it in comments here and here, but I'll repeat myself, riverfront development will forever alter the city. Even if you have the utmost confidence in the mayor and the NOBC, you should demand more from the city council.
However, the commercial also claims that Willard voted to "initiate and fully-fund" the Inspector General's office. That struck me as odd, because, if you listen to the video at Oyster's, you'll hear CWL call for a "fully funded" IG's office, but she hedges by saying that the office should be "appropriately" funded. I don't recall the term "fully-funded" being used in last year's budget debate. As it was reported last year, the council voted $250,000 to start the office, Midura wanted more, Hedge-Morrell wanted less, and Fielgood called $250,000 an outstanding start. I got the impression that Willard-Lewis sided with Hedge-Morrell, but I may have been wrong.
As far as CWL's eagerness to take credit for "initiating" the office, well...
The council's only divided vote on the issue came on an amendment by Councilman James Carter to have the council, rather than the five-member advisory committee, do a three-month review of the new office's "guidelines and procedures."
Midura said that would compromise the office's immunity from politics, but Carter said it would help allay the fears of those who think the office would "discriminate against certain people."
His amendment passed 4-3, with Hedge-Morrell, Willard-Lewis and Oliver Thomas joining Carter, and Fielkow and Head joining Midura.
excuse me getting off topic, but why exactly should we care about who James Carter endorses?
I had hoped to do a post with more reasons to vote for Clarkson tonight, but won't be able to. Oyster and Celcus both make strong (as strong as can be made) cases for voting for Clarkson, even if you can't get enthusiastic about that vote. Adrastos puts it succinctly:
I plan to vote for Clarkson because she's a battle axe who will stand up to the executive branch if necessary. I don't care for the choice but, given the short election season, it was inevitable that the two best known candidates would end up in a run-off. It's just politics imitating life: not all our choices in other areas are appealing but we just have to muddle through.
I won't be able to post about it until tomorrow night, but anybody who's still undecided might want to think about riverfront development. I've discussed it in comments here and here, but I'll repeat myself, riverfront development will forever alter the city. Even if you have the utmost confidence in the mayor and the NOBC, you should demand more from the city council.
