« Those Crazier Conservation Voters | Main | The Season of Disc-content »
November 02, 2006
Contrasting Styles Part 2
 |
| I recall a couple of months back Mary Flynn published some private information in the CNR in an effort to head off "political attacks" during the campaign. It's clear that she didn't have to release the information. Nobody has attacked her. On the other hand the "progressives" in Chico have been continually going negative in this campaign. This started early on with Scott Gruendl's fundraising letter, and has continued through direct mail and accusations of candidates being in someone's pocket. Any non-"progressive" PAC that exists is automatically the new "developer PAC". Any candidate that's not "progressive" is automatically a developer pawn. It's become a tiresome mantra. The major print news have both refuted this tactic. First the ER said that there was no "developer slate", and now the Chico News and Review has chimed in in agreement. "Chico elections are always littered with misleading hyperbole, and it comes from liberals as well as conservatives. When liberals talk of a "developers' slate," they want voters to think builders and their cohorts have certain candidates in their pockets. It's just not so." Chico News And Review 11-2-06 A good example of differences between the two camps are the emails cajoling supporters to get out and and vote. On the next page is a recent email from the Democratic Action Club of Chico. It think it was written by James Carville...when he was in junior high. And there seems to be a particular dislike of males at the end. More gender bias from the liberals? There's even an attack saying Michael Dailey is unqualified to run a corner store. That's kind-of mean. He does run a bank branch, so it's also incorrect. Below that is a recent email from the Hooker Oak Alliance. Judge for yourself which one strikes a more reasonable tone. |
Email From The Democratic Action Club of Chico
Our city is under a full scale assault by a few candidates known as the "Developer Slate." So much money has been poured into the local campaigns just so that these few men can do the bidding of their niche interests. If you need proof of such a narrow focus you need only look to the candidates' endorsements and funding for evidence. These candidates are supported almost exclusively (and by large financial contributions) by mammoth developers with specific projects earmarked for the next four years. While development is not the enemy, their specific interest in this election and the candidates they have endorsed have little regard for anything other than these developers. One of their "slate" is far too inexperienced to run a corner store much less a corporation such as the City of Chico. His past experience as student body president at CSU, Chico is tarnished by an ethics scandal that even today the candidate cannot recognize. It only brings to mind the slate's specific intentions. These candidates have said little about their experience and ability to handle the job and are depending on you not voting this election cycle to win and change the face of Chico's communities forever. Another candidate has sought to imply official recognition by the County and consistently misrepresents his support by farming organizations. We need straight talk and honesty in our representation not the same old rhetoric from the candidates. Chico needs your help now! As the officially recognized local club for the Democratic Party, the Democratic Action Club of Chico (D.A.C.C.) has endorsed the following candidates for office in the November election. We ask you to join us in ensuring Chico"s vibrant future and protecting our community from these few (and exclusively male) insiders. |
| Email From The Hooker Oak Alliance We have endorsed Michael Dailey, Dan Herbert, Mark Sorensen, for Chico City Council. These are candidates who work and are raising their families in Chico. Individually they have shown great community involvement and leadership. Together they have expressed a desire to focus Chico's government on core responsibilities and not on special interest policies. Please vote for Dailey, Herbert, and Sorensen on November 7th. Existing spending patterns by the City Council have resulted in the City Manager projecting a $40 million deficit over the next 10 years. During our interview process the candidates we endorsed spoke specifically to reigning in spending and focusing city efforts on traffic, safety, and neighborhoods. More "feel good" bureaucracy is not the right path for Chico. We need local government to focus on local problems. In our estimation Dailey, Herbert, and Sorensen will do a better job of spending our tax money wisely. |
Posted by Lon at November 2, 2006 07:52 PM
Comments
Please do not think for one second that the Hooker's message is more effective than the dems, it is not. Aggressive campaigns win and unless the nice guys are very, very proficient they tend to finish last. Not being willing to engage the other PACs candidates in a street fight makes The Hooker Oak Alliance worthless. The candidates can most effectively [and creditably] tell the voters how worthy they are to hold office. The reason for independent PACs is not to restate the candidates' message; it's to tell the voters the negatives about the opposition's candidates.
Posted by: pypr at November 3, 2006 06:31 AM
Nonsense. It's that sort of thinking that has turned so many people off about politics and results in such low voter turnout. The truth is, negative ads don't work, at least not in local elections.
The purpose of the Hooker Oak Alliance is not to characterize candidates at all, but to give voice to a large segment of the population that has been discouraged by the direction of public policy and their apparent lack of influence over it.
The Hooker Oak Alliance offers a vision of the future for Chico that many share, and professes principles that are aligned with the values of most responsible people, regardless of political inclination. If people who resonate with our message overcome their revulsion for the political process and get out and vote, HOA will have delivered a significant service to the community, regardless of who prevails in the contests.
Posted by: Alan Chamberlain at November 3, 2006 08:42 AM
Like a lot of people you seem to have missed the point of the Hooker Oak Alliance. We are not a "win at any cost" organization. We are not only formed for this election. We are also not an extension of the Republican party, capable of only endorsing Republicans.
We are a fiscally conservative group, concerned about local issues. And we endorsed and are supporting Dailey, Herbert, and Sorensen because the are the most qualified for the job of City Council. Win or lose, I doubt our support could be considered worthless.
More importantly, to me, the email above represents the silliness the "progressives" represent. And I've posted it here because the people populating the blogs are sophisticated enough to see through the hyperbole. If that were not the case I would not post anything from the CCV, Gruendl's fundraising letter, this email, etc.
Which message is getting through to the most people? I have my opinion, but the poll is on November 7th.
If our team wins, people will say we did a great job, if we lose people will call us worthless. Regardless of the results we've put in a lot of effort, and I'm proud of the work we've done.
And in reality there's nothing to stop others from jumping in, raising money, and getting as dirty and far-fetched as they want. That's just not our cup-of-tea.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at November 3, 2006 08:45 AM