Democratic Diva

Katie,

Have to disagree with you on this one. I know at a minimum that Michael is for “enforcing the law” and “preserving historic homes.” I never really caught what was Laura’s platform. “Leadership you can count on” does not tell me what her goal will be on the city council. Either way Laura, has a very bright future. I did not support her in this race, but look forward to her second run for office.

I don’t think that is a fair assessment of the race. They were both good candidates. Both sides raised questions about the other and rightfully so. This is politics. As far as I know, they questioned her record, but did not personally attack her(correct me if I am wrong). I hope her campaign did the same… Vigorous debate is good for democracy.

I agree with vigorous debate and hope Laura runs again.

The more I see negativity in campaigns, the more I want candidates to sign a pledge against negative campaigning. I want my candidates sticking to the issues, not gossipmongering about non-issues.

At the risk of beginning to sound whiney about this, I need to say that seriously, if you don’t think Michael ran a negative campaign, I would hate to see what you think a negative campaign looks like. Even if I didn’t support Laura, I would have been turned off by Nowakowski after about the second “Real Laura Pastor” or “Laura + Lobbyists” mailers. They didn’t discuss the real issues facing our district, they used fear tactics to make voters think Laura might stand for things that would hurt the district. They were not based on fact. I think what I am most sad about is that this is the kind of thing that people voted for. This kind of leadership is not inspiring to me, and it makes me question his ability to work with groups he doesn’t agree with, which he will need to on the city council. Laura’s campaign did talk about what she would do when elected. Unfortunately, the paper was more interested in sensationalizing things that had nothing to do with her ability to lead.
And “Enforcing the Law” and “Preserving Historic Homes” aren’t positions either, they are catchy slogans that fit on a sign.

Katie,

I did not hear Laura’s ideas, I heard generalities and non-sequitors through out the campaign. Did you see the Horizonte Debate? For example in response to a question about what city council could do about schools, Laura answered I am an educator, and then rattled off how many schools districts there were in District 7. Michael spoke about creating partnerships with city rec department and saving money for the schools. I know you wanted her to win, as woman I wanted to see a city council woman elected, however I am not going to put in a subpar quality person because we are of the same gender. Laura is a big girl. She should have known that this was not going to be a coranation, if she did not want to play rough then she should not have run. Also, I know for a fact that Ed Pastor was strong arming people through out the campaign to support his daughter.
Michael’s campaign refused to unilaterally disarm themselves in the sight of a Goliath like the Pastor Family. In the end Michael won because he was the best candidate. Negative campaigning only helps so much. Laura was not ready for prime time.

Lisa, I respect your opinions and thank you for contributing to the discussion, but I’m appalled that you suggest someone shouldn’t run for office unless they can play “rough.” What about playing fair and just? What about winning on merit over brute force?

Even if one thinks candidates should be able to play “rough,” let’s remember that there’s a difference between playing “rough” and playing “dirty.”

(And that’s enough of the sports cliches for me!) - Krista

I have worked on bruising political campaigns that made me sick. On the spectrum of dirty politics, 10 being metaphysical nastiness al a Karl Rove or Lee Atwater and 1 being the sweetness of kittens, I have to say this race is about 4.5. I think it was legitimate to bring up her past votes relating to payday lenders. I have to say that I tend to believe the charge because her campaign never tried to refute it (a cardinal sin of campaigning).

I also thought it was reasonable to bring up the fact that many lobbyists gave money to her because of her father’s connections. Have said all of that, I have not seen the mailers, so I cannot comment on how nasty they might have been.

I know a lot people do not like negative campaigning (especially when someone you know and respect is the subject of the attack), but it is political reality and it often serves a purpose. There is a bright line between a personal attack (candidate A hates America and sleeps with goats) and a criticism (candidate A voted to cut funding for healthcare). Most of what I saw was criticism of her public actions rather than personal attacks on Ms. Pastor.

Forgive the sports reference, but “Politics ain’t beanbag”.