First, the controversy surrounding the attack mailer against Sue Greenwald dragged on for nearly a week – if not longer. The agony there was prolonged by silence and the failure for those involved to take responsibility and end the speculation.
The same happened with Clinton Parish in his judge race. He should have simply stated he was wrong, apologized and moved on. He eventually did it, but it took nearly a week and he lost several critical endorsements in the process.
As scandals go, stealing signs really should not amount to much more than wry bemusement. That seemed to be where this one was headed, involving Sue Greenwald’s husband taking a lawn sign that belonged to an opponent and replacing it with Sue Greenwald’s as well as the more bizarre sign blocking.
However, Sue Greenwald has now made two critical mistakes herself in the handling of what should have been a relatively minor incident. First, she deflected the blame on her husband, which, while perhaps completely accurate, seems unseemly. She should have simply said, we made an error in judgment and we apologize.
The second error, in our view is more serious and that is the charge that Bernie Goldsmith planted or staged the photos of the signs. Now, instead of taking responsibility she has upped the ante and continued the disfavorable news cycle. Unless she had evidence, she was better off not stating it.
The fact that she did it on CBS 13 just expands the scope of the issue which had before then been confined to Facebook and the Vanguard.
As it was, CBS 13 was sensationalizing a nothing-scandal with Shannon Brinias reporting, “A city council race is getting ugly in Davis as someone has been covering and blocking campaign signs.”
First of all, this is hardly an example of a race getting ugly, and if it had been ugly the first shot fired was the attack mailer nearly a month ago.
CBS 13 reported that Sue Greenwald has been on the city council for 12 years and “she said this race is by far dirtiest.”
“There’s been more PAC activity, more special interest money,” she says.
But she seems to have forgotten that in 2004, it was Steve Gidaro’s attack call that may have unseated Michael Harrington. She also conveniently forgets how dirty the 2006 race was, where Lamar Heystek absorbed doors being slammed in his face and an attack from Julie Saylor, wife of then councilmember Don Saylor, who accused him of misogyny, taking one of his student columns out of context.
Other than a single attack mailer that backfired, this race has lacked the contention of many recent contests. The fact that signs have become an issue demonstrates the lack of real polarity.
CBS Reports, “Sue admits a volunteer did it, who happens to be her husband.”
She tries to deflect, smiling and almost laughing as she describes what her husband did.
She said, “I told him, don’t touch any other candidates’ signs.”
CBS adds, “She said he let his frustrations get the best of him and wrongly covered up two signs.”
But then she makes a critical error when she says, according to CBS 13, “Most of the pictures posted on Facebook were staged.”
Originally, Bernie Goldsmith, who had posted a group of photos on Facebook, said, “I think this has gotten to the stage where it’s just funny. I don’t think sign blocking is doing any real damage to anyone’s campaign. Look at it this way: at least some people really care a lot about their candidate!”
Even midday yesterday, he posted on the Vanguard, “If you will forgive me for making hay and online amusement with these badly placed lawn signs by my house, I’ll forgive you for saying I staged the photos, now that it’s clear that they weren’t staged, and that someone placing these signs might have made a quite forgivable error in judgment.”
But following the CBS 13 report, Mr. Goldsmith was less forgiving.
He posted on the Vanguard, “I just saw CBS 13’s report on this matter. I am disappointed that Sue Greenwald chose to accuse me of staging these photographs.”
Later on Facebook, he added, “What I find unacceptable, however, is her continued attack on my character – I merely photographed what her husband did. It is a low road, Sue. Please come out of the cold, come clean, stick with a consistent story, and stop attacking the messenger. All I did was take photos and dig your husband’s handiwork out of the bushes and the street.”
Sue Greenwald would respond: “Bernie, you accused Mike of doing things he did not do, and that is wrong. If you had left it at Mike blocked a Wolk sign, that would have been fine.”
This was a critical error in judgment. Had Ms. Greenwald simply let it go, everyone would have had a good laugh and moved on. They probably still will, but once again we are talking about this issue rather than some of the more important and critical issues facing this community, and for that, we all lose.
If Councilmember Greenwald is wise, she will let this issue die and will not respond any more, allowing this story to move on.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This behavior is pure Sue Greenwald. Her attitude towards Bernie reminds me of her attitude towards David Greenwald on reporting Ruth-gate. Sue is not a leader and never will be. Brett Lee is a fine alternative to Sue Greenwald.
I have seen enough. I am now voting for Brett Lee, Lucas Frerichs and Dan Wolk.
This does raise the issue of Sue’s temperament once again.
Bernie, in my opinion, has more integrity in one finger than Sue does in her entire sclerotic campaign. He even started out on here by apologizing for starting something he thought was fun that had gotten out of control. Sue really stepped in it instead of simply citing Bernie she attacked him. Yesterday even the Toad himself couldn’t groke that this was anything and refused to croak about it. Oh well another day another news cycle.
And this cycle may not have done the “groundhog day” deja vu all over again, had David not started a new ‘thread’ this morning. Ironic, yes?
Actually, Sue first made the biggest error, categorically denying that her campaign was involved–“he would never do such a thing”–until the ptotograph made it clear that he did. This also was never about replacing just a single sign; from the start, Sue’s husband was observed going up and down the street messing with signs.
Then she tried a series of ever increasing admissions, engaging in her own version of a modified, limited hangout. This included an awkward person when she seemed to blame her husband–“I told him never to do that”–while she was alternately still denying any involvement.
Once it was too late to deny, she began justifying the acts as understandable because of the previously unannounced damage to her own signs. The effort combined with the odd way she diverted any responsibility to make her an embarrassing joke, the worst outcome possible for a politician under fire.
I’m surprised about your advice that Sue would be “wise” to “not respond anymore” and “let this issue die”–leaving things with her Channel 13 stand that the people who reported these actions staged them and that the Chamber PAC is the campaign problem and may be involved.
While it’s true that pretty much every response Sue’s given so far has made things worse, that dosen’t mean that she can wrap this up without still getting legitimate criticism for the way she’s handled it. Do we really think that Rich and Dunning and others will ignore this episode?
Avoiding more gaffs about this is critical, but more important for Sue’s future success is finishing her involvement with some kind of wrap up that expresses regret without trying to minimize it. To help provide a satisfactory finish, she needs to stop blaming others, splitting hairs about just how many signs were involved, positioning the acts as somehow justified because she’s also a sign war and PAC victim and claiming that the two photographers rigged the signs.
Sue can finish off this better, but it’ll be a 48-hour or, maybe, even a 96-hour story.
“This included an awkward period when she seemed to blame her husband….”
Amazing. Simply amazing.
I was undecided and seriously considering a vote for Sue. After the events of the weekend and Sue’s response to the photo evidence and firsthand, eyewitness accounts of her husband “at work” for her campaign, there is simply no way I can bring myself to vote for her. She is clearly unfit for office and incapable of acknowledging her – or her team’s – error in judgment. In my opinion, it’s understandable that her husband was frustrated; however, it does not excuse his actions. Sue saying over and over that she told him not to touch other signs and claiming that she saw this coming is like watching her throw her husband under the bus over and over. Then, to accuse Bernie of staging the photos – both online and on TV news . . . Shameful. She is willing to defame his character in order to save face and sidestep a public apology.
Perhaps Sue’s approach is too “big city politics” for my small town sensibility. This is simply too much unnecessary carnage for my taste. If she is willing to treat her husband in this manner, it’s no wonder she has difficulty with other council members and, for that matter, the residents she has been elected to represent.
Even one news cycle is too much for me. I’m taking my vote elsewhere.
hpierce: Do you believe there was more to report based on the news cast? I do. Hence the decision to publish more.
As I noted in a previous post, covering other candidates’ signs or trashing them is unprofessional. To blame others when unwarranted is also unprofessional. Do unto other candidates as you would have them do unto you is the Golden Rule of an Ethical Politician…
[quote]And this cycle may not have done the “groundhog day” deja vu all over again, had David not started a new ‘thread’ this morning. Ironic, yes? hpierce[/quote]I’d say cynical rather than ironic. David is trying to help the Ritter/Livingston gang fly Brett Lee in under the radar as Sue self-destructs. His pushing of this story stands in sharp contrast to his complete radio silence on the Greenwald/Souza attack ad.
We still don’t know why Burchill tried to take down Steve. We still don’t know how David conveniently got his hands on Jon Li’s email correspondence. Lot’s of questions. Not many answers. No further reporting.
PS: Unfortunately you know just enough to be annoying to me and not enough to know what is actually happened.
“His pushing of this story stands in sharp contrast to his complete radio silence on the Greenwald/Souza attack ad. “
What radio silence? I’ve run multiple stories there.
“We still don’t know why Burchill tried to take down Steve. “
I want you to specifically state how you expect to know this when Burchill has not returned my calls, he has not returned the Bee’s calls, he has not returned Tom Sakash’s calls, and he has not returned Bob Dunning’s calls.
“We still don’t know how David conveniently got his hands on Jon Li’s email correspondence.”
Actually that you do know, a recipient of his email forwarded it to me. What you do not know and you will not know is who that individual is.
“Lot’s of questions. Not many answers. No further reporting. “
Lots of questions? Not many answers. Sorry there is a limit to what I can report. It seems there are some things that we’re just not going to know. If you get the answers, I’ll happily report them.
I will add one additional point, I have been doing this for six years, no matter what someone doesn’t like how I do it. I can’t please all of the people all of the time. Oh well.
psdavis, if I read your comment above correctly, you believe that the ritter/Livingston gang is an even more evil empire than the Greenwald/Sylvanen gang. Is that correct?
If it is correct, why do you feel that way?
[quote]I’d say cynical rather than ironic. David is trying to help the Ritter/Livingston gang fly Brett Lee in under the radar as Sue self-destructs. His pushing of this story stands in sharp contrast to his complete radio silence on the Greenwald/Souza attack ad. [/quote]
Huh? Dmg has written extensively on the Greenwald/Souza attack ad; and kindly pulled Sue’s accusatory statement to boot, which was helpful to Sue/covered up Sue’s gaffe. Like Matt Williams, I would ask you to explain your position… I’m at a bit of a loss…
Sue Greenwald accusing Bernie Goldsmith of “staging” the photos is a pretty low blow given the different verifications of the goings on from other sources.
The incident and the handling of it by Sue reminds me of other Greenwald “melt downs” I have witnessed at Council Meetings.
We need fresh faces.
David Thompson
hpierce and psdavis, you’re wrong. The [i]Vanguard[/i] hasn’t come close to overplaying this as yet unfinished story. I guess you’re finding irony is David’s 24-Hour Rule, but it’s really [u]guidance[/u] to politicians. Sue is the one who has extended the life of this unpleasant story.
David, you’re wrong: All of us “like how [s]I[/s] you do it” or we wouldn’t still be here, would we?
[quote]David, you’re wrong: All of us “like how I you do it” or we wouldn’t still be here, would we? [/quote]
Perhaps
For those of us who have watched Sue for year, none of this should be too surprising. What is unfortunate for Sue is that her actions are now being seen by a broader audience. If we all can remember a couple of simple things about Sue, it will make life much easier for all of us. 1) Sue is never wrong or at fault, she is only a victim. It is always some other incompetent or evil person who is wrong, at fault or responsible.
Sue’s temperment appears to be better suited for a community activist/pitbull, than as an actual elected representative. She sometimes has good ideas which should be heard and would be heard as a community activist, but she is not a good representative if one is looking for an elected body that can work well together and with others. It just isn’t in Sue’s nature.
I wonder if Sue still thinks this whole sign thins is humorous.
P.S. I feel sorry for her husband Mike. I know how frustrating being involved in a campaign can be when your signs are diseappearing. I’m going to chalk Mike’s actions up to simply not being his best hour. I fear Sue is going to rip him a new one in private when the damage that has been done has really been more Sue’s doing in terms of her responses than her husband’s actions. The signage thing shouldn’t have been that big of a deal, but Sue has made it into one with her refusal to take responsibility for anything, and her accusing of everyone else. Yes, all of these people with good reputations and a lack of any apparent motives, including an attorney who could probably get disbarred if he were lying about all of this, are all making this up just to make Sue look bad. I bet they are all union members and this was all orchestarted by Burchill. Yeah, that’s it…
Sue Greenwald is going to have to pry my Dan Wolk sign from my cold wet hand!
Matt/ERM: I’m concerned that the attack mailer was a game changer; and it has now fallen off the radar. I did not say that there was never any coverage – just that the coverage has now stopped. The perps may on the brink of having successfully manipulated the outcome of the election and I reject the notion that we should just move on because Burchill won’t talk.
From my perspective, besides the actual interviews/debates the Greenwald/Souza attack piece is the major story of this election. But what I see in recent days is a focus on side issues and an attempt to manufacture PAC-related controversy out of whole cloth.
The Sue nonsense teaches us nothing new. We already knew that Sue had these serious character flaws, and this latest public display is simply confirmatory. It may swing a few votes, but I’d wager that a large fraction of Sue’s base really doesn’t like her that much anyway. IMO she gets support because she votes no on virtually everything controversial, and disrupts the normal functioning of government to help create a constant state of gridlock (which some people want).
“… a recipient of his email forwarded it to me. What you do not know and you will not know is who that individual is.” DG
Is this individual one of the people responsible for the attack mailer? Do you even know? Were you being used as a tool to selectively leak information? I think the information regarding how these emails came into your hands is material.
[quote]’….the Greenwald/Souza attack piece is the major story of this election.”[/quote]Why?
“Is this individual one of the people responsible for the attack mailer?”
No.
“Do you even know?”
I do know for certain and no they are not.
“Were you being used as a tool to selectively leak information?”
The person who sent the email to me had nothing to gain by doing so. I had to talk them into it and did so on the condition that their identity would be protected.
“I think the information regarding how these emails came into your hands is material.”
That’s fair.
I can categorically say the following: The individual had nothing to gain by leaking the email. After a lengthy discussion they agreed it was in the best interest of the public. Frankly, the information would have become known to us last Friday since Jon Li was disclosed on the form.
Why aren’t we talking about more important issues, such as Lucas Frerichs’ wife working for Chevron Oil.
If you google her up, her job is to petition for closure of Chevron Oils’ contaminated sites with as little clean up as possible.
The Frerichs’ interest in the Farmers Market and the Co-op are apparently good cover for her work for an oil company most of us wouldn’t want to be a part of.
Or we could be discussing Lucas’ supportive work for NP and his role in promoting DACHA while on the social services commission.
Lawn signs?? These charges, true and false, are made every election.
How can you know for certain? The details surrounding Burchill’s motive have not, to my knowledge, leaked.
Was your source involved in any way in any of the campaigns (volunteer, nominator, contributor, endorser, etc?). What about individuals on the recipient list?
“How can you know for certain?”
I suppose I can’t know to the 100% level but I would say I’m 95% confidence.
I cannot answer the second question.
So was the email just Jon Li bragging to third parties about his (apparently minor) involvement in the upcoming hit piece?
The email was quoted verbatim.
ERM & Matt, I agree with the points you both have made.
PsDavis, Like Sue are trying to find someone to point the finger at instead of looking at Sue and asking her to take responsibility for what she has said. The attack mailer was an attack mailer, but there was nothing in the attack mailer that was not accurate. I was still going to give her my vote, but now I am not. I agree with ERM:
[b][i] As I noted in a previous post, covering other candidates’ signs or trashing them is unprofessional. To blame others when unwarranted is also unprofessional. Do unto other candidates as you would have them do unto you is the Golden Rule of an Ethical Politician… [/i][/b]
David has covered the Burchill story and every other campaign related story extensively. Thank you David! What would we do without the Vanguard?
I think we need to have a party to console Sue’s husband Mike who sounds like he made an honest mistake and will unfortunately hear about it for years.
I’m still voting for Sue. This will be my first time in 15 years of elections that I can say this. None of you can say a thing about her that I dont already know.
I have her sign in my yard, and I am continuing to recommend to everyone who gives a whit about the dire fiscal situation that the City is in to vote for her.
On Sept 6, 2011, she was the sole vote against the fraudulent water rate increases. That same meeting, she was the only CC member who cared one second about the public’s right to vote on those rate increases. She moved to put the project and rates on the next available ballot, and not one of her colleagues seconded the motion. Not one of them.
The water project is the biggest, most expensive public works projects in the history of Davis. The fiscal impacts far exceed anything that Covell Village or any other sprawl project could possibly do to us.
So yes, I sat through closed sessions with her. Yes, I have taken the brunt of those issues all of you raise, over and over. Tell me something I dont know.
But, all of you Chamber PAC people and friends: if you care at all about Davis; if you care about sound fiscal planning, as you say you do; if you believe in direct democracy and the right of ratepayers to vote up or down on large projects, then you simply have to vote for Sue, first, then look at your other two choices.
[quote]”David has covered the Burchill story and every other campaign related story extensively. Thank you David! What would we do without the [i]Vanguard[/i]?”[/quote]Including uncovering the fire department report scandal. This should be a “campaign related story,” so why isn’t it? There are reasons that we’re contract trouble with our firefighters and other employees.
How Sue performed when she and Lamar voted to read the report should gain her support now, whether or not she was able to convince anyone else to go along. And, Stephen should be lose support unless he provides a decent explanation for refusing to read the report. Why are both of them so quiet about this embarrassing incident in Davis municipal history?
Did the [i]Enterprise[/i] ever do an extensive story on the ombudsman’s investigation now that it’s been released to David, thanks to his lawsuit? Rich’s excellent record exposing the influence of firefighters in our politics should be instructive to Debbie Davis about what’s important in election coverage.
[quote]It is the unwritten rule of politics: you end political controversies or bad news in one news cycle. [b]-DG[/b][/quote][quote]And this cycle may not have done the “groundhog day” deja vu all over again, had David not started a new ‘thread’ this morning. Ironic, yes? [b]-hpierce[/b][/quote][quote]hpierce and psdavis, you’re wrong. The Vanguard hasn’t come close to overplaying this as yet unfinished story. [b]-justsaying[/b][/quote]24-hour news cycles last more than 24 hours now, in part because the Internet provides a nearly-instantaneous channel (via bloggers, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) that delivers the stories several hours faster than traditional television and radio news, and often a whole day faster than newspapers. Also, at least here in Davis, the subjects of the story often get involved in back and forth with one another or with the reporters (such as DG), creating a secondary story. And then, by commenting on it, I am perpetuating it yet further. I should shut up.
Bloggers and columnists seem to love to beat a dead horse by riffing on the same subject for days on end. It is their right; we don’t have to read it.
[quote]Why aren’t we talking about more important issues, such as Lucas Frerichs’ wife working for Chevron Oil? [b]-eagle eye[/b][/quote]Because Lucas’ wife is not running for City Council, and because we are more fascinated by he said/she said stories of intrigue and alleged skullduggery than by the very serious issues facing the City. The City’s problems are too large and too depressing for most of us to even get our arms around. But seemingly everyone loves a scandal. Or an alleged scandal. Or allegations of an alleged scandal.
[quote]Lawn signs?? These charges, true and false, are made every election. [b]-eagle eye[/b][/quote]Yes, they are. I’ve always assumed that most of the alleged dirty deeds were either mistakes or done by campaign volunteers who became so emotionally involved that they could not help themselves from making some “adjustments” to correct some real or perceived injustice suffered by lawn signs for their candidate or issue.
This story only made it on TV because it was a slow news day. The reporting was Amateur Hour at best.
The fact that the culprit was caught on camera and that it was the husband of a candidate made it more newsworthy than your typical election signage skirmishes. Catching the candidate in a lie also didn’t hurt. She apparently believes her husband without question, despite the fact that he clearly doesn’t listen to her. I wonder if Mike really did tell Sue that he didn’t do the blocking. Heck, if I’m him and Sue is my wife, I’m not sure that I would fess-up either.
Sue, we’re still waiting for your answer as to why it is illegal for a landlord to not let a tenant place a campaign sign in a common lawn area. You made the claim. Time to back it up if you hope to have any credibility on this site. Either that, or try apologizing for having “misspoken”. Go on, you can do it. I know its difficult, but with practice, it will make come more naturally and you will become a better and more likeable person. Really, trust me on this one.
Can you even tell us the name of the tenant that you claim gave your campaign permission to place the sign in the first place? Or, are you failing to give the person’s name because you are trying to protect this tenant from landlord reprisals? Maybe I’m the only one waiting. Maybe Sue has finally realized that she’d be much better off being silent for a change so that this news story doesn’t last another 24 hour cycle. However, I have faith in Sue.
We have yet to hear from Mike, but I trust we will, although probably not here on the Vanguard. I just spoke with him. He takes responsibility for his own actions and does not feel “thrown under the bus” as so many have claimed he was. He is the one who did whatever was done, so why do people consider it being thrown under the bus for him to be responsible for it? Frankly the whole lawn sign thing had become a real game at this point and that is what precipitated this whole mess and why some even see some humor in it. I believe the allegations are exaggerated and there may have been a mistake in 1 of the placements made as well.
Sue can’t stop. She’s carping on the Enterprise now – days later. Political humor, eh?
Rage and fury are emotions that rival sex to “get the blood moving”. I’m sure that many of the “usual suspects” on this thread lit up a post-orgasm cigarette after venting their feelings about Councilperson Greenwald’s sinister activities. The story is simple; Councilperson Greenwald’s lawn signs have been repeatedly removed or distroyed and Mike, her husband, has been the one who has been making extraordinary efforts to help her get her signs up. Finally, he had had enough and “lost it”, resulting in him retrieving his signs and putting them back in place where they had been before,in some cases, in front of the signs that had been placed where his had been. This was not a well-thought out response but understandable.
I am disappointed in David Greenwald inflating and sensationalizing this event, much like Bob Dunning does, in an attempt to “generate” a story that will offer fodder for his “ink”.
Councilperson Geenwald’s response is not out of line with how she responded to all of the goading and abuse that she was forced to endure on the dais. In spite of this, she continues to be the lone Council member and candidate who the voters can rely upon to protect THEIR interests.
“ritter/Livingston gang is an even more evil empire than the Greenwald/Sylvanen gang.”
Ritter and livingston have been working to remove Sue Greenwald from a leadership position in Davis local politics for well-over 2 decades now. It should not be forgotten, in this context, that Bill Ritter and David Greenwald are close political allies and that Bill Ritter was a major backer of David Greenwald’s wife recent run for a Council seat. If successful, she would have most probably denied Sue Greenwald her reelection victory.
[quote]Ritter and livingston have been working to remove Sue Greenwald from a leadership position in Davis local politics for well-over 2 decades now. It should not be forgotten, in this context, that Bill Ritter and David Greenwald are close political allies and that Bill Ritter was a major backer of David Greenwald’s wife recent run for a Council seat. davisite2[/quote]To make it crystal clear, Brett was recruited and is being run by the Livingston/Ritter gang to specifically try and unseat Sue.
Brett’s positions on issues of importance to this group appear to be scripted, and therefore insincere. At least Sue appears to have a core set of beliefs.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”davisite2, To make it crystal clear, Brett was recruited and is being run by the Livingston/Ritter gang to specifically try and unseat Sue.
Brett’s positions on issues of importance to this group appear to be scripted, and therefore insincere. At least Sue appears to have a core set of beliefs.”[/i]
psdavis, you have said this before and I challenged you on it, and you acknowledged at that time that your knowledge of what Brett was saying in his meetings with citizens/voters was second-hand from your “contacts.” I again encourage you to gather some first-hand data and go and talk to Brett yourself.
To the best of my knowledge Brett wasn’t “recruited.” The germ of the idea of running was his. Dick Livingston and ken Wagstaff encouraged him to run when they heard he was considering it. Bill Ritter has always been “on the fringe” at best.
Brett is his own man. If his positions appear scripted to you (second-hand) then perhaps that means he has taken some time to appear organized and thoughtful in his campaign.
Given that I had never met Brett prior to February 14th this year, I have very little knowledge of his core beliefs prior to the events of this election cycle, but he impresses me as a person who is extremely close to his core beliefs in what he says and does.
I agree with you that Sue has a core set of beliefs, but looking at the way she has dealt with the presence of Brett in this election race, it is clear that one of those beliefs is that she doesn’t want any allies on the Council. She would prefer to go it alone. She began attacking Brett (the one candidate whose land use positions were most like hers) the minute he put his well thought out position on water in the public forum. She attacked him more vociferously than any of the other three candidates. She clearly labeled him as “the enemy” in print here in the Vanguard. Is that a core set of beliefs and behavior you want on the Council?
Matt Williams
05/28/12 – 12:05 PM
…
The “coalition” you refer to “landed” on Brett because they were looking for a candidate that wasn’t Sue Greenwald.
—–
Matt Williams
06/01/12 – 07:29 AM
…
To the best of my knowledge Brett wasn’t “recruited.”
—–
I don’t see a disconnect between those posts psdavis. The first states that a group of people landed on Brett looking for someone that wasn’t Sue, the second indicates that they did not recruit him. Regardless you either like Sue, you like Brett, you like neither, or you like both. Brett’s not controlled anyone, just ask the people working on his campaign.
Brian: Jeez. You’re trolling a dead thread to kibitz on my exchange with Matt?
Maybe I should ask you. Are you working on Brett’s campaign?
No but I gave him $100
No but I gave him $100
[quote]Councilperson Greenwald’s lawn signs have been repeatedly removed or distroyed [/quote]
We only have Sue Greenwald’s word for that, and the insinuation has been that other candidates had them removed. Yet I am waiting to see any proof of that. The only proof that has some forward is the Sue Greenwald’s husband is the one that did the removal of candidate’s signs…
[quote]Councilperson Greenwald’s lawn signs have been repeatedly removed or distroyed [/quote]
We only have Sue Greenwald’s word for that, and the insinuation has been that other candidates had them removed. Yet I am waiting to see any proof of that. The only proof that has some forward is the Sue Greenwald’s husband is the one that did the removal of candidate’s signs…
“Brett’s positions on issues of importance to this group appear to be scripted, and therefore insincere. At least Sue appears to have a core set of beliefs.” “
Wow, the accusation of insincerity seems quite harsh to me with nothing to substantiate it. I first met Brett Lee at the Vanguard hosted Cinco de Mayo event. I would note that he did not know me at all and so had no idea what answers might have been more pleasing to me. I deliberately focused on some of what might be considered by some to be more minor issues, but which are very Important to me in terms of community safety and collaboration. His answers although slightly slow in coming because they are not the stock questions of this campaign, were well thought out, nuanced, and seemed in keeping with his over all views as expressed on the more “popular” issues.
While I have not agreed with him on all issues and approaches, what I saw that day combined with his written opinions has earned him my support. For anyone who is judging his candidacy on the strength of association only, I would strongly advise speaking to him directly before ruling him out.
“We only have Sue Greenwald’s word for that, and the insinuation has been that other candidates had them removed.”
medwoman.. We are all well-aware that there are those who would act on their own,without candidate campaign direction, to express their own strong feelings over the idea of a Sue Greenwald reelection victory.
As to YOUR insinuation that Sue Greenwald would just lie about this, it is insulting to her intelligence and as a sitting Councilperson whose public record ,while controversial to some, is without blemish with regard to truthfulness.
[quote]medwoman.. We are all well-aware that there are those who would act on their own,without candidate campaign direction, to express their own strong feelings over the idea of a Sue Greenwald reelection victory.
As to YOUR insinuation that Sue Greenwald would just lie about this, it is insulting to her intelligence and as a sitting Councilperson whose public record ,while controversial to some, is without blemish with regard to truthfulness.[/quote]
You are attributing to medwoman something I said. I have a problem with any accusation that other candidates may have pulled Council member Greenwald’s signs out, when I have seen no evidence of that as such. No pictures, no videotape, nothing. The only evidence I have seen in a picture is that someone from Council member Greenwald’s campaign was pulling other candidate signs out. Pointing fingers elsewhere at other candidates w/o prooof, to deflect blame, is not professional nor ethical…