Excuse this bit of admitted backfilling. Not wanting the interrupt the cadence of today’s main post, and yet seeking to add this to the archival record for posterity’s sake, I’m inserting it using an earlier time stamp … RAB)
There’ll be much more to say at another time about the abject failure of local political culture to adapt to the electronic age, but for now, I’ll confine my survey to the 3rd council district, where all three Democratic candidates have blogs, but usage varies considerably.
By choosing not to permit comments from readers, incumbent councilman Steve Price served notice from the beginning that he remains disinterested in any genuine discussion of real issues; now, apparently having reached the pragmatic conclusion that any words he publishes on-line probably will be read only by the literate segment of the populace that already vigorously opposes him, Price has published absolutely nothing since March 6.
So much wisdom waiting to be pulled from grandma’s cigar box, and so little time to put the cart behind the horse before the Nazis come to take the VFW’s video poker machines.
Price’s silence, while in keeping with his stance of aloof detachment from any topic outside his narrow comfort zone, would seem provide a perfect opportunity for the two remaining candidates to define themselves. Such self-definition became even more crucial to the district after Charlie Harshfield’s late candidacy split the anti-Price vote.
In March, one-time councilman and current challenger Maury Goldberg offered three substantive postings, one each on the drug problem in neighborhoods, rental property inspections and tax abatements. These are much appreciated, and yet Maury continues to visible display signs of discomfort with the blogging format’s chief virtues of timeliness, flexibility and immediacy. It’s a fluid, adaptable medium, and it demands to be deployed in like fashion.
Charlie Harshfield – the last-minute, surprise candidate, and of the three, the one with the toughest of all name recognition nuts to crack – has oddly opted for silence in the blogosphere. A March 12 posting listed seven solid if briefly sketched platform goals, and generated a spirited discussion, but little else has followed. It is not unfair to suggest that Charlie needs 100% of the 3rd district’s progressives to have a chance of winning. Is this the way to find and retain them?
While Price’s muzzle is understandable – he’s comically prone to colossal linguistic gaffes and mutilates facts in the same fashion as psychotic cats torture mice – it defies our expectations of “reform” candidates to witness their bizarre hesitancy to regularly use some of the best tools available (i.e., the Internet) to articulate the need for reform.
All over town, “opposition” candidates are making the critical mistake of playing by “old school” rules. If these challengers wait too long to step outside the box, the results are going to be ugly, indeed.
As of the morning of April 2, 2007, here’s the rundown:
Days since last activity at Charlie Harshfield’s blog: 16.
Total posts since March 1: 3.
Days since last activity at Maury Goldberg’s blog: 4.
Total posts since March 1: 7.
Days since last activity at Steve Price’s blog: 26.
Total posts since March 1: 1.
Note: Maury Goldberg started his blog in October, 2005. Steve Price’s began in early January, 2007. Charlie Harshfield’s went up in Februart, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Is there any other kind of cat than "psychotic?" I thought that was part of the taxonomic definition.
You may recall the advice I "overheard" from an election regular. She counseled that a candidate shouldn't show any cards at all.
Obviously, I don't confine my interest to the 3rd, although I still can't understand the purpose or method of the Harshfield candidacy. Based on his first post, I thought he was running for school board. Mom and apple pie don't constitute a platform.
When asked what he stands for, the typical candidate in NA is prone to respond, "I'm standing for election." Period.
When you're playing in a rigged game, you have to change the rules. Otherwise, you're just helping to legitimize the usual suspects, who expect you to be proud that you got any votes at all.
Have you ever heard why they chose Charlie to be the stalking horse? Or why it was necessary to "spring" the filing so late?
As for the quiet in the trenches, it's simply playing the game it has always been played.
Shirley Baird as much as admitted that someone got to her and told her to back off with the outreach to the blogosphere. Same with Price and several others I know of.
But you'd think Charlie's handlers would recognize the value of at least going through the motions.
Not to dispute your overall reading, but Shirley's official explanation was that the blog took too much time.
Yep.
To me, the entire reason for having a unified strategy, as opposed to unilateral action, would be to provide a better chance of assembling sufficient weight of numbers to force the incumbent to play by new and unfamiliar rules.
The idea is simple: elucidate, differentiate, manuever outside the traditional boxes, and make your opponent play by rules that are uncomfortable to him.
I'm afraid that various candidates suddenly fearful that their challenges cannot succeed except by caution and the same dummy-up tactics used by incumbent favorites are going to be beaten, perhaps handily.
But whatever it takes to make a point, right? It's all survival of the fittest, anyway, and what's the good in having a "reform" candidate rushing to emulate the discredited object so in need of immediate reform?
Why the hell are we so unimaginative 'round here? Is it really in the water?
BTW, no, I've not been part of Charlie's decision-making apparatus, and of course I wish him well and have no ill feelings toward anyone in the district with the possible exception of ... twang twang ... well, even there it's business, not personal. He just needs to be gone from government.
I'll say this: While it may be easy for me and others to cite obvious recent examples of how an unwillingness to communicate helped scuttle a promising voyage, an objective perusal likely would reveal numerous warning signs going back two or more years.
I was perhap naive in thinking that we'd all be willing to be unified and bury these various hatchets for the sake of the greater good in the anti-Price sense. I stand corrected, it was a lesson I needed to learn, and now I've learned.
And knowledge is a good thing. Now, back to "Business Plans for Dummies."
My lack of participation on this or any other blog is simply a time issue. This is my busiest time of the year and average working about 70 hours a week and will continue to do so until April 15th. I'm not asking for your sympathy but a little understanding would be greatly appreciated.
I would like all4word to know that my first post on my blog was a little information about myself which evidently you didn't grasp. Also whoever "they" are did not choose me as a stalking horse, it was my decision. It seems to me that you have an axe to grind with me as a person and I really wish you would get past it.
Instead of spending time on the blog I and the active supporters of my campaign have been out knocking on doors and meeting the people in the various precincts and have a very positive response thus far. This may not be what you prefer but I think it is working. After all the whole concept is to communicate with as many people in the 3rd district as possible and that is what I am all about.
I spent a half hour or so chatting with Charlie face to face last week. For most people, this is the preferred means of contact. Blogs are great, but personal interaction is much better.
In other words, you may be a hard core blogger, but that doesn't mean everyone else is or that they put the same value on blogging. Some people think it's a waste of time, and I tend to agree to a certain extent. It's like watching too much TV.
I don't doubt for a moment the time-tested veracity of personal contact, as outlined above by Charlie and Annie, among others.
Note, however, that this was not the intended point: If one chooses to indulge in blogging, then it might as well be done correctly -- if not by one such as Charlie himself owing to obvious time issues, then by one of his, ahem, "handlers" (as Courtney put it).
Note also that my analysis was dispassionate overall. All three candidates were mentioned, and to me, the incumbent is still most worthy of censure owing to the contradictions inherent in not allowing comments.
Then, there's this:
I must say this whole nitpick BS that's going on is completely anti-progress. Roger why not try and contact these candidates and ask them why the delay in posting? Perhaps that would have been more helpful in answering peoples questions about the activity on blogs. Or was anyone really looking for answers..?
Has it not have occurred to you that the responses I've received here since yesterday may have answered all the questions I had -- whether or not I asked them openly?
I have done no more than report observable reality with respect to blogging tendencies of three candidates, and now, after all this time, it would seem that in doing so, I'm being "anti-progress."
I'd suggest with coolness and restraint that a review of my efforts indicates otherwise.
Charlie Harshfield said: It seems to me that you [all4word] have an axe to grind with me as a person and I really wish you would get past it.
all4word replies:
My comments were, for the most part, general comments about candidates, and frankly have little to do with whether someone blogs or doesn't. There is a specific candidate with whom I'm disappointed, whose campaign is, like Charlie's, designed to play by the old rules, guaranteeing the old outcome.
Can anyone name anything Charlie has done or said that would cause me to bear him ill will? Has Charlie participated in a campaign of slander against me? If not, then why would I bear him ill will?
Even if I did have a personal problem with Charlie, it would be irrelevant. My remarks are about the candidacy and the platform.
Now, Charlie, if you know of a reason I would dislike you, tell me. Don't dismiss my questions by announcing to the world that "it's personal." Because, from this quarter, it's not.
So far, I've found Charlie's platform to be innocuous, if not pallid. I don't accept that platitudes are a substitute for vision. I would like to see what Charlie's is, just as I would like to see what Maury's is and Price's is. I am not seeing it from Charlie yet. What's personal about asking a candidate to declare and elucidate his stances? How is challenging a statement "an axe to grind?"
I don't pretend to have the right to be brought into Charlie's confidence, but I do know that his decision to run for city council wasn't made without a "primary" decision, a collective choice among the willing and the unwilling to back him.
And no one is saying that a candidate can't run or that a candidate can't keep it a secret until the last minute. I merely asked Charlie's neighbor WHY?
Why Charlie? Why the curious timing? Why the clandestine nature? Is there some secret program that must be guarded against public notice?
This ain't a contest for prom king. And you don't really have to care if I am impressed with your campaign if you only care about my vote. I vote in District 5. Most candidates don't have to care, unless they think someone might ask me what I think of a particular candidate.
But for what it's worth, one candidate is showing a very thin skin, and I really wish he would get past it.
We watch our current council erupt over seemingly silly matters. They seem fearful that a particular vote is going to enrich someone else, that "A" is going to get rich, so "B" votes against it unless he, too, can get a taste.
It took us a while to figure out that they think that way, because WE don't think that way. Scribner Place was the perfect example. Why would Coffey, Price, and Schmidt vote against a facility that is likely to benefit their constituents the most? Then we discovered that they thought someone was getting rich off the project.
It's common neurosis to attribute your own motives to others. The Gang of Four did that on Scribner Place. The administration and the majority of council had different motives.
Challenging a candidate isn't always a sign that someone wishes that candidate ill. Roger's primary post challenges. My questions to Charlie challenged.
Only someone who "has an axe to grind" would attribute their own motives to another. Do you not like me, Charlie?
The more I read Goldberg and Harshfield's respective handlers, the more I think of skipping the 3rd District on the primary ballot altogether.
Both candidates either need to write more or compel their emissaries to write less.
We've got one Anna Schmidt too many involved in government already.
ceece said...
Correction, Randy first used the term "handlers"
Duly noted. Apologies.
Post a Comment