Thursday, September 27, 2007

GOP’s six-week saturation sliming of Doug England begins – and yes, NAC told you so.

I was elected the Floyd County Republican Party Chairman back in March. One of my top priorities was the upcoming New Albany mayor and city council races.
--David L. Matthews, chairman of the Floyd County Republican Party

That’s six long months for the Republican chairman to formulate a platform plank – any platform plank will do, thanks – that pertains to the city of New Albany in this day and time.

Instead, from the relative solitude of his suburban Greenville command bunker, Matthews has leaped into the New Albany mayoral fray by unleashing the first salvo of his party’s forthcoming negative campaign against Democrat Doug England, with the intended beneficiary being Republican candidate Randy “Silence Is Golden, Golden” Hubbard.

But with yesterday's letter to the editor of the Tribune, Matthews uncannily (and surely unintentionally) corroborated something I wrote in this space just two weeks ago:

It’s beyond debate: Hubbard “tete-a-tete” avoidance mode noted by city residents, Tribune columnist, the Who’s Tommy, and man in moon.

In this continually widening Republican void, where platform planks and ideas go to die, I’m left to surmise that Hubbard’s “duck ‘n’ cover” defensive posture circa the Labor Day opening political campaign weekend is merely a tactical prelude to calculated fireworks later in the autumn. It’s just about the only thing that makes sense at this point.

My best guess would be an 11th hour outburst of negative campaigning in October, with the saintly Hubbard himself deigning to remain “above” the muddy fray while local confederates do the dirty work of contrasting Hubbard’s purportedly impeccable law enforcement credentials with patronage abuse questions that linger in the public consciousness from England’s two previous terms as mayor.


Such a late attack strategy would at least explain Hubbard’s odd reticence as England has aggressively lapped the somnolent ex-sheriff early in the contest, and twice opening bloody cuts: First, with the Democratic candidate’s city hall relocation press conference and Hubbard’s subsequent conceptual disorientation, and second, in the aftermath of the GOP candidate’s inexplicable debate withdrawal …

It is highly flattered to have been proven absolutely correct, even if I erred slightly in thinking that the Republicans might wait until October to begin dropping napalm.

Silly me, although when you have a dog that won’t hunt, perhaps it’s best to periodically squeeze off a few noisy rounds to make the folks back home think they might be having meat for dinner instead of the same tired soup bone.

If only the voters in New Albany might be gifted with red meat from the Republican party.

Of course, it cannot be denied that Doug England carries baggage from previous administrations, and by the terms of political engagement, it’s certainly not unfair for the GOP to play dirty and to go negative, even this early in the contest.

It's just that for once we'd love to see these terms of engagement altered to reflect the power of ideas rather than the soiling capacity of spitballs.

Given that Hubbard has failed to articulate any platform planks of substance … given that he refuses to debate England one on one and ask questions of England himself rather than permit Matthews to carry his lunch pail … given that neither Hubbard nor his party chairman have shown any willingness or ability to address New Albany’s big ticket urban issues at this decisive time, we must regard Matthew’s swift boat pyrotechnics as strictly diversionary in nature, and we’ll continue to do so until Hubbard shows signs of a pulse.

Whether NAC’s opinion matters of not (hold your catcalls, Troglodyte Nation), we’ve spent much of the past three years bemoaning the lack of substantive dialogue on pressing local issues, and positing that we stand at a particularly important juncture with respect to the city’s future viability.

Meanwhile, Matthews can do no better than deploy a Republican Youth League operative’s second-hand smirk to mock England’s willingness to discuss issues on any street corner, and before any size crowd, even as Hubbard’s catatonic silence threatens more of the same cautious, caretaking “conservatism” that has managed to “conserve” only those numerous bad political and governmental habits that have led to regress in the first place.

And, without a debate. How short-sighted (read: arrogant) is that?

England has made one thing perfectly clear, and arguably, it is the most important point that any candidate for public office in New Albany needs to make in 2007: Doing nothing is not an option at this point in the city’s history.

The sooner Matthews, Hubbard and the GOP grasp this self-evident wisdom -- shall we accompany the GOP brain trust on a walking tour of the historic city core to promote much needed consciousness-raising? -- the sooner a genuine debate can be joined and a legitimate alternative offered.

With the mud already flying, there seems depressingly little hope for optimism … but somewhere, at least, Karl Rove is smiling.

14 comments:

All4Word said...

Young man, you did indeed nail it. It is rather amazing that the very best that the establishment of the GOP can come up with as an argument for Mr. Hubbard is to slag Mr. England.

As you well know, I have not committed my vote to Mr. England. Other than parroting previously articulated "visions" back to our cohort, I've yet to see any evidence that the distinguished former mayor has experienced an epiphany. The elaborate compromises involved in his courtship/lordship with the 1st District council member induce mouth-vomit, especially when one considers that anyone with a pulse knows that betrayal, on both sides, is the certainty come January. Well, that's unfair. February.

As I told an acquaintance on Sunday, I'm perfectly entitled to set my own criteria for granting or withholding my vote. It is MY business, and I don't have to defend it to anyone. It is a given that there is no reason for anyone to assume that the appending of a "D" to any candidate can be predictive of anything. As a Democrat by instinct, lineage, and intellect, I find it to be most distressing to reside in a community where the Democratic label is one of convenience rather than conviction.

Mr. Hubbard told you and your friends in the neighborhood that he was a Republican by chance more than by choice. As hard as that is to believe, it is at least plausible when one surveys the low standards and non-allegiance to Democratic (and democratic) principles displayed by those who apply to themselves the D-Party lable.

I can't say that "some of my best friends are Republican," but I can certainly understand why someone might be repelled by what passes for a Democrat in this city. No, that's not quite correct. I can understand why someone might connect the label "Democrat" with party members who will tolerate just about any philosophy, standard of ethical conduct, or dearth of intellectual rigor, and still ally themselves with so-called Democrats.

Nothing (no thing) that I've seen, read, or heard from the GOP slate in 2007's city elections leads me to believe that they offer a vision. Standard-bearer Hubbard has issued the nonsensical "let the people decide" nostrum as his solution to the reversion of two-way traffic on our primary southeast-northwest streets. Does that mean I can drive home from my store straight up Spring Street? After all, I'm one of the people. Can I defend my citation by saying former Sheriff Hubbard said "let the people decide?"

Mrs. Scharlow can say "I am not Steve Price" (and so far has only said that, so far as I can see), and as compelling a platform as that might be, it hardly rises to a level that can be called a campaign.

If you were inventing a new New Albany, wouldn't you pray for an election without party labels? Then, those who seek progress could say so without being saddled with the baggage of the performance of fellow members of their respective parties.

Yes, NAC told us so. More's the pity. I wish you had been wrong. Perhaps it is your youth that enabled you to see what was coming.

Has there ever been a city where party labels meant less?

Mr. England has a long way to go to demonstrate to me that he is committed to moving this city into gear. But Mr. Hubbard's minions have done little to influence me in the direction of voting for their candidate. As I hear it, Mr. Hubbard never wanted to run for mayor, doesn't want to be mayor, and has only the faintest intention of serving out his term as mayor. If that is true, then wouldn't we be buying a pig in a poke to choose Hubbard over England?

It's going to be an interesting six weeks, isn't it?

G Coyle said...

Could there not be one independent in town willing to lead? I'll write in anyone ... anyone?

Highwayman said...

G.Coyle,

How about Dan Coffey??

Iamhoosier said...

That's Randy's candidate. I heard him say so.

edward parish said...

Gina,
How about a write in of Mr.Roger Baylor?

The New Albanian said...

Please, no more three way splits.

G Coyle said...

Yes, we've had one bad experience with a three-way split. but I don't see how that would worsen our prospects for Mayor.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Until Hubbard puts forth any ideas, a write in campaign would still only be a two-way race.

G Coyle said...

Personally, I would write-in bluegill. Smart, visionary, steady...One vote for Bluegill. I'm not kidding Jeff.

Iamhoosier said...

I don't know if you can vote for bluegill or not. Seems like I read once, on some indisputable blog, that he is an attorney in J-ville. VBG

Highwayman said...

I'm beginning to woonder if any candidates are the least bit interested in either their campaigns of our support.

I've been asked by two if they can put a sign in my front yard.

I've gone out of my way to ask three more if they would like to put a sign in my front yard.

In Scottsburg, 2+3=5. So far I've got one!

Maybe silence is golden.

Highwayman said...

Yeah I know. Spelling wasn't my strong suit at good ole S'bug High!

Iamhoosier said...

I cannot remember the last time that I have spoken with a candidate, for any office.

Which leads me to believe that most don't care about "us". With the low turnouts, they count on the voters that they can get to the polls, whether by car, van, carriage or absentee ballot.

G Coyle said...

I'm guessing most of the people who actually vote here work for the government in one capacity or another . It might explain some of the poor attitude toward the "public" I've witnessed. They have become a self-perpetuating govt tribe.