Which Candidates Will Take A Stand?

[dhyatt]

Stan & Rono both stated in the Ask The Experts thread that, agree or disagree, they prefer candidates who take a stand and work to defend it over those that don't. I agree with that preference. Unfortunately, IMO the 'take a stand' attitude is consistenly reflected by only one current council member - Michael Joyce. He is not up for re-election, and the ones that are have either a) chosen to avoid taking a stand on things they believe in or, b) been unable and/or inarticulate in defending their beliefs.

Since Stan & Mike are generally considered to be political polar opposites, I have to ask the question: When it comes time to 'pull the lever', are you willing to vote for someone that you know you won't agree with a fair amount of the time, even though you know exactly where they stand on important issues? Or, are you more likely to vote for someone that says things you agree with and hope that they will follow through? Or, will you simply vote for the incumbent(s) and hope for the best???

If the status quo incumbency isn't trustworthy, the the only other alternative I can see is supporting a candidate who has firm principles and has a clear citizen track record of working/driving important issues based on those principles. I feel there are several citizens who have shown an interest in running and that meet the aboved stated crtieria. However, any of them will require solid, broad-based community support in order to be successful.

Julie is the most vulnerable and hers is the seat where the most help or damage is likely to occur, depending on the outcome of the election. Jack will be difficult to defeat and so far there seems to be little interest in running against him. Jennifer has probably done the most to disappoint some of her constituents but she is working to consolidate what she sees as her base and it will likely take a very strong candidate to defeat her.

I think most of us are unhappy, to varying degrees, with how we see our local government operating. Whether that translates into a big turnover this Fall, I'm not holding my breath...

[Rono]

While everyone knows I can not vote. the person I would support is the one who takes a stand and defends that stand. It does not matter to me as much if that stand is not the same a mine. The important part of a stand is defending it, and SELLING it.

I am a firm believer that the voters respect a candidate that takes a stand. And they even can take a candidate that will admit that he or she does not know but will look into the issue and educate themselves on it and then come to a stand.

Way too many candidates think that pointing out the faults of their opponents helps there cause. The real fact remains that those who take a stand, in my humble (right) opinion are far more respected than those who just choose to run a negative campaign.

Problem is this. It takes skill, work, study and understanding to run a issues campaign. All it takes is mud to run a put down campaign. If you read my earlier post on the majority of politicians who do not do their homework....well, they are most likely the ones who are first to throw mud.

Somehow it figures

Rono

[Wuptdo]

AdminHyatt wrote:

I have to ask the question: When it comes time to 'pull the lever', are you willing to vote for someone that you know you won't agree with a fair amount of the time, even though you know exactly where they stand on important issues? Or, are you more likely to vote for someone that says things you agree with and hope that they will follow through? Or, will you simply vote for the incumbent(s) and hope for the best???

First and foremost, do the homework and check the facts. Do not trust any material put out by the candidates campaign unless it can be verified and then "de-spun." Watch to see if the other side is slinging mud and what are they slinging? Is there a "informed" citizen's watchgroup in Cary?

I would go with option "A" - I won't agree with most of the time, but know where they stand on key issues. The problem is, that my key issues may not be reflective of the campaign, or even be key issues for the candidate. As a citizen, it is my responsibility to find out. Also, the issue has to be relative to the elected office; i.e., is it important that the "District A" candidate be pro-life or anti-death penality as well? Local elections are about "bread & butter" issues (taxes, roads, schools).

However, tell me you stand for "ABC" then once elected, do "XYZ," I will remember that next time I go into that voting booth. (And in my case, will probably try to remind other people as well). :roll:

And if all else fails, take the N&O's recommendated and/or endorsed candidates list into the voting booth, and vote the opposite. :wink:

Wuptdo B-)

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me! - Old Scottish saying

[johnb]

I would not be averse to seeing a one term term limit rule on the city council. Exempting Jack of course. You gotta admire a guy who knows the single most important virtue in politics. 90% of the people don't pay attention to what's going on and banks on that. Flips from Donkey to GOP, ignores most people and most issues, doesn't become the standard bearer for any cause or group, stays in the shadows, and for the most part is completely unknown and anonymous to 99% of the people of Cary. A multi-term critter and I'd wager if you asked the first 100 people that walked out of Cary Town Center one day to name the members of the city council He would be named by maybe one or two. Say what you will, but that is pretty damned impressive. People remember politicians that get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, politiicans that take noticable stands on controversial issues, or politicians that gravitate to cameras the way moths go towards flames.

Whether he actually does good or ill for the taxpayers of Cary is a different matter and I don't know the answer to that. We claim to want the Mike Joyces but we keep voting for the Jack Smith's, the JULIEFORCARY!s, and the RINOs.

I believe people keep confusing the personal with the political. Whether JULIEFORCARY! is as pleasant as a Bunnie! and Sunshine! is immaterial. It doesn't make her a good Council critter or taxpayers advocate. I'd take the rude sonofabitch that puts his or her cards on the table over the hemming and hawing of someone so afraid of offending people he or she only speaks in meaningless generalities and trite platitudes. We have one council critter that I'd vote for, the rest deal in platitudes the way a bricklayer deals in mortar.

Ernie's statement on "citizen initiated annexation" is a great example of that. I have no doubt every word he uttered is completely truthful. However, when you pull his statement apart and examine what he said, he said nothing of value really. On the whole one could even believe it was potentially misleading. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he deliberately wants to lie to anyone. But he is certainly trying to put a positive spin on the matter and the people that read that statement should be aware that what it means and what he intended it to mean are not necessarily the same thing. He isn't unique. Yet politicians that talk like him reassure voters who are so freakishly afraid of "controversy" they'll vote for the soothing platitude in spite of the vacuity of that politicians utterances.

Watch how they'll handle downtown redevelopment this year. They will be terrified of having to touch that issue before November. I'd be happy to join Stan and others in a conga line at a press conference asking one question after another on this matter till we hammered a meaningful position out of the critters in question. Not necesarrily one I agree with, but one that puts that critter down, firmly, on one side or the other of it and gets it in the public record.

I hope I did not steal anyone's thunder.

[Rono]

Johnb wrote

Ernie's statement on "citizen initiated annexation" is a great example of that. I have no doubt every word he uttered is completely truthful. However, when you pull his statement apart and examine what he said, he said nothing of value really. On the whole one could even believe it was potentially misleading. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he deliberately wants to lie to anyone. But he is certainly trying to put a positive spin on the matter and the people that read that statement should be aware that what it means and what he intended it to mean are not necessarily the same thing. He isn't unique. Yet politicians that talk like him reassure voters who are so freakishly afraid of "controversy" they'll vote for the soothing platitude in spite of the vacuity of that politicians utterances.

John....life is full of nothingness that seems to mean something on the surface to someone. Crossroads Ford states that it is "the undisputed price leader!" What the hell does that mean???

The real key is to call people on these fluff and stuff statements that dodge taking a stand and avoid having to defend one. In a town where the average income is in the mid 80K’s it is no wonder there are not as many questions asked. Can you imagine the thoughts of a degreed professional? “Well, it sounds like he/she knows what they are talking about, and if I ask a question for clarification, and if they have an answer, I, with my degree and all might look pretty stupid. And I really don’t have the time to spare from my nice quality of life to study the issue in depth. Therefore, I will just let it go because after all, they (the Jack Smiths) probably know what is best”.

Your right John, Jack knows the game…as long as no formidable challenger comes along and blows his cover. And Ernie thinks he can put into print a meaningless document that supporters will rally around. But leadership has to have substance behind its rhetoric. After a while, supporters and observers alike start to question and when someone is not really taking a stand, they are usually already on their butt or someone will be putting them there. Real leaders and fighters don’t end up on the mat unless they refuse to defend the things they fight for.

Rono

[johnb]

Ron,

But leadership has to have substance behind its rhetoric.

True. But what is called "leadership", the vacuity, the meaningless platitudes, the "moving the community forward" nonsense, that exists in the vacumn left when there aren't leaders is comforting. Most voters will recoil with fear from leaders actually exhibiting leadership.

Look at Churchill. He spent the 1930's in the wilderness of British politics. The BBC specifically attacked him as if HE were a Nazi when he kept pointing at the growing threat of Nazi Germany. The British voters responded as they were told by the BEEB and Churchill was marginalized. Typically the only time voters will tolerate real leaders is in moments of grave crises. They're afraid of people who have the clarity to look at evil and say "that's evil." At our level, Cary voters will recoil with fear from Joyce if he tried to run for office again, in a Joyce/Weinbrecht II it'd be Weinbrecht in a cakewalk. HW, as pleasant as he is, won't upset the apple cart. He won't scrutinze the actions of staff, and will only play at the margins. The Lang Posse may want to characterize their no growth/slow growth agenda as "bold leadership" but that's nonsense. Kicking a reviled group that is already demonized by the electorate is hardly "bold leadership", that's called "piling on". It's the inverse of leadership, finding a safe target to attack. It may be useful, it may be necessary, it may not be, but it's not leadership and it's not really bold either.

Your boy Clinton was another of that mold. He never did exhibit "leadership". He flipped on national health care and welfare reform after the GOP'ers took the House in 92. He went with whatever was safe and helped ensure his political viabilityand relection. It works in times of peace and prosperity. Just thank God Algor wasn't President on 9/11. Then we'd have had a Neville Chamberlain character looking straight into the face of evil denying for all his might that it wasn't evil and could be bargained with. All so he could get back to worrying about CAFE standards or tehnical minutae in the latest Medicaid funding bill before he lost control of bladder in fear.

One theme that seems constant to me is that leaders typically don't submerge themselves in inconsequential details. Politicians that do do that are the ones that are trying to hide from making hard choices. Real leaders lay out philosophical maps and delegate to subordinates who understand the paradigm the boss is moving towards. Churchill, Reagan, Thatcher, hell, even FDR, Lincoln, and others operated in that fashion. Those types of leaders scare people, they'd don't win elections in times of peace and prosperity. Same is true here in Cary. It's human nature.

[Wuptdo]

Anyone remember the "grumpy old men" of Cary a few years back. I think we can form a group of "grumpy middle-aged folks" to add to the fray in the upcoming elections. :D

JohnB wrote:

Watch how they'll handle downtown redevelopment this year. They will be terrified of having to touch that issue before November. I'd be happy to join Stan and others in a conga line at a press conference asking one question after another on this matter till we hammered a meaningful position out of the critters in question. Not necesarrily one I agree with, but one that puts that critter down, firmly, on one side or the other of it and gets it in the public record.

Brillant flash of light -- but no sound?

Amen, John. Sign me up!

Wuptdo B-)

[Rono]

There is a difference in leadership that sets a direction by a stand and / or conviction verses a stand that is already not popular with the rest of the “so called” leadership. The latter gets no place unless it sells it virtues and the first has to sell before it gets anywhere in the first place. The big difference is in the issue. Is it new, bold, innovative, unique or is it traditional, classic, part of a foundation that needs stroking and massaging.

Either way…it needs to be sold by a stand. I won’t debate those you reference as that flip flop type because I firmly believe issues change and so should your stand if changes warrant. That is only maturity at work. Until the day I die, I know that I will learn new things all the time and know far less than I thought I did in my 20’s

We need not judge leadership by its own steadfastness; we need to judge leadership by its own intent. Unfortunately the latter is much harder to find and even harder to prove. This is why I advocate taking a stand. It put you position at a point in time on record. I also give points to those whose stand changes by cause or new details. Once again a stand is taken. Yes the risk of flip flop put downs may appear, but that, like Hubert H Humphrey talking out of both sides of his mouth, and nothing more than the campaign rhetoric that comes and goes with each election.

True leadership weathers that in different styles. You or even me may not have like Clintons style but he made it work for two terms.

I tend to stick with the locals when I debate leadership because the national group has made it by some sort of leadership, whether we agree with it or not.

It is the locals who can not sometimes distinguish that they really are a follower in leadership clothing. These are the one that people like you and I need to continue to remind that they ran for a leadership position. Then we watch and see what happens. Then, after a while, the game begins all over and we critique what has occurred (and then possibly “flip flop” to the next in line)

That is the glory of the political arena. It never ends and there is always a new beginning. As to the results, well the control of that is for a whole ‘nuther thread!

[johnb]

Ron,

We need not judge leadership by its own steadfastness; we need to judge leadership by its own intent. Unfortunately the latter is much harder to find and even harder to prove.

I can't say you're wrong, but I will say I disagree to an extent. "Intentions" are ethically neutral in and of themselves. People can "mean well" in service to good, bad or indifferent principles. A local politician can "intend" to do right by the citizens of Cary and do some pretty awful things. We can judge that individual by their intentions or by the principles they based their actions/"intentions" on. This is where that law of unintended consequences comes into play. The excuses are always "but I meant well!" And???

Issuing so many munincipal bonds that the city was forced to raise taxes to cover them could be defended by a "but I meant well!" and effectively countered with a "where did you think the money was going to come from?" I believe leadership is more than just intentions. It has to include the clarity of thought to see through immediate issues and out onto the broader horizons of principles, choices and priorities. Yes flexibility is a good thing, but being flexible to the point of having the consistancy of jello is not a virtue. The leader in question has to stake out some bedrock principles upon which his or her framework for engaging and understanding the world are based. Without that we are left guessing at what the so called "leader" is actually all about. It also means "intentions", always hard to evaluate, become impossible to evaluate since there is no 'ground zero' from which to trace their origin.

Like him or hate him, W. Bush is a leader, his father was not. W has "the vision thing", HW Bush was a mere administrator.

Locally, Joyce is a leader. His framework is minimizing the footprint of government in people's lives and limiting bureaucratic power. Everything he is doing can be mapped back to that. Look at JULIEFORCARY!, how would you evaluate her framework? I would conceptualize it as "helping people" or possibly "doing good things". I don't see a philosophical bedrock there from which she is operating. It doesn't make her bad, evil, or whatever. It does mean, however, I would expect her actions to be different than Joyce's. And I would expect her actions to be inconsistant. I would expect him to be on the other side from her in votes involving the growth of bureaucratic power. Although, since I don't expect consistancy from her she may end up on the same side as he occasionallly.

The difference is "doing good things" is completely subjective, touchy feely, and almost random. "Good things" to some is always horrendous to others. Downtown redevelopment may be "good" for the arts crowd since they'll get downtown of coffee shops, art galleries, train stations, and Happy Fun Steve flop houses B-) in a faux urban environment. It won't be "good things" to the business owners whose property is expropriated through the crime of theft by government.

I am not a fan of government by empathy. It's phony and in the end it *******izes the point of government as it creates a nanny system which responds to crying and whining. I am a fan of limited government in a nation of laws where government is kept on a leash and it's awesome power to hurt people is strictly curtailed.

[StanN]

The Real World is more complicated than what we are saying here.
e.g. candidate X is running for county commissioner and knows that a tax increase is the only way out of the school capacity mess. What should X say - "I'm for increasing taxes". X would be a fool if he did and would never get elected. X could say "I'm passionate about schools" but all the candidates say that. X could say "I've always been for schools" but
Y says "I voted for the $450 million bond for the schools" not mentioning that the school board asked for almost double that amount. Without a tremendous amount of research what voter really knows what a sufficient amount would have been? X could compare the amount to what other school systems spend per student, etc. etc. but who really follows detailed arguments like that. After all $450 million sounds like an awful lot of money, you (the voter) are having trouble making ends meet and you want a new plasma TV that you can't afford. And you don't like the idea of busing. And candidate Y says he is against busing (even though he doesn't get a vote on the matter) and then he says he won't raise taxes. And besides most everyone says Y is favored to win and who wants to waste their vote on a loser. Thats the real world.

Let's get closer to home. Candidate M says the town is spending too muuch money and votes against all frills like public art, decorated bridges, etc. On most of the small issues you agree with him. But you (the voter) have some real litmus test issues like improved roads and an economic development director. How do you vote when candidate M votes no on your litmus test issues? After all he is being entirely consistent. That's the real world.

And how often do you vote for someone despite their inconsistincies and flaws becuse their opponent is so much worse. That's the real world.

Most of us on this board are the exceptions, i.e. educated knowledgable voters who can track when some elected official is telling us what is popular, what is acceptable to the influential power elite, what represents playing to their backers and whether or not they have been consistent.
But we aren't typical and don't represent the real world.

stan