What Would Reagan Do?
Does any of this sound familiar? What would Reagan do?
Oh, and Mayor Sam Yorty ran third in the 1964 election. ;)
Labels: 1964, Barry Goldwater, mayor sam yorty, Ronald Reagan
Posted by Sarah Michelle Spinosa @ 3/22/2009 02:18:00 AM
32 Comments:
Oh Jeez, Reagan stunk as prez. Stop worshiping this stupid hack.
Did you even watch the video? Do you not see the uncanny correlation to our present situation? The point is that history is cyclic, much like our Fed-manipulated bubble economy.
Read LA Slimes story. IF they keep this reporting up they just may get their subscriptions back.
...Schwarzenegger and Villaraigosa, meanwhile, also had something to gain: The hope that Obama's popularity would rub off.
Each is a lame duck in his current job; the governor leaves office after the 2010 elections, and Villaraigosa was just elected to his final term as mayor. Neither is doing particularly well among voters, and certainly not as well as Obama.
In a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 70% of Californians approved of the way Obama was doing his job, compared with only 33% who felt the same about Schwarzenegger. In a hypothetical matchup for the U.S. Senate seat in 2010, incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer clocked Schwarzenegger by 24 points -- the same margin by which Obama beat McCain in the state.
Villaraigosa is contemplating a race for governor next year, but his somewhat anemic reelection earlier this month did little to boost his chances. A Field Poll showed him with a favorability rating of only 35% among California voters -- with 37% offering no view of him at all.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-week22-2009mar22,0,6549991.story
Thanks Sarah!
This is one of the greatest speeches ever made. It eventually made him President in 1980.
It is VERY specific and relevant today...
1. "Those who had the most to lose...did the least to prevent it happening."
(Sounds like the March 3rd election here in L.A.)
2. "A government can't control the economy without controlling people....it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose."
(New Obama Socialism/Communism)
3. "Government does NOTHING as well as the private sector of the economy."
(Never has...never will)
4. "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size."
(Obama just decided to steal a few trillion dollars and people seem to be going along with it.)
I can't stand this new President and his far-left Socialist policies. He is going to kill this country faster than cancer.
can you please stop posting copywritten material and come up with some original thoughts?
i don't know who's reporting you, but I find your using others' material to be annoying and i will start reporting it to youtube soon too.
Didn't Reagan make USA a Sanctuary Country for illegal aliens???
Didn't he also give millions of illegal aliens amnesty!!
Phil you looked like a jackass at city council on friday. they paid you less attention than they paid zuma dogg.
How do u make a living?
zooma is a whiney little bitchy looser.
In the same way far too many liberal Democrats bash Ronald Reagan for no other reason than he was NOT a liberal Democrat- far too many Republicans idolize the man, not unlike many Dems did (and continue to do) with Bill Clinton, and presently do with President Obama.
Reagan faced many difficult challenges during his term, and like any President before or after him, performed better on some things than others. Let's not forget that while his credo that "government isn’t the solution, government is the problem" made for a great soundbite- in reality, it was not delivered by him in perhaps the form Reagan himself envisioned before entering the White House. One example- by the end of his two terms; our national debt increased by about 40%. If that isn't an increase in government- I don't know what is.
But guess what?- it isn't an easy job.
Reagan accomplished many important things, and should be given the appropriate respect he deserves- as well as the general respect any of our former (or current) President(s) should be given.
It amazes me how little grace we seem to have anymore for those with whom we disagree. It used to be not very many years ago, that political debate was just that- an inspired exchange of differing ideas, by individuals whose spirit for disagreement was only exceeded by their politeness toward each other when the yelling stopped.
Now- we have blowholes on the left and on the right- in government, on cable TV, and on talk radio- essentially calling everyone they disagree with A-Holes and/or traitors to their country. The only bright spot really, is the complete assurance we get from these well-informed folks, that they have all the answers. Having all the answers seems to me, to be an incredible burden to carry with you all the time. Does anything come as a surprise to one who has all the answers? Isn't everything boring to one who has all the answers?
Anyway... we have a pretty good sized mess on our hands- and it is in OUR hands. There's plenty of blame to go around. Let's not overlooked any of those we know (including ourselves) that benefitted from all the "free" money floating around over the past several years.
What's the solution here- to wake up every single morning of every single day, inventing new ways to vehemently insult those with whom we disagree? If your answer is "yes," then I guess that makes folks like Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Press, Sean Hannity, Randi Rhodes, Ann Coulter, and the like... among the smartest people around.
C'mon... that sounds like a helluva lotta work to me- not to mention about as entertaining as white noise.
Instead- hug the nearest idiot every day... you'll feel better... and so will they. Or, maybe just give 'em one sincere smile. Or if you can't stomach either one of those ideas- maybe when the disagreements begin, refer to 'em as a goofball, instead of an A-Hole.
If we could accomplish that- World Peace is right around the corner.
In the same way far too many liberal Democrats bash Ronald Reagan for no other reason than he was NOT a liberal Democrat- far too many Republicans idolize the man, not unlike many Dems did (and continue to do) with Bill Clinton, and presently do with President Obama.
Reagan faced many difficult challenges during his term, and like any President before or after him, performed better on some things than others. Let's not forget that while his credo that "government isn’t the solution, government is the problem" made for a great soundbite- in reality, it was not delivered by him in perhaps the form Reagan himself envisioned before entering the White House. One example- by the end of his two terms; our national debt increased by about 40%. If that isn't an increase in government- I don't know what is.
But guess what?- it isn't an easy job.
Reagan accomplished many important things, and should be given the appropriate respect he deserves- as well as the general respect any of our former (or current) President(s) should be given.
It amazes me how little grace we seem to have anymore for those with whom we disagree. It used to be not very many years ago, that political debate was just that- an inspired exchange of differing ideas, by individuals whose spirit for disagreement was only exceeded by their politeness toward each other when the yelling stopped.
Now- we have blowholes on the left and on the right- in government, on cable TV, and on talk radio- essentially calling everyone they disagree with A-Holes and/or traitors to their country. The only bright spot really, is the complete assurance we get from these well-informed folks, that they have all the answers. Having all the answers seems to me, to be an incredible burden to carry with you all the time. Does anything come as a surprise to one who has all the answers? Isn't everything boring to one who has all the answers?
Anyway... we have a pretty good sized mess on our hands- and it is in OUR hands. There's plenty of blame to go around. Let's not overlooked any of those we know (including ourselves) that benefitted from all the "free" money floating around over the past several years.
What's the solution here- to wake up every single morning of every single day, inventing new ways to vehemently insult those with whom we disagree? If your answer is "yes," then I guess that makes folks like Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Press, Sean Hannity, Randi Rhodes, Ann Coulter, and the like... among the smartest people around.
C'mon... that sounds like a helluva lotta work to me- not to mention about as entertaining as white noise.
Instead- hug the nearest idiot every day... you'll feel better... and so will they. Or, maybe just give 'em one sincere smile. Or if you can't stomach either one of those ideas- maybe when the disagreements begin, refer to 'em as a goofball, instead of an A-Hole.
If we could accomplish that- World Peace is right around the corner.
Anon 10:18 -
Two words: fair use. Learn them. Love them. Live them. There is a point to the videos (of which there will be more) and if you bear with me, you will see it. If you don't, well, I plan to spell it out in a post coming soon anyway.
Vinnie -
Well said. I used to be a Democrat, and while I don't agree with everything Reagan did, I truly believe he did the best he could. I also feel that he was our last POTUS that was not bought and paid for by global bankers and other elites. To me, that's saying a LOT.
I guess you are the type of broad who grabs a hold of a phrase without really understanding them.
Unless you're a news outlet, and it's fair to say that you aren't a journalist of any note, then fair use DOES NOT APPLY. Moreover, you're not going to find the element of reciprocation.
Dope. Just a dopey broad. That's all you are. A pretentious one who likes to use her middle name, too, because you probably have daddy issues.
5:45 (Alger) do you have a point that you will be getting to soon?
I wonder if sarah michele can misuse any other phrases she hears but doesn't understand. And I agree, unless higby starts using his middle name, anyone else doing it here sounds like an asshole. do you hear what I'm saying sarah michele? daddy issues indeed!
Phil:
You don't seem to have a solution. I'm guessing that you favored the Bush approach and wanted to see the status quo continue while Wall Street and all those greedy bastards ran amok.
I suppose that you also have no problem with the AIG bonuses.
Well that was the issue in the election. Do we do nothing by electing McCain, or try a change with Obama. The voters decided so now we're attempting something different.
If you think this is socialism or communism, you don't understand what either are.
You guys are so desperate to change the topic away from Obama's deficit spending spree that you resort to attacking me for using my middle name and telling me that fair use doesn't apply to a NEWS AND VIEWS blog that does NOT see a profit because, as you say, 'it's fair to say that (I am not) a journalist of any note?' Fair according to whom? Your Royal Anonymousness?
Maybe Anne Coulter was right about liberals. You guys couldn't take 8 years of Republicans' character assassinations of you, but you certainly can dish it out, can't you?
Remember the last attack on me? I used 'we' instead of 'us' in the subject of a sentence because I wanted my post to have a bit more gravitas. It's the end of the world, right?
I'm not even a Republican, which means you're so petrified of any thought even slightly to the right of your own that you quickly become desperate to attack the person who articulated such heretical (anti-Obama?) thought.
You think I'M pretentious? Get over yourselves, all of you. Shame on you! We're all in this together.
What foresight and vision! The thinks Reagan was talking about in 1964 are absolutely relevant today.
Unfortunately, we don't have a Reaganesque figure in the GOP today. We have a corrupt media who don't even pretend to be reporters. We have RINOS like Arnold and David Frum who care more about going to a Hollywood dinner party than supporting what is right.
"corrupted from within"? that describes all the far-left people in moveon.org, code pink, ANSWER, and other America-bashers. They would spit on a returning soldier in a second if they thought they could get away with it.
We need to stop this high-speed rail to socialism FAST.
Before it is too late.
God bless Ronald Wilson Reagan!
They would spit on a returning soldier in a second if they thought they could get away with it.
I'm all for Reagan, and your runaway daddy was a crooked brutal wingnut cop, but your sounding very loony tonight, Haiku. Since the lithium didn't work, try a frontal lobotomy.
Whoa 11:04 -
"'corrupted from within'? that describes all the far-left people in moveon.org, code pink, ANSWER, and other America-bashers. They would spit on a returning soldier in a second if they thought they could get away with it."
Are you joking? Like it or not, righty groups must be balanced by lefty groups. You don't have to agree with their politics, but you DO have to admit their value. They're an important part of the American dialog. And while I hate to admit it, so are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Anne Coulter. They can't be wrong ALL the time.
And yeah, it would be nice to derail the 'Last Train to Marxville,' but I don't see how we can until 2010. This is a government that is rushing headlong into decisions and not GETTING no for an answer.
To the knucklehead at 8:02,
Let me explain to you how this economic crisis all happened. It is all directly tied to Jimmy Carter and the CRA..the Community Reinvestment Act.
A nutty liberal idea that the government needed to interfere in the free market and force banks to loan money for mortgages to poor people who COULDN"T AFFORD to buy a house.
This act was expanded and more force was leveraged on banks while Clinton was President. Banks eventually pretty much gave up on even asking for any documentation. I know because I know a few people who filled out what they called "liar loans".
Thirty years ago, banks literally almost performed a colonoscopy on your finances to make sure their mortgage loans didn't go bad. But once the government started interfering, that was the beginning of the end, like it usually is when bureaucrats run amok.
Now, there are billions tied up in bad loans and banks are crashing all around us. All because some nutty liberals wanted to "feel good" about themselves.
They engaged in what is typically the Liberals most heinous crime....buying votes with other peoples money.
There should be a full time economist in Congress to explain to these knuckleheads the potential outcome of these hairbrained schemes. Now they want to create a trillion dollars out of thin air and hand it out to more people who don't deserve it.
Yeah...RIGHT.
It will crash the dollar and bankrupt this country.
Well Phil, to be fair, you can't blame Jimmy Carter for everything! The Clinton administration has a lot more to do with our current issues than the peanut farmer.
Besides, nobody told the banks to loan $30 on the dollar and nobody told AIG to insure their bad risks. You're telling me that the BANK lobby, arguably the most powerful in Washington, couldn't have gotten Congress to give them what they wanted back in the Carter and Clinton years?
They were forced AGAINST THEIR WILL to make loans? No, of course they weren't. They were merely incentivized and got greedy.
The banks wanted this collapse because they were COUNTING on the bailouts! Screw the stockholders... they still get their bonuses!
Phil... a question for you- if I may: How is it that your explanation for "how this economic crisis all happened" involves rewinding all the way back to Jimmy Carter to begin your blame game... then jumps 12 years to the Clinton administration?
Before you answer though... you're already on record with your eloquence about President Obama, the "New Obama Socialism/Communism"... so I'm assuming he's (in your mind) continuing the problem Carter began.
But here's where I get confused... between then (The Carter Daze) and Now, there has been a Republican President in office for 20 of the past 28 years... which of course includes President Reagan, and President Bush I & II.
How is they seem to get off the hook for anything here? If the Carter paln was the disaster you say it was, why didn't Reagan kill it? Why didn't Bush I? Why didn't Bush II? During their tenure, Reagan, Bush I & Bush II enjoyed several years each of Republican majorities in Congress, so there was plenty of time and opportunity to repair any damage you believe was done by the Dems.
Just curious.
Great question Vinnie, and hours later... still no answer.
The thread will just die now. That always happens when one anonymous poster asks a logical question of another anonymous poster. The illogical poster can't answer, so it dies.
Thanks. But I'm sure Phil is a very busy man, so that's probably why.
Phil took a run for LA Mayor, and that's admirable, but I think it wouldn't hurt if he put a little less effort into pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame; and more effort into getting in the game and offering up solutions.
Waxing on about the good 'ol days of the past isn't a solution to anything.
Vinny, great point about the Republicans. You've eloquently pointed out that mostly Dems have caused the current crisis, and you are also spot on in your assessment that the Reeps could have stopped it. Keep in mind though, a problem must be identified before it must be overcome and this problem occured incrementally.
And it is multi-faceted. If you really want to go back in time with Mr. Peabody, this started in 1913 when America was essentially declared bankrupt. Then there's the Great Depression/New Deal, the Fed and our removal from the gold standard in the 70's, and now finally it's housing and derivatives. Job losses are a side effect.
This has been a long time coming and the only reason I let Reagan off the hook is because I felt that he had the integrity to do something to fix the system but was sidetracked by foreign policy. He ended the Cold War so I think his heart was in the right place. Bushes and Clintons? Not so much. They're known corporate globalists.
Vinnie,
Here is your answer...even though hours later.
(I was busy all day today.)
I do not hold Republicans blameless. If they held tight to Conservative principles and actually worked to reduce the size of government, everything would be just fine. However, that is NOT the case. The government is increasing at an exponential rate that is terrifying if you understand what is about to happen in this country. This rate is not sustainable and it will bankrupt this country.
Things might get ten times worse in the next three years. Many, many businesses are scrambling for cash and things are getting desperate. You can print money out of thin air like Obama, and watch the value of the dollar collapse. This all stems from idiotic liberal nonsense policies that say the government has to be the solution to everything.
I find the current number of takeovers and bailouts devastating to personal freedom.
Who says the government can take over or bailout any and all businesses just because the American consumer might be a little inconvenienced if that business were to fail??? B.S!!
LET THEM FAIL!! Failure is part of the process in a free market economy. It allows others to succeed. This idea of rewarding failure is nonsense. Never worked once...never will.
It is tragic that Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 all oversaw an INCREASE in the size of government. We need politicians with the balls to fire people and eliminate departments.
I ran for Mayor telling people I was going to go into City Hall and fire people. Nobody wanted to hear that. They prefer a roomful of fools in City Hall who bankrupt the city and look for unusual and devious ways to get their hands on your money.
It is often said that "you get the government you deserve"...
Res ipsa loquitur....
Phil...
Once again- I do congratulate you for your run at the Mayor's seat, regardless of the outcome. I applaud the kind of activism you demonstrated.
I attended a few of the candidate debates- so I did get to see you in action. While a couple of your competitors certainly had an advantage on you in terms of name recognition, I don't think that had as much to do with the performance of your campaign as perhaps you might believe.
If I may be blunt: In my opinion, your primary campaign strategy/approach was not altogether different than the tone of many of your blog postings- whether they be here, or elsewhere. By that I mean it seemed to focus on blaming and complaining- and little else. That kind of campaigning is boring, lazy, and does not inspire or demonstrate leadership. Period.
I say that with all due respect, and do not intent to offend you personally in any way.
One example from your latest posting:
"This all stems from idiotic liberal nonsense policies that say the government has to be the solution to everything."
Remember this guy?:
“I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” (George W. Bush, 2008, on multi-billion dollar government bailouts for banking industry.)
When did President Bush say that? Lemme see, oh yeah, that was about 100 days ago.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you finished dead last in a field of ten candidates, which included a candidate by the name of Zuma Dog; Craig X. Ruben- the bong smoking pastor; and Carlos Alvarez-the 22-year old, self proclaimed socialist, who wants to basically eliminate the LAPD, and open the southern border to anyone with a pulse. You referred to Carlos as "Taco Truck Carlos" at the debate in Studio City- but he managed to get 25% more votes in our last election than you did- and that guy is a goof (all due respect, Carlos).
You see my point?
Your friends and family may give you an “Atta boy!,” at the campaign picnic, but I think the average voter out there is not impressed or inspired by rants and petty insults.
You say, "I ran for Mayor telling people I was going to go into City Hall and fire people. Nobody wanted to hear that." Not true, Phil. Nobody wanted to hear ONLY that.
My guess is you will take another run at some kind of public office, and as I have before, I certainly applaud your activism. However, maybe you should consider a different strategy in the future. A leader doesn't curse the wind... a leader figures out how to capture and direct it.
Just a thought.
Vinnie,
About my finishing last in the election... yes, it was a bit humiliating, but I don't let it affect me.
I was the strongest leader in the crowd, and had the best message, but I didn't have the money or chance to build my name recognition. On election day, 90% of the voters still had no idea who I was....so I don't blame them for voting for others.
This was Villaraigosa's third time running for Mayor and Walter Moores second attempt. AV had huge name recognition and WM was kind of known to people because he had been running for four years and going on talk radio all the time. Hernandez runs for office almost every year. Zuma Dogg had been on radio and in newspaper stories for at least three years. Craig Rubin motivated all the dopers to get out and vote for him.
I could have done much better and was actually negotiating with a media company to pay for about 100,000 robocalls to voters to get my message out. I was going to do it, but decided not to at the last minute.
The calls would have guaranteed a few thousand more votes for me....but it still would have been a loss. Who cares if I finished fifth or seventh or even last. First place is the only one that matters.
WE CAN DEBATE WHO DID A BETTER JOB AS PRESIDENT. BUT THAT WON'T HELP US NOW!! WE NEED TO FIX THE PROBLEMS AT HAND. FIRST, HONESTY IS NEEDED. SECOND, NOT FEARING GOING AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED BELIEFS ON HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. THIRD, ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG AND NOT FEAR THE ADVISE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. FOURTH, NO COUNTRY EVER SPENT IT'S WAY OUT DEBIT. TRUE WE NEED TO DO THINGS. BUT NOT ALL THINGS COST MONEY AND MANY SAVE MONEY WITHOUT EXCESS COST. REGULATION IS BOTH GOOD AND BAD BUT IS NEEDED IN REGARDS TO BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY. THE GREEN IDEAS ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY OPEN THE DOOR TO NEW IDEAS WHICH COULD CREATE BUSINESSES AND JOBS. WE NEED ALSO TO WORK TO REDUCE WEAPONS IN THE WORLD AND IMPROVE LIVING STADARDS IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES WHICH WILL REDUCE WARS AND THE SPREAD OF DISEASE. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT MONEY BUT ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE TO WORK TOGETHER TOWARDS COMMON GOALS.
Phil-
On a related topic, I wonder if you could answer a question for me...
It's curious to me why candidates like yourself- and perhaps more specifically- Walter Moore, didn't choose to run for a City Council seat, rather than the top spot/Mayor's office.
I'm not positive which disctrict WM lives in (I think it may be CD5-Weiss), but he would have probably smoked anyone he ran against. Rather than spending 5+ years campaigning for a seat that was (in reality) almost impossible to win, one could launch their Mayoral hopes from a City Council seat- which of course would provide them with at least four years of downtown experience, and public exposure.
In fact, I would wager that if WM had run for (and won) a Council seat four years ago instead of running for Mayor, he would have easily forced a runoff in this last election- if not won outright.
To be truthful- I think running for the top spot with no practical experience whatsoever, is a shortsighted strategy. To my knowledge, there isn't any history whatsoever where a Mayor of a major city was someone who essentially came out of nowhere to win- and that is certainly true here in Los Angeles. I think at the very least a candidate for Mayor would have to know firsthand how the antics of the City Council works to accomplish anything as Mayor.
Is that something you considered?
I emailed WM a couple of time to ask that question- never got any answer. He says he's done with campaigning, but I'm not sure I buy that just yet. When the Mayor's seat is vacated next time around, I think he'll get the bug again.
Vinnie...
Since you asked me...I'll answer you.
I live in CD 5 and thought about running for that, but knew there were going to be five or six or seven runners. I knew the Mayors race was going to be cleared out on the Democratic side because none of the current City Council members have the guts to challenge a sitting Mayor. I felt that I could explain Conservatism better than other people...and I felt I did a pretty good job on my campaign with the limited resources I had.
Walter might live in CD5...not sure...but I think he would have won if he had run for Council. He spent four years building his "brand" on talk radio.
I think Walter ran for the top spot because he's a little bit of an egomaniac. I'm not saying he's all bad...I admire his passion and commitment to the issues...but he's not a good candidate. He said too many things that could be interpreted as being hateful or anti-immigrant. He's not balanced enough to attract all voters.
Experience? Overrated.
NONE of the Mayoral candidates except for Villaraigosa had been elected to anything before, but 45% of the city voters preferred the other nine candidates to Antonio.
What does that say about him?
I think Villaraigosa is AWFUL. He refuses to do anything about illegal immigration...spends all his time promoting himself...etc...etc.
He's dishonest and lacks integrity.
NO core principles. You can't trust him.
He only got back in based on union votes that HE BUYS with rewarding them contracts and paychecks.
If turnout had been higher...and if the media had actually reported the election like they should have.. AV would be in a runoff today.
The media was so shameful that they didn't even mention our names in stories about the election!!! REPEATEDLY they said "the Mayor is facing nine unknowns" instead of contacting us or interviewing us at all. Amazingly unprofessional work by them in general. Awful and lazy reporting!!
I accomplished most of my goals.
I presented myself as a professional candidate, who had the backing of a major political party.
I went on TV and radio and explained my issues and views.
Most important of all... I set myself up for future success.
Two big regrets...
1) I didn't do better at the polls. Next time I do more mailers and robocalls and door-to-door work.
2) Forums and debates didn't mean squat!
I foolishly attended most of them thinking the word of mouth would spread, but most people who showed up already had their minds made up. The people who finished 1st, 3rd, and 5th in this Mayoral election actually SKIPPED almost all of the forums and debates. Maybe next time I will, too.
Phil-
Thank you for your thoughtful response. A couple of thoughts...
"Experience? Overrated. NONE of the Mayoral candidates except for Villaraigosa... "
There's no doubt you are correct- but that kind of makes my point. Despite the 45% vote AGAINST the Mayor, he still won. The reason (in my opinion)... the people that voted for him knew him... the reason they knew him- because of his prior City service.
You live in CD5... hmmm, I gotta say, Phil- this may have been a missed opportunity for you. Idealogy aside, you can't make the winning play if you're not on the field.
I tend to agree with you that WM may have an ego issue, which would explain why a Council seat may not be a big enough prize for him. Too bad really- the City Council process would benefit from a collection of "outsiders" with the kind of spirit Moore seems to have. WM strikes me as an angry candidate- like right under the surface he is just pissed off over so many things. I think that effects his judgement, which explains (to me) why he says some of the awkward things he says sometimes. I would disagree with you though- I do think he's a good candidate... but he's not a VERY good candidate, which is what it would have taken to beat Tony V. WM is a good anti-establishment, anti-AV candidate, etc. He has enough appeal to make some waves, but as you point out, he doesn't have enough balance to attract what he needs to beat AV. WM was pretty much the most popular of the "none of the above" votes.
However, in your case, I don't know how you pass up the opportunity to run for an open Council seat- you could be picking out drapes for your new office right now, rather than strategizing on your next political move.
"Forums and debates didn't mean squat!... people who showed up already had their minds made up..."
Yep, I agree. I attended a few of those- a little tedious, I must admit. I'm curous though- did any of the candidates participate actively with the organizers of these events? I ask because the events seemed very "inside"- like the organizers (and the candidates) only called their friends and relatives to attend. The one the CBS studios was a good example: it was promoted by the Daily News, but by my count, there were only about 100 people there. The location was a hassle to find, and the Daily News didn't do anything exceptional to promote their own event.
I have to say though- the little group that showed up with Carlos Alvarez were always entertaining.
I remember thinking that maybe the nine of you should have promoted your own events- as a group... and let the chips fall where they will... I think that may have gotten some media attention- nine David's taking on Goliath kind of thing.
Who knows.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home