Alan,

You’re right [in #15] to say that this extended back & forth on email vs. live interview distracts from other 4th Ward topics. There hasn’t been a whole lot said about actual concerns in the ward itself, which is unfortunate.

Still, Elhady supporters, as a group, did just as much or more to ramp up the current row over his Chronicle & Observer non-interviews as have his critics. I don’t understand why, for over a week, various supporters keep stubbornly trying to defend his campaign’s indefensible position on the matter. Although the lack of a rational basis may help explain the move toward personalized nastiness in some of their comments (and I don’t mean your posts! — civility on your part has remained above this). The long thread (start) contains aspersions on editorial judgement as well as personal attacks on McGovern which go beyond a political slant (my brief summary on that is over here.

A few months ago, I had a rather limited interest in the 4th Ward candidates, and had no issue with the prospect of Higgins, a former Republican, losing to an unknown independent with more good policy points than not. The bad behavior of some Elhady partisans became blatant enough to provoke me to start writing about it and click the “submit” button.

Both ethically and practically speaking, the Elhady camp would have served itself much better to post just one medium-length comment below McGovern’s column, saying in so many words, “Sorry, we’re just not interested in doing direct interviews with the Chronicle and its reporter. We don’t mean to offend anyone, it’s just that we’ve decided to do some things differently in our campaign. If you have further questions, call or email the campaign manager.” Then, from that point forward, ignore further comments on the column and move ahead with their 4th Ward campaign elsewhere, letting later comments fall where they may. I’d still prefer a live interview, of course, but had campaign leaders taken this approach, the resulting damage would have been greatly limited, I believe. Instead, they chose to fan flames, setting themselves on fire in the process.

An earlier, different example of bad treatment is found in a brief election exchange on Arbor Update. It starts with the illness message at #319 and goes until #324. When I first read this stretch, it took my breath away, becoming a negative turning point on how I felt about the way Elhady’s surrogates conduct themselves. Alan — I should note that your message at #323 stands out in contrast as a more sensitive, appropriate commentary. That no one else chose to step forward in this way, and that Elhady organizers let comments #320 and #324 stand without being publicly distanced and disowned was, unfortunately, very telling.

Leah Gunn, you seem to know an awful lot about how to impersonate a candidate–how do we know the phone interview Higgins supposedly had with the reporter on the same day Higgins was a no-show at the LOWV forum was not actually you doing your best imitation of your candidate?

I find it especially ironic that you are making such a big deal about the opposing candidate requesting an email interview, when your own candidate used email to make deals during council meetings! Which is more egregious, Ms. Gunn, and why didn’t McGovern ask your candidate (or you) about the email scandal during the phone interview? (All of her “hardball” questions must have been aimed at Elhady.)

Also ironic, Ms. Gunn, is your cry for transparency when your own candidate has a history of disappearing and not being accessible. But anything to divert attention, right? Politics 101.

Ross, your attempt to find sexism or some other improper motive behind Elhady’s decision is desperate. But the election is getting close, so its time to let the mud fly and see if any sticks, right?

Of course he should have agreed to the interview but by agreeing to talk with an informed, experienced reporter he would have to respond to a follow up question. It is relatively easy to respond to the first question with campaign boilerplate but the follow up is the key to testing a candidate. It is understandable why his handlers would want to avoid that with an inexperienced candidate.

But he should have done it anyway. Mr. Elhady has been misled by his handlers who have their own agenda, one that may differ from his. Their tactics appear overly aggressive and their advice at least in this matter, bad. Should he prevail in the election I hope he does not owe them too much or he will be dancing to their tune for a long time.

But having said that, the moral outrage that’s come out of this entire episode is…amazing. We (meaning the Chronicle and Observer in this situation) get THIS over whether to answer questions via email or on the phone. Not over secret council emails, the homeless crisis, the waste of taxpayer dollars. It’s over the style of journalism and someone who refused to play the game by the ‘rules’ Judy McGovern and the Chronicle wants to play by. How ARE Mr. Elhady want to answer questions via email. How DARE him. Lol.

A few of the media folks on the message need to walk around the 4th Ward and see home many voters are outraged over whether Mr. Elady answered Judy McGovern’s questions. Taxes, schools. roads, education and the future of the city, yes. But I’m guessing you won’t find more than a couple of people who even know what you are talking about.

Elhady made a mistake but if you want to talk about the topic of email mistakes, we can bring Ms. Higgins into the pool here too. I

An anonymous commenter on the Daily article put it best:
*************************************
Both the DAILY and Elhady have again shown their ignorance about the law and City government. Elhady advocates for an April primary election, but that is not allowed under State law. Elections can only be held in February, May, August, and November, and partisan primaries for November elections (which we have in Ann Arbor ) occur, by State law, in August. In other words, Elhady’s proposal for an April primary election is illegal. Yet the DAILY cited Elhady’s support for an illegal April primary election as a reason to support him. Once again, we see that the DAILY staff and editors are too naive to deserve any role in shaping City government.
*************************************

Is Elhady really that naive or is he just making false promises to get elected? We now know, fully admitted by Elhady and his campaign, that he strategically chose which newspapers to do an interview with. Is Elhady now strategically promising things that are illegal and not doable? An experienced reporter would have called him out on this.

Maybe he should promise free tuition for all. It appears that the students might be gullible enough to believe him.

So I will propose the question again as I did in my above post, but much more bluntly. Did Elhady refuse to be interviewed by two experienced female reporters because of sexism or because of their experience?

Either way Elhady is not up to the job.

Mr. Elhady granted live interviews with less experienced reporters and insisted on questionnaires from those who might actually challenge him on nuance, competency, fund of knowledge, positions and experience. I find that an ethically questionable tactic from someone who so vociferously calls for transparency in local govt. Personally and professionally I think his campaign should practice what it preaches.