I can be verbose. Sorry.

1) I like Sabra Briere, even when we disagree.

2) Its probably better to get most of your campaign contriburtons from within the district you want to represent.

3) Everybody runs on some kind of platform. The people who pretend not to have a platform, who will not tell you what the intend to do, are scarier than those will tell you what there agenda is. Calling someone’s platform “an ax to grind” seems to be a pejorative that distracts people from asking what the name-caller’s candidate intends to do in office.

4) Someone who actually had no agenda – who had no idea of what the issues are, or ideas of what to do about them – is probably not ready to run for office.

Now pass the bottle.

John

Campaign laws do permit out-of-district donations, yet I suspect most of us are more comfortable when most contributions are from in the district. No reason to be concerned because one’s best friend lives accross town, or Aunt Betty in Manistee supports her relation; unease if contributions are mainly from people outside the ward – or even the city- who are looking to influence council via a ward in which they do not live.

In some circles, “Ax to grind” translates as “Platform on which they are running”. My suspicion is that all council members have “Axes to grind” in that sense – some simply seem reluctant to have them known before elections, as if their particular “platform/tree-felling-tool” would not pass muster with voters. Not announcing your platform also allows you – or your supporters – to call your opponents names, such as “Ax grinder”.

Really, how comfortable would you be with someone whose only reason for running was to be in power? The main job of a representative is to represent, but I’m not sure how comfortable I would be with someone who claimed to have little/no idea what the issues were, and little/no idea what to do about them. I know I am uncomfortable witrh people whose agendas are quite real, but hidden from the electorate.

Perhaps you did not notice that the local Sierra Club endorsed Jane Lumm in her recent victory over an incumbent. I cannot recall whether Council Members Anglin and Kunselman received the Sierra Club endorsement, but they were clearly receptive to the positions of the Club and won with similarly large margins.

There were many factors that contributed to my defeat in the 2010 4th Ward Council race, but the Sierra Club endorsement was not one of them.

Council Member Lumm won, not because of an endorsement or lack of an endorsement. Instead, she won because she was well known and well regarded and the mischaracterizations of her positions and record did not work.

Steve, could you provide any additional context for that? For example, I’m guessing it was NOT anything like the following:

JH: Who do you like for the Super Bowl?
SB: Going with the Giants, this year, even though I have a soft spot for Brady, what with his UM connection.
JH: When the Pats pressure him, I have no faith that Manning will have the discipline to check down to find an open receiver. Wanna place a wager on the game? Say, $100?
SB: Dude, you know my current thoughts on money.
JH: Oh, right. So, anyway, I don’t know if I mentioned this to you, but this is my last term as mayor.

[link]

Plamondon was an interesting character. Among other things, he was the subject of a Supreme Court decision that ruled not even the President acting in the interest of national security can authorize warrentless wiretaps, a decision that has apparently been forgotten over the years.

And I think it’s a fantastic idea to explore public financing for local elections, but not to criticize people for working within the established system.

While I’m at it, let’s continue hoping that the local Sierra Club endorsement continues to be the kiss of death for any candidate or issue. It’s a shame that their positions are so far out of line with an otherwise excellent state and national organization.