Pre-Runoff Weekend

Thanks for the shot-out Greg.

In all seriousness, this whole back and forth thing has made me pretty sick. They know exactly what we are talking about and they also know Jay is not a bigot. The Lovell campaign is simply using the Edd Hendee episode to stir up their base. Not a bad political strategy- except that as you so aptly point out, their hands are not clean.

Doesn't ANYONE remember the stuff they put out against Ron Green in 2003?

I'll keep waiting for that Al Edwards repudiation!

keep hope alive.
Mini

Why can't Mr. Aiyer denounce the nasty statements of Mr. Hendee? Hendee's comments and jokes and the expenses of gays, lesbians, and adopted children are backwards and embarrassing. I had no connection to any campaign, but after reading Mr. Hendee's comments in endorsing Aiyer, I had to turn around and give money to the Lovell campaign. Yes, it stirs up the base because Mr. Aiyer sought out an embarrassing endorsement and failed to denounce it. His flowerly boilerplate language of inclusion is a joke if he is going to allign himself with cheesy wannabe Limbaughs.

What's not a joke are the racist comments from Ms. Lovell's campaign -- not made by some third party rightwing radio host -- but by someone on her own team.

Classic hypocrisy on Lovell's part. She cries foul right away when she feels slighted, but can't be bothered to address the bigotry of her own staff.

The Aiyer campaign let the racist comments go -- there were many, and they went on for months -- trying to keep the race focused on the issues. But when she screamed discrimination, it was simply time to call BS, folks. She race-baited Ronald Green in 2003, and she's race-baiting Jay Aiyer in 2005.

Sue Lovell is casting stones from a glass house, and people are going to know about it.

It was not a quick decision for me to decide to support Jay Aiyer, but it is a solid one.

I learned long ago that it is not sufficient to simply match my issue positions against the candidates -- partly because a perfect match is impossible, partly because the issue landscape constantly shifts, and partly because candidates will frequently say what they think wants to be heard. In this case, the issue position differences between Aiyer and Lovell are not that great.

So I look at the character and personality of the candidates. On that basis, I find Lovell, who I worked with in the Dean campaign, is quite lacking. She makes a great party hack, but her temperament and approach almost guarantee that her involvement in city affairs, which are supposed to be non-partisan, will turn incendiary all too easily. It shows in her campaign history both this year and in 2003, and within the Democratic party.

Aiyer we know less about; his resume suggests great possibilities that as yet are unrealized. However, he comes from a background that is much more suggestive of a professional approach to politics. (Full Disclosure: Aiyer is a grad of my grad school alma mater, the LBJ School of Public Affairs. So is George Hittner, but I do not support Hittner).

In many ways I am still withholding judgement of Aiyer, pending his first-term performance. After that, we'll see if he has begun to live up to his resume.

BTW, it is apparent to most that Lovell is succeeding at getting Dem party activists and clubs to line up behind her, on the basis of party loyalty. I am not at all sure this is a smart tactic for local Democrats, since it gives Aiyer the room to maneuver on the right, which Lovell as a GLBT activist will never have. It will be interesting to see how effective the strategy is, since it is rare for a hard-core Democratic approach to work in city elections. The last person to try this in a runoff, was Mary Ann Young against Mark Goldberg in District C in 1999. Mary Ann pointed at Mark and said he was not a good enough Democrat, which was true since Mark had just switched parties. However, the voters were not convinced this was a good enough reason to support her.