Friday, March 23, 2007

Sheila is on record being for raising the bar entrace age?

Proving that Andrea Zimmermann did the research on this, her DE story today points out an interesting detail. The evil facebook site, that claimed that Sheila supports raising the drinking age was exactly right. Sheila is on record from the 2003 city council race for being in favor of raising the bar entry age. She now claims to have a change of heart on this issue, but I'm not sure she had told anyone.

Seems like the facebook site was exactly right on that issue. It sure doesn't seem like negative campaigning when you are telling the truth does it?

Your comments are welcome.

12 comments:

Sam W. Clyde said...

People change their minds with experience, I think that is the case here for Sheila. Ideas are pitched by all politician. Even you make comments to get people talking.
This tactic is only to get the students interested in voting. To bad so many of them are concerned about drinking and none of the other issues.

Shawn, the Beer Philosopher said...

So, it seems Sheila was FOR raising the bar entry age before she was AGAINST it ... however this shakes out, it seems a little odd (at best) that the Simonites are so quick to say that Sheila has "never" said she favored the raising of the entry age. Seems there is something to this story after all.

Peter in Carbondale said...

Sheila blew it. People complaining about her last published position have the moral high ground here. It isn't their fault if she has earned an incomplete on her campaign docs.

I like the clip of Jon Steward tearing up Crossfire a few years ago. When they started to complain about Steward's actions, he said, "I'm on the Comedy Channel, my lead in is Bozo the Clown." (or whatever it was). You aren't allowed to compare my blog to Sheila campaign. I am the comedy channel, Sheila is bring a higher level of ethics to Carbondale's government.

She has set the bar higher and she didn't meet that bar this time. It isn't a show stopper, but it is a negative IMHO.

I'm not sure about the tactic stuff at the end means, but I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

K said...

Saying what her personal belief was in 2003 does not equate to "I am going to legislate this into the law."

She's been on the city council for almost 4 years and not once has she even proposed raising the bar entry age. She has said that she will not support changing it so what is the discussion?

The conservative family values crowd that are the Cole supporters, are suddenly concerned about their "Right to party" and have criticized Sheila for being a "family woman." Such hypocrites. This shows the desperation to have a "cool" Mayor.

Apparently, Sheila is an evil succubus who should be chastised for not remembering an OPINION stated ONCE four years ago in a random candidate survey. Give me a break.

Let's focus on what the candidates are going to do NOW versus two words they said 4 years ago.

Peter in Carbondale said...

Of course K is kind of right. Someone used her last known position and Sheila complained about it. It is OK with everyone that she flipped flopped on these issues. The problem is when she complained that she was damaged, they were using her last known position.

I don't think that a candidate survey to be published in the paper is random or a small thing. It is fairly important message sending device.

I sure wish "The Carbondale Times" would do one for the candidates this time. In particular, the District 95 board and Park District both have real management problems and it would be very interesting to hear their positions. I would really like to hear Elbert Simon's view on calling people racists.

In the end, Sheila didn't do her job and got caught flip flopping. We really have no idea where she stands on the Carbondale property tax, entry age or party free zones now, but we do know that she thinks the voters want to hear. That is a real difference.

K said...

Peter, I thank you for your insight but I am sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you. Sheila does not support raising the bar entry age. She hasn't ever proposed it.

For example, in 2003, I might have thought that iPods should be 21+ because students can't listen in high school. (Were iPods even out then? I dunno) Sheila Simon never claimed that she wanted to legislate that view into law. She confirmed that a few days ago with her article in the DE.

You must admit that the Cole supporters are licking their chops with this one. Can you at least condemn the fact that the Facebook group has criticized her for being a 'family woman'? Since when is that a bad thing? I hope we could come to an agreement on that aspect.

The fact remains most people support a Smoke-Free Carbondale which will be the underlying issue in this race. Partying is not #1 on most people's minds.

I disagree with you it looks like on many things but I will continue visiting this page. :)

Peter in Carbondale said...

I think it is interesting that you think that Smoking is the number 1 issue. Sheila had better hope that is true, because if it is most anything else she is going to lose the election. Her real hope is that Maggie got about 50% of the vote and Maggie was a bad choice.

You are right about Sheila written 2003 position being worthless, except for it shows a tendency for all of her positions being worthless. Politicians take knocks for things like this, so I'm giving her a mild knock for it. I don't think it matters, except it points out her tendency to pander to voters, instead of having personal convictions (more on that later).

I would comment about the whole facebook thing, but I never saw it (not being a member of facebook). I don't think it is a big deal. It isn't as big a deal compared to Sheila supporters vandalizing Brad's signs or Sheila's supporters implying Brad had done something unethical or illegal, but refusing to even provide a single detail about what they are talking about.

I have written here that I think Sheila is a good egg, she seems bright and even charming. I like her husband (actually, I like Perry better, he rings a much cleaner tone to me), her kids seen nice too. I wish she had a business development plan and the possibility of her election didn't make every business person in Carbondale think we were going back to the Neil Dillard years of anti-business government in Carbondale.

I do think that Sheila has grand plans and will need more tax dollars to make them happen, I'm fairly sure that she would sell her soul to win any election and has no clue about business in any form. I also think that our current city government will have pedestrian results with a part time mayor.

I find it offensive if the candidate works far harder to get elected, then they will work after elected. But, I'm all about hard work. How about you?

Philosophe Forum said...

I've done a search on the C'dale drinking age. Nothing comes up associated with the Simon name. All the articles are 8 - 10 yrs old, too.

As far as Simon "pandering" for votes, only someone who hasn't done any rearch would make that statement. She's been a public servant in one form or another since childhood. She has a record of accomplishments going that far back helping those who can't help themselves. There's no reason for her to "pander".

As far as Cole's concerned, he learned from Ryan (aka, jailbird). That already says a lot about his character. His accomplishments are nothing more than city janitorial services. His leadership style is micromanaging & destructive to the underpinnings of democracy.

It's amazing what you discover about a person when you stop shooting off opinions, talk with the people directly, & actually listen. Common sense is a difficult thing.

Anonymous said...

OK, what exactly is Sheila's plan for Carbondale?

She has a huge campaign, lots of volunteers etc., but where's the beef?

All I know she wants to be a mayor. What will she do? Will she do anything? I still remember dreadfull Maggie Flanagan's campaign ("Maggie listens"). It was in fact "Maggie talks and talks and talks..." The only idea she had was to create a thousand of committees to talk about issues.

It seems Sheila is doing same thing.

Peter in Carbondale said...

In reply to PM -

Your first assumption is that all information is hosted on the internet. The Carbondale Times doesn't have back issues on the internet though. So you have to be involved enough in the issue to remember way back 4 years ago and know her positions then. I didn't, but it sure looks like someone did.

I have talked to Sheila in detail and wrote it up here, just go back a dozen or two dozen entries and you will find it. She was amazing unprepared and had no ideas about anything. It was very disappointing. Of course, I have very little interests in talking about my feelings, I just wanted to know how she would run the city if elected.

Are you trying to tell us that you have sat down with Brad and really discussed your concerns with him?

What we are finding more and more on these blogs is that the underhanded things that Brad is accused of doing, either never happened or there are good reasons for what happened.

coughing englishman said...

Well holy crap, if you want to talk about pandering lets talk about Brad. He's changed his mind on at least two important issues now (code enforcement, smoking-ban) and proposed hiring 8 new police (magically) right before the election.

-He had four years to do something about crime. It went up (by his own admission).

-He had four years to do something about dilapidated buildings. They're still standing.

-He had a chance to vote for the smoking-ban. He tried to shut down debate and voted against it.

-And just yesterday at the Arbor District Forum, he stated that we haven't had many big businesses come into town even though that is what is campaign is built on.

He could out-pander the best of them with this list of ditties. The difference, of course, is that when Sheila says she'll do something about dilapidated rentals, crime prevention, and the smoking ban, we know that she's not talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Peter in Carbondale said...

I agree that adding police and code enforcement now looks bad just before the election on the pandering index. This is the way it works in American politics, write that campaign platform, examine your work since the last election, start new stuff. It could be that new police numbers came out recently, it is more likely that the new police chief has been on long enough to come up with a plan for Brad to support. It wouldn't surprise me if code enforcement became the highest priority because the have fixed the next highest in code enforcement. Or it could be that citizens just started complaining more. Someone would have to send email and Brad and ask.

The anti-smoking is the opposite of pandering, he seems to actually believe that people who own things should have a right to run them as they like. It sure would have been a lot easier to just pander and vote with the majority on this issue.

I think your understanding about what a city can do to encourage business development is limited. No one is Southern Illinois is getting any big business right now. Marion's whole revitalization can be traced to one manufacturer coming to town 5 years ago. If you haven't noticed, big manufacturers are going to China. Carbondale is kicking and taking names in retail. I have written extensively about this and on business development issues, you are just wrong.

I'm going to do some extensive writings on Pandering soon. I have been reading up.

Good comments and real ideas, good work.