Friday, April 13, 2007

Interesting how the Pro-Sheila people suddenly aren't commenting

Normally, I have 10 or more comments by now. After this Wissmann article post, there is nothing. Started wondering, if you have been fooled by Sheila's act?

Waiting for someone to step up and tell us that Chris is wrong or something. What we have so far is a Sheila supporter calling him "not a democrat."

We are all agreed that Sheila is unethical and lying in this campaign then? Her whole act is a sham to pander to voters?

8 comments:

B. Ware said...

I personally believe many pro-Sheila people are getting scared. I originally felt that I was pro-Sheila, but after seeing her true colors throughout this race, I've completely changed my mind. Brad has done a good job, and nobody should take away from the good things he has done in the last four years. I would rather see the city continue in the positive direction that it has gone in Brad's tenure as mayor, than to see things go backwards if Sheila became mayor. I know first-hand at least five people who were at one time Sheila supporters, who have been turned off by her campaign....maybe those are the only five (six including myself)that feel that way, but I'm not so sure....perhaps that's why they're not commenting......

Peter in Carbondale said...

I think this is a reasonable idea of reality. My feeling is that Sheila has over promised and when Brad started campaigning after the primary, the wheels came off. It is great to make wild claims, but face to face, her claims don't make sense.

In the end, the city has been remarkable well run for the last 4 years. To change directions, the voters would need a really good reason. Sheila tried to manufacture issues, but has failed to pull it off. It looks pretty bad when you run on your integrity and get caught with you hand in the dirty tricks cookie jar.

Concerned said...

b.ware,

I'm in the same category as you, and I've been vocal about it. It's like Milton said in another post, blogging itself can be a catlyst for reflecting on one's belief system...perhpas even changing it.

Sincerely,
Concerned

Kyle Raccio said...

A lot of times we don't feel the need to comment on such vicious personal character attacks. Besides, our GOTV campaign is on steroids right now and we are all very busy!

Peter in Carbondale said...

But Kyle, "Team Sheila" is the sources of the personal attacks in this campaign. Haven't you been paying attention? The rest of us have been talking about issues and not using slander.

It is great being young, you can roll along and feel that ethics are for the other guy.

nobody said...

Really, Sheila is a good person, but maybe not cut out for this level of politics. There are several mayoral responsibilities to which she seems unconcerned. As an example, the regular city business doesn't need to be portrayed as unethical. That simply makes it more difficult for the city to do it's business.

Still, she is quite nice and is a valued member of the community. Oftentimes it is easy to blame a person for the way that their friends act. Some people are just too nice.

Too bad about the pandering thing. I can recommend a good book, but she is probably already familiar with it.

Peter in Carbondale said...

In the business world, you hear people blame their lawyer when things get nasty. I have never bought this, you pay the lawyer, you own their actions. Don't tell me your lawyer or your Mommy made you do it.

In this campaign, Sheila has not been a "good person." She had a reasonable chance of winning, all she had to do was run an ethical campaign. There isn't even a middleman involved, Sheila is making up lies and slanders one after the other. It could be that Sheila is a good person away from this election, but if we judge her by her actions, we would have to say she is full of BS.

I'm sure that Sheila's friends are involved in pushing her to do unethical things, but we aren't talking about little boys TP'ing houses here. Sheila is the one who choose her friends and did the unethical deeds. These things are on her and no one else. Just like her votes as a city council member belong to her.

I have read Paul Simon's book on Pandering recently. Sheila got the campaign contribution part right, but then broke every other rule about pandering according to her old man. It is an interesting little book and worth your time.

Personally, I like to judge people on what they do and not just on their words. Sheila's actions fall far short of what she has promised the voters.

It is a shame, before I thought she didn't know how to execute the work of being mayor, but thought she was a good person. After the primary, she really lost her way. Before I preferred Brad, now I'm going to be really unhappy if Sheila wins.

Anonymous said...

Sheila Simon does seem to me to be a nice person, but as a candidate, perhaps not quite so much.

How someone can call Wissmann's editorial "vicious personal attacks" is baffling, however; he simply noted her record vs. her statements. His is a factual argument in the purist sense; you can't blame the guy if the facts happen to allign in such a way.