Welcome Visitor. Sign-on
 
Analysis: Should the Media Handicap Political Campaigns?
By: Aaron E. Wicks
Posted: Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:26 pm
Rochester, NY (June 28, 2010) -- Beacon readers are a sharp bunch. On more than one occasion they have caught the publishers/authors in various states of journalistic undress. Other times, they can provide provocative counter-points -- some almost as brilliant as the published material.

Recently, a commenter wondered aloud if a Beacon story was serious in listing Harry Davis (candidate for the 131st Assembly District) as a candidate worthy of people's votes. The story itself made no endorsement in the race, but did observe that in addition to Harry Bronson, there were three other candidates worthy of consideration by voters -- specifically, the story observed: "Voters still have good choices in the 131st: Evans, Powell and Davis remain straight shooters, opponents of mayoral control and offer some hope that politics can be conducted differently."

The commenter, evidently not a fan of Mr. Davis, questioned this statement -- and whether the author truly believed it. The short response should come as no surprise to Beacon readers: I stand by my statement. To wit, I believe that voters do have at least three good choices in the 131st and that the three descriptors used for these candidates "straight shooters", "opponents of mayoral control" and "offer some hope that politics can be conducted differently" do indeed hold for all of them (though not necessarily to the same degree).

But the real point of the commenter, I believe, is that a credible journalist should look at the field and treat some candidates as "credible" and some as something less. In this case, the commenter appears to believe that Mr. Davis is not worthy of treatment as a credible candidate. This is an intriguing proposition: what responsibility do the media have to tell voters which candidates are "credible" and which are not? Should reporters come out and say when they believe a candidate is a total nut or that a candidate is almost certainly going to win? Aren't those key parts of the story that should be told?

What is a "credible" candidate? Some objective measures
Before addressing these questions, one first has to consider how a journalist might decide some candidates are credible and some are not.

Qualifying for the ballot is an obvious measure. Anyone can announce "I'm running for office." But if they do not secure a position on the ballot, their only avenue is via write-in -- and that route has very long odds. So, one way a reporter could decide which candidates to cover and which to ignore would be to focus on the ones who survive petition season and will appear on either a primary or general election ballot.

At this point it's worth noting that qualifying for the ballot reveals only one thing about a candidate: they are able to collect signatures and submit them in accordance with fairly arcane election law requirements. A credible candidate for City Council from last year -- Diane Watkins -- failed to reach the ballot through an error in her petitions. Some argue, "well, if she can't even follow the rules, she couldn't be a very serious candidate." Possibly -- but that's an argument for another time, one worth taking up. But let the record show that this standard of "credibility" is a fairly low one.

Another objective measure of credibility is fundraising. The logic here is that a 'credible" candidate is one that is supported by voters strongly enough to encourage them to give money. This is comparable to a corporations' stock prices raising or falling on exchanges based on who is buying or selling their shares: credible candidates are in demand and receive investments; non-credible ones are avoided by investors and their fundraising languishes.

There is some logic to this measure. Indeed, it is often reported in mainstream media coverage of elections. But any casual observer of politics is keenly aware that there are excellent candidates who go underfunded (for a variety of reasons) and there are some candidates who can self-finance (Michael Bloomberg), making their fundraising ability irrelevant.

Polls are also used to identify the candidates who are more likely to win -- and therefore receive a higher level of media scrutiny. The media love to report on campaign polls because it relieves them of the tremendous burden of having to prove why they are covering some candidates and not others. In fact, the Commission on Presidential Debates (the bipartisan group that sponsors Presidential debates every four years), uses poll standings to determine who can participate in the debates. Local television stations did the same, to some degree, in 2005 when they hosted debates of Rochester mayoral candidates Wade Norwood, Robert Duffy and Tim Mains, but excluded Chris Maj who had also qualified for the Democratic primary ballot (note, however, that some stations included Maj in their debates and candidate profiles).

The use of polls to determine coverage, however, seems a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Voters have heard of candidates A and B, but not C, so C finishes far behind in a poll in August. That means we will cover only candidates A and B." Given that logic, is it any surprise candidate C finishes third in the primary in September? Perhaps that was their destiny -- but the media decision could also be part of the equation.

Finally, one last measure of a candidate's quality is their past record. Consider the 131st Assembly race and the judgment by the commenter noted above. The field consists of Harry Bronson (twice elected to the County Legislature and selected by his peers as Minority Leader); Willa Powell (thrice elected to the Rochester City School Board and chosen by her peers to be Board Vice President), Malik Evans (twice elected to the Rochester City School Board and selected by his peers to be Board President) and Harry Davis (briefly candidate for mayor in 2009, candidate for City Council in 2009 and 2007). Of the four, based only on this information, three candidates have been elected to office (two of them in citywide elections; one candidate has run twice and failed to be elected.

On this basis, one could argue that there should be a hierarchy among these four candidates in terms of the media coverage -- but why? Is running for office unsuccessfully an indication that one is unworthy of office? Several very successful politicians have lost elections. Is newsprint so scarce, airtime so limited, that only three -- but definitely not four -- candidates can be covered? Hard to make that case.

Credible candidates -- the subjective indicators
The measures above are commonly cited by the media as their justification for focusing on certain candidates at the exclusion of others. The reality, though, is that subjective indicators also play a major role in media decision-making.

Consider the role of party designating caucuses. Parties abhor primaries -- primaries, they argue, deplete party resources, weaken candidates going into a general election and divide the party. For those reasons, and others, parties have a vested interest in promoting their "designated" candidate as THE party's candidate in the primary (if there is one). While this might seem an objective measure, it is actually quite subjective. Yes, a person either is or is not the party's designee -- that is clear enough. But the question is whether being the party's designee is an objective measure of a candidate's viability as a candidate. In other words, does being the party's designated candidate "mean" anything?

Well, recent history suggests that being the designated candidate certainly helps. In 2009 all 5 designated city council candidates and all three designated school board candidates won their citywide Democratic primaries. But in 2005, the party's designated candidate for mayor, Wade Norwood, lost to Robert Duffy in the primary. And other designees have lost city council and school board races in recent years. The designation is not a lock, but statistically, it helps.

What makes it a questionable measure of candidate credibility is the process by which a person becomes designated. In Monroe County,  a very small number of party committee members weigh in on the decision. In many cases, committee leaders -- often themselves politicians -- exert influence over the process. In short, designation reflects what a small group of insiders want in a candidate -- hardly a bona fide measure of candidate quality.

Related to this subjective measure is a more amorphous "word on the street" reputation that some candidates develop. Some candidates are seen as "promising", others are dismissed as "cranks", "rubes" or simply as not serious candidates. These judgments often come from insiders with experience and knowledge -- but also often with an agenda of their own. And while one would like to think the media would not be swayed by these voices, they clearly are. One of the most difficult things to overcome with the media is a reputation as being an "also ran" -- unless you can show a change in fundraising, poll numbers or some other obvious indicator of support, the media will stick with their view.

The real question: how SHOULD the media decide which candidates are credible -- or should they do so at all?
As someone who openly views media coverage as a political act (not some naive objective "just the facts" reporting role -- come on, the media are political players) -- there is one clear justification for consciously marginalizing some candidates in political coverage: dangerous political extremists who clearly propose anti-democratic principles. It is on this basis that one could legitimately paint David Duke as a marginal extremist (who nevertheless nearly won election in the state of Louisiana despite being an unrepentant Klansmen) or, going back further in history, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party as extremist thugs. In both cases, it could be argued that media coverage may not have harmed them -- indeed it might have helped. Such cases are difficult -- but very rare -- calls for publishers.

Beyond such cases, it is difficult to imagine how a media outlet who claims to be objective (as virtually all mainstream outlets do) could justify excluding candidates who will appear on a ballot from receiving equal coverage. The Beacon, of course, excludes itself from this argument as the publishers make no claim to objectivity -- we try to provoke and prod, and we do so by explicitly taking positions, not pretending to avoid them.

There are at least two reasons mainstream media should get out of the business of picking winners in campaigns:

1. The picking of winners does nothing to inform the electorate -- presumably the raison d'etre of the media. But the fact that they do go ahead and name winners shows that their mission is not to inform, it is to maximize audience share for their advertisers. How does reporting on front-runners and excluding also-rans do this? It sends a signal to the more educated readers/viewers/listeners: "We know who is REALLY worth following, and we will not waste your time with kooks." Consumers of information appreciate that -- despite the fact that it might not be good for a healthy democracy (ironic, huh?). Nevertheless, media outlets are happy to oblige.

2. The picking of winners reinforces decisions made by elites -- decisions that may not be very good in the first place. Presumably, the purpose of elections is to provide people with a competitive forum to consider candidates and select the leaders of one's choice. But when the mainstream media push some candidates off the page or outside the camera lens, voters only get part of the picture. Again, this lines up perfectly with the incentives of most media outlets: as commercial ventures, their interests often align with other community elites who are whispering their ears that this candidate is worth watching, but that one is marginal. The whispering does not even have to be audible; most of this occurs without much active contemplation.

The bigger question is this: if a reporter is claiming to report "the entire story", is it accurate to cover a campaign knowing with some confidence, that one or more of the candidates simply has no chance? Is it misleading the audience to say "Here's Bob Jones, longtime town Board member running for re-election, and running against him, Zippy the Pinhead, who is campaigning on a platform of no tax breaks for Martian invaders." Do both of those candidates truly merit equal time? Most reporters will say no, rather, most reporters will say their editors will say no. People don't want to watch or read it -- we will lose our credibility and our audience if we cover that race giving the candidates equal time. Viewers/readers will think we simply have no political sensibility and that we have wasted their time.

Conclusion: the media are a business. Period. You get what you pay for
Perhaps this is true. But for once it would be nice for the mainstream media to own the fact that they do nothing that is not consistent with their financial interest -- even it costs the public information they might use to elect their community's leaders. Making money is a perfectly fine use of one's time, and a legitimate reason to run a media outlet. But if that is the dominant interest (and it is), then it will influence everything that outlet produces. Sadly, that means campaigns are covered not as exercises in public deliberation, but as "news stories", dramatic snippets that will only draw cameras if there are images, sounds or words that will put people in front of their tv's or sell more newspapers.

Here at the Beacon -- also a business venture -- we have a different agenda. Yes, making money is part of it, but also high on the agenda (perhaps higher) is the goal of provoking debate and discussion on topics that too often go undiscussed, holding people and institutions more accountable than the mainstream media (who often have conflicting interests).

As noted in the lede, we do not always get the details right, and we do not studiously work to provide equal coverage for candidates, but we will continue to try to shine a light in a few places the mainstream media choose to leave dark. And sometimes, dear commenter, that means looking a second time at a candidate like Harry Davis and saying "why not?" Let's let the voters decide. As little as I respect their judgment, I will take it over the mainstream media and local elites any day.

[Editor's note: An earlier version of this story omitted one of Powell's three Board terms and neglected to note her service as Vice President. The author regrets this error as these facts directly relate to the argument being made in the story: to wit, that the field of candidates in the 131st Assembly District primary consists of several people with distinguished electoral records. The current story reflects these corrections.]

We'd like to hear from you!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please login (or create a membership login) and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" field. We ask that underneath your opinion, you provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. Only opinions that include full attribution will be approved by our authors. Thanks very much!

Click here to get email updates!

Printer-friendly format

Member Opinions:
By: vote4harry on 6/28/10
Harry Davis Was The Third Vote!
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/315


OK, this comment was originally meant for response to:

Does Harry Bronson's Campaign Have A Death Wish?
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/310


But since Aaron just put out this interesting essay, I decided to place it here. Since we called on Harry Bronson to state his positions on matters that concern voters, i.e. the "Duffy/Morelle/Gantt School Privatization Act of 2010", Mr. Bronson said nothing except his infamous remark: "I don't think we need to go there,". Apparently this is an all-around boilerplate answer. Now, the issue of Mr. Bronson's family life really was brought up by the media when we called the press conference to ask Harry about Bob's schools.We were not out to make this an issue. As I mentioned before, and as Aaron has aptly stated, we don't give a whiff about what Harry does behind closed doors but I do care about how a candidate presents his/her self and what "facts" he/she puts out there. But in my rounds of Dem caucuses this spring, I personally witnessed Mr. Bronson avoid the answer to this question. He has one answer to his city friends, another to the voters in the burbs. Period.

The fact that Mr. Bronson won't state where he stands on the most important issue of this campaign, the "Duffy/Morelle/Gantt School Privatization Act of 2010", is reason, I think, not to vote for him. I have nothing against Gays. Everybody that knows me knows this. I support Gay marriage. I have had Gay friends for decades. Hell, in Miami Beach I even took a shower with Allen Ginsberg back in the 70's as a reporter for an alternative newspaper and interviewed him in the swimming pool after that! We just want answers, especially in a time when we are dealing with voting rights, a time when Mayor Bob said one thing to get elected last year now has gone and taken an opposite view today with his destructive actions. Do we want Mr. Bronson to be so un-accountable? I think not.

And to make matters worse, I just heard from a source I trust that Harry Bronson does NOT support the "Duffy/Morelle/Gantt School Privatization Act of 2010" but Bronson is so beholden to Bob Duffy that he will not admit how he feels in public. His mentor, NYS Assembly Member Susan John voted AGAINST the "Duffy/Morelle/Gantt School Privatization Act of 2010" this week. Ms. John has decided not to seek re-election this year.

Harry Bronson Does NOT Support "Duffy's/Morelle's/Gantt's School Privatization Act of 2010"
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/323

Speaking of bad behavior, let's go back to Duffy's response to me & Bonnie that the RGRTA is "too powerful." If the RGRTA is "too powerful," why then did Duffy have to lobby city council members to support Mortimer?

Now, don't forget, Harry Davis ran for the Rochester City council last year. I came in sixth out of five seats open. If I was sitting on the city council on June 15, 2010, the Mortimer bus barn would have had it's third vote and it would not have passed.


More Bad Behavior


The history of RGRTA and their response to the core ridership clearly demonstrates a lack of transparency and serious response to systematic concerns.

They view themselves as a private enterprise with riders, especially those dependent on the bus for all their transportation, as less than equals.


Examples include:


1) They indicated it could be necessary for them to raise fares in order to re-vamp the current hub and spoke system. It was pointed out that they chose to lower the fare to a dollar regardless of how far away you lived.


2) They could have requested a graduated fare with those living furthest paying somewhat higher fare. This would be more equitable given the fact that due to the hub and spoke system it is actually the city bus riders who often have to pay for the more expensive day pass, as well as funding the necessary changes of the hub & spoke system.

More thoughts—

The City appears to actually believe that because the RGRTA has 13 Board members with only 3 from the City that they are totally at their mercy therefore, providing a perfectly good reason for not standing up for the needs of City bus riders.


That would be the same Authority that would have determining rights over other transportation projects.


Council should call for eliminating the Authority. Federal policy relies on local decision making but is flawed due to ill-informed, uninterested, status quo elected officials who do not want to empower constituents. Kind of like "I don't think we need to go there."


If an inter-modal transit station is built by the Amtrak station and the old post office, like every sane person in Rochester knows it should be, and according to the plans of John Robert Smith and Roger Brown, residential and commercial development will follow.


But as of today, we will have a $52 million homeless shelter next to the newly remodeled Warner Building on Mortimer Street. And speaking of scandals, the new ESL building costs about the same amount of money to build as the bus barn, but, the ESL building is three times the size of the bus barn! That’s right. The Mortimer bus barn will cost $750 a square foot, much more than the going rate! As Howard Decker of the blog “Town Square” puts it, “both Detroit’s and Nashville’s recent bus barns, about the same size, were built for way less than half this amount.” So, where does the money go? Good question. Ask Heidi Dimmer-Zimmer. She has an answer for eberything. Or, maybe we should ask city council, or, Harry Bronson? hmmm. I don't think I want to go there. "Swims with fishes."


Hint: Building Trades union. http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/25


Getting back to Mary Anna Towler…”City Council’s mistaken bus station vote” is how our elitist, Smugtown illuminati publisher summed up her feelings about the wrong turn our transportation “policy” took last week. Ms. Towler states: “We’re building the bus station in the wrong place, with an ugly design, solely to get federal funds. It’s just sad.”


MA goes on to suggest we “keep pressure on city officials so that we get the best outcome possible from this thing. And pretty soon, in a week or so, I’ll start thinking about that. Right now, though, I’ll just be sad – about Council’s vote last night, and what this misguided project says about our city.”


Right. MA says to "Keep the pressure on the RGRTA", an organization Mayor Duffy has said is "too powerful." Right. And maybe they will listen for the first time in ten years? Right.


Well, MA. We only needed one more vote on Tuesday, June 15 to stop this monster. We didn’t get it. Mary Anna, do you know who that one more vote was? I do. His name is Harry Davis. Since 2003, I really don’t know anybody in this city who has expended any more energy than yours truly on stopping all the incarnations of this boondoggle. So you are sad? So am I and all of my friends who worked to stop this. But MA, I am your vote but last year you did not see things that way. If Harry Davis was sitting on city council now instead of Matt Haag, or Jackie Ortiz, or Loretta Scott, all elected less than one year ago, if Council Member Harry Davis was voting on Mortimer, we would all be celebrating inter-modal transportation in Rochester right now, instead of being “sad.”



But Mary Anna, when I asked for CITY endorsement last year when I was a candidate for the Rochester City Council, you did not even interview me! Instead, you endorsed the entire Monroe County Democratic Committee (MCDC) slate of candidates.



There is nobody in Rochester who has written more, campaigned more and had any more passion for stopping this damn nightmare than Harry Davis. Your response to my request for endorsement was a rejection that said I was “too passionate, too persistant. When he latches onto an idea, he never let’s go. And besides that, we don’t think he will get along with other city council members.”


Here it is:


"Davis is obviously interested in the fate of the city. And he is passionate, to put it mildly. Once he latches onto an issue, he won't let go, whether it's Renaissance Square or his personal experience with barking dogs and bedbugs. Persistent, sometimes angry, he phones, writes letters, posts web comments, and sends e-mails to a wearying extent (setting off, one day, a flood of "Take me off your e-mail list!" responses from many of the 1000 people* whose addresses he had gathered). He knows a good bit about the city's problems, but his temperament, unfortunately, would make him a difficult member of City Council.


http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/opinion/2009/09/ENDORSEMENTS-...


That's right, MA. "...his temperament, unfortunately, would make him a difficult member of City Council." I would have been the third vote, the one to stop Mortimer and it wouldn't matter to me if I got along well, or was "a difficult member of City Council" with the other eight members or not. I would have done my job.



So, MA. Are you suggesting that you & me & city council sit by the campfire with Tom Richards, a leader of Boy Scout Troop 19, Tay House, one of the best troops in the USA, just like Tom & I did at Massawepie Boy Scout Camp long ago & sing "Kumbayah" together, just like when we were young & foolish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya


Will you join me or are you still too sad?


MA, I would not get along with other ELECTED officials who do not do their job and that is exactly why I am calling for the impeachment of the seven members who voted to proceed with Mortimer.


Emails: Showing Reasons For The Impeachment of ROC City Council Members Lovely Warren, Haag, Spaull, Palumbo & McFadden

http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/302


Rather than "banning" me, why don't you try to think of alternative ideas? You seem too quick on the draw here. While supporting Tom Richards for Mayor after he did one of the worst things both you & I could think of, you nominated him to be Mayor even without an election! Why would you support Tom Richards to be APPOINTED? Have you forgotten that in the USA we VOTE for our office holders? Oh, yes, I forgot. The oligarchy does not favor elections. They have a history going back to the 1700's of frowning on them. MA, are you a related blue-blood to our ancestors who thought better of voting? Seems so.


And with Mayor Duffy, you support his "School Privatization Act of 2010" but by doing this, you ALSO force the voting rights of the majority of this city to be repealed. So, you want to get a new Mayor and get a new school system without bringing any of this to the voters? And btw, while we are on the subjects of our rights, you silenced my voice just because I want to show Rochester the emails that killed our transportation and development dreams? Seems a bit schizophrenic.


MA, you call your "newspaper" an “alternative newspaper.” Well, last year, in addition to endorsing the entire Monroe County Democratic Committee slate for city council, you also chose the same slate the Democrat & Chronicle also endorsed. And you call yourself an “alternative” newspaper.” The only difference between City & the D&C is on occasion, CITY uses the “F” word.


I was a reporter/all around everything to the real alternative newspaper in Rochester, "The Journal” that preceded you in the 1970’s.


And now, this week, when I have presented to your rag real evidence of why seven members of the Rochester city council should be impeached, you have banned me from making these comments in your "newspaper."
...................................
“We’ve given you a long leash until this moment and, we feel, have been tolerant and overly indulgent. That ends now. You’re getting one warning and one warning only. Failure to comply even once and you are permanently banned from the City Newspaper website. We regret having to take this action, but you have left us no choice.”

Sincerely,
Christine C. Fien
News Editor

fromChris Fien
sender-timeSent at 4:54 PM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 5:16 PM. ✆
toHarry Davis
dateTue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:54 PM
subjectRE: Does Harry Bronson support Mayor Duffy's takeover of schools?
mailed-byrochester-citynews.com
signed-byrochester-citynews.com
hide details 4:54 pm (today )

Harry,

We gave you fair warning: no excerpts from other media outlets. There’s almost nothing original in your “comment.”
You are now banned. Sorry, Harry, but any comments you submit will be automatically deleted.

Chris
...........................
Alternative newspaper? Even the Democrat and Chronicle has a union at it’s workplace. CITY newspaper fired the best reporter you ever had, Jack Spula, because he wanted to unionize your newspaper! How’s that for “alternative."?


So, MA. As I mentioned above, one of my first jobs back in the 1970's while gaining my BA in English from SUNY@Buffalo was as a reporter/all around everything to the real alternative newspaper in Rochester, "The Journal” which preceded you in the 1970’s. I reported from Washington, DC on the Viet Nam war. I tried to state facts the Democrat & Chronicle did not report. I supported candidates for office that the Democrat and Chronicle did not support.


So, MA, as the saying goes, “I knew “alternative newspapers”. You, City "newspaper" are no “alternative newspaper.”


Harry Davis
June 25, 2010
South Wedge,
Rochester, New York 14620

By: Terry_Schnurr on 6/28/10
Aaron:

I'm flattered that I have motivated such an extensive and often insightful meditation, but I think you have mistaken my point. I wasn't questioning your inclusion of Mr..Davis, but, rather your characterization of him as “a good choice”. I believe – hope even – that you were being disingenuous.

As you suggest, your role is more as a critic than as a reporter. We come to this site seeking not a dry recitation of objective facts, but a thought-provoking and provocative expression of subjective opinions. As one who often touts the value of candor, you should, I would suggest, practice it with respect to Harry Davis.

(Let me tangentially lay bare a few of my biases: I believe both Harry Bronson and Malik Evans have the capacity to be truly great state legislators. I believe Mr. Bronson is more likely to achieve that and to do so sooner, so I support his candidacy. Willa Powell possesses many positive qualities. I have voted for her in the past and might do so again. Mayoral control would, in and of itself, do nothing to improve education in the city schools, but would further warp our local political culture. The construction of a bus terminal on Mortimer Street would be a monumental mistake in the same category as the Inner Loop, the Civic Center Plaza, and Riverfront Commons. High-Speed Rail will be a major economic driver in coming years, and our community should pursue it vigorously.)

Harry Davis' activity in local politics goes back a bit further than you suggest here. In 2003, he ran a write-in campaign against Bill Pritchard for the city council seat vacated by Nancy Griswold. In 2005, he sought the Democratic designation for one of five at-large city council seats. Failing there, he tried to participate in a primary, but his petitions were absurdly inadequate. (Further disclosure: I was campaign manager for the campaign on whose behalf objections were filed to those petitions.) He continued to pursue the office on the “Red, White, and Blue” line. Time and again over the past seven years, Mr. Davis has been resoundingly defeated. I too am sometimes bewildered by the choices voters make, but here I understand and agree completely.

You and I have both been involved in the city political scene over the past several years enough to have had sufficient firsthand experiences with Harry Davis to have developed opinions about him. I have enough respect for your judgment, intelligence, and powers of observation to suspect that your private opinion of Mr. Davis is in line with the broad cross-party, cross-faction, and cross-ideological consensus I have observed. That consensus is, to put it gently, that Mr. Davis is abrasive, mean-spirited, naive, arrogant, and divorced from reality. (Some might say much the same about me, but these qualities don't simply describe Mr. Davis; they define him. )

One way political elites, the media, and opponents respond to candidates they don't consider credible is to ignore them. Another, to my mind more perilous, response is to emphasize the positive, thus avoiding the aggravation one might encounter if one riled them by either ignoring them or subjecting them to the same honest scrutiny one would a serious candidate.

So, Aaron, I wasn't criticizing you for treating Harry Davis as a credible candidate, but because I suspect you weren't.

Terrence E. Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: admin on 6/29/10
Mr. Schnurr,

I think we both have to admit that in deciding on candidate to support, it is common for people to exaggerate the positives of the candidates they support and the negatives of those they oppose.

I willingly concede that I do that regularly. I suspect, though, that you believe I have crossed a line and actually stated an opinion I do not hold: specifically, that Mr. Davis is a "good choice." You imply -- or maybe said quite clearly -- that I cannot possibly believe this.

In the context of my article, I have no trouble defending my statement. Mr. Bronson refuses to state his position on an important issue -- in fact, goes so far as to say "let's not go there" -- while his three opponents state theirs very clearly. For that reason, yes, I would take any of the three over Bronson.

Is Mr. Bronson less abrasive than Mr. Davis -- well, that depends on who you talk to. But honestly, I do not select my representatives based on such traits. If Mr. Bronson continues to show outright contempt for the electorate by taking such non-positions, I can imagine a diverse cast of characters who I would support before him -- including his Republican opponent.

Now, as the campaign progresses and the three other candidates have the opportunity to reveal more about their positions and their approach to reform (personally I would like to see a commitment to not support the re-election of the Assembly leadership), I will refine my position on the three more clearly. Like you, I find them to be very different candidates with different strengths and weaknesses. But at this point, I don't feel it was disingenuous in any way to claim that, relative to Bronson, Willa Powell, Malik Evans and yes, Harry Davis, are "good choices."

To the degree that one finds Mr. Davis objectionable, one should also consider the offense an intelligent person should take with Mr. Bronson's dodging of the mayoral control issue. It speaks volumes, and does not speak well of Mr. Bronson at all, sadly.

Aaron Wicks
Rochester, NY
Co-publisher Smugtown Beacon

By: admin on 6/30/10
Aaron,

Thank you for the acknowledgment, and for raising such critically important points. In my humble view --- only those who are fearful of real, authentic democratic political processes and / or the possibility that the status-quo will be shattered --- would argue with your astute contentions.

Howard Eagle
Rochester, NY

By: Terry_Schnurr on 6/30/10
Aaron:

Your initial statement regarding the tendency to exaggerate the positives of candidates one supports and the negatives of those we do not is certainly true. Like virtually everyone, I have yielded to that tendency – but not here.

You will note that I said nothing negative about either Malik or Willa, though I am opposing them. What I said about Harry Bronson represents my exact opinion without a trace of exaggeration. When I said that I was putting the case against Harry Davis gently I meant that I was understating the reasons that he is unfit for public office – and I was.

If I were choosing someone to fill out opinion polls on my behalf, I might - in a pinch - consider Harry Davis. The job of a legislator is more than casting votes, however. It is also necessary to persuade, advocate, and build coalitions. In these collegial activities, what legislators' colleagues think of them is important. (This is why traits like abrasiveness matter.) It is helpful if they are liked; it's imperative that their judgment is respected. I find it impossible to imagine many legislators respecting Harry Davis' judgment.

In describing Harry Davis as a “good choice” you made an absolute statement not a comparative one. You didn't say, “Voters have better choices.” or “Three candidates have dealt better with this issue.”
You said, “Voters have good choices ...” That constitutes an absolute assertion that Harry Davis would make a good state legislator and in defending the assertion the words “relative to Bronson” have no place. Simply put: Do you believe in absolute terms that Harry Davis is a good choice or were you being disingenuous?

Terry Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: vote4harry on 7/1/10
Mr. Schnurr should make sure brain is engaged before using fingers/mouth.

Mr. Schnurr states: "Harry Davis' activity in local politics goes back a bit further than you suggest here. In 2003, he ran a write-in campaign against Bill Pritchard for the city council seat vacated by Nancy Griswold. In 2005, he sought the Democratic designation for one of five at-large city council seats. Failing there, he tried to participate in a primary, but his petitions were absurdly inadequate. (Further disclosure: I was campaign manager for the campaign on whose behalf objections were filed to those petitions.) He continued to pursue the office on the “Red, White, and Blue” line. Time and again over the past seven years, Mr. Davis has been resoundingly defeated. I too am sometimes bewildered by the choices voters make, but here I understand and agree completely."

1) I never participated in any campaign, be it write-in or other against Mr. Pritchard. In 2003, I did a write-in campaign but it was against Adam McFadden, not Bill Pritchard. As usual, my platform contained strong planks against the bus barn at Main & Clinton, soon to be know as ren square. If Rochester had listened to me then, we would have saved $27 million and would now be enjoying a pleasant Main Street.

I sense a defensiveness on the part of Mr. Schnurr. He seems to think I am going after politicians who are Gay. Since Mr. Pritchard is openly Gay, why would Mr. Schnurr confuse Bill with Adam? In the past it was Mr. McFadden who espoused anti-Gay remarks & actions. It seems to me Mr. Schnurr should be thanking me for my past campaigns.

2) "his petitions were absurd;y inadequate." In 2005, I was very proud to be on the ballot in November under the "Red, White & Blue Party." for Rochester City Council. Again, same platform, ren square. We went out and collected 1,500 (if I am not mistaken on the exact number) signatures to be a third party on the November ballot. To say my primary petitions were "absurdly inadequate" well, I tried. Maybe Mr. Schnurr does not realize that the process for collecting signatures is grossly unfair for disabled people, such as Chris Hilderbrant, and myself. We do not have equal grounds ( no pun intended, Mr. Bronson) to go door-to-door to ask for signatures.

I am in constant pain on a daily basis due to the fact that most of my feet have been amputated. If you can imagine a buzz saw cutting through both of your feet, well, that is the pain I was in back in May, 2001 when I had my feet amputated due to bacterial meningitis. The sawing of all the bones in one's feet will hurt, does hurt for the rest of my life. This pain never goes away so walking is almost impossible for me. Every day, 24/7, my pain level is between 3-9 on a 1-10 scale, depending upon how many miles (yards) I walk. This is why I ride my bicycle everywhere. btw, last May, 2009, a driver hit me when I was in a crosswalk while on my bike. I went down hard and now I have a fractured vertebrae which adds to my pain. Being a champion track New York State medal winner at Brighton High School and also starting the BHS Ski Team, with many many years skiing the Colorado Rockies, I am very frustrated by not being able to walk to every door in my district.


I would have liked to have run to every voter's house in my district as Carrie Andrews did. Therefore, I must recruit help to do this. Last year, I am proud to say, I was on three separate sets of petitions which collected a total of about 6,500 signatures. Nobody else in Rochester did this. Even the MCDC candidates did not even come close.

Harry Davis
Rochester, New York

By: Terry_Schnurr on 7/2/10
Oh, and, Mr. Brennan, two more things:

I should thank you. What higher praise can a writer ask than to have his own words plagiarized against him – months later?

You need not remind me of 2005. My memories of that year are much more vivid. I recall clearly Aaron 's role in the campaign of the candidate of whom I made no secret of my rather passive support, much to the consternation of other supporters of the city council candidate whose campaign I managed. I also recall a school board candidate named Brennan who gleefully allowed himself to be a pawn in David Gantt's machinations.

Terry Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: Terry_Schnurr on 7/2/10
I'm sorry, Mr. Brennan. Your comment is such a rich vein of taurine excrement that I can't resist one more go.

The candidate whose campaign I managed in 2005 happens to be Latino. Does that give me a free pass to trump up issues relating to other Latino candidates' heritage?

“Is 133rd Assembly District candidate Tony Vega trying to hide his Hispanic heritage? In the Gates committee meeting, he never mentioned his Puerto Rican background, though he mentioned it twice with the Northwest Democrats and once at the 29th LD. He also sent out a mailing with a picture of him standing with a man in fedora in front of a pizza parlor. While Vega has every right to display photos depicting his support for small business, one wonders if Vega hopes some voters might misunderstand this to mean that Mr. Vega is Italian.”

Frankly, if I made this sort of thinly veiled appeal to anti-Latino bigotry I would expect to be called on it, and my past actions would do nothing to absolve me.

Terry Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: vote4harry on 7/2/10
Again, I repeat. Mr. Schnurr should make sure brain is engaged before using fingers & mouth, especially when he represents other people such as Mr. Bronson & Thomas Ferrarese.

They should also consider another campaign platform rather than "I don't think we need to go there."
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/307

Harry Davis
Rochester, New York


By: admin on 7/2/10
A factual correction. Mr. Davis ran against Adam McFadden, in 2003, not Bill Pritchard.

As a volunteer in the Deb Crowder city court campaign of 2006, I well recall McFadden's mistreatment of her, which did not endear him to people who believe in decent treatment of all people in our community.

Mr. Schnurr pops up often on this site, making false assertions, and poisening public discourse with appeals to the worst in us. Schnurr's intent here is obvious.

He "recalls" a Davis race against an openly Gay councilman which never happened (Davis, in fact, challenged a candidate with a regretable history of Gay baiting) -- in order to excuse what ought not be excused, and that is Harry Bronson's duplicity, cynicism, and arrogance.

Harry Davis not my choice in this assembly race, but it is Bronson's conduct that is shameful, and which ought to particularly offend people who take notions of democratic process and dignity for all people seriously.

In the 2005 race for Mayor, when most people were making more "pragmatic" choices, Aaron Wicks co-managed the Tim Mains campaign. For Schnurr to assert that Wicks, of all people, is Gay baiting because he dares to explore an obvious criticism of Bronson, is beneath decency.

Mr. Schnurr's strange and nasty posts on this sites are the price for having an open forum like this. But it is long past time that readers dismissed him.

Tom Brennan
Rochester

By: admin on 7/2/10
Messrs. Davis and Brennan are correct that I misstated which city council race Mr. Davis ran in 2003. I am quite sure Mr. Brennan will not believe that this was simply a lapse of memory, but it was.

The fact that Messrs. Wicks and Davis are not homophobes makes their obvious gay-baiting in the present case all the cynical and appalling.

As to Tom Brennan: "It is long past time that readers dismissed him..."

Terry Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: admin on 7/2/10
Note from the Co-Publisher:

It has long been the Smugtown Beacon's policy to maintain an open forum so long as posters accept full responsibility for their comments.

I have elected to violate our own policy in the case of the two recent posts between Messrs. Brennan and Schnurr. While I feel they should engage each other -- and do -- in critical debate, recent comments included references that I felt were simply personal insults and added nothing to the substantive discussion.

The Smugtown Beacon's policy is to post all comments that are attributed and that do not make overtly personal attacks. In my judgment, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Schnurr have ably made their cases. The specific phrases I have deleted from their posts merely added personal invective that I felt was unnecessary.

Aaron Wicks
Co-Publisher
Smugtown Beacon

By: Terry_Schnurr on 7/2/10
Mr. Davis:

I can't imagine why you think I represent Mr Bronson or Mr. Ferrarese, any more than I can imagine why you think finishing sixth in a six-way race for five seats nearly 10,000 votes out of fifth place (with less than 2,000 votes from a pool of nearly 20,000 voters) is something to brag about.

Terry Schnurr
Rochester, NY


Login and voice your opinion!
Do you know someone else who would like to see this?
Your Email:
Their Email:
Comment:
(Will be included with e-mail)
 
 
Copyright © and Trademark ™ 2007-2009 All Rights Reserved
Copyright Statement | Privacy Statement | Terms of Service | Host your Web site with IPOWER!
Making Web Design Easy Since 2001
Newspaper Software, Magazine Software, HOAs, Trade Associations & Community Website Software  |  Email Marketing, E-Commerce