News-Record.com

My two cents: a blog or a website isn't going to win or lose anyone an election, not at a local level anyway.

The Internet can do a lot of things. It can help you build a community among those who have computer access, it can help you fundraise, it can allow you get your opinions and other information out. Certainly it helps us scruffy media types who pay attention to such things get a better sense of the candidate.

But it can change voter registration trends, can't single-handedly combat direct mail or broadcast advertising, doesn't go all that far to boost turn out and can't make a bad candidate a good one.

The use of the Internet is and will become more important in Congressional and statewide races, where candidates have so much physical ground to cover that going door-to-door simply isn't going to cut it. (If a candidate in District 5 had run a 90-day campaign, they would have only had to meet 40 people a day to shake hands with everyone who voted.) With apologies to the likes of Ron Paul, Howard Dean and even John Edwards in this cycle, online is only a part of the strategy - it's not going to work at THE strategy.

Carmany should get props - whether you agree with her politics or positions or not - for attempting to use the medium in a way that let her better communicate to constituents and the city at large.

But from a strategic standpoint, she ran into a spate of bad campaign fundamentals that no blog could fix and no blog was really going to aggravate all that much.

I was probably a bit too snippy in my comments about Sandy losing. But I do believe her loss was directly related to her support of Mitch Johnson.

As one who has lost elections before, and may lose again some time in the future, I'm sure whatever sarcasm I employed will be returned.

I'm not knocking Carmany for her record, just this one issue and I think a lot of voters did the same. I also don't think it was productive of her to say she would stop blogging if she lost the election. That made it seem that her desire to communicate is directly related to how much power she has. No power, no concern.

Thanks, Mark and Samuel.

The one question I have about your assertion, Sam, that it was her position on Chief Wray is that no other incumbent suffered that. Or, at least, enough voters didn't feel that way to defeat Sandra, Mike, T. Dianne, Goldie or Yvonne. I don't know that Sandy defended the city's position that much differently that they did (except perhaps Mike.)

As for her blogging, I don't know Sandy's heart or why she blogs, but when I leave this job, I doubt I will continue blogging, so I understand where she may be coming from.

Mike, Sandra and Yvonne made public statements about wanting to release more information on the Wray matter. They were reelected. Sandy did not, and repeatedly backed Mitch Johnson. If anything, I think the re-election of Mike, Sandra and Yvonne makes my argument even more plausible.

I think there may have been different and opposite dynamics in play with Goldie and Dianne.

I don't recall either Sandra or Yvonne making very strong public statements about wanting to release more information, but perhaps I missed them. I guarantee you that if they did, they didn't make them very often.

That would mean, then, that with Trudy and Mary on the council -- there's a majority of people who can release everything, a welcome development. We'll see if it actually happens.

I also got the sense that they also backed Mitch Johnson. The difference may be that they didn't do it as often as Sandy did because they didn't use a public outlet like a blog in which to do it.

Mike, Sandra and Yvonne each voted to release all information surrounding the Wray affair.

Ah. So how many meetings will it take of the new council before they release everything?

JR:

Depends how much we pressure the council. They made claims in their candidate forums that they would have openness on the new council.
We'll see.

Mary and Trudy, gave a "no confidence" in matters relating to Mitch. So we'll see what comes of that.

I feel that former Chief Wray's, due process of law
was not afforded to him. It seems like the city manager caved in to the African-Americans, to save his ass. Instead of investigating the issue of corruption in the police department, he sold his soul to the powers that be in the African-American
community. He knew even before he took the helm of the city, that there was no good in the police department by those few officers.

I hope I am wrong on this. My biggest wonder is
this...Why is Linda Miles so much into all of this?
Seems to me there was an ambush over yonder!

I seriously doubt Sandy's readership is big enough for her blog to have cost her the election. Endorsements and campaign spending are the two most likely reasons Sandy lost.

Without a doubt, her blogging was her downfall. It allowed the Troublemaker and others to expose her strong support of Mitchell Johnson and the city staff. Tom Phillips stopped blogging several months ago. He must have realized that blogging in defense of Mr Johnson was a losing battle. I thought she was making a bad mistake months ago. Trudy Wade attacked her on issues that Mrs Carmany had opened herself to on her blog. No other council member blogged. That alone should have told her.

Anyway, I thank God that she will be gone.

John

I'm amazed with some of these comments. I eat lunch mosts days with the working people of Greensboro. I'ce been doing this for fifty years. This Wray situation is the discussion just about every day. I called Margaret Moffitt Banks and told her about the petition at the Coliseum Restaurant. She did the story. That same discussion was going on all over GSo. Sandy Carmany was in our talks and how damn naive we believe she really is. I ate Hot dogs at the American Legion last saturday and again the same discussions.

You people are in another world. I don't believe you realize how out of touch you really are with most of us.

Not sure which comments you mean, Wayne. The discussion has primarily been about whether her blog contributed to her defeat. I wasn't trying to discount her position on the Wray case so much as I was trying to distinguish whether her blogging about it differentiated her from any other candidate.

Sorry for the confusion .
A lot of what we learned about her support for Mitchell Johnson came from her blogging. I strongly believe this hurt her badly. Isn't it interesting that no other council member blogged?

Just listening to some of the people interviewed by the local tv news orgs. on Tuesday strongly conveyed the message that they felt Council wasn't doing it's job and that the City Manager was in need of closer supervision.

Accordingly, a majority of them felt Sandy wasn't the one to provide that leadership and voted her out.

Voters can't directly vote for the City Manager, but they can determine who oversees the guy and accordingly sent a message. If I were Mitch Johnson I'd be a little nervous about my job.

While I have no inside information, I doubt the Wray case has anything to do with that, Wayne. I think the others aren't blogging because it is new technology, it takes too much time and the attacks quickly become personal and, sometimes, offensive.

Wayne:

T. Diane Bellamy-Small had a blog and won her campaign.

If you widen your thinking from "blog" to web presence, at least six of nine winners had web pages where they staked out their opinions to one degree or another.

As for Carmany, her blogging put her comments out there. However, other council members had made comments at meetings, in the media and other places that could have been used should someone been determined to use them.

If you look at the district races: TDBS had issues unique to her race but pulled off a close victory; Goldie Wells' challenger doesn't appear to have broken through on any issue, Joe Wilson blogged but his pro-Wray sentiment didn't deliver him a victory against newcomer Zach M., Barber didn't have a serious opponent.

So Carmany's blogging made her somewhat unique, but there were other things that made her race unusual.

It was a low-turnout (relative to other districts) race. She was facing a high-profile well-known challenger who at one time represented some of those voters as a county commissioner. District 5 has a high-proportion of Republican voters and Wade happens to be a Republican (and something of a cause-celeb among local GOP voters following her showdown with John Parks) while Carmany has long-sense renounced her GOP affiliation (she's currently unaffiliated).

And my guess, although I don't have polling to back this up, is that the Wray issue maybe resonated more in District 5's neighborhoods than in other districts. If you look at where Mary Rakestraw - the at-large candidate most heavily identified with pro-Wray or anti-council sentiment - did well, she won the most or second-most votes among at-large candidates in 10 of 14 District 5 precincts.

So while you might make the argument that her blog provided fodder for her opponents, I think you're hard-pressed to make an argument that it was the only reason or even the chief reason for her downfall.

I'm all for the openness of blogging. I think all candidates should blog. Sandy's blogging itself didn't hurt her- it's the positions she took on the Wray matter.

It is better to be honest about what you believe and lose an election than clam up out of fear that what you say might hurt you.

I have been blogging for awhile now and have posts and comments all over the internet. If I run for office again, people have plenty of information to sift through, but there isn't one thing I ever said that I can't or won't defend unless someone deliberately takes it out of context, which is always a possibility.

I don't fault Sandy for blogging or stating her positions. It is better to know them than to not know them. Unfortunately for her, they weren't popular when it came to Wray/Johnson. That's the cost of going public, but it is a cost that every politician worth his or her salt should be willing to pay in the name of honesty and openness.

Ms. Carmany holds numerous committee positions that might seem to place too much power within the reach of one individual. The Heart of the Triad is certainly a controversial development project, leaving many area residents disgruntled since they were omitted from the HOT Steering Committee. "Regionalism" has detached residents from the normal recourse of local government representation and leaves Heart of the Triad folks running to seven different municipalities for public hearings, with a constituency to only one. Many are unhappy that business interests and banks were able to buy seats on the steering committee, but landowners were denied the opportunity for input in the process. Rumblings of ethics issues and conflicts of interest abound. Ms. Carmany serves on the Transportation Advisory Committee that planned the roads for the project and also on the PART Board, but for development purposes, no roadway widening or alternative modes of transportation were considered for the Heart of the Triad. Why would she allow and participate in such a process? Is this an example of responsible government?
It will be interesting to hear what Councilman Robbie Perkins has to say about the Heart of the Triad project. He also served with Ms. Carmany on the TAC to plan the roads and he is Co-chairman of the Heart of the Triad Steering Committee. Are citizens aware of his NAI Maxwell (real estate brokerage) business?

The key is that the voters of GSO are starting to think for themselves and not allowing themselves to be foolishly lead by the N&R.

All it takes is 5 votes.

Let's see, three editorials in the last three days on Sandy Carmany; this blog post on Sandy Carmany; two editorial endorsements of Sandy Carmany before the election; and now a Sunday 10 Plus interview with Sandy Carmany.

You people at the N&R aren't obsessed with her, are you?

Really John, et al, you are starting to look nutty and ridiculous when it comes to Sandy Carmany.

Let's see, three editorials in the last three days on Sandy Carmany; this blog post on Sandy Carmany; two editorial endorsements of Sandy Carmany before the election; and now a Sunday 10 Plus interview with Sandy Carmany.

You people at the N&R aren't obsessed with her, are you?

Really John, et al, you are starting to look nutty and ridiculous when it comes to Sandy Carmany.

Sorry if this double posted.

"Are citizens aware of his NAI Maxwell (real estate brokerage) business?"

Not enough to keep him from winning a seat on council, apparently. That's to the detriment of the community, despite what some would like you to believe.

Perkins and Matheny deserve close scrutiny during their terms.

Matheny is just the latest member of the Greensboro city council tag team, as orchestrated by Perkins and Phillips.

Joe Wilson declined the invitation to join.

Sam, I'm disappointed. This thread was going so well, without it turning into something wrong with the paper and calling names. "Nutty AND ridiculous?" C'mon, both those things? At once?

OK, I don't know what you call editorials, but we didn't have three on her over the last three days. You can check by clicking on editorials at www.news-record.com The paper endorsed a lot of people before the election, nine, if I recall correctly. Sandy was one. When the paper endorses, it is presumed in advance that it will publish those endorsements.

She has served for years and is now going out of office. You think it's improper to publish her views on the things we're talking about here? Seems to me that people are interested.

"It is better to be honest about what you believe and lose an election than clam up out of fear that what you say might hurt you. "

Actually, that's what Sandy said. When I encouraged her to change some things for the sake of "politics," she refused saying, "This is what I believe, based on the FACTS, and I'm not going to do anything differently. If I get turned out of office because of it, so be it."

This is unlike others who will say or do anything to get elected.

"So how many meetings will it take of the new council before they release everything?" -- JR

If the N&R were to start advocating for it, I'd guess fewer than with the city's daily sitting on the sidelines.

Good one, Roch. You really got us there.

On Nov. 7th, your opinion pages ran a piece on Sandy, as did your news division On Nov. 8th, you blogged about Sandy:

"Regardless of what you think of Sandy Carmany's politics, she is an impressively transparent and accessible council member. She loses her council seat -- let's pray not her blogging voice -- next month."

On Nov. 9th, you posted this current thread about Sandy. And now you are saying there is going to be another piece on Sunday.

Meanwhile, Trudy Wade won the election. No other candidate has received as much attention from the paper as Sandy Carmany except for maybe Yvonne Johnson since the election, and that is because she is the first black and female elected mayor.

No, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in labeling the paper obsessive and borderline nutty on the issue of Sandy Carmany.

Well, of course we wrote about her on the day after the election, Sam. She was the only incumbent who lost her seat. That alone is reason enough to write about her.

Trudy did win, but, unless I'm mistaken she hasn't actually done anything yet. So, we'd write about what, her promises? We did that on Nov. 7.

As for blogging, Sandy does something no other sitting council member does. She blogs the good and the bad. She interacts. And she does it consistently, which sets her apart from every other elected council member or commissioner who actually have blogs. The first post you refer to was less about Sandy and more about some one else stepping up. The second post was answering a question about her defeat. And although you turned the discussion away from her defeat and began calling us names, the discussion was pretty much on point and people seemed interested.

Yes, I think it's unreasonable of you to call us those names, but it's certainly your right. Nutty, ridiculous and now obsessive. Hey, I know obsessive and the amount we've written about her defeat hardly qualifies.

John, where did I call you names?

"I don't think I'm being unreasonable in labeling the paper obsessive and borderline nutty on the issue of Sandy Carmany."

"labeling," "calling...names"

Potatoe/potahto

"John, where did I call you names?"
Just one post above where you asked this question.

"nutty" and "obsessive" are adjectives in case you missed it. I hardly equate characterizing a position with the use of descriptive words with calling someone or something names.

By that definition, if I said the N&R was "brilliant" or "insightful" I would also be guilty of calling them names.

Are there any English majors in the writing business?

Will the continuing series of Sandy Carmany articles be weekly or monthly?

Well,I hope that after today's 10 Plus segment and Allen Johnson's editorial critical of Trudy Wade, the N&R obsession and nuttiness over Sandy Carmany will come to an end.

Somehow, I have my doubts.

She lost. Get over it.

Careful, Sam, it's pretty easy to get "banned" around here if you don't drink the N&R kool-aid.

"Good one, Roch. You really got us there." -- JR

I don't know why you've taken to cutesy and meaningless responses to my comments on your blog lately. On the substantive issue of the N&R's investigative rigor (in this thread and others) your standard response now seems to be a flippant remark or shutting down comments. It suggests that the matter is either a sore spot you don't have the courage to discuss publicly or that you think it trivial. Neither is admirable.

Sam, I hope you apply that standard of nuttiness to the frequency of posts on the same topic on your blog. :)

Roch, your first comment criticizing our "sitting on the sidelines" was so far from reality that it didn't deserve a serious response. Obviously though you think we have done nothing to demand openness. I think that indicates you haven't read the paper closely. But I don't have the time or feel the need to prove it to you.

I've shut down comments once because in that post they had gotten repetitious, with the same old people attacking me and the paper for the same old things. You act as if it's frequent.

If you would like to have a substantive discussion about investigative reporting, we can have it, although I have no expectation that this is the place. Best I can tell is that when we don't investigate the things you want us to investigate, you decide we're toothless. I've tried many times how we select topics to investigate. I'm happy to do it again at some point.

These longer threads always seem to come down to the same people criticizing us on the same topics. Once or twice they are interesting to contribute to. After that, they just become boring. To me, at least.

I'm not an objective newspaper. And I admit to an obsession with defeating a certain candidate for president. Admission is the key to credibility.

So where has the News & Record been for the past year if not the past 30 years asking the tough questions concerning the water shortages and the options the City of Greensboro has in providing the solutions. It seems that time to point out the possible inconsistencies and misinformation in Trudy Wade's campaign should have been days, weeks and months before the election - not the week after. It appears that the News & Record instead has been too busy "tooting the horn" of Sandy Carmany's blog transparency, grandmotherly volunteerism, and 15 plus years experience of political campaigns and winning elections.

It's true that the City of Greensboro has been running water pipelines from Winston-Salem, Burlington, and Reidsville to relieve the shortages in the city's supplies. But the News & Record fails to state that these water lines were quickly constructed for the last major drought in 2002. And the lines' construction was an EMERGENCY action that was quickly slapped together to avoid growing dangers from a similar drought. It was also stated at the time that the water lines would probably not be completed before the end of the drought but would be in place in case another drought occurred.

Remember the negotiations (pleading) with the other municipalities by the City of Greensboro to get approval and permission to access the others' water resources? The other municipalities were understandably reluctant to share such a valuable resource with a neighboring government that had not adequately prepared. It seems appropriate that the Greensboro minor league baseball team has adopted the nickname "Grasshoppers" as that name is a reminder of the "grasshopper and ant" fable. Greensboro City Council has fiddled with incentives, annexation, and regionalism while the true needs of the community (water, tax relief, police protection) have been ignored. How much "planning" went into that scenario where the City only took an expensive and roughshod emergency action after failing to push through decisively to get the Randleman Dam completed years ago?

And as for the News & Record editors' sensitivity to the "names" that have been bandied about in describing the editors' lamentations about the election results, perhaps they should consider other options. They could change the News & Record name to a more fitting moniker that reflects the true style of news they favor - the Views & Record, or the Regional Blog News & Record, or just the Greensboro/Guilford/Triad/Piedmont/AndEverywhereInBetween Blog of News, Records and Other Views. There would be no more need for real reporters, asking real questions of real politicians, and writing real news stories, as all the articles could be blogged and only editors would be needed. The title of "editor" would also look so much better on one's resume instead of just the position of "reporter". Heck, we can all be editors!