News-Record.com

Will I still love you tomorrow, after this pick influences thousands of impressionable voters? Maybe. Then again, probably not.

Please don't tell me you base your picks on what Politicians say in Political Forums they're going to do should they retain their Political office. Please. I had no idea you were that easy to bamboozle. I hope that people ignore you completely on this one.

This city will remain a silly, spiteful place until Yvonne Johnson assumes her rightfully earned place as Mayor for Life.

As soon as that happens, we can abolish the City Council the next day. From then on, it will be a much brighter day in Greensboro. We'll just wish we'd thought of it sooner.

Chewie:
I'm not sure where you're coming from. Are you making a case for Vaughan or against Gatten?
As for our basing our endorsement on political forums alone, that's far from the reality.
We conducted interviews with the candidates, had them fill out questionnaires and even conducted follow-up interviews in some cases.
We've also attended, on balance, at least seven candidates forums.
We do our homework.
Reversals are rare, but they happen. But we would do so only after giving it much thought and making certain it is a thoughtful, fair and honest decision.
In the end, we felt Gatten's platform and record were superior to Vaughan's.
And we felt her knowledge and experience gave her the edge over Diane Davis and Joel Landau.

I'm making a case that our choices are woefully lacking, and it makes me sad.

And I don't believe that you base your choices on just the forums -- I'm pointing out that that's how you made it sound in this post. If that's not how you do it (and I know it's not), you should add some more specifics.

"Campaigns are fluid and candidates reveal more about themselves as races progress."

Haven't we gotten to know them as they have sat in those council seats? What new information revealed in recent forums outweighs their performance in office? Which would you guess is more accurate: their behavior in the seat, or their promises during a campaign?

"That's why we continue to follow the candidates in community forums after the primary. And it's why we continue to study their qualifications and their stances on key issues."

"In the primary, only a hair's breadth of difference separated Gatten and Vaughan. Since then, Gatten has surpassed Vaughan, as we see it."

In that period of time, what has she done or said to surpass Vaughan? You don't say. They were a hair's breadth, and now there's a clear choice? And you're telling me it wasn't based on the success of their politicking? Did I miss some major initiatives or changes of attitude?

"She is thoroughly versed on the issues and has performed exceptionally in recent forums."

"Performances" in forums, as you aptly describe them, should be completely irrelevant. During election time, everyone and their brother cares about east Greensboro. It's quite miraculous.

Once you throw the campaign schtick out the window, Yvonne Johnson is the only person I can heartily endorse.

You're forcing me to come cleaner, Chewie.
So I will.
You might want to check our endorsement of Vaughan in the primary; it was neither unequivocal or all that enthusiastic. We basically praised him as not taking the lead on much of anything but at least being on the "right" side of most issues -- at least not doing harm or getting in the way.
Forums generally don't make or break a candidate but I have to admit, Vaughan's flippant comments about Michael King "going nuts" didn't help his case.
He said that at two forums on the same night last week. So it wasn't a slip of the tongue.
Given the chance to say something substantive about the council's lack of vigilance in the Project Homestead debacle, he chalked most of it up to King's mental state.
That was a cop-out, and an insensitive one at that.

That's more like it!

I'd suspected that it was more a case of Vaughan nosediving than Gatten surpassing. I'd much rather deal with the realities; those being, as I said, that sometimes we don't have any good choices.

I hope that you didn't miss Gatten's comments at the LWV forum about Michael King "threatening" and "personally harassing" her for speaking out about Project Homestead. She didn't use the word "nuts", but her remarks were no less insensitive than Vaughan's just because they were coded in civility. I doubt that she and Vaughan substantially disagree on the idea that King's mental state, not the Council, caused the debacle.

You're right: "First, do no harm" is not an appropriate motto for elected officials. Neither is "hey, it's not my fault."

Chewie, I see your point, but there are three seats available. Yvonne is not running in a vacuum.

The editorialists tok the information they gleened and made a ballsy move in my estimation. While Yvonne appeals strongly to you, Chew, (and to me BTW) she is not the answer for all of GSO. Other at-large views must be represented.

Don's "nuts" statements were out of line - but Florence's concilitory T&R message change does not impress me much, either.

So far... I'm sticking with Johnson and Anderson - my third choice will come to me... but has not as yet.