News-Record.com

Mark, good to have you back pokin' your head into your old stomping ground.

During the N&R interview you cited by linking to my 2003 post, I distinctly remember Don was quite upset that the editorial staff asked a question about whether he was a Dem or Rep. He said that Party politics has no place in city races - You were there, check your notes.

Couple of points...

Yvonne Johnson is also a Dem, when is her Party sponsored fundraiser? How's about one for Florence?

My recollection is that that Don has either $26 or $46k in his war chest already. Why doesn't he just spend that down? Perhaps a retirement fund is building? I mean how much will it actually cost to get re-elected to that seat again? He's a shoe-in for goodness sake. I bet he could hang on quite comfortably with only a couple of thousand bucks spent.

Party politics and money is usually a quiet part of local races but it is certainly present. I don't think the Parties should be involved, but just try to stop it.

Good thoughts David.

One caution: While the party sent out this e-mail I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that this is a "party sponsored" fund raiser. It could be that they're just advertising it through the party channels. I know that's a thin-difference, but it's probably one we ought to head...maybe a possibility I should have made clearer in the original post. All the same questions apply anyway.

I'm not going to dive into all your points, but I believe the "retirement" question was also raised about Cong. Howard Coble recently.

Mark,

The N&R does it's share of mentioning party affiliations and endorsements.

Partisan politics are here whether we like it or not. Local Democratic and Republican parties circulated lists of judicial candidates and their party affiliation even though judges were not listed by party on the ballot last year.

Almost the only information in the N&R about former mayoral candidate Tara Sue Grubbs was that she is a Libertarian.

More emphasis should be placed on how each candidate stands on local issues, not what is on her/his voter registration card.

Diane,

I thoroughly agree with you.

In some respects, a politician can easily (and lazily) use party affiliation as sweeping representation of all of his/her views and positions.

We humans seek and desire convenient ways to form generalizations about people (including political candidates), sometimes forgetting how diverse and complicated everyone and everything actually is.

Generalizing and stereotyping allow us to avoid pondering and wondering as deeply as we should about who a person is and what he or she really stands for.

There are a lot of ignorant people out there who like to provide blanket dismissals of the relevance and value of diversity, failing to recognize that that is one of our greatest American traits, our individuality as human beings.

Even within an individual party, there is tremendous diversity that should be acknowledged and even valued.

And as far as political campaigns go, a part of me almost wishes it was illegal for candidates to provide themselves party labels

That would force many of them actually to work at forming and articulating their own vision, their own philosophy, their own goals and objectives, their own priorities, their own positions, so that citizens could really get to know who they are and how they plan to represent.

Much of our system fosters a laziness that prevents too many politicians from rising to a higher level of real representation of we the people.

And as I believe you know, blogging is one tool that has the potential to change some of that.

Sincerely,

Hardy

Diane: In general, the N+R eschews party affiliations when it comes to city council and other non-partisan races. In your own case, for example, I don't think either your or Robbie Perkins' party affiliations was ever mention in articles detailing that race for city council.

In the case of Ms. Grubb, which is the only case that I can think of where we consistantly mentioned someone's party, her run as a Libertarian for Congress was the one of the few verifiable political or publice service points on her resume we could tell folks about her. And yes, the party affiliation was relevant. She was most widely known as someone who ran as a Libertarian against Howard Coble.

In view of your sentence "Partisan politics are here whether we like it or not," would there not be some value -- and really, I'm asking a question here, I don't know -- in bringing the party labels out of the closet and at least acknowledging when someone has close ties to one party or another?

With the exception of the one case cited above, the N+R made a pretty deliberate decision not to include information about council candidate's party affiliations or work with the party in the paper. Should Matt and Co. re-think that for council elections this time out? If there is a partisan aspect to the political race at play, shouldn't we try to illuminate that for our readers?

I'm glad I have the opportunity to set the record straight, especially since I was never called for a comment.

First and foremost this is NOT a Party sponsored event. I count myself very fortunate to have a large bipartisan base of support. The invitation to my campaign kick-off lists 200+ individual contributors. I am pround that they represent a large cross section of the political spectrum.

I believe one of the reasons our City Council works so well together is because we strive to do what's in the best interests of our City.

Don, you forgot to mention that you also live in a bipartisan household.

Our daughter will be the tie-breaker, but we'll have to wait 14 years, until she's old enough to register to vote.

Don,

I agree that you have wide bi-partisan support and that is one of the main reasons you have met with such success. And to Nancy's point... I would love to hear some of the kitchen conversation at the Vaughan abode.

Regarding your lament: "...I was never called for a comment."

Even though the N&R is still, well, the N&R - they have adopted blogs as another form of informing the public. Blog posts, as a general rule, are seen as one sided commentary - even if done by a paid reporter. Your opportunity for comment WAS provided... here. And I'm glad you did.

Also - I believe you have one of these new-fangled blogs as well...

Don:

Thanks for stopping by.

I'm pretty sure that both in my post and in comments following up I was pretty careful to say that this wasn't necessarily a party sponsored event.

But there's no question that something that will benefit your campaign was sent by way of what is part of the Democratic party infastructure.

I don't think that fact reflects negatively or positively upon you or your campaign, it's just something that happens to be a good starting point for a discussion...the very one we're having here.

If you happen to think the fact that the Democratic Party mailing list spreading word of a fund-raiser on your behalf reflects poorly on you, please explain. Again, I don't think it does but I've been known to be wrong.

And while you answered the question in speciific to you, I'd be interested in your impression of partisan involvement in council races in general. Do party organs play a role in council elections or campaigns? And is that role significant enough that it should be the focus of public discourse?

Mark,

As usual - you are right. The one big exception WAS Tara Sue.

I enjoy reading your blog about the NC legislative goings-on. Keep telling us about how the folks in Raleigh are affecting our lives here in Greensboro. And about how lobbying groups are affecting votes.

Diane, I think Mark answered as to the reason the N&R consistently referred to Tara Sue Grubb as a Libertarian. The fact that she is a Libertarian is about the only verifiable political and/or public point that the newspaper could tell about her. If the fact that she's a Libertarian is the only verifiable public/political fact on her resume as a candidate for a public office, then I would consider her fortunate that the N&R made mention of it.