Council Campaign Update, Sept. 5
Staff editorial

A resident commented last week, “It’s going to be a nasty city election.” He had just received an email blast from council candidate Diane Greenwood’s campaign manager. Shortly thereafter, two Greenwood supporters launched additional personal attacks.

For anyone who thought the 2004 city election broke records with personal attacks and mud-slinging, it could get worse. A group of four or five people set the negative tone in 2004. The group consisted of those who sit in view of the council chambers camera during meetings and make comment after comment – negative and hostile if not malicious remarks. They attack council members, city staffers, community members – anyone who gets in their way.

The ironic outcome is that no one on the council ends up doing the will of the power-seekers. After the hostile bunch “helped” Ury get into office by trashing his opponents in 2004, he quickly distanced himself from them. Privately, Ury remarks about their lunacy. They’re now campaigning for Greenwood.

During the past week, Greenwood’s team elevated the attack. First on their hit list was an affable candidate who had back surgery a month ago. When he didn’t gather his own nomination signatures by having people come to his bedside, one of Greenwood’s team members wrote “he didn’t have the wherewithal to get his own signatures.” The candidate or any registered voter can legally and ethically gather signatures on nomination papers – it’s a formality.

Two days later, Greenwood’s manager blasted another candidate who had changed his voter registration from Democrat to Republican 18 years ago. According to the email, being a Democrat is apparently a criminal act. Greenwood’s manager put into motion a smear campaign, sending an email to all political higher-ups in the county. The manager mentioned privately to others he wanted to make sure the county’s Central Committee didn’t endorse anyone beyond John Paul Ledesma, who also had to fight for the endorsement after Councilman Frank Ury made it difficult for him. Greenwood as a recently re-registered Republicrat likely realized the futility and didn’t try to get any party’s endorsement.

Somehow, voters are supposed to be confused into thinking Greenwood will look stellar if other candidates are hacked to bits. Wouldn’t it be more impressive if the campaign manager wrote about his own candidate’s credentials and skills? Therein lies the problem – what credentials and skills?

The issue of changing political parties is significant when a candidate switches just before running for office. Greenwood changed parties less than a year ago when she started talking about running for city council, and that’s suspect. Changing one’s voter registration 18 years prior to running for office is not in the same category. Ronald Reagan is among many examples of politicians who changed parties, but not immediately before running for office.

Voters have a chance to decide on a lot of things in this election. One decision is whether Lance MacLean and Trish Kelley have kept even one of their campaign promises from 2002. The blog has presented a history of council votes to demonstrate that both incumbents sold out the residents on the most important city issues. Beyond overwhelming negatives, the incumbents have been either unwilling or unable to bring about any positive outcome for the city.

Voters also have the opportunity to shut out the cell of the nastiest people in town. Too bad if Greenwood has no helpers except those who try to intimidate or destroy everyone in sight. The hostility and destruction are defining her campaign.