I think Carl Luna has analyzed the race pretty well. The big difference maker is that the "Donna haters" are making more of a difference with Republicans that they are talking into being the "anyone but Donna" crowd, not for logical reasons, but for personal reasons with the dirt they are throwing around.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/weblogs/luna/archives/002280.htmlThe article does note that Donna's been mostly trying to focus her campaign on the issues, and has done a good job at doing so in being more specific than Sanders has been, but her focus on keeping a clean and "not mean" campaign towards Sanders is probably what is keeping her from gaining more of the Dems and independents that she should be. More people "hate her" than "hate Sanders" as a result.
This piece says that we need to get more active in pointing out that those funding Sanders' campaign are the same folks that have funded Murphy's and other City Council members campaigns that have got us into these messes and that we need to make a departure from the priorities that arise from this tained money game. I think he might be right about that. I am reminding people I know that Sanders' funding sources leave a lot of questions to be answered about where his priorities will lie, especially when compared to Donna's campaign, which has tried to stay away from corrupting influences and rely more on grass roots support.
Those that try to attack her as being in bed with the Unions should note that in some respects she is actually going after the union contracts (the legality of them) even moreso than Sanders has. I truely believe that once she gets rid of the illegal contract money, that she will look to replace those contracts with decent paying pensions, and at the same time retain the numbers of city employees as much as practically possible, as long as both are well funded with the approval of San Diego citizenry. I'm hoping that she talks to Gavin Newsome more in the coming weeks as he's got a nicely tuned set up in San Francisco now that should be a good model of what to work towards.
Another common attack on her is that she hates the Chargers. Remind those folks that she first dated her present husband drinking beers watching a Chargers game. I think it must be continued to be pointed out that there is NOWHERE that she's been quoted as saying she wants the Chargers to leave. I'm confident she will drive a hard bargain with them, but I'm confident that her motive isn't to drive them away. That's the kind of mayor I want.
Another point that hasn't talked a lot about in public, but I'm sure is mentioned in many churches when talking about her is her position on Mt. Soledad's cross. She's continued to note that the legal battles over this has been costing the city and our community money, etc. over the years with the constant battles over it. Personally though I'm strongly against mixing church and state, if there's a way to keep the monument in place somewhere around here where everyone can appreciate it (and perhaps monuments to other religions, etc.) in a way that doesn't have the government endorse one religion, I'm all for it too. I think the vast majority of us here don't want one brand of religion rammed down our throats by government. I think also most of us like the artistic and visual appeal of that memorial monument as well. I think there's an answer to be found somewhere in the middle, but I don't think it does us much help beating each other up over it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
