I'm a little behind on my linking (Take Time to Blog) but there's the councillor-at-large profiles from the Daily News.
AND the article covering last night's mayoral debate, which I did not attend but will watch (and post) when it's up on cable. I only caught the last few seconds of the closing statements.
10 comments:
Tom,
Regarding the Daily News article online at weblink concerning the 10/26 mayoral forum organized by the Nock PTO:
Take note of the third to the last paragraph and the last paragraph of that piece.
Are you aware that the councillor mentioned in the former and the candidate quoted in the latter are actually one and the same?
This piece of "information" being just one example to denote the remarkable "transformation" of "your candidate" for the campaign.
Let us hope that if "your candidate" wins, it is the candidate and not that councillor who eventually comes to sit in the corner office.
Anonymous,
I debated for a moment whether to include your comment. After all, you offer no identity, no proof, nothing to back up what your offering up. This is heresay, but I suppose comments like these the nature of the beast these days.
I can say, though, what you suggest is entirely inconsistent with every conversation I've had with the man. The guy I see campaigning is the guy I've seen off-and-on for the past couple of years.
Taking it in a different direction, if the comment were made the context would also be important. I, for example, might have uttered similar sentiments after the debt exclusion was defeated by a few votes last year.
Such a comment wouldn't have indicated my lack of support for education but rather a lack of faith that the community would step up to support education. Context matters.
Furthermore, if the comment actually were made by Shanley I would ask why the question wasn't posed that way? Or was it? I still haven't watched the debate.
Finally, I've got a kid reaching kindergarten age in eight months and another only 10 weeks old. Shanley wouldn't be "my candidate" if I didn't think he'd be good for schools.
Unless Rumpelstiltskin enters the race at the last moment, it really doesn't matter who becomes mayor in terms of school funding.
Tom,
I actually heard this same thing - only from 3 elected officials who were there when he said it. I was also told that his name was edited out of the question so as not to embarass him (and thus diluting the meaning of the word "debate").
Apparently the remark is in the minutes of some SC meeting, somewhere (the minutes from the relevant time period are not on line, though, so I'm now cursing myself for having tossed all my old SC minutes into the recycling bin a few months ago).
So while I can offer up some proof that he said it, I cannot offer up the context (although one has to wonder why he did 'fess up to being the one who said it and explain the context while he had the chance). I must have been present; at the time I covered the SC. I don't recall him saying that, but other people have longer memories.
Back then (in my opinion), Shanley was kind of an 'interesting' mix of sarcastic detractor and thoughtful supporter.
I don't see that in him anymore (the sarcastic detractor, that is).
Thus I understand the noting of a "transformation" as made by Anonymous.
Meeting minutes? Eyewitnesses? You call this proof?!
Thanks Gillian. Can't say I agree with the decision to edit the question if that's really what happened. (Not doubting you, I just don't know for sure so I have to hedge.)
Again, context would be nice. As you suggest, I could see that comment being made in some sarcastic manner. And you're probably right. I think one needs to be careful with everything in a political race so one might watch one's tongue.
For example, I learned that a simple harmless gathering can be inflated into something that it's not.
I still need to go by my experiences. Shanley has been supportive of schools in the past.
I believe he's backed both debt exclusions, and I think he's on the right track with development and expanding the tax base to get more money to the schools.
In my eyes, a comment like that would be interesting, but not damning.
I'm still amazed how these little posts generate the most comments.
Tom,
I didn't mean to imply that he was not a supporter of the schools. I did check my notes and in every instance of a discussion he was involved in or comment he made, that I could find, he was the "thoughtful supporter." I just remember that was my impression of him at the time. Like I said, I have not seen that in him for a couple of years. People do grow into a job - even us old folks!
And I didn't mean to imply that you meant to imply, I meant to counter the implication put forth by the orginal anonymous poster.
Or at least that's what I took from the comment, that Councilor Shanley and Candidate Shanley had different takes on the schools, but maybe I read too much into it.
Tom,
Having had my debate questions edited in past it would appear to be a common practice. I believe they do this to prevent debates from devolving into snark-fests ((c) Bubba).
As for the gathering you attended, please don't tell me you were sipping wine or God forbid, eating cheese (unless it was as a melted topping - preferably over a meat product).
It wasn't too long ago that Mr. Shanley was a frequent contributor/commenter on this blog. Maybe he can address this. I'm sure he's read this. But I suspect he's being a lot more cautious in the campaign.
All that aside, I agree that context of the comment is important. Maybe the News can settle this?
Interesting, Bubba. Thanks.
And you know a gentleman doesn't sip and tell.
I didn't eat the cheese there, but I did shove it in my pocket. I made a delightful fondu when I got home.
Post a Comment