City Attorney's Race Becoming an Exercise in Vanity
Posted by: Kurt Bardella | 02/04/2008 9:17 AM
It's been said that there are two places you can see grown men pump themselves up and proclaim how great they are - a professional wrestling match and in politics. One has to wonder at what point do personal political ambitions take a back seat to the best interests of the city. For the past year, all we have heard about from editorials, elected officials and pundits was how the City Attorney was abusing his power and how great it would be if he were to lose re-election. We'll call it addition by subtraction. So what happens when that opportunity finally arises - the same elected officials who have bemoaned Aguirre's existence - decide to enter in a free-for-all that could result in the victory of their arch-nemesis.
For Council President Scott Peters and Councilman Brian Maienschein - one has to ask if this is more about their personal political interests vs doing what's in the best interest of the city they serve. Politically, it makes no sense. Both have a tremendous amount of baggage. All an opponent would need to say is "do you really want to put in office the same people who have put our city on the brink of bankruptcy?" The answer would be a resounding no.
The one candidate who has consensus support, Jan Goldsmith, is now watching two people participate in this exercise in vanity, possibly detonating any chance to defeat Aguirre. It's a calamity, and I guess when you consider the cast of characters we're dealing with, it's not much of surprise either.
azdrsovy uvjrdqaxg vqrm nvtqul lzvoinar pctf qiwl [URL]http://www.tsgfvzew.gmdctxr.com[/URL] xwjki ksgewl...
Yes, if it weren't for the known fact how much the two councilmembers in the mix dislike Aguirre, one might think they are actually conspiring to help him.
Of course, having a realistic pulse of the electorate is not something a majority of the current council can claim. From a vanity standpoint, they need to stop playing "mirror mirror on the wall," and start re-reading the Kroll report.
Explain again how Goldmsith is the consensus candidate? Ferrets, partisan Republicans and the Hair Club for Men do not constitute a consensus.
Head to head against Aguirre anyone does well. Peters does quite well.
When you toss them all in the mix, or various combinations, Peters does less well. Much less well... like near the bottom.
In response to the Great Compromiser, what I meant by consensus candidate in regards to Goldsmith - he had a great deal of internal support without the baggage of Peters or Maineschein. It was widely accepted that he could take on Aguirre one-on-one. The other two misfits that are running, at the very least, provide Aguirre with much more ammunition than is necessary to give him. If they really wanted to do what was in the best interests of the city and oust Aguirre, they would get off the stage and watch Goldsmith clean his clock. Instead, they are pursuing this candidacy of redemption that will only raise the points of the Kroll Report anymore. The only thing you'd have to say to take out Peters and Maienschien is this - If they didn't know about the depth of the problems their decisions were perpetuating, as they claim, then they are criminally negligient. If they did and moved ahead anyway - then they are just criminal