| Proud Sponsor |
|
| News Sections |
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
| Features |
|
| Sponsored by |
|
| About the Smugtown Beacon |
|
|
| |
|
| The Inside "Scoop" on LD21 |
By: Aaron E. Wicks
|
Posted: Saturday, August 1, 2009 6:44 am
|
Rochester, NY (August 1, 2009) -- It has all the makings of an insider's political thriller that only a politics junkie like this author could care to write -- or read. City newspaper blew the story wide open, seemingly, but in doing so, exposed not only some gaps in their own reporting, but more significantly, a stunning claim from the Democratic Leader in the County legislature.
Some disclosures -- because apparently some readers have trouble understanding that this publication has never pretended to be objective or without preferences (we will try to be more clear about our political leanings going forward). First, I am a friend of Jim Bowers for several years -- he was one of the first people I met in Rochester when I moved back to my hometown and he introduced me around to the party. Many people know that I helped manage his campaign in 2007. When he asked if I was interesting in helping his wife Janice run for County legislature, I was delighted to be of assistance. Jan is a solid, very down-to-earth member of the community. And to be married to Jim Bowers, she should be canonized, for that is truly a testament to her Job-like patience and fortitude. By contrast, Andrews' peregrinations and disregard for constituents and colleagues has shown a lack of political maturity that merits greater journalistic and electoral scrutiny.
Additional disclosure -- though this will be puzzling as the reader continues, since I'll be going against type on this point: I am a neighbor of and friend of Harry Bronson. I like Harry a lot, to be honest. He's a hard worker, a genuine politician (very uncommon) and very few people give him the credit he deserves for taking on Joe Robach (in 2002) when the major leaders of the Democratic Party folded like a tent. I contributed to his campaign and enthusiastically supported him. That being said, I will soon refer to some comments he made as unconscionable and quite low. Go figure -- sometimes it isn't about who your friends are -- there really are principles behind these stories if you take a moment to digest them.
There are probably a dozen other disclosures that could be demanded of me, but as I've commented to a local blogger, I find that a very slippery slope to go down. Does my income need to be disclosed? My sexual preference? My religion? My attitude toward abortion? These could all shade my writing -- does the reader have a right to know? I ask these questions only half-sarcastically -- it is not clear what "should" be disclosed and what should not. I will say this: if anyone wishes to pose a question to any Beacon author -- or to criticize what we say -- we have a simple process that engages in virtually no censorship. So please, comment away...
Back to LD 21: City Newspaper has succeeded in telling about 60% of the story. Let me fill in about 30% -- because it is an important chunk of the story. The other 10% can fought out in the blogosphere.
Myth #1: Jan Bowers is the tool of a Republican plot
Jeremy Moule does not say so himself -- he merely alludes to the fact that "some Democrats" are suggesting it -- that the Bowers campaign is a Republican plot. First, let me say that this is a delicious technique to say something and not actually say it. Careful Beacon readers will recognize this technique, because I use it all the time! But I like to have fun with it and I do so very consciously. I do not pretend to write objectively -- I write very subjectively. Moule probably has a different journalistic bent -- and I'm guessing that his training would cast a jaundiced eye on that sort of rhetorical device. It's a back-door accusation that Moule is not able to fully justify.
Ask yourself a simple question, gentle reader: would Republicans love to see primaries of Democratic candidates? Absolutely. Does that mean they are behind every Democrat who is challenging a party designee? Hardly. Indeed, suppose Bowers defeats Andrews in the primary. How does that help the GOP? Bowers will be a strong favorite in November with no Republican in the race -- though Andrews' campaign on the Independence and Working Families lines will not go unnoticed. Bowers is a Democrat and would presumably act and vote as one. Probably not as facile a Democrat as Andrews -- which one must assume is Bronson's objection -- but it would not give functional control to Dan Quatro (the GOP floor leader).
So why are Democrats so angry? Well, that's quite clear. No, it's not the affrontery of the challenge, though that probably stings a bit. It's much more pragmatic: in a year when Dems are fighting to take control of the legislature, they resent that resources are going to be diverted to an intra-party fight that Dems are almost certain to win anyway. A party leader like Morelle should be justifiably flummoxed: why are Dems squandering resources on this race when they should be focusing on gaining seats elsewhere?
Well, the voters of LD21 will have to answer that question. Suffice it to say that enough of them signed the Bowers petition to indicate they want a contest. perhaps if Andrews had looked after fences back home in the district, she might have averted a challenge. Win or lose, challenges such as these make both candidates stronger and more engaged in the contest. That's not a bad outcome for the voters of LD21 who are likely to be deluged by Andrews and Bowers visits, mailers and phone calls.
Let's consider some of Moule's evidence about the Republican plot
Myth #2: Republican operatives were behind the petition effort
Well, I can speak to this very directly. I collected about 38 signatures for Bowers (not a lot, I admit -- I truly do not enjoy petitioning). But I know for a fact who was the single "eminence grise" behind the petition effort: her most experienced and dedicated supporter, her husband Jim. Jim has won a citywide contest and has significant experience in campaigns. Does it not stand to reason that he would volunteer to help his spouse coordinate such an important effort? So what's the deal with all these Republicans?
Again, no shocking story here: I do not know all of the people who carried Bowers petitions, but I know one who is a Republican (when I found out he was one a couple of years ago I was disappointed, but I had already come to like him and I didn't think it was necessary to end a friendship over the issue -- apparently some Dems would). This particular bloke was a former student of Jim's and someone who had proved himself a very reliable volunteer in the past. He is moderate in his views and has made it clear that he does not let his registration restrict his political activities. He has friends and he invited some of them to help out. That's about it.
Now, is it possible that some of these young people tittered and tee-heed to themselves that in helping Jan, they were also making things harder for the Democrats? Probably. But this is not the stuff of political intrigue. It's people helping people -- motivated by a lot of different motives. MCDC does not ask why people carry party petitions, nor do they care -- they need signatures and they get them. When Bowers did the same, it reeked of a nefarious plot. Such challenges require a bit more of a smoking gun than what Moule provided.
Myth 3: Moule's charge that "Bowers did not return calls for comment on this story"
I cannot address this directly because one would have to tap Mr. Moule's phone(s) to confirm if this was the case. However, Jan Bowers did send Mr. Moule an email describing her motivation to run and her personal background. For the most part, the letter is campaign boilerplate -- a biographical summary of a person who has been involved in her community for many years and whose faith, in particular, has been a driving force in her engagement. But Bowers closes with an interesting statement, one that Moule had on hand, but chose not to run in his story, despite the fact that it very directly addresses one of his main charges, that Bowers is merely a proxy in a bigger partisan battle. She closes by saying, "The decision to run and actively campaign is mine and mine alone. That anyone would suggest otherwise, that somehow I was running because I am Jim's wife is both demeaning and insulting to me personally and to women of my generation in general."
This apparently clear statement regarding motivation can be interpreted by readers and voters as they choose. But why did Moule choose not to publish it or otherwise factor it in to his story? Why did he not acknowledge that while Bowers did not return CALLS, she did make contact with him regarding what was clearly the central premise of his story? Clearly it did not fit the storyline he had decided to pursue. That is completely his prerogative as an author -- but skeptical readers should always demand more. They certainly demand it of the Beacon -- and rightfully so.
Myth 4: Petition carriers for Bowers also carried for City Council candidate Tom Brennan
This item is not untrue, merely partly true. I know because, again, I carried these petitions myself. When the Bowers' asked me to carry, the offer was presented as follows: "Jan is interested in running for County Leg and could use some help with petitions. We're also passing some other petitions for non-designated Democrats that we would appreciate if you carried as well -- but that's your choice." I looked at the other petitions. They contained the names of 5 city council candidates (Tom Brennan, Sherry Crumity, Luvene Ford (who has since declined), Anita Jones and Norm Roberts) and two candidates for city school board (Van Henri White and Jeanne Masten -- the latter has declined and has since been replaced with Michael Mason). Jim Bowers has since made it clear to me that the additional petition was something he chose to do and in no way represented a coordinated effort between his wife's campaign and the campaigns of the other candidates. Brennan has also confirmed this, saying that he knew virtually nothing about the Bowers campaign at the ouset of the petitioning season and was happy to have any petition support that was available. Why on earth would any candidate decline a sincere offer of help?
Why did Moule single out only Brennan from the 7 candidates on that additional petition? That remains unclear. But it certainly deserves some scrutiny and it does give one pause to ask if Moule had an underlying narrative at work in his head that led him to report part of the story, but not all of it.
The Trouble with Harry
Interestingly, the person who should be absolutely incensed by Moule's article is Harry Bronson, who comes off looking like the most spoiled of all political children -- something he certainly is not. But consider the two main quotes Moule provided to represent Bronson's views:
(1) Bronson quoted directly: "You would think if somebody wanted to be a county legislator that they would reach out to the leader of the party." (Referring to his leadership position in the County legislature)
(2) Moule characterizing Bronson's position: "Bronson ... says that if Andrews loses on the Democratic line, he'll support her on the Working Families ticket."
What? The leader of the Democratic caucus in the County legislature has no intention whatsoever of respecting the vote (should they in fact vote this way) of the Democratic voters of the 21st LD? This is so ironic as to be absurd given the cold shoulder Bronson received in 2002 when a number of fellow Democrats refused to support him against Sen. Joe Robach -- the former Democrat who had recently switched to the GOP side.
If this is true, Bronson can only logically defend this position in one of two ways: each of which hardly dignify his role as a party leader:
1. As a fellow nominee of the Working Families Party, he says he intends to support Andrews on that line in November. But this position would, in essence, say that Bronson considers himself more loyal to the WFP than to the Democrats. If that's the case, he owes all voters (including this constituent) an explanation as to why he considers himself deserving of Democratic leadership.
or
2. He considers the Bowers campaign to be such a breach of party loyalty, such a drain on resources, such an affront to the organization, that Bowers does not deserve support from Democrats. Again, if this is Bronson's take, he should detail this position more publicly. Voters have a right to know why their leaders take the positions they do. If Bronson sees politics as more about personal support of colleagues rather than respecting the choices of voters in a fairly-contested primary, there are probably a few voters in Rochester who would be interested in having a colloquy with him on the subject. Aside from not seeking his advice on her campaign, what has Jan Bowers ever done to Harry Bronson to merit such political enmity? He is certainly welcome to argue his point here in the Beacon.
So Mr. Moule has made some news of his own -- an accusation of which this author has been guilty from time to time as well. Welcome to the club, Mr. Moule. If there are any other stories you want to partly tell, please let me know and I'll finish the job for you if I can.
We'd like to hear from you!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please login (or create a membership login) and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" field. We ask that underneath your opinion, you provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. Only opinions that include full attribution will be approved by our authors. Thanks very much!
Click here to get email updates twice monthly! |
|
Printer-friendly format
|
Member Opinions:
By: JeremyMoule on 8/3/09
Aaron, Thanks for the commentary and feedback. Just one point I'd like to clarify regarding the section "Myth 3: Moule's charge that 'Bowers did not return calls for comment on this story.'" The story in the paper included an excerpt from Janice Bowers' e-mail and says nothing about unreturned calls. Unfortunately, a prior version, completed before I received Bowers' e-mail, was posted on our website. That has since been fixed, and matches the story in the paper. Thanks for reading, Jeremy Moule
By: IrishTerrier on 8/7/09
What credibility can you possibly have after making this statement? "let me say that this is a delicious technique to say something and not actually say it. Careful Beacon readers will recognize this technique, because I use it all the time! But I like to have fun with it and I do so very consciously. I do not pretend to write objectively -- I write very subjectively. Moule probably has a different journalistic bent -- and I'm guessing that his training would cast a jaundiced eye on that sort of rhetorical device." Your wordy rebuttal is filled with fallacious arguments. You present opinion as fact. You employ innuendo. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to prove a point you ought to use logic and argumentation. Moule is a reporter not an "author." Moule reports to an editor. So should you. Pete Tonery
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
