The First Mayoral Debate

[Gary Rice]

Bryan,

Like it or not, sound bites and headlines can make history.

Suzanne,

Thanks for your response. It is appreciated. When we all do our jobs, things often actually work right!

All,

This election cycle has been very interesting for me personally. I find that I've had to wear more than one hat at times. Of course, I'm a columnist and a reporter for you. I'm also frankly, a George supporter as a private citizen.. Tom was a fellow LHS class of '69 guy and that's just the way it is with me. Now however, I'll try on my hat as a Political Science (CSU 1973 cum laude honors major) analyst.

Generally, in our country, it's not easy to unseat an incumbent. The election is frankly, George's to lose. It's all about percentages, however. If Firzgerald splits the Democratic vote, and Demro gets his base, plus a pile of young and independents- as it seems he might, then Ryan's in.

If, on the other hand, Fitzgerald gets a bunch of indies and the change-is-better Democratic crowd, he could get in too.

A lot of this also probably hinges on the George camp's decision as to when and whether to rise and engage the other two candidates. I heard a man leaving tonight express great dissatisfaction at the Mayor's not being there tonight in his neighborhood. That kind of talk gets around. Already not known for response on the 'Deck, Mayor George may well want to increase his visibility. To do otherwise, in my opinion, will cost him votes.

My guesstimate will be that this election will be decided by single-digit percentages. All three candidates had better pay attention. This election is not a sure thing for anyone at this point.

[Jeni Matousek]

Good morning to all-
I certainly understand people wondering how the Mayor's absence last night will impact his campaign. However, I am much more baffled by the decision to carry through with a date he had already said he couldn't make and then have the organizers declare they only want to afford the citizens a chance to hear the candidates. Had Mayor George suddenly been able to clear his schedule when the venue changed, he would have been questioned about that too.

As for the Mayor's visibility, I can only speak about my personal experience which has been that he has been the most approachable public figure I have had to deal with to date. When I have called his office, he has either taken the call or returned the call within the hour. Any written correspondence has been prompt and professional. My family and I attend as many Lakewood festivals as our schedule permits and repeatedly Mayor George is there supporting the event, working at a booth and/or taking time to greet myself and other citizens. It is that kind of warmth and attention to the individuals of Lakewood that gives our city a small town feel despite it's considerable size. He erases the invisible line between "us"(the citizens) and "them"(the elected officials) and creates what I feel is a sense of collective ownership of Lakewood and it's future.

Thanks for reading,
Jeni Matousek

[Jim O'Bryan]

I get the misunderstanding, its just that Jim seems intent on using it as evidence of some conspiracy.

Suzanne

I made that call.

.

[Gary Rice]

Frankly, no matter who I support, there was something big-time wrong with last night, in my opinion.

I agree with Jeni by the way, that Tom George has been among the most approachable and by the way, friendliest and hardest working public officials of whom I've ever encountered.

He is "Mr. Lakewood" to me, in every sense of the word.

I say that freely, and no one could pay me enough to state an untruth.

To me as well, it was grossly unfair to go forward with a debate, if in fact the other parties were previously aware that the Mayor could not be there. If they did, I believe that made them look as bad as the Mayor appeared to look, by his "unexplained" absense.

Demro and Fitzgerald were both asked why they thought the Mayor was not there. Both offered speculative or illustrative remarks, that to me, were inappropriate, particularly if they knew in advance that the Mayor would be absent. If I had been them, I would have declined any speculation in that regard, or stated that they knew the Mayor had another commitment.

But I was not them. Rather than repeating their remarks, I would invite them to do so here, so that the rest of you can see what they said.

As Jim has stated many time and in many ways- Own your words.

Or as I've often admonished in school. "Now tell your parents what you told me..."

Only in this case, you are the "parents".

C'mon boys, tell us what you said....

The Mayor's empty black podium, whether accidental or intentional, added to the unspoken air of insult, as well, at least in my opinion.

Looking as an example, at the quick cooperation of the candidates for the Ward 3 council seat in coming up with their meeting for debate, the mayoral race needs to raise the bar for civic discourse a bit, as well. The candidates and their handlers need to iron out their differences and agree to some ground rules and get this to a higher level of civic interchange.

Or put in the basic civility lesson that we are all supposed to know:

Don't talk about someone behind their back, when they cannot defend themselves.

[Lynn Farris]

Gary,

I beg to differ with you. These are all 3 big boys who have experience with politics. And the Mayor is by far the most experienced politican of the group.

If one chooses not to debate, that is his perogative. If the other two choose to debate, that too is their right.

If the Mayor truly wanted to debate, he could have come forward and said this night is not good - could we make it one of these nights. We saw great cooperation between the Ward 3 candidates. The Mayor did not do that. In my mind, he made it clear that he did not wish to participate, except in the virtual debate.

Does that mean that just because the Mayor does not wish to participate that no candidate should be allowed to debate and the citizens should be deprived of them? No, not in my opinion.

If I was the moderator - would I have asked a question like he did - about why the Mayor chose not to attend? No - But I wasn't the moderator. It was clear from both of the Councilmen's reaction that they were not expecting this question - they were clearly well prepared on the other ones. I didn't think their answers were inapporpriate nor did they bash.

They have a right to state how they would do things differently than the current administration - otherwise why would they run? And if the Mayor doesn't show up, they still have a right to say how they would make changes from the way he is doing things. In fact I'm sure that the Mayor could be busy every day and night until the election - so he could never have his administration criticized in any way if everyone obeyed the adage not to say anything behind his back.

Both the Fitzgerald and the Demro campaigns have cancelled events to partcipate in debates. It is a matter of priority. Again, it was clear to me that this is not a format that the Mayor wishes to participate in - and that is his right - but not to control everyone else.

I agree with Bill Call. I think most people have made a decision whether they like the status quo or not. If they are happy with the status quo - then they should vote for the Mayor. If they are against the status quo - then they should listen to where both Councilmen Fitzgerald and Councilmen Demro want to lead us. While it would be nice to have the Mayor there to offer his perspective - I think most people, that are still undecided regarding how they are voting are trying hard to decide between the two Councilmen. Thus the debates are critical for them and for the undecided voters - the more exposure is what they need and last night was a good night for each of them.

For the record - I thought both Councilmen acted very civily.

[Gary Rice]

All:

For the record, Ed responded to my concerns, and reiterated his remarks in his "winners and losers" thread.

Thank you Ed

Lynn,

Your points are well taken. If two of the three candidates want to do these interchanges, it is their right to do so. As I indicated, both were articulate, on message, and well spoken. The one significant concern that I had were their responses to the question about the Mayor's attendance, and that did appear to have come up unexpectedly.

I have to say that I'm still not entirely comfortable with how this particular debate went down, however. I still believe that, with a little more schedule flexibility, the Mayor could have been there.

And I hope you observed that to be totally fair, I do think that it's time for the Mayor to rise and engage, and I've said so.

Whether last night's two-way round was a tactical success for the two challengers remains to be seen, but I would tend to agree with you. Were I the Mayor at this point in the campaign, I would rise and engage.

Even, if need be, from a black podium.

[stephen davis]

Lynn,

If one chooses not to debate, that is his perogative. If the other two choose to debate, that too is their right.

I agree.

If the Mayor truly wanted to debate, he could have come forward and said this night is not good - could we make it one of these nights.

I believe that was communicated to Father Duke.

Does that mean that just because the Mayor does not wish to participate that no candidate should be allowed to debate and the citizens should be deprived of them? No, not in my opinion.

Not in my opinion either. The other candidates were not deprived.

If I was the moderator - would I have asked a question like he did - about why the Mayor chose not to attend? No - But I wasn't the moderator. It was clear from both of the Councilmen's reaction that they were not expecting this question...

That would have been a better question for the Mayor. Any answer would only be conjecture on the part of the other participants. Frankly, I can't understand anyone's surprise at the question when the organizers and participants knew the mayor would not attend, yet placed an empty podium in the middle of the stage with a "Mr. George" sign on it.

They have a right to state how they would do things differently than the current administration - otherwise why would they run? And if the Mayor doesn't show up, they still have a right to say how they would make changes from the way he is doing things.

Absolutely! That is their right and responsibility.

It is a matter of priority. Again, it was clear to me that this is not a format that the Mayor wishes to participate in - and that is his right - but not to control everyone else.

He did not participate, and obviously did not control.




I think they should all debate. Candidates participate, or not, at their own peril.

That said, I think Lakewood debates should be Lakewoodcentric events, not staged by Clevelanders, and the organization and format should be legitimate and open to all candidates, AND understood by Lakewood voters.

I am disappointed that none of our other civic organizations have stepped up to create a real and legitimate Lakewood debate. A debate with an open and inclusive process and format, and with legitimate Lakewood organizers and moderators, would be terribly embarrassing to those who would choose not to participate.

The Lakewood Observer Virtual Debate may be the only legitimate opportunity for these 3 to go head to head. It will be a little progressive and unconventional. By its very LO nature, that is to be expected, but it was designed to be fair, and has been agreed on by all of the candidates. It is my understanding that they will all participate. I look forward to it.

Steve

[Bill Call]

I am disappointed that none of our other civic organizations have stepped up to create a real and legitimate Lakewood debate.

Be prepared to be disappointed again. There will be no more debates.

[Bryan Schwegler]

That said, I think Lakewood debates should be Lakewoodcentric events, not staged by Clevelanders, and the organization and format should be legitimate and open to all candidates, AND understood by Lakewood voters.

I don't really mind that the event was sponsored by non-Lakewoodites. As long as it's impartial and fair, I don't think it matters who hosts or moderates the debates, just that they occur.

Hey, besides, if Mayor George didn't even bother to give the "State of the City" address in Lakewood, I don't see why a debate moderator shouldn't be from Cleveland.

I am disappointed that none of our other civic organizations have stepped up to create a real and legitimate Lakewood debate. A debate with an open and inclusive process and format, and with legitimate Lakewood organizers and moderators, would be terribly embarrassing to those who would choose not to participate.

From what I understand from talking to people and random tidbits here on the Deck, there is a debate being hosted by the Gold Coast association at the Carlyle but I don't know any details and am not sure again if the Mayor is participating.

[Jim O'Bryan]

That said, I think Lakewood debates should be Lakewoodcentric events, not staged by Clevelanders, and the organization and format should be legitimate and open to all candidates, AND understood by Lakewood voters.

I don't really mind that the event was sponsored by non-Lakewoodites. As long as it's impartial and fair, I don't think it matters who hosts or moderates the debates, just that they occur.

Hey, besides, if Mayor George didn't even bother to give the "State of the City" address in Lakewood, I don't see why a debate moderator shouldn't be from Cleveland.

Bryan

I agree with it does not matter who hosts the debate, but it should be made clear, who is sponsoring and moderating. It allows a voter to understand more about the debate. Allowing voters to process the information dleaned at the debate. Our reporter covering the Harrison Debate came away with a very good impression of the meeting.

.