The winners write the history
Ian McCann, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, publishes his analysis of the recent city council. It largely conforms to what's been published here, crediting the Richardson Coalition PAC with having a major influence in the outcome of the election and subsequent re-election of Gary Slagel as mayor by the new council.
What's new in McCann's report are the quotes from members of the PAC and from election winners. John Murphy, re-elected to his Place 3 seat, says, "You can't deny that all the winners benefited from [the Richardson Coalition PAC]." Just recognizing the obvious, that.
Murphy goes on to explain his vote to replace Steve Michell as mayor with Gary Slagel. McCann reports, "Mitchell was good, [Murphy] said, but spent too much time responding to less consequential issues." I don't recall Murphy bringing up any such criticism of the mayor or the city council's business management during the campaign.
Gary Slagel, a big beneficiary of the Richardson Coalition, says, more than a little improbably, "I didn't know how active the coalition was going to be when I put my [campaign] committee together."
Bob Nusser, a former council member and PAC contributor, says revealingly, "We got bent out of shape when the rookies two years ago ... changed things." He also says brazenly, "One of our prime criteria is we ain't going to go negative, and we ain't going to contribute to candidates."
A fact check refutes Nusser's two claims. The Richardson Coalition PAC's "voter's guide" was a contribution in kind to candidates supported by the PAC, as admitted by the PAC itself in a required filing with the Texas Ethics Commission. As for not going negative, consider these passages from the so-called "voter's guide" the PAC mailed to Richardson voters.
- "[Chris] Davis has resorted to unethical, mean-spirited and untrue negative attacks against opponents."
- "[C]o-workers say [Diane Wardrup] is 'very hard on people who work with her, especially women volunteers.'
- "The Coalition strongly considered Mrs. Wardrup for an 'Honorable Mention,' but her recent untrue, negative attacks using illegal flyers at a recent candidate forum caused us to withdraw that distinction."
- "In the opinion of the Coalition, [Dennis] Stewart has disqualified himself from serving on the City Council. He seems appalled that anyone would challenge his election and has run probably the most untrue, negative campaign in recent Richardson history against Mr. [Amir] Omar."
In the end, defeated incumbent Dennis Stewart summed up the election, saying "A handful of people with a lot of money can get things done." Yes, they can.
29 comments:
You called it right here, Ed. As someone who knows John Murphy personally and once called him a friend, I found his quotes a real slap in face of the former mayor and his former collegues who weren't relected. John is a real charmer, but when you get beyond that, he is someone who has no moral compass who would say and do anything to keep his spot on the council. You can't count on him. Sorry John, Slagel has his 4 votes on the council ("lap dogs" Solomon, Macy, Omar, and Townsend) with or without you, so, basically, he has no use for you. You better enjoy that COG presidency, because that is good as it is going to get for you, pal. Signed - a former JM friend
Yeah, right, Gary, you didn't know what the coalition was doing (even though everyone on your campaign team was a member). And, yeah, right, Bob Nusser, you and the coalition weren't going to go negative (see RC "VOTER'S GUIDE"). At least, Nusser basically admitted that the purpose of the group was to get Slagel back in the mayor's spot. Actually, one of the most deceptive quotes in the DMN was from Ken Bell who said that they basically didn't have any kind of mayoral litmus test. I almost fell out of my chair on that one. Gary Slagel, Chuck Eisemann and their coalition continue to think that they can lie to the general public on their actions. Those who bought in to their propaganda are slowing seeing that this group is bad for Richardson and bad for democracy in general.
Thanks for mentioning the PAC filing. Note to those who follow the Richardson Coalition, they filed their report nearly 18 days late with the Texas Ethics Commission. Guess these coalition members who don't care much for truth, also don't care much for laws either.
To all three "Anonymous" commenters, I won't go as far as you do in judging, but I think some of the quotes reported by Ian McCann are a little hard to just accept at face value.
"Those who bought in to their propaganda are slowing seeing that this group is bad for Richardson and bad for democracy in general."
This is the "everyone is stupid and duped except me" argument.
I am trying to understand how a group that calls itself a PAC, registers with the State of Texas, records donations and reports them, and expresses its political opinions just like everyone else is "bad for democracy."
The best I can tell is that it IS democracy.
Since I didn't make the statement, I can't say for sure what the commenter meant, but some might argue that democracy flourishes when everyone has an equal voice, but when money gives some a bigger megaphone than others, democracy is weakened. I think there's some truth to that, but I don't think that the Richardson Coalition PAC money is great enough to subvert democracy in Richardson.
"I am trying to understand how a group that calls itself a PAC, registers with the State of Texas, records donations and reports them, and expresses its political opinions just like everyone else is "bad for democracy."
Well, I guess "anonymous" hasn't read the various coalition "editorials" or the lovely "voter's guide" filled with half-truths and innuendos. Their goal is to win trust and deceive to get their way. How is that GOOD for democracy? This is the kind of stuff that cults use to recruit members (build trust, indoctrinate, etc.).
Anonymous at 2:53 PM, you make it sound like "half-truths and innuendos" are strangers to democracy. Whether or not it's good for democracy is one thing, there can be no doubt that it's hard to separate democracy from division and suspicions of malevolence on the part of the opposition. Unfortunately, what's good for getting elected often makes it hard to govern afterward.
Semantic analysis to Anonymous #1:
1. "As someone who knows John Murphy personally and once called him a friend..."
Actually, since you refuse to identify yourself, we have no reason to believe that you know John or were ever a friend of his. Your anonymity destroys your credibility.
2. "I found his quotes a real slap in face of the former mayor and his former collegues [sic] who weren't relected [sic]"
What quotes?
How are any of these statements a slap in the face of Steve Mitchell (under whom John says that "we accomplished a lot over the last couple years") or of Pris Hayes or Dennis Stewart?
Oh, do you mean "Mitchell was good, [Murphy] said, but spent too much time responding to less consequential issues."? Do you realize that John didn't say this, but that was a summary statement by Ian McCann? Do you also recognize that John understands that Steve presided over a much more fractious Council than Gary Slagel ever did, with disparate personalities, and that Steve's attention to "less consequential issues" may have been forced on him by having to manage a number of conflicting personalities? No, of course not, because you are looking for the negative, whether or not it's actually there.
3. "John is a real charmer"
Hey! A true statement!
4. "he is someone who has no moral compass who would say and do anything to keep his spot on the council."
Do you have any evidence to support this, or just your anonymous gossipy opinion?
5. "You can't count on him."
Again, do you have any credible evidence, or just malicious, anonymous slander?
6. "Slagel has his 4 votes on the council ("lap dogs" Solomon, Macy, Omar, and Townsend)"
Ha ha ha! I had to laugh at this one! You obviously don't know these gentlemen! Bob Townsend has already shown that he is not a "lap dog" over the last 8 years, and since the other three have just been elected to Council for the first time, you can't have any idea how they are actually going to perform (but I bet it won't be as lap dogs).
7. "You better enjoy that COG presidency, because that is good as it is going to get for you, pal."
If that's "all" that John ever accomplishes (nearly 20 years on Council, 13 or so years as Mayor Pro Tem, President of COG, 20 years as a VP of Bank of America, 8+ years as owner of his own company, long-time member of the Audit/Finance Committee of a City that has achieved the coveted AAA bond rating from S&P, long-time member and former chairman of the Regional Transportation Committee, and plenty more), he will have achieved a great deal more than any anonymous rumormonger will have accomplished.
8. "Signed - a former JM friend"
Again, because you won't tell us who you are, we have no reason to believe that you were ever a friend of John's. People hide their identity because they know they're not telling the truth.
It's sad that some people are so desperate for attention that they make anonymous postings full of false claims that can't be verified and hope against hope that someone weak-minded will believe them...fortunately, the people of Richardson have more sense...
Bill
Ian McCann said, "Mitchell was good, [Murphy] said, but spent too much time responding to less consequential issues."
I wondered why McCann did not quote Murphy directly, but assumed he correctly captured the gist of whatever Murphy did say.
Like "Anonymous" at 5/29/2009 8:18 PM, I find such a comment about the former mayor so soon after a divisive election to be at least a mild "slap in the face." What makes it so in my opinion is how totally unnecessary it was. Why couldn't Murphy just praise Mitchell for the things the council did achieve, then say he just thinks Slagel can accomplish even more.
Ed, as you know, this is the problem with summarizing - it's like making a copy...no copy is as clear as the original.
I know Ian and I know that he is conscientious about accuracy. But a summary can't capture the subtext that goes around statements. John did said this: ""We accomplished a lot over the last couple years, but could we have accomplished more?" he asked. "I think we could have." "
So what did he say? (1) we did good under Steve as Mayor, and (2) we'll do even better under Gary as Mayor. Of course, since he voted for Gary, what else would you expect him to say?
Steve is hardly so thin-skinned that he is crushed by this. The fact is that people in politics have highs and lows, and Steve is young enough and talented enough that in a few years, people won't even remember this. Look at it this way - Steve took over a fractured Council and in the words of a guy who didn't vote for him, "We accomplished a lot [subtext: with Steve as mayor]".
In the world of politics, this just doesn't rise in any way to a "slap in the face"...
Bill
William J. "Bill" McCalpin, I hear you, but I'd still like to hear the actual quote that led Ian McCann to report that John Murphy said something to the effect that Steve Mitchell "spent too much time responding to less consequential issues." That part of the conversation to a reporter seems unnecessarily negative to me.
Ed,
Its all in context. I've been quoted by a reporter before on more than one occasion.
In those cases, I said a lot more than was quoted. Entire conversations were quoted down to a sentence or two and I am not an elected person. While I was not misquoted I don't think my entire messages were relayed to the readers. (These were business issues if you are wondering.)
I can imagine realistically that Murphy or anyone else quoted said a lot to Ian McCann but all we see is a sentence here and there.
We really have no idea. It could be that Murphy praised Mitchell even more strongly than he did, but he might also have been more negative. All we get is a dozen words or so. He could have said many positive things about Mitchell and the criticism might have been the only thing he said.
(BTW, the fact is that Mitchell -- like Slagel -- has both a positive and negative record. That we hear the positive AND negative shouldn't be a surprise nor is it unfair or mean.)
It basically means that reporting like this is not entirely objective and it really can't be. Its not Ian McCann's fault. Its a matter of the medium. We should take it with a huge grain of salt.
This isn't the President of the United States who has his every word reported. I simply can't take these limited quotes at face value. An honest evaluation requires a wide berth of possibility.
"Anonymous" at 6/04/2009 11:20 AM, I realize that Murphy possibly said a lot to McCann that wasn't printed, but I am interested in what he said that did get printed. It's the one sentence about Steve Mitchell that I think was negative. No matter how much else he said that was positive, it was unnecessary to say anything negative at all. Yet, he did anyway.
Has anyone really looked at the Coalition filings?
I find it interesting that some of the contributions border on conflict of interest maybe....who knows. And expense reimbursements to Mr Eisemann for undisclosed expenses. Interesting!
Also, it seems the comments by Mr Slagel may be deceptive based on the big show 2 years ago by Mr Eisemann and his intentionally acted petition asking Mr Slagel to stay on the council.
Intention trumps technique always. Follow the money and the truth will be there.
"Anonymous" at 6/06/2009 2:07 PM, I've looked at the Richardson Coalition filing of May 21. I didn't see any expenditures to Charles Eisemann, but I did see he made both a contribution and a loan to the PAC. In earlier filings the PAC reported reimbursing Eisemann for incidental expenses like Web site maintenance and PO Box rental. No scandal there.
Ed, look at the whole picture of all filings all the way back to inception. Eisemann's petition and speech to keep Gary on the council was a good indicatator and interestingly enough that was the outcome last month. The man has spent alot of time and money to express his opinion. Who knows whether it is right or wrong. It is interesting to follow the chain of events.
Seems to be a pattern forming with Ian McCann's stories. More like a sales pitch than a journalist who writes a multifaceted slant on a story.
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 1:00 PM, I have looked at all the Richardson Coalition filings going back to the PAC's inception. I see no expense reimbursements to Charles Eisemann except for incidentals of running the PAC.
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 1:04 PM, how is Ian McCann's story in any way a "sales pitch?"
By the way, anonymous comments are allowed, but you could help readers follow the thread if you at least signed your anonymous comments with some kind of alias, like "Suspicious in Canyon Creek."
"I am interested in what he said that did get printed. It's the one sentence about Steve Mitchell that I think was negative. No matter how much else he said that was positive, it was unnecessary to say anything negative at all. Yet, he did anyway."
If you really hold this opinion then you are spouting dogma and you appear not to be open to new evidence.
If you are open to new evidence which can change your opinion and simultaneously you know that Murphy (or anyone else) said a lot which was not printed, then it is logical to conclude that there could be something that Murphy said which could change your opinion.
Therefore you cannot claim truth in your statement "it was unnecessary to say ANYTHING negative at all."
You simply can't make that statement unless you can also claim that every other statement you haven't heard can never change your mind.
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 2:15 PM, I am always open to new evidence. I would dearly like to hear John Murphy expand on what Ian McCann reported he said. But lacking that, I'll form my opinions based on the evidence at hand. I see no reason to assume evidence not presented.
Besides, I have a hard time imagining what else might have been said that made it necessary for Murphy to say something negative about Steve Mitchell.
Ed said,
"But lacking that, I'll form my opinions based on the evidence at hand. I see no reason to assume evidence not presented. "
1) That there are likely things said not printed *IS* evidence at hand. To pretend such things don't exist is to accept a bizarre version of reality. i.e. that what Ian McCann got printed was the totality what was said.
2) There is no need to ASSUME "evidence not presented." One need only CONCLUDE that all of the things said was not all that Ian McCann or any other reporter got printed. One merely need conclude reasonable possibility of existence. McCann even admitted in the DMN Richardson Blog that there were things on the cutting room floor. So we don't need to run around guessing. He told us there is more.
"Besides, I have a hard time imagining what else might have been said that made it necessary for Murphy to say something negative about Steve Mitchell."
Your inability to imagine what might be said does not preclude logic. It means that you are not really open to new evidence.
Try this: Perhaps what he said was true. If so, then its up to you to tell us why Murphy shouldn't say something that was true and something that inform the public at that if it were. It was also stated earlier by others that Murphy also said many positive things. As I stated previously myself neither Slagel nor Mitchell was entirely positive or negative.
I have to also take exception to the word "necessary." Necessary in what context? To what end? What does that mean? Its not "necessary" for you or I or John Murphy to eat or even exist. Things will go on without us. What does it mean to be necessary. That's just a loaded word to weasel in your point.
Are you suggesting that elected public officials say things they can only judge as "necessary" to be said? That philosophy requires justification and I seriously doubt you'll get agreement on it.
To repeat: the argument is logical. If you are open minded, and you admit there exist statements whose content you do not know and you admit that being unknown they could change your mind, then you can't claim it was "unnecessary" for Murphy to say anything.
Hence you have not justified your position, "it was unnecessary to say anything negative at all."
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 2:53 PM, yes it is probable that other things were said that did not get printed. But unless McCann or Murphy tells us more, we just don't know what they were and it's not reasonable to assume we do.
By you saying that "Its not 'necessary' for you or I or John Murphy to eat or even exist" you are agreeing with me that it wasn't necessary for Murphy to have said anything negative about Mitchell. Yet he did. The question is why.
You suggest that "Perhaps what he said was true." Perhaps. You say "its up to you to tell us why Murphy shouldn't say something that was true." Perhaps because the election is over and it's time to pull together to work for the good of Richardson and saying negative things about your fellow council members risks creating or at least perpetuating division on the council and preventing the council from doing good for the residents of Richardson. And that's why the Murphy remark sounded sour to me.
You ain't gettin' it Ed.
Ed said, "By you saying that 'Its not necessary for you or I or John Murphy to eat or even exist" you are agreeing with me that it wasn't necessary for Murphy to have said anything negative about Mitchell."
No Ed. You have used the word "neccessary" in a such a way it loses meaning. Its just a rhetorical trick you threw into the pot. Why is is "necessary" that Murphy does or does not do anything? Why is it necessary? To what end is it necessary?
Before that you said, "But unless McCann or Murphy tells us more, we just don't know what they were and it's not reasonable to assume we do." We don't have to know the content of the statements. We merely have to know they exist. That's what I argued. You can disagree but logic is a bitch, Ed.
Lets try a third time and let's write it out long hand:
A: If
A1: one is open minded AND
A2: one admits there exist statements whose content one does not know
Then it follows that when such statements are known they could change one's your mind.
B: Ed claims to be open minded
C: Ed admits there are statements said he does not know.
D: Therefore there are NECESSARILY unknown statements that COULD change Ed's mind.
E: Therefore, The truth value of E1:"it was unnecessary to say anything negative at all" is not known.
F: Therefore, Ed cannot claim E1 as true.
To attack this argument one of several conditions might apply.
Ed might not be open minded. (B)
Ed won't admit there were other statements said which could change Ed's mind. (C)
You could also attack A but to do so is to attack a condition of open mindedness. i.e. if you don't believe it as true then you dogmatically believe what you know currently is true without question.
That you "cant imagine" what such a statement would be with respect to satisfying A speaks that B might not be true.
If you believe that the quotes McCann printed are the totality of all that was said then you just might be loony.
You conclude by saying increduously "Perhaps because the election is over and it's time to pull together to work for the good of Richardson and saying negative things about your fellow council members risks creating or at least perpetuating division on the council and preventing the council from doing good for the residents of Richardson."
Ed... take a look in the mirror. It is my opinion that you and your blog are creating the very divisiveness you seek to avoid. I realize you won't agree. I am increasingly finding your blog no better than Morgan's hacks. You hide behind your anonymous veil with some claim of nobility.
You claimed a council member said something "negative" (and god forbid one council member should critique another) when in fact I think I've logically shown that you made a claim you cant back up. Your statements were .. ugh... unnecessary..
You have become what you condemn.
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 7:55 PM, how about this? Yes, it's possible that there might be something I don't know that, if I learned it, I would change my mind. Specifically, there might be some fact that made it "necessary" for John Murphy to say something negative about Mitchell. I still don't know what that might be, but I concede that it's possible some such factor just might exist.
P.S. Comparing me to "Morgan's hacks" ... now, I have to admit that stings!
Can't be all bad compared to Morgan. He maybe over the top with his sarcasm and pre-disposition to wordiness. And whether you like him or not, he has raised awareness, people are watching more closely and asking more questions. If you are willing to do that, we will have a better community. I think he is a pain in the butt, but I give Nathan credit for his persistence!
I've commented here on a few of Nathan Morgan's ... articles, but mostly, I can't make heads or tails of them.
Man, what's with the condescending attitude of the last Anonymous? They might as well signed it "Richardson Coalition". The funny thing about these RC folks is that they have one thing in common: they are always angry, especially if you disagree with them (heaven forbid). And, get them going on Nathan Morgan, who has continually exposed this group for what it is - that really gets Eisemann's dander up... actually, most find what Morgan writes about this fringe group quite amusing....
"Anonymous" at 6/15/2009 5:11 PM, thanks for the feedback, but to be honest, like a lot of what Nathan Morgan writes, I can't make heads or tails or your comment either. The sentences all parse, but I don't have the decoder ring to translate "they" and "them" and the references are equally lost on me. Sorry.
P.S. I deleted the second of your double posts.
Post a Comment