Watch How the Old Pro Does It
The campaign for Richardson City Council concludes with Saturday's election (barring run-offs). The campaign hasn't been defined by issues. All the candidates pretty much agree on those. The incumbents have been running on a platform of more of the same. So have the challengers, only with different faces in charge. Change is a tricky message to sell when the only change you promise is a change of face. That has led the challengers to make it personal.
The incumbent who has become the focal point of the challengers' call for change is Gary Slagel. He's been on the council for 22 years. He was mayor for much of that time. He faced various conflict of interest charges when he ran for re-election in 2007, but was re-elected anyway. Opponents found little more success with an indirect attack, enacting council term limits but failing to get the term limits made retroactive. Slagel could serve for another twelve years. This year, Slagel is again the focal point, drawing charges of ethics violations, conflicts of interest, violation of Texas open meetings laws, and conspiracy with Richardson's business community elites.
So, how does the old pro deal with such attacks? The mailer his campaign sent out this week is a model of how it's done. It's masterful on several fronts:
- Turn your weakness into strength.
The front of the mailer has a large photo of Gary Slagel with the caption, "Who can you Trust to lead Richardson through tough economic times? Gary A. Slagel". The two biggest words are "Trust" and "Slagel." And the subject is not personal ethics, but competence. In a skillful tactical maneuver, Slagel changes the subject and makes what some see as his greatest weakness into his greatest strength.
- Steal your opponents' issues.
In most of the candidate forums, the challengers tried to make transparency an issue. One by one, the challengers called for televising city council meetings, putting the city checkbook online, writing council meeting agendas and budgets to make them more understandable. One by one the incumbents said they are for these, too, and, in fact, have been making steady improvements in council transparency for years. Slagel's mailer says he has a plan "to make City Hall as accountable as possible by leveraging new technologies, broadcasting meetings on the Internet, and continuing to produce budgets that win awards for being accessible and easy to understand."
- Find some coattails to ride.
Many of Richardson's residents were attracted to the city because of its schools. The Richardson ISD is the largest "Recognized" school district in the state and has earned that distinction three years in a row. The Richardson City Council does not administer the schools, hire teachers, set classroom curricula, raise or spend school taxes. But Gary Slagel doesn't let that stop him from highlighting the RISD and Plano ISD in his campaign mailer. He has a plan to "keep the relationship between City Hall and our school district strong." If voters want to credit him, just a teensy bit, for RISD's success, Slagel doesn't mind.
- Trump your opponents' endorsements.
Whereas the other candidates try to impress voters with lists of names that most voters have never heard of (honorable this and honorable that, this commission member, that community volunteer, and that businessman), Gary Slagel goes for quality over quantity. His flier lists three endorsements: Congressman Pete Sessions, retired Richardson Police Chief Larry Zacharias and former Texas Instruments Vice President Shaunna Black. The message Slagel wants to convey is clear: behind him, Slagel has the heavyweights in Congress, law enforcement, and business.
- Ignore your opponents themselves.
Because the challengers have so few issues to run on, they've necessarily had to drive up Slagel's negatives in order to have a chance at unseating him. It's tricky to do this without driving up their own negatives in the process. Slagel ignores his opponents in this mailer. He not only doesn't say negative things against his opponents, he doesn't overtly defend himself against their negative charges. His mailer is nothing but positive, from his big smiling mug on the front of the mailer to the praise he heaps on Richardson's "great quality of life and safe environment." Implied is that his 22 years on City Council are, in large part, responsible for what voters like about Richardson. Gosh, he's even too modest to say so.
The challengers are left to cry out, "don't trust him, he's lying; those are our issues; we have experience and endorsements and conservative credentials, too; Richardson under Slagel sucks ... no, it doesn't ... well maybe just a little ... actually, Richardson is great, it's Slagel who sucks ... yeah, that's it." It's a tough charge to make stick. Gary Slagel's mailer illustrates all the reasons why.
13 comments:
Given that he spent nearly $7,000 with consulting firm Murphy Turner for this "masterful piece", I'd expect the "best". Most find it ironic that "Trust" and "Gary Slagel" would EVER appear in the same sentence, much less the same sentence. You just have to wonder, why does he stay - surely it couldn't be the "pleasure" of running every two years or the $50 per meeting. This guy just doesn't know when to go...
Got the flier - what Slagel fails to mention is all of his accomplishments over the past two year - oh, that would be zero. Also, what is the 'Slagel Plan', other than code to regain the mayor's seat. Much of this was words that the current mayor has been saying for the last two years! Vote for Wardrup or Bach-Wiig in place 4!
"Anonymous" #1, thanks for the feedback. Murphy Turner Associates was responsible for campaign pieces for Sam Johnson, Joe Barton and Kay Granger. If Slagel is working with MTA, he's working with some real pros. It shows.
"Anonymous" #2, few of the candidates or challengers did a good job of identifying specific accomplishments from the past two years that they can take credit for. It's a question that I wish had been raised at one of the forums.
Slick is slick, no question about it. He hires the most loathed, underhanded political consulting firm who paints him up as some kind of local hero in spite of his public record to the contrary. Sweet! If it were only true. Slagel and his bunch are the reason city hall is as transparent as the Mississippi river after a flood. He was instrumental in conducting the unscientific "survey" that concluded the city really didn't want televised public meetings (at that price). Slagel is the guy who lead the Council into countless criminal violations of the Open Meetings Act where untold public trust issues were violated. Yes, my friends, Slagel has a long list of accomplishments. Unfortunately, they're the self-serving kind.
"Anonymous", speaking of slick, your comment is about as slick a hatchet job as this blog has seen this election season. On second thought, make that blunt. There's nothing slick about you.
"Slagel is the guy who lead the Council into countless criminal violations of the Open Meetings Act where untold public trust issues were violated."
hey anonymous what crime was gary slagel convicted of, just curious?
While I agree with Ed generally speaking, I disagree on what the "issues" have been.
If the candidates agree on the issues is not really known because they haven't been asked about the real issues in public and given sufficient time to answer. (The LWV forum is a barely a slight exception on a point or two.)
The whole transparency and ethics things are trumped up by a few people. Even Dennis Stewart (an implicit if not outright opponent of older incumbents) said at one forum that people have not been knocking down the door about transparency. It comes from only a vocal few. As a city hall observer, I agree. It hasn't been an issue. Ethics as an issue was non-existent except for some isolated ranting on the internet.
Personally, I like some of the incumbents and I don't like others. Same goes for non-incumbents. For me its a mix up. Even so, no non-incumbent (including ones I like and ones I don't) has really stated how they would have voted differently on any votes that came before the council in the past few years other than perhaps who is mayor. I find that sad.
Someone said Slagel didn't accomplish anything in the past two years. Its seven people and not only the mayor. If Slagel didnt accomplish anything then neither did Mitchell because he was on the council with slagel. I think both statements are bs. In addition, many things that happened in the past two years were started when Slagel was mayor and when Mitchell was on the city council. So Mitchell doesn't count? Does Slagel get all credit while the rest of the council gets none? I dont think so.
My dislike of Slagel is a bit more basic. After the DMN article detailing his "potty mouth" (in public, and on a day my child had a social studies project due...) I gave him some feedback.
In a 45 minute, very uncomfortable (for him) conversation (he called me), he was unable to "remember" what he said. Did he say it or not?
I know the reporter from the story (friend of a friend), so I tend to believe it as printed. Slagel's stammering...yes...no...maybe...and ultimately "I don't recall" stance was pretty disturbing. Did he say what was published, or not? It's that simple.
I remember the article, and actually attended the work session meeting where Gary Slagel spewed the profanities. This guy is a real piece of work - he has no conscience what so ever. I absolutely "LOVED" his mailer that hit the mailboxes today. Who knew that folks in the region called him "Mr. Jobs"? (Of course, his flier doesn't mention the 25,000 jobs we lost in the early 2000's) That's not quite what people refer to him in and around Richardson. What is it going to take for his dwindling supporters to wake up to the realities of Gary Slagel...I suppose more embarassments.
You see Omar's latest campaign piece that arrived in the mail today? It made me laugh out loud! In addition to Omar's constant pandering to seniors on a tax freeze, he continues to attack his opponent Dennis Stewart by name. Why was it such a problem when councilman Stewart "compared/contrasted" in the RRW forum (and hasn't done it again) and isn't a problem when Omar has now done it repeatedly? Omar's policies are bad for Richardson (maybe, he doesn't know the community since he has only lived here a year). Stewart has my vote for place 7. OK, Ed, it's time to re-endorse Stewart.
"Anonymous" 11:37, I agree that there were too many candidates for them to have time in the forums to detail their positions on the issues. What they did get to say, however, showed a remarkable degree of consensus. I judge the City Council as a whole. Either they work together, do good things for the city and share the credit, or they block each other, get nothing done and share the blame. I hope for the former, but given some of the rhetoric by some of the candidates' supporters, if that's an indication of what the candidates themselves are thinking, then I fear we might be headed for the latter in the next council term.
Amanda, thanks for the feedback. Each of us has different make-or-break criteria for voting. For me, use of foul language doesn't make the cut-off.
"Anonymous" 4:32, I never heard Gary Slagel referred to as "Mr. Jobs" but he does speak about attracting and incubating new businesses as much as any candidate and more than some.
"Anonymous" 4:44, I have nothing against candidates drawing comparisons and contrasts with their opponents on the issues. Stewart did something else. He made some personal attacks on Omar. Omar's contrasts were more issue-oriented, but I found them to be misleading, if not outright false. I can't recommend either candidate for Place 7, but I will be holding my nose and marking my ballot for Dennis Stewart. Happy?
P.S. to all. It's OK to remain anonymous, but how about signing your comments with an alias, just to help keep straight who's replying to whom. Something like "Dismayed in Duck Creek" will do. ;-)
Ummm, Ed? I don't have an issue with Slagel's language. I have an issue with his honesty, and his bumbling impotent attempt to deny, and forget his actions.
If he did it and owned it, I would have been "okay." It was the pathetic inability to own up I have an issue with...
Slagel was unable to answer a simple question, and he lost my confidence.
It's funny how you bring so much baggage into your analysis of comments.
amanda, because you gave Slagel some feedback after reading a story about his "potty mouth," I thought foul language was an issue for you. Thanks for the correction.
Post a Comment