Debate Critics

I try not to spend too much time elevating comments to post-level, but I think I need to defend the debate that David and I sponsored, as well as all the candidates who participated. In all honesty, when people come on here and take potshots at me and others, my initial inclination is to just delete them. I don't spend the energy to do this so that people can come and slam me; start your own damn blog or, better yet, go hang out at the Tribune Forums.

I usually resist that urge, though, unless the comments are really unfair or over the top. In this case, we have a few shills who have felt compelled to comment. Let's shine the light.

This person offered a "reality check." First, s/he argued that the debate was "[c]oal plant this, coal plant that, all issues lead to the coal plant." S/he must have been at a different debate than I attended. Sure, there were prominent discussions about the coal plant. There were also discussions about accountability, open government, budgeting, the animal shelter and other things. No, this isn't a 'one issue town,' but it would be silly to suggest that the coal plant is not a huge issue facing us, both in its own right and as a lens to focus attention on other problems with City government.

The same person went on to dismiss the vote of the audience as friends and family of the candidates. Wrong. I know the majority of the people who voted for Mary Jolley. They are neither her friends or her family.

This person finally looks forward to the Tribune's forum. I am not sure why s/he needed to blast on our efforts to endorse the Trib's function. I hope it goes well. I hope they will follow our lead and come up with a way to allow something more than soundbite speeches.

Then someone appeared in a different post to slam the candidates, offering little substance but just telling us that some are bad. This person's comments are, frankly, laughable. I would really like to know who this person is.

Most of the things I write about, I know. I hope I don't sound cocky, but I have have been a practicing attorney in this town for nearly 20 years. When I say that a contract means this, or a law says that, I have a very high level of confidence that I am correct. If some one calls me to task on an issue, and can back it up, I will discuss the issue or retract my statement.

So when someone comes online and makes a silly, blanket statement about someone's "information" or positions, and that statement is false, it says much more about the commenter than the candidate.

I don't know, maybe Ed McKnight does have "bad information," since our potshot commenter did not provide the specifics to support his or her slam. Not all of his information is bad, though, because I have read a lot of it myself.

It has been suggested that this commenter is Holy Hal from the Tribune forums. The drive by attacks lead me to believe that this is not an unreasonable suggestion.

Finally, LK, please limit the personal attacks. Having met you, I think you are often injecting some levity, but it does not always translate into the posts. Use a smiley face or something, wouldja?

:)