The Fourth Estate is in a bad state in Torrance.
Discussions of insider intrigue, of candidates covering up an anti-war past, plus candidates who have switched their party affiliation for the sake of better outreach (getting more votes?) or to avoid the wrath of the IRS.
The pension issue cannot be ignored, yet one of the most experienced candidates running for city council claims there is no issue.
A fiscal conservative with extensive experience in book-keeping has also been endorsed by the police and fire unions, but at the same time is not taking their money.
Does this endorsement matter in the long run, then?
Local conservative groups have set their votes on a certain number of candidates, but only because of their affiliation with the group. Does their endorsement even count for anything, then?
I still believe that a party label matters, but the demands of city elections far conflicts with the needs of an entire state or the long-term sustainability of a city, too.
I see Republicans who are friends with Democrats. Not that there is anything wrong with that -- and yet, the issue of friendship distresses other voters, who say that we have to press past those personal connections and pay attention to the encroachment of Agenda 21.
I have no problem voting for a Republican who has Democratic friends. I have no problem voting for a Republican was taken money from individual Dems, yet.
How partisan do we really want to be? What really will be the best outcome for the city of Torrance?
Keep in mind that a "Decline to State" status does not mean that an individual does not have partisan ambitions of his or her own, either.
As George Will commented on "This Week" shortly after President Obama's first inaugural: "We have two political parties for a reason." Even in multi-party democracies, there will be one majority and one minority in the end: two parties.
But back to Torrance. . .
A business owner told me that the mayor was telling the Daily Breeze not to report crimes in the city, so that the perception of "Balanced City" Torrance would not be diminished. I also know that there was a shooting in the Del Amo Fashion Center, yet I do not feel threatened or intimidated in Torrance at all.
I am also aware of a massive drug problem among high school youth in Torrance and throughout the Beach Cities, but the local press has not discussed this matter at all.
Do I stop reading the newspapers altogether, then?
I also notice that businesses are returning to Torrance.
Now I hear about shenanigans and backstage back-stabbing. What?!
Persona slights and political fights are needless distractions. This city has problems. This city needs leadership.
And the activists need to recognize that no one candidate is perfect - and never will be.
Yet all of this unreported controversy does reflect badly on the local press. Why did I not know about Goodrich's past? Why was I not aware of Mayor Scotto's conflicts with certain candidates?
And why am I reading more about an embittered, prejudiced basketball coach or a corrupt superintendent in Lawndale rather than the key issues affecting Torrance?
Arthur, don't forget the "Independent Expenditures". Even though candidates may not get a donation when endorsed, they will get promoted by that group or Union. I just don't see a difference. Unions pick candidates that will best serve their own needs and rightfully so. Why endorse a candidate that will push for pension reform. An endorsement is basically an unwritten agreement that you will be good to each other. This is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAt this time, I am more concerned with weighing pros of candidates. If they are not taking union $$$, then I am more inclined to support that candidate.
DeleteI can respect that
DeleteRespect -- that's what we need more of in this discourse. Disagree agreeably.
DeleteCity Council is a non partisan position but political views will effect your voting. If you vote YES to every request for spending more of our tax payers money then we have a problem. I doubt that city council even reads most of what is put in front of them. How could they possibly approve at a rate of 99.9% or 499 out of 500?
ReplyDeleteAurelio, this is Clint. Glad to see another candidate pick up on the 99.9% 2013 approval rate I've been preaching since the beginning of the campaign. I'm surprised it hasn't been talked about more. This approval percentage indicates that the City Manager and City Staff really govern our city. After all, what do we even need a City Council for if all they do is say yes to everything? It's time for a change. We need to elect leaders this year that will stand up for the residents and the taxpayers and not cater to the whims of special interests.
DeleteDisturbing, to say the least. I read the article which suggested that Torrance leaders dropped the ball on Toyota leaving. With the city manager retiring soon, along with massive overturn of city elected officials in Torrance, we need to get fiscally responsible, pro-individual liberty, pro-business candidates elected to the city council.
DeleteA good, old-fashioned cover-up, eh, Jimmy Olsen?
ReplyDeleteCivic engagement has been all too lacking. That is a big problem -- but is it too late?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you expect when the Daily Breeze assigns Nick Green to cover Torrance? The guy is a drunk hack. I hear he hasn't been kicked out of Texas Loosey's for disturbing the peace yet...
ReplyDelete