Originally Posted by
mark blazejewski
The 2015 Lancaster Town election victories left the Democrat Party in complete control , but in absolute directional confusion. In order to win that year, the party power holders were forced nominate an very likable, but quickly aging, "caretaker" candidate for Supervisor, a rather half-hearted superficial Conservative, and an independent, who sole purpose would be to exist as a piece of political tofo, always absorbing the prevailing political flavor.
The Democrat campaign of 2015 offered no new ideas, no problem remediation, and no bold legislative proposals. That campaign was waged on the singular platform of feminine"civility." Clearly, that victory, won on such a showboat issue, yielded a very shallow governing mandate. In January, 2016, the majority's power was absolute, but its future political direction lacked a functional compass.
It seems to me this is what happened:
[FONT=arial]In an analogy worthy of Isaac and Ishmael, the Supervisor instructed her two "sons," Ruffino and Abraham, to travel to the proverbial fork-in-the-road, and to each embark on the other's opposite.
Abraham would cautiously, quietly walk the side suggestive of the tax and spend past.
Ruffino would boldly venture onto the trail of superficial, if not temporary, conservatism.
The one meeting success first would lay claim to the thrown, and that tested path would set the direction for the future. If both won, the default would go to Abraham.
What emerged in the fall campaign, was not a contest between four men for two Council seats, but two separate elections pitting one specific candidate against one specific opponent.
The first contest required the voters to make a choice between the tax and spend past, and a far more fiscally conservative approach to town government. That election pitted John Abraham, the traditional tax and spend Democrat, against Adam Dickman, an untested, but publicly committed advocate for fiscal conservatism.
That election was handily won by Dickman.
The second election required the voter to size up the candidates personally.
Were Ruffino's new-found conservative values genuine, and did his recent positions assuage voter fears of a future double-cross?
Did Bob Leary represent a credible alternative to the contradictory Ruffino?
Today, the answer to both questions remains unsettled.
No matter how the Ruffino-Leary competition ends, half of the town does not trust Ruffino. Equally, half the town does not feel that Leary is an acceptable alternative.
Ruffino's history haunts him.
Leary on the other hand, the man with the incredible resume, failed to close the deal. His communications were poor, flawed, and awkward. In the closing days, his rather obscure budget analysis gaffe, was so frivolously dismissed that it suggested a rather reckless, if not ill-informed, governing temperament. That gaffe may yet prove fatal.
Moreover, his apparent reliance on the mistaken concept of exclusive "team" campaigning with Mr. Dickman, seemingly showed a lack of confidence, and almost smacked of child-like dependency.
Both are good men. Both are competent men. I supported both men.
But, perhaps it may have been wise for Mr. Leary to have kept a healthy distance from running mate Dickman, not to disassociate, but to independently distinguish; to complement, not to copy; to walk parallel to, but not in lockstep with; to strike out on his own, and boldly advocate for himself, as he would boldly advocate for the citizen.
All-in-all, election day seems to have settled the question of general fiscal philosophy, and has provided the citizen with at least one civil voice for minority dissent. But, there is still one rather outstanding issue: the winner of the second Council seat.
Just my thoughts, but what do I know?
Reply With Quote
