Sioux Falls Mayor Race

Final thoughts on the Mayoral Election

l3wis April 26, 2010 14Comments

(Screenshot from the final Argus Leader debate)

No matter what I said in the past about both candidates, make no mistake, both have worked very hard to get where they are today. I commend their enthusiasm and passion when it comes to Sioux Falls. While letter writers to the paper will tell you their candidate loves the city more then the other candidate, I would disagree. I think both of them love this city equally and really want to serve you.

THE CANDIDATES

Mike Huether literally came out of nowhere. I think his second place in the general election was no mistake. I predicted all along it would be these two guys in the end. After polling behind Vernon Brown he knew he had to turn up the heat and he did. He organized his base, the Democrats and got his message out. No matter how you feel about that, it really doesn’t matter, it worked and it may very well get him a victory tomorrow. Remember, while Obama lost in Lincoln county, he got the majority of the vote in Minnehaha county, this fairs well for Huether. But there are some factors to look at. Obama’s poll numbers are not the best right now and I am sure there is some disenfranchised voters who voted for him that wouldn’t vote for him today. I voted for Obama, but he was never my ‘first choice’. It was more like an ‘anti-Palin’ vote to me and I sometimes wonder if voting for Mike will be an ‘anti-Staggers’ vote for many? Hiring Hildebrand to run his campaign was a smart move. But what I can’t figure out is why it took so long for the media to say something about it? I knew about it months ago and was confirmed to me by Huether himself. I often wonder if people would have known about it before the general election if that would have changed the election results? While Mike has been very successful in this campaign, and the money he has spent (more then double of what Staggers has spent), his hardcore campaigning, his hiring of an expert campaign strategist and his ‘outsider’ label has helped him greatly. If he wins, it won’t surprise me one bit.

But don’t count Kermit out. While Mike has spent more money then Kermit, Kermit has campaigned just as hard, if not harder, in fact he has been campaigning for this job for years. It was unfortunate that partisanship was brought into the race, and I am truly disappointed in both candidates for doing it. It actually pains me to defend it on Kermit’s side, but hey, you have to fight fire with fire. I truly believe Kermit wanted to keep it out of the race, and I truly believe Mike did to. Mike was up against the wall, and it was a last ditch effort on his part to knock out Vernon. While voters will tell you that they hate partisanship and negative campaigning, it seems to be working for both campaigns. I know that both campaigns have not only energized their hardcore supporters but have also energized their base over the past two weeks (Dems and Repubs) I just hope this hasn’t disenfranchised the indies, the ones who will ultimately decide this race.

People on both sides of the debate have good and bad arguments for defending the practice. On the positive side, I don’t think there is anything wrong with bringing different social philisophical arguments into the debate. While I despise talking about abortion and gay rights in a mayoral race, let’s face it the next mayor’s job is to set policy. Sometimes that policy has nothing to do with Events Centers and Roads, sometimes it has to do with massive social issues like education, the homeless, job equality, etc. Do I personally agree with Huether taking money from the Unions. No. Do I personally agree with Kermit bringing up abortion? No. But they are both equally as guilty, just as much as I am guilty of stirring the pot on some of these issues.

Up until a week before the general election, Mike was my ‘second choice’ I told him that repeatdedly in emails and to his face and I will have to agree these are the two best candidates, and we should consider ourselves very, very, lucky to have these choices.

But why? I can clarify really quickly why I think Peterson, Costello and Brown lost. Peterson was unknown to the average voter, but don’t blame the average voter or the media. Peterson did very little campaigning. This was apparent to me when one of his supporters asked me to sign his petition to run. Gathering your own signatures is the best way to campaign and get a feel of the voters. Peterson failed big time in campaigning. Costello lost because of his ties to special interests. His lack of experience didn’t help much either. As for Brown, I will say this, his lack of funds really hurt him in the end, he also got to sure of himself after the poll came out. Mike outspent him and out organized him. I like Vernon and actually agree with him on many social issues facing our city, like the homeless. In a lot of ways Vernon and Mike agree on many issues, like spending money on quality of life projects like there is no tomorrow. The difference is Vernon has a voting record on the matter and Mike can dodge the question when he needs to. I think a lot of voters disagree with Vernon’s stance on projects like the Zoo. When our streets are falling apart, why are we buying new monkey crappers for the zoo? It just doesn’t make sense.

THE POSITIVES AND THE NEGATIVES OF BOTH CANDIDATES

While I have pounded Mike over the past few weeks on a whole host of issues (and to be honest with you, I didn’t think I was going to be able to dig up much dirt on him, boy was I wrong) There is some things I like about Mike. In the face of the public, he is very passionate, this is important. I also agree with him wanting to make investments within the city (though I think Kermit’s investment ideas are better). I also agree with him that the Events Center task force’s plan was flawed. In fact I sat next to him in one of the final meetings and we whispered back and forth discussing what was being presented, it was clear to me then, that Mike wasn’t buying the plan. I also agree that we must be fiscally responsible even though he repackaged that idea from Kermit, and the fact that a liberal Democrat talking about fiscal responsibility is an oxymoron, I think Mike knows that not only must he support the idea, I think he must implement it as mayor. It is pretty clear that Mike knows people are really pissed off about the economic shape of our city, and while Munson and other city officials pretend there is nothing wrong, the public knows better.

So why my opposition to Mike? It comes down to some basic things that have nothing to do with him being a Democrat, being partisan or taking union money. He has no government record. Zilch. All we have with Mike is promises. I was really unclear of how much Mike knew about government and particularly city government up until last week. Heck, there was a part of me that thought he might know more then he puts on. Hardly. Last week during the Argus Leader debate it became clear that Mike knew little about regulation (his solution was to hire more compliance officers) and very little about city budgets (one of the journalists asking the questions actually corrected him when Mike seemed confused about the Parks budget). While Mike touts his business experience, lets be clear, he worked in the marketing department at First Premier Bankcard, not the finance department. Do I want someone who can market our city well? Sure, but they must first understand how our city operates before they can sell it.

I will start out with Kermit’s negatives first. A majority of Kermit’s years on the city council have been very productive, but sometimes he barks up the wrong tree. While I appreciate him for not being a rubberstamper, there is just some things that need to be rubberstamped. I also think that Kermit sometimes is TOO conservative on financial issues, he sometimes pinched pennies instead of pinching dollar bills. For instance his stance on the new clubhouse for Prairie Green golf course. While I could give two-shits about a new clubhouse for a bunch of golfers, the facts are clear; the city courses make money for the city, let them build a new clubhouse. The new homeless shelter will save the city money in law enforcement, let’s build it. Kermit also is a great debater, which I love about him, but sometimes he just needs to admit when he is beat and turn the other cheek.

But why do I think Kermit’s positives outweigh his negatives? Because there is a multitude of them. Besides Kermit’s 21 years of public service experience, his intellect and knowledge of government, law and taxation is unmatched by anyone in the city. You don’t get to be a professor of political science for 28 years by being a dummy. But even better then that, Kermit has many progressive ideas to move the city forward, and they focus around the citizenry, something he has a proven track record in while serving on the city council for 8 years. The voters have agree with him when he has opposed some major policy changes. Like fee and tax increases, supposed quality of life projects, ordinance changes, etc. I could go on and on. Kermit has always sided with you, the citizen and not the special interests. This is commendable, and I think he will continue this policy as mayor. Kermit knows a city can only be great if it centers it’s greatness around superior customer service for it’s citizens, this means less taxes and fees, deregulation and more DIRECT services to the citizenry (like tree trimming, fixing sidewalks and roads and snowgates). These are REAL quality of life projects that help make all of our lives better.

But the one thing I like the most about Kermit is his honesty. You may not always agree with him, but you will always know he is telling the truth. This is a comforting trait in a politician.

I will take both candidates to task for their partisanship though. I really wish that Kermit would not have gone down that road, but I guess we will find out if it pays off tomorrow to fight fire with fire.

CONCLUSION

I want to end by saying I wish them both the best of luck, win or lose, and I hope no matter who wins (sorry I have no predictions this time) that I stand by what I have always said when I am knee deep in the political bullshit, I’m not a hater, If I end up hating a politician it just takes the fun out of what I do here. Am I cynical, sarcastic and foul sometimes? Sure, but the truth isn’t always pretty. This has been one of my biggest disappointments in the race, the editorializing of the candidates (both of them) by the local media and their constant blabbering about an Events Center and Quality-of-Life projects. We get it, you have an agenda, now let’s talk about the REAL issues.

I have had many great conversations with BOTH candidates over the past months leading up to this and have given BOTH of them tons of advice (yes to Mike to). I have enjoyed being in the middle of the debate and if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t do it any differently, it has been a blast, and truly entertaining and life changing for me. NOW GET OUT AND VOTE!

Now I can finally get back to painting.

The Argus Leader ED Board points out the stark differences between Staggers and Huether in their endorsement

l3wis April 25, 2010 4Comments

The Ed Board’s endorsement was actually entertaining to read, because they have proven that Kermit is a man of action while Mike is a man of only words;

Consider the qualifications and skills that the city’s next mayor needs: a clear vision for job creation, commitment to quality-of-life improvements, the ability to balance competing interests throughout Sioux Falls, an understanding of fiscal responsibility and a passion to doggedly promote Sioux Falls.

Does Mike have a clear vision for job creation? Kermit has at least one solution; tax cuts and deregulation for local business, which helps create jobs. “commitment to quality-of-life improvements” Are the voters asking for that? Or is the Argus Leader Ed Board asking for that? Quality of life means different things to different people. Some people think Rec centers and indoor pools are quality of life. Some people think good roads, parks, and top notch infrastructure and customer service to citizens is quality of life. This is simply a difference of opinion, Mike’s (The Argus Ed board) and Kermit’s. As for balancing competing interests, Kermit has done that his whole political life. He has voted ‘YES’ and ‘NO’ depending on the issue, and wasn’t a rubberstamper. That is a good thing. ‘an understanding of fiscal responsibility’ Well, Kermit blows Mike out of the water on this issue.

Staggers’ consistent resistance to developing an ambitious agenda for Sioux Falls doesn’t match what most residents repeatedly indicate they want or what the city needs. No one doubts that Staggers legitimately desires what’s best for Sioux Falls, but his plan represents a step backward for this growing, vibrant city.

Kermit has a very clear agenda; give the city back to the citizens. Better customer service, better roads and infrastructure and less subsidies to special interests. Sounds like moving forward to me.

Huether will face a steep learning curve in mastering city governmental affairs, but his previous accomplishments indicate he’s well able to meet the challenge.

And this what ultimately scares me about Mike, his lack of government experience.