Rather than replicate the coverage for the final forum, for which I was absent, I decided to review all of my prior forum posts and reflect on the development of the issues and the candidates.
I will cover one important aspect of the SOHA event in a separate post. Thank you, Michael Cohen, for the complete video.
I am not including Kevin James’ excellent forums, only because the format and setting were dramatically different. I would like to see more of his type of coverage in future elections.
After flipping through printouts, what caught my eye was the increase in pages from the first through the fourth event. There were fewer than two pages for Sunland Tujunga to almost four pages devoted to SONC’s forum. That is considerable growth. It can be attributed to the depth of the candidates’ answers, which in part was due to the nature of the questions.
It was a natural progression. As you might expect, both the forum sponsors and the candidates learned from all of the preceding events. Questions became more specific to encourage deeper answers; formats were modified to cover more ground and foster interactivity among the candidates.
Despite the time limits that were necessary to allow participation by all ten candidates, the organizers, who were all volunteers, deserve much credit and our respect for embodying the essence of civic responsibility.
I only wish that the 85% of citizens who do not bother to vote in local elections had a fraction of the spirit and commitment shown by these people.
How did the candidates themselves evolve?
At first, it was the better known names touting their public stands, fairly or otherwise, while the grassroots candidates had to devote considerable energy just to stake out their positions.
It did not take long for that to change.
The second forum became more combative. Essel, who was the only real target in the first forum for her public stance on SB1818, got some company with Krekorian and Galatzan absorbing criticism for inaction in the Assembly and the LAUSD’s performance, respectively. Even Wendy Greuel, who in my view is the surrogate for Chris Essel, was pasted in no uncertain terms.
More specifics started to emerge by the third forum.
The DWP and the city’s infrastructure were targeted –and that was before the rash of water main failures. Krekorian had sharp exchanges with Benson and Sheftel. The former concerning Krekorian’s carpetbagger status and the latter regarding the prison release bill that was before the Assembly. Krekorian unjustly called Sheftel a liar when Frank accused him of wanting to support a bill to release many thousands of prisoners. In fact, such a bill was before the Assembly; Krekorian, as is typical of a professional politician, was cagey about his stand on it.
Krekorian also dodged an important question about the unfunded pension liability, no doubt because he did not want to risk the ire of the SEIU, one of his top institutional supporters.
There were also heated exchanges among Benson, Sheftel and Zuma Dogg, showing that the grassroots candidates were anything but a coalition.
The fourth forum also delved more into the budget crisis with several candidates offering specific ideas to cut spending while Krekorian blamed everything but politicians for the present mess. His proposal about restoring cuts when the economic cycle turned around was further evidence of his union connection.
His arrogance also became increasingly evident when he put down the others as amateurs.
Chris Essel impressed only a handful of those in attendance. She could never shake off the public position she took in favor of SB1818 nor could she detach herself from the flood of campaign cash and endorsements from over the hill. Her attempts to display herself as a “valley girl” were, to be frank, lame. If anything, they were met with derision.
Will money be enough to offset the poor perception of her in key segments of the district? As Augusto Bisani would say, “I don’t know.”
Tamar Galatzan was consistently aggressive throughout all of the forums and displayed enough passion without going over the top. Certainly, she is a strong contender.
Peter Sanchez grew in stature. His progress really became evident on his home turf in Valley Village and carried forward from there. He just might be the strongest of the grassroots group at this time. That would make him a contender for a runoff slot.
Frank Sheftel started strong, but never really capitalized on it. However, he does appear to have the most established organization of the grassroots candidates. For that reason, he could be in the mix for a chance at the runoff.
Mary Benson’s message failed to go much beyond land use. That will hurt her chances.
Joe Essavi was too stuck on the Council salary issue.
Michael McCue was up and down through the forum series. He made good use of slogans, which in formats with 30 to 60 seconds allotted to deliver your message is an effective strategy. However, he did not know when to tone his passion down. That could work against him.
Augusto Bisani was the “man on the street” candidate, evoking memories of comic Steve Allen’s old routine. He was a sharp contrast to everyone else; for that alone he deserves credit. However, it will not translate into very many votes.
Finally, Zuma Dogg was everything everyone expected. No more, no less.
He can best be described as the political equivalent of rock band Rage Against the Machine, whose album, the Battle of Los Angeles, should be the soundtrack for this campaign.
Paaaaaaaaaaaaaul,
I could listen to RATM all day, every day. YOU CANNOT TOP ‘EM! What a great take on your part. CAMPAIGN A SUCCESS! ZD