Saturday, October 27, 2007

Herald News endorsements for City Council

The Herald News has published their endorsements for the City Council race. Their choices are:
Nathan Amaral
Tim Bennett
Steve Camara
Pat Casey
Brian Dias
Ray Hague
Mike Miozza
Gus Suneson
Cathy Ann Viveiros

Lefty's view: I'm not sure what I find more interesting, the Herald's selections and reasoning, or the fact they chose 7 challengers, and 5 of them are the 5 I highlighted on Monday. Obviously endorsing 7 challengers means they endorsed 2 incumbents and I have stated that I would not vote for more than 2 incumbents.

I really didn't expect to agree so closely with the Herald's choices, nor did I expect the Herald to make such a clear choice for new faces and new ideas on the Council. I also find myself in agreement with the many of the reasons the Herald provides for their choices. I almost have to wonder is the Herald News reading my blog??!

The reality is our next City Council is not going to resemble the list of Herald endorsees, which is a shame. While there are a few candidates that I would really need to think about voting for, overall I think it's a mix of experience, new ideas, proven leadership, and activism. I would welcome such a City Council.

7 comments:

Big Picture Guy said...

Since a lot of candidates use municipal seats to launch legislative careers, I have difficulty supporting a few candidates, particularly Viveiros, Amaral and Martins (SC).

I believe Viveiros is a registered Republican (let me know if I'm wrong), which raises some concerns about alignment with the party and her world view.

Amaral referenced on his Web site (not sure if still there) a link to a fundamental church, which raises an alert for anyone with progressive views.

Finally, I'm glad the Herald did not endorse Joe Martins. His wife is rabidly homophobic/anti-choice, which makes me wonder how this will influence his decisions regarding curriculum and access to family planning information for a student population that's highly at risk of repeating the mistakes of past generations (more unplanned pregnancies) in poorer communities.

Just my big picture view, but I'm not willing to take a chance on these three because I fear they may not be capable of making decisions that are best for Fall River given its demographics. I also don't want to give them a stepping stone to a higher political office that will lead to legislation and potential judicial appointments.

I'm sure I'm overthinking this, but they go outside my comfort zone. From what I've seen, Camara, Miozza, Bennett and Dias are the only challengers worth considering for the council.

Lefty said...

I was sorely tempted to delete this comment and finally decided not to. However, it shouldn't go unchallenged.

Viveiros a Republican? I can't confirm or deny, although I've been told the answer is no. Even if she was a Republican, concerns about alignment and world view? Are you serious? Do you think every Republican it part of a major plot for world domination or something? If so I must have missed all the meetings. I don't assume that every Democrat is some raving lunatic liberal! You need to be a bit more tolerant of people with different political views.

Amaral referenced a fundamental church - so should we simply rule out any candidate who has a religious belief? If this the case we better watch out for those darn Catholics and their view on homosexuality and abortion! It's wrong to assume that a political candidate won't be able to serve fairly because of his religious views.

You're glad that they didn't endorse Joe Martins because of the views of his WIFE?! This has got to be the best one of the bunch. Has Mrs. Martins views ever come up as an issue when Joe was superintendent and director of Diman? Is Mrs. Martin so influential that she can convince not only Joe but the majority of the school committee to endorse her allegedly "rabidly homophobic/anti-choice" views?

Look you're entitled to vote for whomever you like and you're entitled to your views. I have to agree you're over thinking this and I think you need to work on your comfort zone.

left but lurking said...

I kind of agree with Big Picture. Sorry.

I'm not sure if Viveiros is a Republican, but if so, I wonder which parts of the party's platform she supports. More often than not I've been guilty of giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt. God knows I've regretted that decision a number of times. Just look who's running for mayor! If I lived in RI I might have considered voting for Chaffee if the balance of power wasn't in play so I guess I'm not as rigid as big picture.

Most Catholics I know disagree with the church on homosexuality and abortion rights. Some don't. These are two issues that are important to me so I like to know before I vote for a candidate for any office.

I've also seen plenty of Catholic legislators vote against the church on matters of state. But I don't see very often a Christian fundamentalist voting against the church on such matters. I wonder if big picture would vote for a candidate with progressive views despite religious differences. I would like to think I would.

Martin's wife did lead the bus charge up to the state house to protest gay marriage. She is also her church's director of the pro-"life" program but I don't care what his wife does. But I must admit red flags went up when I read Martins' website a couple of months ago. His reference to abstinence education was countered by saying sex education should be taught but the fact that he mentioned abstinence teaching, which to my knowledge has proven ineffective, may mask a fundamentalist view. Not sure but probably not willing to chance it.

I'm sure you'll disagree with me too but thank you for not deleting a post that may sound ridiculous to some yet hold a sprinkling of sensibility to others.

Fall River Community said...

I'm going to have to agree with Lefty on this one.

1) Since Big Picture Guy asked for it, the information that I have is that Cathy Ann Viveiros is listed as unenrolled with any party. Also, the Republican/Democrat distinction does not have much meaning at the local level.

2) Article VI of the US Constitution states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Now, here BPG disqualified Amaral from consideration SOLELY for religious affiliation which is entirely different than disagreeing with someone ON THE ISSUES, in which religion may influence either your opinion or that of the other person.

3) Not voting for someone because of the views of their spouse or other family member is silly. The theme of your gripe seems to be the inclusion of abstinence education as a component of sex education.

I've heard people complain about "abstinence only" but I would think that any responsible sex education program would at least mention abstinence. Depriving students of abstinence information is just as harmful as the "abstinence only" crowd's denial about proper protection. I don't see the need for a "No abstinence" approach or why the inclusion of abstinence education is so alarming.

Again, agreeing with Lefty, Mr. Martins would be just one vote on the School Committee and I think he has much more to offer when considering the POSSIBLE cons that you mention.



I also thank Lefty for not deleting this series of posts.

Fear and Loathing in Fall River said...

If you are worried about gay marriage and abortion you should have a look at Representative Correia's history. He is a very conservative DINO.

c) Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.

No d) Do you believe that the Massachusetts government should recognize same-sex marriages?

X b) Endorse teacher-led voluntary school prayer in public schools.

X f) Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms.



http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=4786#408


Just thought you might like to know....

Anonymous said...

While checking out the link provided above, I found the following interesting:

"Representative Robert Correia REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY
RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2006
NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY

Key national leaders of both major parties including:
John McCain, Republican Senator
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Governor
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President

Over 100 news organizations throughout the nation also urged their candidates to supply their issue positions through the National Political Awareness Test."

His latest answers are from 1996 because he has refused to update the form. This shows, to me, a continued disregard for the people he has sworn to represent.

left but lurking said...

To fear and loathing:

I know exactly where Correia stands on these issues. That is why I support Sullivan.

While Sullivan is really bad on abortion rights, I'd rather see him get the job for many more reasons than reward the DINO who will most likely be parking his butt on the sixth floor in government center.