Mayor’s race tidbits for Monday — Updated
November 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm by Scott Henry in NewsWith the mayor’s race still a dead heat, both candidates came out swinging in two televised debates over the weekend.
In the Atlanta Press Club debate, broadcast live on GPB Sunday evening, Kasim Reed attacked first, asserting that Councilwoman Mary Norwood had “made Atlanta less safe” by voting twice against tax increases to keep the city from furloughing cops.
Norwood then repeated a claim from the previous night’s WAGA-TV debate that some of her black supporters had been “threatened.” She cited an example of one neighbor attempting to browbeat another into voting for Reed; frankly, it sounded more like peer pressure between adults.
A few minutes later, Norwood accused Reed of not paying his property taxes and offered to provide documentation to the press. But the AJC’s top investigative reporter has already seen the docs and decided there was nothing to the charge. Reed said there was no truth to the claim.
Then Reed swung a punch that seemed to land.
Both candidates spent last week feverishly courting the gay vote in Atlanta’s Council District 6, which will return in force to the polls next week for a Council seat runoff. Reed has seemed at a disadvantage because of an earlier statement he gave saying he favored legalizing civil unions rather than full-on gay marriage — even though it’s an issue that will never cross the mayor’s desk.
(In fact, I’ve heard several times that Reed didn’t bother to attend the Pride Parade, although there are photos of him at the Nov. 1 festivities on his campaign website. As recently as Saturday, an AJC article repeated the claim that Reed was a Pride no-show — although the current online version of the article has that paragraph missing with no indication that the story was subsequently edited.)
But last night, Reed said that when the Council was considering a couple years back whether to increase domestic partner benefits for some gay employees, Norwood left her desk only long enough to avoid voting on the matter.
Norwood said she couldn’t remember why she had abstained from the vote, which is a surprisingly feeble response.
Anyway, so today we’re back to the campaigns. This morning, Reed announced endorsements from four of the nine members of the Atlanta Board of Education. Norwood responded by calling a press conference with representatives from the firefighter’s union, which had endorsed her back in August.
Also, as the AJC reports, Norwood supporter, state Rep. Ralph Long, has provided 11 Alive with a video he says shows someone pulling up Norwood signs and delivering them to a Reed campaign office.
UPDATE — The AJC reports that Norwood’s camp says the domestic partner issue was on the Council’s consent agenda, bundled with dozens of other items that were intended for quick approval, not as stand-alone legislation.
If this was so, it means Norwood could easily be forgiven for not casting a vote on the matter.
Technically, Reed would still be correct in pointing out that she abstained from voting to increase domestic partner benefits — but my rule of thumb is, if you have to preface your statement with the word “technically,” then you’re fudging.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“Reed has seemed at a disadvantage because of an earlier statement he gave saying he favored legalizing civil unions rather than full-on gay marriage — even though it’s an issue that will never cross the mayor’s desk.”
No, I guess it doesn’t matter to straight people in Atlanta. But it sure is nice to know where they stand on issues that face our gay community. Just like we know that CL stands in Reeds camp. Hence the dismissive comment about the issue… as if it doesn’t really matter anyway so why should gay Atlantans bother to be bothered with it.
This coupled with your Pride coverage that seemed to make a mockery out of the event makes me wonder what CL really thinks of its gay readers.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
@nadia, Reed has taken plenty of pro-gay stands as a state legislator, as every balanced news piece on him rehearses. You might at least acknowledge that.
The city is in a prolonged budget crisis and cannot fund basic services. Gay marriage rights are not even a municipal issue. Not is race, by the way. Vote relevant. Vote for the candidate most likely to take the tough actions needed to get the city’s budget under control and the cops working properly for public safety.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I support Norwood, but either candidate is strong on gay rights. Reed has the support of several gay rights groups, and he definitely was at Pride cause I saw him there personally.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
hum? will CL question this or just defend it? Journalism folks lets see some of it. Or will just CL just blindly endorse Reed and blast Norwood.
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?aid=114158&storyid=137947#/News/Disappearing+Campaign+Signs%3A+Who+Did+It%3F/49906865001/50317397001/52333264001
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Mary’s campaign smears of Kasim have far more potential impact on voting than localized filching of information-free yard signs. The smears, concocted with APN and later put out in mailers across the whole city, are deliberate campaign policy to misrepresent the choice, done in the face of fact-checking by the AJC. The over-zealous activity of the yard sign removers pales in comparison.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Wow Scott, support Reed much? This reads like it could have come out of Kasim’s campaign office.
And really, a single sentence at the end of the article? Forgive me for speculating but it seems as though the sign stealing, allegedly for payment, would have had its own posting had it been Reed signs and a Norwood office.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Heres my question about the sign removal: Were they removed from private yards, or from public property? There are both Norwood and Reed (and Mitchell and all kinds of other) signs all over public intersections, freeway entrances, etc. Those signs are illegal in the first place, and removing them isnt any type of offense.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Sorry “wary of Mary” but I DO vote locally and to me that means who is going to watch my back. Mary’s support of full marriage rights for gays may mean nothing as we live in Georgia, but it is the perfect barometer for this voter.
And isn’t Reed tied to Mayor Franklin and her administration? And didn’t Mayor Franklin and her administration contribute to driving us into this proverbial financial wall?
I know Mary has been weak in some areas, I acknowledge that… but I sure do trust her a whole lot more, know matter how hard Scott Henry and the PR folks at Reed’s campaign try and sway me.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:32 am
So Reed was called out at the debate for sign theft, he defended it as it happens to all of us. Reed’s camp was caught red handed by Long stealing signs. Now instead of admitting to yourselves that it was going on it becomes, were they in the right of way? If you watch the video you can clearly see it wasn’t a concerned citizen cleaning up signs since he left the Reed sign on the corner.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:46 am
@O — I didn’t do a full post on yard sign issue because the 11 Alive report hadn’t aired yet when I wrote this post. It’s now available at http://tiny.cc/11Alive.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Re the sign theft: I admit I enjoy watching the entrenched camp (ie, the Reed folks) do such stupid, desperate things. They may very well lose control — read that: money and power — of a city that they have run into the ground. And, as much as Reed wants to distance himself from that, he has the Jackson creds.
Still, he may be the best person for the job. But I suspect a lot of voters, such as myself, find his political ties worrisome. This is no time for the same-old, same-old.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Vote relevant was – and is – my plea. Reed started the campaign with a direct commitment to tackle pension expense, the monster that has chewed a huge hole in the city budget. And not by kicking the can down the road some more, but by rolling back the irresponsible council increases in benefit accrual – for both of which Mary voted. That’s tough stuff. Mary would prefer to babble on about minor discrepancies in accounts. That way she comes across as an idiot who must terrify bond investors. But she conveniently avoids facing the fact that there’s a huge gap between revenue and what it takes to run this city. So she can pander to taxpayers and employees – no tax increase needed, no pension rollback either. And she can avoid admitting that she bears responsibility, by voting for the crippling pension increases and against millage increases that were required just to keep revenue steady and keep from furloughing cops and fire.
Vote relevant.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Doesnt Ralph Long have anything better to do with his time? Who even gives a damn about someone stealing a campaign sign.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@S. Dekalb Voter: If it is just some over-zealous supporter, it’s one thing; if it is part of the Reed campaign machine, it’s another.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Yeah, Ralph, do something productive with your time. Like blogging!
I don’t understand what stealing signs from people’s yards is supposed to accomplish.
Surely it doesn’t sway votes. The city is saturated with campaign banners. Stealing a yard sign means you’re seeing a name 98 times in a day instead of 99.
“Hmm, I was gonna vote for Norwood until her sign disappeared from Ralph’s yard. I’ll have to vote for Reed now.”
Perhaps the point is to make the opposition spend money and time replacing the signs?
Or maybe it’s just psyched-up campaign staffers venting juvenile steam.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@Andisheh:
“Or maybe it’s just psyched-up campaign staffers venting juvenile steam.”
Bingo!
And, Wary of Mary: Will you be Reed’s spokesperson if he gets the mayor’s job? You should be.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
@Grant Parker – me for Reed’s spokesperson? Thanks. Perhaps you should volunteer me. He’ll need all the help he can find.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Sign stealing, commonly referred to as “clean up work” in GOTV circles, is part of any municipal campaign in the black community. It’s hardly news, and shouldn’t be the reason to vote for or against a candidate. Now, pandering to a community by buying out a restaurant for a photo op is a different story…
November 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Staged or not, this will be yet another motivator for many Mary voters. Mary is pulling more of the “change” voters – who likely make up a majority of the runoff vote – and regardless of their definition of change, every attempt to define this as no-big-deal, business-as-usual campaigning will push them to the polls.
Kasim’s campaign better ratchet up the change rhetoric and consider their go-nuclear strategy (see Eaves radio ad circa November 2006) if they want to win.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Isn’t every contested Atlanta mayoral race a “change” election from the so-called Jackson machine?
November 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
SDK – that’s beside the point. Yes, this type of change comes up nearly every mayoral election. But the variables are different this time and converging at once – massive financial issues and mismanagement at City Hall; seemingly credible white candidate; incompetent APD leadership and growing sense of crime wave; and gentrification-fed demographic changes in likely voters.
This isn’t 1981 (Young-Marcus) and it isn’t 2001 (Franklin-Pitts).
I’ve spoken with people on both sides and while the likely Kasim voters seem more reasoned to me, the likely Mary voters are more fervent. We both know which of those are more likely to show up next Tuesday.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I think most people on this blog don’t visit the south side of town that often. The notion that the south side of town is not energized is blatantly false. I challenge anyone who questions me on this point to ride down Cascade Rd, MLK Dr, Cleveland Ave, or Campbelton Rd this Saturday. The south side vote will cancel the north side vote. It’s going to be a close, close race notwithstanding the presumed passion of the Mary voters.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
@Wary of Mary: I’d recommend you to Reed, but I’ve never met the guy, haven’t seen him around.
His challenger? That’s a different story. I give her points for campaigning, if nothing else.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
FYI – the answer to the question as to why the Reed campaign would be paying to have the signs removed is that they want to create the appearance that all the momentum is on his side. If the only signs out there are for one campaign it makes people on the fence think hey this person has a lot of support they must be doing something right, no one wants to put out a sign for the other person they must not have support.
That is also why all the endorsements have been coming out almost daily. Reed wants to create the appearance that everyone is supporting him and that the Norwood campaign has stalled out.
Perception is reality.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Nice straw man, SDK. No one’s saying there isn’t “energy,” whatever in the world that means, on the south side. I’m saying when you’re looking at 12%-15% turnout, it’s the personally motivated that show. And my sense is that Mary voters I know seem to take this election more personally than the Kasim voters I know.
I work at Grady and talk with a fairly broad cross section of black Atlantans every day, far more than I talk with white Atlantans. These folks are, in part, what i base my opinion on. Maybe my friends here don’t live in West End or Cascade? I don’t know
I’m not saying Mary runs away with this…maybe she loses after all. But my sense from the voters I interact with – black and white – is that Mary is in the lead.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
turn out
turn out
turn out
November 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Agreed. Brave a ride through southwest this weekend and you’ll see what I mean about energy.
Despite the polls, Mary is in the lead. But, I think its
close and intelligence will prevail over ignorance in the end.