I’m sitting here marveling over the pithy brilliance that was Team Lovely Warren’s reaction to Rachel Barnhart’s candidacy.
Shortly after Barnhart announced her mayoral bid earlier this week, the Friends of Lovely Warren Committee sent over this brief rejoinder:
“Last year, Miss Barnhart ran for the State Assembly. This year she has announced her candidacy for mayor. We are curious to learn what office she will run for next year.”
The statement is dismissive and condescending, and in three sentences manages to paint Barnhart as both an opportunist and a loser. Is it “nice”? Of course not. Is it fair? I guess that depends on your point of view. But I just think it’s a devastating — and deft — political attack.
We’re approaching the time when the candidates will make their pitches to the local committees in the hope of eventually winning the endorsement of the party. It’ll be interesting to see what Mayor Warren does, given the very public rift between her and the Democratic Committee.
Does Warren HAVE to go to the committees? No. Can she get the endorsement without doing it? I hear it’s 50-50.
She certainly doesn’t need the endorsement to win; Rochester has proven that more than once. But it would be unusual — if not unprecedented — for a sitting mayor not to be endorsed by his or her party.
I’m also hearing that we can expect an official platform from mayoral candidate James Sheppard “soon-ish.” In theory, he’s got time. Practically, though, the longer he takes, the more he risks his opponents and critics defining him as the guy with no ideas — I’m already hearing it, in fact.
Some other sounds-crazy-but-is-it thing I heard today: What if Warren decides not to run and the committees can’t decide on Barnhart or Sheppard? Mayor Loretta Scott, anyone?
This article appears in Feb 8-14, 2017.
The Democratic candidates would be well advised to stick to the issues and present how they will advance the cause of a strong and vital progressive Sanctuary City in a time of reactionary disintegration at the national level. Skip the cute personal attacks. We need sound leadership, not sound bytes.
This article demonstrates why City Newspaper, and other similar publications are in decline. It puts on display behaviors which have caused the public to turn away from the media in droves. The article contains no sources, shows bias towards certain candidates, has erroneous facts, and demonstrates a general intellectual laziness towards the subject matter. Voters would be well served to ignore this publication for the duration of the contest.
There is an old adage…if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
Maybe Ms Barnhart didn’t want to wait til this year to try and serve. Maybe never having run a campaign was a factor. Maybe a lot of things… The point is few of us get it exactly right the first time. And too many wait ’til the time is right’, which almost never happens. So, should we quit after our first failure or is it better if we use that to push us forward? Few millionaires didn’t experience a challenge (including bankruptcy for many), on their way to their first million.
The statement by Friends of Lovely Warren is intended to inflict harm, rather than making a serious/valid point. One can only imagine why… Is Ms Warren concerned that she can’t be elected this time on her record? Would trying to eliminate the competition in her party early on be advantageous? Help her get the party’s nod? Something else? Who knows? I believe that when the opening salvo is an immediate attack, the attacker has something to hide or be concerned about…even when the attack is made using genteel words. When I first read it the other day, I didn’t think much of it. It read like something that someone would say who would be considered a poor sport. Am still having a hard time taking it seriously, although someone certainly did.
All I can say is that when a candidate (any party or office) starts attacking their opponent, my eyes glaze over and I stop listening. A bully will attack, trying to beat another down. However, someone who is confident is able to raise themself up, without ever needing to resort to any sort of attack (personal or otherwise).
As a City of Rochester resident, I believe the more choices we have the better. If Rachel Barmhart wants to throw her hat in the ring, good for her and all of us. I don’t know who will be the best Mayor, but I am willing to listen to everyone before deciding.
Rachel’s announcement was among the best I seen. Not a pep rally where anyone breathing is welcome to attend. Rachel actually presented ideas. Kudos.
Speaking of negative attacks, anyone remember the race for County Executive, Sandra Frankel? She came out swingin an lost. Granted she’s a Democrat, but I think if she had a different strategy she might’ve done better.
warren doesn’t have a leg to stand on, so go for it. She displayed her experience well into the first few weeks of power, anyone remember? Well I do, as why she won’t get my vote. Dig people, dig. Go back and follow her career to date, you’ll see what I’m talkin about.
Knowing Rachel Barnhart personally perhaps provides me with a certain bias in the mayoral race. Nevertheless, I state with confidence that she is supremely qualified for the City of Rochester’s top spot.
It may appear that I am endorsing Rachel as an outsider, since I am a long-time resident of Henrietta. However, I am a product of the city, having been born on Augustine Street(Maplewood neighborhood), and later living on Rand Street, Shepard Street and Malling Drive, before migrating to the suburbs. However, as a suburbanite, I worked in City Hall for 23 years under mayors Ryan, Johnson and Duffy. I came to understand the city’s departmental structures and functions and the role the mayor plays in day-to-day decisions and policies. Rachel has done her homework, and I believe she is ready to lead the city with innovative ideas.
Thus far, Rachel is the only candidate to put forth a detailed campaign platform. Her background as a broadcast journalist was punctuated with her hard work. This included her studying each successive city budget and document, coupled with her determination to get her stories right, aggressively pursuing interview opportunities, even when officials didn’t want to be interviewed.
I am impressed that Rachel wants to focus on issues, as opposed to criticizing her opponents. There are certainly many relevant issues to discuss, and Rachel’s platform covers all the territory, with more to come.