« Regression Analysis | Main | You can leave your hat On »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Why can't we let non-partisan mean non-partisan? What part of 'non-partisan' is it that people don't understand?

Why don't we just have non-political elections?

Greg, you are right about the logistics but they cut both ways, as in independents turning out to vote for Mary and being asked if they want a Republican or Democrat ballot. With little going on with the D side (county attorney) there is no way to know what's going to happen. Look for records to be broken in turnout for the primary for that reason. As if open primaries weren't bad enough, it's almost a "forced" primary. I assume Manross voters turning out will help Susan and Laura, but who knows.

I agree with Ron. Why on earth should a municipal election be partisan?

It's not a matter of "party." Paritsan elections mean people with beliefs similar to mine about government and government services. Why would I want to vote for someone who thinks the opposite of me in regards to taxes, roads, parks, fire and police, sanitation, water, libraries, and other services supplied by city and town governments? Unfortunately, one of the ways we can interpret what people really believe is their politics. A Dem thinks one way and a GOPer thinks another - or so they should.

I'd like to know that my mayor is a Republican - but, alas, he's a Democrat.

Greg it is clear that you either know nothing about Scottsdale or are a shill for Lane.

Manross has been elected 4 times with big margins and has a loyal base of support in both parties because she gets things done. Lane has possibly the worst voting record in the history of the city having voted against every effort to bring revitalization or increased public safety to the city. He even voted againt the 07/08 fiscal budget that funded additional police officers, new fire stations, new parks, new libraries, and renovation of the Center for the Arts.

As for the question of it being partisan in the mayor's race forget it. Manross has the support of both Napolitano and McCain in addition to the Scottsdale Area Chamber, Bob Parsons the CEO of GoDaddy, Brad Casper CEO of Dial, Dan Schweiker CEO of China Mist, Tom Sadvary CEO of Scottsdale Healthcare, Debbie Gaby founder of Sleep America, Dr Art DeCabooter President of Scottsdale Community College, Jim Bruner former county commissioner and former councilmember along with a host of other key endorsements...

With a record of reducing Scottsdale's property tax rate by 50%(it is less than half of neighboring Phoenix's rate), creating 20,000 new jobs, a record $3.3 billion in new investment and revitalization in downtown and southern Scottsdale, and the crime rate at a 23 year low...Manross will win in a landslide in September.

I personally find Mr. Lane to be extremely offensive and out of step with the residents.

Little over a year ago he had to publicly appologize for making a gross sexist remark in an article he had written. Lane is a rookie councilman with a weak record. Most importantly we don't need a sexist like Lane running our city.

I live in South Scottsdale and I am outraged at Jim Lane.

In a recent council meeting the Mayor pulled a rezoning request for a shopping center in the southern part of Scottsdale. The developer wanted the zoning changed. The Mayor agreed with the request, but demanded that stipulations be included to prohibit new unscrupulous PayDay Loan type stores and pawn shops from being allowed in the development. The Mayor made it very clear that she did not want these types of establishments to proliferate throughout south Scottsdale.

Lane objected saying the owner should be able to put in whatever he wants. Lane has no soul. He doesn't care what happens in south Scottsdale as long has his friend the developer makes money. Disgraceful.

Greg's point is that people going to the polls are going to meet campaign surrogates and you can bet they are going to ask what party the candidates are in. Whether it is non-partisan or not, people often want to know.

Well, looks like Greg really ticked some Manross people off and they're obviously in a panic here. From the arguments her supporters are using above, Manross is a business-hating extortionist. They are playing right into Lane's hands, especially if they keep repeating that payday loan story.

And didn't Greg say that personal attacks on others had to have a full (real) name attached to them? I mean, for a Manross supporter to say her opponent "has no soul" is just not nice.

Name said: "From the arguments her supporters are using above, Manross is a business-hating extortionist."

Yeah, makes perfect sense since under Manross, the city of Scottsdale as added over 20,000 new jobs, $3.3 billion in new investment, and attracted almost a dozen multi-million dollar corporations to headquarter in Scottsdale.

Thanks to Christie for the stats. I'm afraid they needed repeating.

Ok, I give up. 20,000 new city employees is not an accomplishment I'd be proud of, even if I had been a Mayor for 16 years. How many jobs is that per new resident?

I guess every time the sun comes up, there's a Manross supporter giver her credit for it.

One can tell by the endorsements Manross has received, the establishment shills are coming out of the woodwork. It is truly laughable to see how Manross takes all the credit for the revitalization of downtown Scottsdale. The fact is, she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to lift the cloud of redevelopement from downtown Scottsdale. The comments, with the endorsements, obviously were written by her husband Larry. He is well known for defending Little Mary Sunshine on the blogs. She has stayed too long at the fair. It is time for fiscal sanity to come back to City Hall. As far as non-partisan elections, if you believe that -- you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Sounds like Lane should move to Mesa. He could probably run for State Senate there instead of a measly city Mayor.

Jim Lane is a dead man walking. He advocates for pawn shops and PayDay loan stores but votes against ASU bringing 4000 high paid high tech and research jobs to southern Scottsdale. This guy is an empty suit with a bad attitude.

Last night Lane was the lone vote against hiring outside counsel to assist the city in evaluating the possible takeover of American Water. He tried to throw 2500 Scottsdale residents under the bus and force them to stay with a lousy water company. He has no conscience or soul.

Manross obviously has paid professionals with cut and paste talking points representing her here. Tight and concise. They're brutal, when necessary, and heap foul skirmish on her opponents. Fair enough. But Manross supporters can't read the Fifth Amendment without gagging. And they don't know enough Latin to translate "ad hominem."

Never have I seen or heard Manross take blame or accountability for mistakes but she always panders her credits. I'd like her to list all of her blunders while serving 16 years on City Council and Mayor.

If you want to make municipal races partisan, the partisans should think about who they are running 'to represent partisan interests.' In the past when I have seen this trotted out, I have not been impressed by the credentials that are supposed to impress me.


Manross endorsements are merely pain avoidance moves. Endorsers do not want to experience 2-hour plus phone calls, grinding away on illogical monologue. The safe bet for endorsers is Manross, especially if the endorse does/will do business with the city. It is widely known that if you cross her, she’ll hold a grudge forever and is known for her fierce retributions as well. I call this pain avoidance, not a sincere endorsement

Logical people know when they hear irrational thinking such as Lane throwing 2500 Scottsdale resident under the bus for not wanting to go SECRET or SPEND taxpayer money on looking at options to buy Arizona American Water Co. Certain council members including the Manross have already earmarked over $10.4 million to pursue a utility that is NOT for sale. When the NOT for sale issue is finally settled in court, years from now, the expenditure at minimum could exceed $50 million. Over 160,000 voting age Scottsdalians will suffer the Mayor’s blunder!

The comments to this entry are closed.