Ouch!
We always thought Hieftje was a pretty popular mayor everywhere except the blogosphere, so we were a little floored to read that the News had endorsed Republican challenger Jane Lumm. Unlike a standard newspaper endorsement, which lists each candidate’s accomplishments and then explains why one of them has the edge, the News editorial is a relentless, blistering attack on Hieftje. “Hieftje’s largest failure is not one of vision, but leadership,” the News charges. “Few are willing to publicly criticize Hieftje because they expect quick retaliation and there is good reason for that conclusion.” And there’s more. He “sprints to accept praise.” His reaction to disagreement is “shrill.” He even channeled Bush in the second presidential debate when the News asked him a similar question about mistakes he’d made: “Hieftje could not identify one thing he would do differently in his current term as mayor. He was, however, ready to head down a path of identifying the missteps of city employees until he was reminded that the question pertained to his own actions.” The only way the News could have been more scathing is if they’d accused him of having no buzz and ended the editorial with “Hieftje…mmmWORST.”
the only reason i feel hesitant to vote for lumm is that in no way to i want to support most of the GOP policies. if i voted for a republican in the mayoral office and that somehow lead to some “butterfly effect” to a state or national level, thus threatening things like issue 2 and abortion, i would never be able to forgive myself.
however, if someone can convince me otherwise that this wouldn’t happen i would be happy to vote for lumm.
posted by beth on October 24th, 2004 at 6:22 pmGood comment, Beth, and one that I have struggled with. But it’s important to remember a few things:
1) The most party-oriented and politically-charged local issues (voter registration, elections, marriages, etc.) are handled by the County Clerk’s office, not the mayor. Larry Kestenbaum, the Democratic candidate for clerk, will be a good progressive in that office.
2) There seems to be little indication that Mayor Lumm is a right-wing looney in the mold of Bush or Hoekstra. She seems to be a sensible moderate. She does believe in affordable housing and other traditionally Democratic values. (So does Hieftje, but he thinks that an affordable house means one that costs about $300k.)
3) She can’t do anything radical anyway, with a virtually unanimously Democrat council. Nor do I think she would try to — if she wants another term, she will govern from the middle, as Shelton did.
4) Party labels have little if any implication for local politics the way they do nationally. Who cares what Jane Lumm thinks about abortion, guns, affirmative action, etc.? Her effects on these will be *at most* minor an tangential.
I am a registered Democrat, but only because I detest the Democratic Party slightly less than the God’s Own Party. I am casting my votes next month on the following grounds:
-Will you tell your electorate the truth?
-Can you make hard choices and stand up for them?
-When they prove to be wrong choices, can you admit it and reverse course?
-Are your spending plans reasonable, in control, balanced, and considerate of the long-term ramifications of short-term decisions?
-Do you have integrity or do you go solely by opinion polls and/or your belief that you are ordained by God to be elected?
Bush and Hieftje are clearly losers on both of these questions. Megalomaniacs come in both red and blue varieties.
If it’s about honest, accountable government where mistakes are acknowledged and corrected, then please join me and thousands of other AA-ites who are voting for Kerry and Lumm.
posted by Dan on October 24th, 2004 at 7:41 pmI can bring myself to vote republican either, but this seems like as good an opportunity as any to go for a third-party candidate. Who else is on the ticket?
posted by Ben on October 24th, 2004 at 8:42 pmEr, can’t. *Can’t* bring myself to vote republican.
posted by Ben on October 24th, 2004 at 8:43 pmHoekstra is a right-wing looney? Please explain.
posted by paul on October 24th, 2004 at 8:53 pmThat was the problem in Chicago in the 1960’s - no one considered voting for a Republican, so Daley, who was as right-wing as any Republican, got elected time and time again, even though a lot of his Republican challengers were far more progressive. I’m not saying Hieftje=Daley, but sometimes the less dominant party in a locality heavily weighted toward one party can be the best hope for some kind of change.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 24th, 2004 at 8:55 pmRegarding party labels, I think it’d be a good thing to support moderate Republicans like Lumm, as there aren’t many of them left– the more power they can get in the party the better, methinks. It’s silly to vote along party lines in a local race, even if it usually makes sense. If moderate Republicans are supporting Kerry, we should feel just as free to support a moderate Republican if they happen to be the best choice, instead of simply settling for whatever Democrat is thrown at us, especially if there are no 3rd-party alternatives, as in this case.
I’m still not sold on Lumm, as she seems a bit parks-obsessed, and I surely don’t want 1/3 of the Greenbelt funds going to acquisition of the few remaining empty parcels in the city for parks. And Hieftje is seeming a little more anti-NIMBY all the time: “In a recent meeting with The News’ editorial board, Hieftje arrogantly dismissed opponents of a 14-story and nine-story condominium project along North Main Street as the type of “people who would not be for growth in any form.” Lumm would much more eagerly seek out and engage residents to shape long-term public policy.” Hmm… does that mean Lumm would bow to neighborhood opposition even more easily?
I’m not sure who I’m voting for. If I vote for Lumm, it will be a protest vote against some of Hieftje’s weakening of the planning dept. and planning commission, as well as his general scummy strong-arm, back-room style. I think he and Cowherd aren’t on as good of terms as they once were as far as I can tell, diverging on the importance of density and infill (albeit upscale density mainly).
I thought about hunting-down a Lumm yard-sign as recently as last week to stick next to our Kerry, Kolb, and Kestenbaum ones, but I’m still not sure. I don’t really like either of them. Maybe I’ll just write-in Todd Leopold, Matt Lassiter, Doug Kelbaugh, or Murph.
posted by Brandon on October 24th, 2004 at 10:29 pmLaRouchites exploited blind partisanship very effectively in the 70s and 80s. They’d run as Democrats uncontested even though they’re fascists.
Hmmmmm.
posted by Steven on October 24th, 2004 at 10:46 pmUm, no, I don’t agree with that.
I’ve been following the (often hugely entertaining) Lyndon LaRouche phenomenon for almost thirty years. I don’t know of any cases where LaRouche people ran uncontested on the Democratic ticket, let alone were elected.
The big story of that period was the Illinois primary in 1986, when LaRouche candidates with bland names (Janice Hart and Mark Fairchild) won Democratic primaries for Secretary of State and Lieutenant Governor, unexpectedly defeating the establishment choices.
Basically, everybody took it for granted that the establishment Democratic nominees were essentially unopposed, and so no one bothered to put on a primary campaign. Moreover, the establishment candidates had some, ahem, baggage from past battles, and many of the folks they had alienated voted against them. At some level, their loss was richly deserved.
Weirdly enough, despite the separate primary, in Illinois the lt-gov winner got to be on a unified ticket with the gubernatorial nominee, just like president and VP. Adlai Stevenson III, the Democratic nominee for governor, refused to run on the same ticket with a LaRouchie, so he abandoned the Democratic nomination and organized the “Solidarity Party” to run for governor on. Unsuccessfully, of course.
What all this highlights is the incompetence and feuding within the Illinois Democratic Party of the 1980s. “Blind partisanship” as such played very little role in this particular folly.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 25th, 2004 at 12:55 amThanks for setting me straight Larry. I will always defer to the human-political-encyclopedia.
I’ll have to think of a better example of straight-ticket blunders!
posted by Steve Cherry on October 25th, 2004 at 1:56 amI agree with Brandon - getting moderate Republicans into power positions is a good thing. Refusing to vote for a moderate Republican simply because she is a Republican will only push that party even further to the right.
posted by tom on October 25th, 2004 at 8:31 amBut, even if you agree with that, there’s a great big exception to that rule.
In a legislative body, party identification trumps all other variables. No matter how liberal a Republican candidate for Congress, he or she is still running to elect Gingrich or Hastert as Speaker. No matter how conservative the Democratic candidate for Congress, he or she is, in essence, the personal representative of Nancy Pelosi.
In a partisan legislative body, the majority holds all the cards, controls the schedule, appoints all the committee chairs, controls which bills make it to the floor, etc. The power that hangs in the balance is enormously greater than the piddling influence of a single Member to do good or ill.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 25th, 2004 at 9:30 amBack to Lumm and Hieftje — I know both of them pretty well in person. For what it’s worth, John Hieftje has been a strong supporter of my own eccentric candidacy from the beginning. And I do trust him, more than Jane Lumm, to do the right thing on density. He at least has promised to do so, and Jane is under no such obligation.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 25th, 2004 at 9:38 amLarry, does that mean the Republicans are hopelessly, permanently the party of the extreme right-wing?
posted by tom on October 25th, 2004 at 9:42 amTom, yes, I think for the forseeable future they are. Not out of some kind of death wish, but because there are a whole lot of very active right wingers in this country, and their ideas are certainly going to be expressed politically. Within the GOP, moderates are seen as “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) and hated worse than Democrats.
But that wasn’t my point.
Republicans in Congress (and in the Michigan legislature) are certainly controlled by the extreme right wing. And a party winning or losing seats is most of what matters there. Voting in congressional elections should take account of that.
But Jane Lumm, herself, is by no means a member of the right wing. And city politics is disconnected from state and national politics. Voting for her (though I do not recommend it on the merits) does almost nothing for the national Republicans.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 25th, 2004 at 10:52 amFrom Jane Lumm’s website: “I fully support the Downtown Residential Task Force’s target to increase the number of residential units by 1,000 before 2015.” -and- “I understand, however, that growth downtown is like planning anywhere in our community, it’s a delicate balancing act. Adjusting height restrictions as an example to reduce the per unit development costs, may be appropriate for some parts of downtown, but not for others.”
That’s about as much ‘for’ density as Hieftje is, to be honest; the projects have to be in ‘the right place’ for density to happen, but it remains to be seen where that will be. Given both of their stances on the North Main condos project, for example, I don’t see much hope for increased density from either candidate.
I am not voting for Hieftje based on his cronyism, dismantling of the planning commission and planning department, and his lying to the public on the process of the greenbelt. Those are important issues to me, because I like to think that I can trust my political representatives, and I don’t trust him.
posted by KGS on October 25th, 2004 at 12:54 pmOnce I lived in a town where local government was dominated by the GOP. It was as much of a fiscal disaster as AA. I voted Democrat in every race because more than anything the town needed a counterbalance to its one-party, debateless, rubber stamp city council.
That’s why I think it’s important to vote Republican in AA. To hear alternative views, to prevent the majority from turning a deaf ear to differing viewpoints. To prevent groupthink.
I mean, does anyone like having the GOP in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress?
posted by two parties please on October 25th, 2004 at 1:26 pmTo the last question: no… but I really don’t like having the GOP in charge of any of those three.
posted by Anna on October 25th, 2004 at 3:50 pmStill, I think the point is well-taken. Part of the reason the US House of Reps is such a loony-bin right now is because gerrymandering has created so many districts with so little political diversity. The obvious problem in this is that the dominant-party politician only has to worry about electoral challenges from his/her own party - meaning that the campaign rhetoric and ensuing policies get pushed out to the extremes of the right-left spectrum. While it’s easy to see the problems of a right-drifting national government given our current situation, I don’t think that one-party towns (or states or whatever) come close to reflecting the diversity of preferences among those they represent.
posted by Nick on October 25th, 2004 at 7:55 pmGood Luck Larry!!!
posted by Anonymous on October 25th, 2004 at 7:57 pmMaybe I should be a little clearer about why I’m not voting for Jane Lumm.
Jane is (as I’ve said before) a nice lady, and a pro-choice political moderate. She is sincere. She is blessed with good looks. She’s an easy person to like. She has always been sweet to me.
The trouble with Jane is this: it isn’t possible to discuss issues with her, or change her mind about anything of political substance. Like George W. Bush, she has no curiosity about those things. Someone else comes up with her issues; someone else wrote all that text on her campaign web site. She’s an attractive spokesperson, not an independent actor. Talking to her is like trying to persuade the TV weatherman to make it stop raining.
Jane usually knows her talking points, but she is sometimes hard put to defend them. It’s the sort of interaction where you find yourself starting to say, “Let me speak to your supervisor.”
It’s people like Jane who create the conditions for that infuriating phenomenon known as “winning the argument, but losing the vote.” Jane has her marching orders, and she follows them.
Hieftje most certainly has his faults, but when you confront him, you know you’re talking to the guy who makes the decisions. He’s not a figurehead, he’s the real deal.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 26th, 2004 at 1:02 amI think this debate/forum on Friday will help me decide what I think of Lumm… if she comes off really unimpressively I may just vote for Hieftje yet. Or neither. I’ll also be able to, uh, evaluate her “good looks” in person. You comin’, Larry?
posted by Brandon on October 26th, 2004 at 1:06 amUnfortunately, I am committed to be at other events both Thursday and Friday evenings of this week.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 26th, 2004 at 1:47 amLarry, Your point about Lumm as attractive spokesperson (for…? who’s the puppeteer pulling the strings?) may be a valid one, but don’t you think that the comment about her “good looks” could be construed as a bit of gender-specific trivialization?
Beside, I am not sure I’d want the “real deal” (whatever that means) if the real deal were, say, Bush or Reagan. It would be like voting for Bush because he’s “steadfast”.
posted by Anna on October 26th, 2004 at 8:56 amAnna, fair points.
Commentary on politicos being good-looking or not is neither trivializing nor gender-specific: see the media commentary on John Edwards, say.
Attractiveness is undeniably a political asset, whether you’re a man or a woman, a candidate for mayor or for president — or an officeholder trying to get a bill passed. The common political term “attractive candidate” neither excludes nor is limited to physical appearance.
For better or for worse, in personal life and politics, we are all drawn toward good-looking people, and it’s fair to say that Jane has it. Practically everyone I know in politics likes Jane, and that probably isn’t a coincidence. John is likely to win this election, but he’s something like an order of magnitude less personally popular than she is. (A similar ratio applies in my own election.)
You’re right, I wouldn’t vote for someone like Bush or Reagan based on personality traits. But I have to deal in person with whoever the mayor is. Hieftje’s accessibility makes up for much.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 26th, 2004 at 9:34 amMaybe the pictures in the paper are just unflattering… hmm. That haircut just isn’t working for me.
posted by Brandon on October 26th, 2004 at 9:56 amI’ve never seen Hieftje OR Lumm, but were I eligible, I’d vote for Lumm. In fact, I had no idea about her putative physical attributes until your comment. Heifje did enough to turn me off with his bad policy; I’d rather have someone “attractive” (”steadfast” or not) than someone who’s just plain wrong about a lot of things.
posted by Anna on October 26th, 2004 at 10:06 amHere you go, Anna:
posted by Brandon on October 26th, 2004 at 10:24 amhttp://www.janelumm.com/headshotlarge.jpg
Thanks Brandon.
Err… Now I’m in this weird position. I’m dying to comment on her looks, but don’t want to contribute to… oh hell. She’s not a bad-looking woman, but geesh… she brings to mind Dorothy Hamill, not Giselle. Larry, what’s up with you? And how bad-looking is Hieftje?
posted by Anna on October 26th, 2004 at 10:44 amDorothy Hamill? Giselle? Never met them. This is Ann Arbor local politics, not Hollywood.
By no means am I suggesting that anyone vote for or against Jane because of her appearance.
But neither do I agree that Hieftje’s mayoralty can be summed up as “bad policy”.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 26th, 2004 at 11:20 amAnna, Hieftje can be seen in this photo on the far-right, with his arm around Cowherd (2nd from left) et al. after the Greenbelt victory. They really “mopped up” and note the clever use of a green belt (by that I mean cleverly ripped-off from last year’s Halloween costume of yours truly).
posted by Brandon on October 26th, 2004 at 2:49 pmUmm… and the link:
posted by Brandon on October 26th, 2004 at 2:50 pmhttp://www.a2openspace.org/mop1.jpg
What makes a Republican a moderate anyway? Simply being pro-choice and not on the far right of the spectrum on other social issues? That allows very conservative Republicans on economic and equality issues to be considered moderate otherwise and I am not sure that is an accurate label. It also means Democrats can be conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues, such as many here in treetown, and we end up with a politics of consensus on many important matters. I really enjoy living in a city where almost no one rants about the social issues near and dear to the Religious Right since I have lived in quite a few where a lot of people did so. But where are the progressive officials of either party here at the local level (with the exception of Larry and sometimes Jean Carlberg) really talking about affordable housing for the working class, for example?
posted by Matt on October 26th, 2004 at 4:07 pmWith the question about mistakes Hieftje’s made, the charge that he misled the public on the greenbelt and now Larry’s characterization of him as “the guy who makes the decisions” even if you don’t like them, the Bush comparisons are almost unavoidable.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 26th, 2004 at 4:18 pmBut is Bush the one actually making the decisions? I personally think he is (and that explains a lot), but Cheney and the Rapture/”Left Behind” people (I’m generalizing like a mofo, obviously) have a lot of input too. That being said, I’m curious where Lumm’s “marching orders” come from (as I’m thinking about voting for her and want to make sure I’m not actually strengthening the local GOP even though she is a pro-choice moderate). If that’s true, who makes her decisions for her?
posted by Lazaro on October 26th, 2004 at 4:39 pmI’m also curious about the hand behind Lumm’s throne. I mean, we’ve spent plenty of time talking about whether Cowherd does or does not have any influence over Hieftje; what about Lumm?
(Larry, you mention Hieftje’s “accessibility”, but he really doesn’t hold a candle to you. Most useful political candidate ever.)
posted by Murph on October 26th, 2004 at 5:41 pmUm, thanks. Are you free Election Eve to help put up signs at polling places?
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 26th, 2004 at 7:04 pmI’m also curious about the hand behind Lumm’s throne. I mean, we’ve spent plenty of time talking about whether Cowherd does or does not have any influence over Hieftje; what about Lumm?
(Larry, you mention Hieftje’s “accessibility”, but he really doesn’t hold a candle to you. Most useful political candidate ever.)
posted by Murph on October 26th, 2004 at 8:56 pmOk, I’m ready for a beat-down: what’s wrong with being a Republican? Some of you folks think that voting for a Republican is like voting for Pinochet. If there were more pro-life Democrats I’d vote for one but it seems on the national level the Democratic Party brooks no difference of opinion on abortion.
posted by Thomas Cook on October 27th, 2004 at 11:06 am“On the national level the Democratic Party brooks no difference of opinion on abortion.” Yes, and we all know that the Dems are the only party with strong party-line issues.
Shit, I just rolled my eyes so far they got stuck in the back of my head…
posted by Murph on October 27th, 2004 at 12:07 pm17 Democrats in the Senate voted to ban so-called “partial-birth abortion” providing the margin of victory (although federal courts as expected ruled it unconstitutional, which the sponsors anticipated because they planned to use it as an election-year issue to rally single-issue abortion voters, presumably such as yourself. Polls also show that a majority of Republican voters do not support a constitutional amendment banning abortion outright. My argument is that being pro-choice doesn’t make a Republican a moderate, and that this tendency to view it this way is part of a broader eclipse of economic issues by cultural ones.
posted by Matt on October 27th, 2004 at 3:41 pmBush:Hieftje?
posted by js on October 27th, 2004 at 8:23 pmNobody died from the Greenbelt.
Still, we’ll see. I’m gonna try to get to the forum on Friday.
The Snooze is almost always full of shit politically, and is really pretty far to the right of Ann Arbor. It’s like the Detroit News more than the Freep.
As far as being a Republican? I can respect conservatives. It’s rare that I can respect a Republican. Local ones are usually better (or at least less harmful) than national ones, but too often voting for a Republican IS voting for Pinochet, at least on the international scene (it wasn’t a Dem who pushed Pinochet, it was an anti-Commie Republican).
And for the pro-life thing, well, I can understand being a single-issue voter about it. I disagree, but I can understand it. If that’s the only thing that matters to you, you’re not making a rational choice, and any attempts to dissuade you won’t be fruitful. All I can say is that if you truly want less abortions, you’ll vote for people who support full and practical sex education. Because the answer to the problem of abortions isn’t to outlaw abortions, but rather to eliminate unwanted pregnancies. But religion is religion, and if you want to vote it, you will.
Oh yeah, and shouldn’t it say Hieftje…Durst?
posted by js on October 28th, 2004 at 1:30 amWell, I think you’re right that “durst” is worse than “worst.” But I wanted to use the “mmmm” prefix, and it’s generally followed only by “BEST,” “WORST,” or “BUZZ.” “Durstje” would have been pretty stinging too.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 28th, 2004 at 1:23 pmI think Durstje is his new blogonym.
posted by js on October 28th, 2004 at 5:18 pm.
posted by mp3 on November 4th, 2004 at 6:30 am