« Katz blog: Knox loan worrisome | Main | From the Doc »

April 02, 2007



It says something about a candidate when his campaign doesn't let him speak for himself.


10 minutes? With every candidate? *Every week*?

Television stations reach far more than "hundreds of thousands" of viewers and I don't see them complaining that they don't get 10 minutes with every candidate, every week.

While a notable goal, I suspect it is somewhat unrealistic to demand that much time with every candidate, especially when Congress/state Legislature is in session.

And why the rule prohibiting surrogates? If the goal is to get the viewpoints of the candidates and inform your readership....then accepting them seems to accomplish that goal better than banning them.

Josh Cornfield

That's a valid argument, Jack.

My position would be that we want to get the potential next mayor's take on each of these issues every week, directly from the person who will be running our fine city next year.

This isn't meant to be a shot at Brady, but the fact remains that he's the only candidate not to make himself available. (Had to track Fattah down a few times on Sunday, hours before deadline, but he's managed to make every one).


I appreciate your position, Josh; of course, hearing from the Mayors-to-be is always better than hearing from a spokeswoman. But the candidates cannot be everywhere or speak to everyone.

And I would rather hear from the campaigns of Mayors-to-be than not hear anything at all.

This isn't meant to be a defense of Bob Brady. But the policy of prohibiting campaign surrogates from your forums seems to hurt your readership more than it helps us.

If you developed a reasonable accommodation that reflected your preference of candidates over surrogates but still permitted surrogates to respond -- and the Brady campaign *still* refused your questions -- then your readership will truly know that they're just stonewalling you.

But for now, your adherence to this "No Surrogates" policy prevents me from making that judgment.

Brady's campaign is shielding him from making a further fool out of himself - he obviously can't think, analyze, or read and they are trying desperately to conceal that.


I'm sure Bob Brady's so busy introducing some of that new legislation he keeps coming up with in Washington that he doesn't have time for a 10 minute interview. Poor guy ;-)

BTW, Josh, maybe you can let Kate Phillips supply answers for Brady and just include her picture above them instead of his. That might be a good compromise.


You ever notice how in Pro Wrestling they always give a "manager" in the speaking role for the wrestlers who can't work a mike.

Kate Philips is that manager.



today brady recived the endorsement of afscme 810 - the probation and parole officers union. for some reason that means more to me then complaints about whether hes talking to you.

Brady also presented his “Break the Cycle” plan which calls for:

* Moving the Office of Parole and Probation to City Hall, leaving direct accountability with the Mayor;
* Creation of community parole offices with automated parolee check-in;
* Tracking parolees through GPS enabled bracelets;
* Hiring up to 300 parole officers;
* Giving parole officers the tools they need to get the job done: improving parole officer pay, and training parole officers to handle the unique demands of the job.

brady shows he knows whats important. lynne abraham agrees.
i agree.

finally, can we be a bit more realistic about what we expect a candidate's priorities to be?

The comments to this entry are closed.