Glad to see The State endorsing in city council runoff

I was really glad this morning to see The State endorsing in the District 2 race. That causes me to expect an endorsement Sunday in the at-large runoff.

These are the first endorsements I’ve seen since the editorial department was reduced to one, which I was worried would mean no more endorsements. While the editorial board has always consisted of more than the editorial department (the publisher in my day, the publisher and the executive editor and I think at least one other today), the actual legwork necessary to an endorsement was always done by those of us in the department.

So I was glad to see such a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of the District 2 race, ending in an endorsement of Aaron Bishop. Personally, I had no idea which of those guys I would have endorsed. I haven’t done the legwork. So I got a lot of food for thought out of what The State said — which, after all, is the purpose of an endorsement. As I’ve said so many times over the years, an endorsement is less about the who than about the why.

I look forward to the Sunday piece. I have a pretty good idea which way they’ll go, but I’m not at all convinced I would go that way — so I look forward to the seeing the arguments advanced.

2 thoughts on “Glad to see The State endorsing in city council runoff”

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    Yep, The State endorsed Howard on Sunday, which I expected.

    Not sure I would have done that. By which I mean, I just don’t KNOW which I would have gone with, him or Andy.

    If I HAD been persuaded to go with Howard, it would have been for much the same reasons The State cited. His experience is a major, major strength.

    But if I HAD gone along with that, I would have insisted that the editorial mention the role he played in killing strong mayor, and explain why that was not a deal-killer. That’s a serious cause of concern for me, and not to mention it in the editorial is an oversight. Or it would have been for me, since I reacted so negatively to that at the time. I don’t recall now whether The State was as critical as I was on that point.

    It’s one thing to have experience and knowledge; it’s another to use them to maneuver to stop progress… Which is why I asked him the “Councilman No” question. That’s my greatest worry with Howard, that he’d be a gifted obstructionist should he choose that course — and some of the things he says suggest that…

  2. Brad Warthen Post author

    By the way, Joe Azar is endorsing Howard as well:

    I strongly endorse Howard Duvall over Smith. Smith does not have the knowledge of city, Duvall does. Smith does not have any seeming concern for areas like Rosewood, Greenview, Eau Claire, Hampton Hill, St. Anna’s, or any other of our city’s areas, except Main St. Never did I hear of any concern by him during the debates of these areas, only how much he has done for Main St., and how much more we should do for the city core. In spite of differences I have with Duvall, which I will write about in future newsletters, he is FAR more qualified to help our city, especially in light of the budget crisis we will be facing and the expenses, billions, that we will need to correct problems. ..

    I’m glad Joe appreciates the value of Howard’s experience, but he makes Andy sound awfully good in dismissing him. I, too, believe that concentrating on the city’s core is a higher priority than this or that neighborhood, because improvement of the core benefits ALL…

Comments are closed.