The Waterloo Record on the Cambridge Mayor Race.

By  | October 23, 2010 | 17 Comments | Filed under: Uncategorized

The Waterloo Record today has come out with their picks for the top jobs in the region.   They like Ken seiling to return as Regional Chair, but what they wrote about the Cambridge Mayoral election is what caught my eye.  While they like Andrew Johnsons ideas and think he would be a good choice they feel that Doug Craig should be returned to office.

“That said, in the end we would give the nod to Doug Craig to serve again as mayor. He has turned talk about fiscal accountability into action, keeping Cambridge’s taxes the lowest in the region. And yet he has had the courage to dream big for the city, pushing environmental sustainability, promoting the arts with a new theatre and trying to make Cambridge a place where young professionals will want to live as well as do business.”

While I disagree with their pick, this article may sway undecided voters to vote for Craig or even go to Andrew Johnson’s Campaign and hurts Lindas chances a little. hopefully it doesn’t affect the race but we will know on Monday!

Read the Whole Article at THE RECORD


17 Responses to The Waterloo Record on the Cambridge Mayor Race.

  1. jim October 24, 2010 at 8:30 am

    I don’t believe the newspaper should have a vew, period.

  2. Allan Dettweiler October 24, 2010 at 8:54 am

    I was upset that they publish their view as well. One or two people represent the view of The Record?
    “The Record” would also like to see the Region become one big city.
    Anyhow, as much as I hope not, Doug Craig will probably be returned. But, I’m hoping, and it’s looking like, several of his cronies will not be there. I’m counting on the likes of Thomas Vann, Brian Santos, Gary Berger, Rick Cowsill and others to keep Dougie on a short leash.

  3. Jim Howard October 24, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Hello Alan:
    Re:”I’m counting on the likes of Thomas Vann, Brian Santos, Gary Berger, Rick Cowsill and others to keep Dougie on a short leash.”

    While I don’t know Brian Santos at all, I anticipate we will find Thomas Vann, Rick Cowsill and Gary Berger are not a block of single perspective or narrow issue candidates.

    If they are successful they will bring seriously considered balance to council ensuring that we have broad and responsible assessment of all issues and programs to help Cambridge establish itself as a community that encourages new investment and much needed job creation.

    That investment is essential if we are to have the resources from an expanded tax base and other potential revenue streams to address infrastructure, culture, recreation (for all age groups) and social service facilities.

    Certainly looking forward to seeing who will join some of the deep thinking and community committed encumbants like Ben and Rick.

  4. Jimm Hillis October 24, 2010 at 11:12 am

    If there were names attached to the endorsements than that would be fine but to say the whole paper endorses them is a bit misleading in my opinion.

  5. Margaret Barr October 24, 2010 at 11:24 am

    This was an ‘Editorial’ meaning it was written by the editor or his/her designate. There is never a name on a newspaper’s Editorial. It’s not a news story, it’s an Editorial; an opinion.

    And, certainly, no editorial is published with the consent of all staff; though there is usually discussion among editorial staff, before a paper ‘endorses’.

  6. JIM October 24, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Allan, I hope you’re wrong about Craig getting back in. We sure do need a change and a little left in our pocket at the end on another 4 years. I aggree; however, with your other views.

    I believe that Gary Price caused himself some loss after doing this to his apponent, Tom Vann You can find posting by Jan M. and comments of plenty on the Advocate, but please feel free to comment here; it’s a pretty good site.

    Appalling, disgusting, disgraceful are only three of the many words used by the many people at a local arena this weekend in response to a shocking move made by Mr. Gary Price (running for ward 6 councilor).

    Gary Price, lacking in common decency and respect, allegedly took an opportunity to emotionally take down his opponent by planting his election sign on the front lawn of Tomas Vann’s recently deceased mother. “How low can one go?”

    In my opinion, this was a direct personal attack; a desperate attempt to emotionally take out his opponent; to kick a man when he’s already down. This was a hit way below the belt. No decent person would do such a thing at such a time for any reason; it’s just too much to fathom. How can winning be so important that Mr. Price would do such a horrible hurtful thing to his fellow man.

    Welcome to the Cambridge election and into a battle zone where bullying and backbiting is the norm and in full view of our children, friends, neighbors and family.

    Tommy, stand tall. Be strong. Remember who you are, what you are, what you stand for, and that you are the better man.

    Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family at this time of loss.

  7. Jimm Hillis October 24, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Thank You for the comment on this issue, it is something that i felt someone who had a little more info should comment on. Welcome to the Citizen.

  8. Blair Brenn October 24, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I have said it once and I will say it again, anyone who looks for unbiased opinion in a newspaper or online is in for a shock. And that is the problem with an election, people read mainly from one source or maybe two at the most and expect to know everything about a candidate or issue, you have to make up your own mind by knowing what you want from a candidate and research that person and then make an informed decision.

  9. Margaret Barr October 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    JIM….the following was copied from my ‘clarification’ of the ‘alleged’ Gary Price/Thomas Vann incident (of which you wrote above)…

    I hope Thomas will forgive me if I give out too much personal info here.. But here (as told to me by Thomas) are a few of the details. There is a ‘gentleman’ who resides in Thomas’ mother’s home. Apparently he is not too pleased on being asked to vacate the property, now that Mrs. Vann is deceased and the home has now come into the possession of Mrs. Vann’s children.

    The ‘gentleman’ contacted both of Thomas’ campaign opponents; and asked them to place their signs on the lawn. When Thomas went to the property he found Price and Adshade there. Thomas explained the situation to both candidates. Adshade, as any decent person would, apologized to Thomas, now that he understood the situation, and left without installing his sign.

    Price, on the other hand refused to take down the sign he had just installed. He merely flung a personal insult at Thomas and drove away.

    That’s it. There is no ‘misinterpretation’ on Price’s part. It is likely true that Price (like Adshade) didn’t know the circumstances (or even to whom the house belonged) when he received the call to come and leave a lawn sign. However, it is entirely true that even after Thomas informed Price of the situation, he would not remove the sign.

    Price is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, even worse, he is more mean-spirited and arrogant, than he is dumb.

  10. @bretthagey October 24, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Biased journalism online is on thing; people can rebut immediately. Biased journalism in print is another, IMHO; there is no recourse for instant feedback, nor is the demographic of readers the same.

    Maybe that’s why blogs will kill the traditional mediums, eventually.

  11. @bretthagey October 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    At my web site I’ve tried to be non -biased towards all the candidates of all the wards, by including as much info for all the candidates, in an effort to help everyone in Cambridge be made aware of everyone’s policies, and I welcome all of Cambridge to spend today going through the videos, interviews, and web sites, in order to make informed decisions in their Wards:

    Good luck to us all, we’re gonna need it, more then ever.

  12. Jimm Hillis October 24, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Thank You Margaret for the explanation. While it doesn’t excuse Gary for doing what he did, at least now we know the reason it happened.

  13. liam October 24, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    In regards to the Vann affair, yes Gary was morally wrong to leave his sign there,BUT, if a resident living in the house wants to put a sign up for somebody else, does he not have that right? I have heard that some of Gary’s Family have signs for Mr. Vann in their yard. Is this not a free City? It was wrong but still within his rights.

  14. M October 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    I do not agree with the Record, since there was absolutely no basis for why they should endorse him, nor any of the of the other candidates. To say he had the least amount of tax increases of the various communities is like saying he is the smallest thief of them all! Clearly the Records left leaning view is very apparent and smakes of a paper desperate need to keep the existing band of over spending municipal politicians in place. I would like to know how the Record benefits specifically by their re-election. But for this taxpayer, I want a freeze or a reduction in taxation! My middle class family keeps taking less, why can’t all branches of government , politicians, bureaucrats and all the people on social assistance as well? Sorry, but if I am taking less, what makes them think life should just be the status quo with ever increasing entitlements and benefits?

    Overtaxed in Cambridge

  15. Margaret Barr October 24, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Liam, I believe that, as long as the ‘gentleman’ resides there, he does, techically, have the right to place any candidate’s sign on his lawn (even if it was to spite a family and their recently deceased mother).

    What cannot be excused is Gary’s refusal to remove the sign, after he knew the home was owned by the Vann’s and that the resident had already been asked to vacate the property; now that Mrs. Vann had passed a few days prior.

    The resident appears to have been acting in retaliation for being asked to move. To ask Mr. Vann’s opponents to place their signs on the lawn, just to spite Thomas and Mrs. Vann’s other children, was indeed a very untoward act.

    But Price, even after hearing what was happening, still left his sign there; Shannon did not, as he seems to have some sense about him.

    As for Vann’s signs in the 2 yards of Price family members….that’s an entirely different scenario. The 2 families own those properties and can display any sign they wish. In addition, it is my understandng (from T. Vann)that Price’s family did not ‘call’ for the signs. Vann was out canvassing (didn’t even know these were Price’s family members..or who they were). When he went to their door, they told him to put up the signs.

  16. liam October 24, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    There is the problem with the internet, story’s start without the full facts behind them. But when the facts come out it puts a story into a different light.

  17. @bretthagey October 24, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    “But as we review Seiling’s voluminous record, we see no good reason to remove him from a job he has performed so diligently, ”

    I can think of 790 million reasons, lmao

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *