In a just-concluded telephone conversation, former Coeur d’Alene City Council candidate Jim Brannon confirmed to OpenCdA that he had filed the necessary campaign treasurer notification papers with the Coeur d’Alene City Clerk’s Office.
Brannon also confirmed what he had put in a comment on OpenCdA’s post titled “Daddy?”, that he is formally announcing his candidacy for Coeur d’Alene Mayor in the November 2013 City election.
Huge mistake!! This will split the vote, should Dan Gookin run, and give whomever Bloem picks to run, the advantage. Also, the perception that Jim Brannon cost the tax payer money (and indirectly he did due to the council voting to pick up Kennedys legal fees) will cost him votes. Dan Gookin would have a much better chance of being elected than Jim Brannon. Should they both run, get ready for a Bloem clone for mayor….possibly even Mike Kennedy. Just when one believes there is light at the end of the tunnel, the door is slammed.
Comment by rochereau — May 29, 2013 @ 12:47 pm
rochereau-your post is troubling to me. On December 7, 2010 you posted on this site the following-
“Someone from CDA needs to clarify this in the Press. Another letter today thinking Kennedy “had” to hire attorney(s). There is a huge public misconception about Kennedys part in the lawsuit. People think he was personally sued and was thusly forced to hire counsel. Commenting on the Press site is pointless. It really needs to be spelled out for the public. The dipstick letter today said Jim should pay Kennedysd fees. Also, the question of why two attorneys should be raised. The infrastructure depends on the ignorance of the majority of the electorate to enable them to go their merry way unimpeded. Comment by rochereau — December 5, 2010 @ 12:30 pm”
It seems to me that your most recent post does nothing more than what you condemned in December 2010–foster public misunderstanding.
With regards to Dan Gookin, I have met and briefly spoken to him on a couple of occasions, and he seems like a well-intentioned person from all I have read about him. My only question with regards to Mr. Gookin is why, despite a number of questions previously posed to him on this site, he has never stated why the city did not, well at least apparently did not, require the county to pay, or reimburse the city for, all costs associated with the election contest as required under the election contract? The contract between the city and the county specifically provided that the county was responsible for all costs associated with a dispute arising out of the conduct of the election. Once again it appears, because there is no information to the contrary, that the city council failed the citizens by failing to force the county to comply with its contract and reimburse it. Mr. Gookin, if you are running for mayor please answer the questions—Did the city seek reimbursement from the county for the election costs under the election contract? If not, why not?
Finally, as Mary stated in her December 7, 2010 post on this site–
“Luckily for all of us, Jim…[is]tenacious and [he has] seen the serious need for repair in our election system. This is a very important case for the whole state.”
Jim Brannon should be applauded for standing up for the voters and, while not prevailing in his case, making substantial and important changes in how elections are conducted. At a minimum he should not be challenged for standing up, now that he has chosen to run for mayor. Mr. Brannon is the first to declare for mayor. It seems to me that if Mr. Gookin (or anyone else with similar positions to Mr. Brannon) subsequently declares for mayor, that he/she is the one choosing to ‘split the vote’.
Comment by up river — May 30, 2013 @ 10:11 am
You misunderstood me.. I never said Kennedy had to hire an attorney, as he most certainly did not need one. However he chose to and the council voted to cover his fees. What I said, should you re-read was, the public had the “perception” that Mr. Brannon cost the tax payer money. Please read my first post here for comprehension. The problem is not the truth per se (sadly). It is public perception which will be twisted and turned by the opposition. We are talking about a political campaign and it will be downright dirty on the part of the opposition. Kennedy was never forced to explain just why he hired legal counsel. Bloem and Co. were never forced to answer this question either. And most disturbing was the fact that the voting public was never correctly informed of the actual facts. You are deluding yourself if you believe this will be a gentlemanly campaign. Especially if Kennedy is running. You support Brannon and that is your right. I support a positive changing of the guard and would support the candidate best able to accomplish that. And your statement that whomever else chooses to run will be the spoiler because Brannon declared first, is absurd. Say what? As I see it, when Dan said he would address the issue on Fri., Brannon suddenly announced his run. I can tell you that Bloem and Co., especially Kennedy are chortling with glee. It is sort of like the current Republican party imploding because they won’t admit that their platforms must become inclusive of ALL voters who have supported them. I am a registered R, but as all moderates feel, I think the party has ignored us. And in truth, in the main, I think politicians are scum. I repeat, please don’t twist my words and please read for comprehension.
Comment by rochereau — May 30, 2013 @ 2:00 pm
I neither twisted your words by stating that your post will “foster public misunderstanding” nor am I deluding myself that this, or any campaign in Cda, will be conducted in a gentlemanly manner. Your presumption that I support Mr. Brannon, apparently based on my addressing what I perceive to be your contradictory statements and attempting to point out the same, is at best interesting. I too support a positive change of the guard. I may, or may not, agree with you as to who the best candidate is to accomplish the change. In the future please don’t you twist my words and make presumptions as to which candidates I support.
Comment by up river — May 30, 2013 @ 3:30 pm
I’m not going to indulge a war of words with you and the next time you use my phraseology, please use quotation marks. You are clearly comprehension challenged.
Comment by rochereau — May 30, 2013 @ 5:26 pm
Okay…”You are clearly comprehension challenged.”
Comment by up river — May 31, 2013 @ 7:50 am