Councilman Mike Kennedy
NOW do you think local voters will believe in the power of their vote? Only FIVE votes separated challenger Jim Brannon, who spent about $7,000 on his whole campaign, and incumbent Mike Kennedy, who ended the night ahead in the count, and wielded THREE TIMES more money, at $22,000.
But Jim and Mike’s race wasn’t the only tight one. Challenger Dan Gookin came within 29 votes of Deanna Goodlander, who also outspent him by a large margin.
So, two important questions come to mind:
1. Are you comfortable with the accuracy of the counting—should there be a recount?
2. Can elections be bought here in CdA—does the amount of money spent determine the outcome?
Any other election comments?
I’m pulling up this comment from this morning:
Thank you challengers for fighting the good fight, I truly wish you had prevailed. I admire your committment.
Interesting editorial today in the CDA Press; “Turnout Tells a Sad Story”. Then a little ways down is this little gem;
“City council elections, in our view, are atop the importance scale because of their impact on local property taxes, public safety, economic development and, perhaps most of all, our sense of community and pride in where we live.”
Gee Mr. Patrick or should we call you Gumby, as you both share the no spine thing. Maybe if the local paper did their job and followed up on a story or two the voters would have had a clearer picture of what was at stake and who the people were who were running for election. But when the chips are down and there was hard news to report the CDA Press was AWOL. As usual. Grow a pair Mike, take a stand, you’d be surprised how good you’ll feel and you’ll be giving your subscribers their money’s worth for a change.
Comment by Will Penny — November 4, 2009 @ 5:05 am
Comment by mary — November 4, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Harry Hopkins, one of FDR’s aides, is quoted over the years as having said, “The American people are too damn dumb to know what’s good for them, so we’ll tax and tax, spend and spend and elect and elect.”
If I may paraphrase this quote as it relates the low turnout for our city elections, “The citizens of CDA are too damn apathetic to care what’s good for them so the city council will tax and tax, spend and spend and elect and elect!”
Think about that, all you freeloaders who don’t vote.
Comment by Gary Ingram — November 4, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Despite all the bad press and the horrific attacks on Mary and others via the “gossip blog” the folks at OpenCDA definitely made a difference in this election and your voices were obviously heard. You brought forth the information that so many other news sources failed to report and your work is appreciated.
I have always thought that money makes a difference with campaigns. It’s almost a given that the biggest sign usually wins. But this election clearly showed that the incumbents needed to spend their money (lots of it) in order to squeak by with their less than above board tactics, because the threat of losing was for real. And, as far as I am concerned it was a near loss before I will accept Kennedy and Goodlander as an obvious win. The people have lost confidence in both of those city council members. They both ought to eating humble pie right now.
It sickens me as well that so many other folks could have voted and didn’t.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 4, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Thank you Jim Brannon. You are a patriot in my mind. You stood up to City Hall and their corrupt ways. You sacrificed your job to the mean spirited downtown bunch and never lost your dignity. We are so proud of you. May the sunshine on you. We are indebted to you.
Comment by citizen — November 4, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
For those who wanted change on the CDA City Council and didn’t see it, take heart. Here are five reasons why we will see change in another two years on the city council.
Reasons why change will happen.
(1) The city will have to raise our property taxes to pay for all the things, they’ve obligated the taxpayers for like the: EDUCATION/COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR etc. It’s never popular with voters to raise taxes in an economic downturn.
(2) There are two CDA City Council members in their early seventies: Edinger, Goodlander. After observing the 2009 city council race with (7) forums candidates debated at,Edinger might consider retirement and it’s almost certain Goodlander will retire in four years. Also, I think Edinger is vulnerable.
(3) The City of Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal agency is becoming more unpopular, as more citizens are discovering how LCDC operates and actually are, costing taxpayers money. Al Hassel who barely, kept his seat on the council in 2007, seats on LCDC’s board. He’s vulnerable.
(4) I tend to believe that local political trends, will follow national political trends in the next few years, which would favor change.
(5) If Riverstone continues to be the bust that it is right now, change can happen.What happened to those 5,000 jobs there?
So, change will eventually happen on the CDA city council and those who want change will have to be patient IMO.
Comment by kageman — November 5, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Kageman,
Your assessment is a good one, but you need to factor this in: The City has an unofficial “grooming” system in place to prepare successors as incumbents retire, die, or are indicted. You need only look at how appointments to committees and commissions are selected to see who is being groomed. More important, you need to look at who has applied for various committees and commissions, including the LCDC, and have been rejected. Their rejection is based on their unwillingness to swear political loyalty to those who appoint them. Those being groomed don’t need to be particularly intelligent or have experience in public administration (think Amy Evans and Lou Soumas on P&Z; Christie Wood at NIC; Scott Hoskins at LCDC; ); they only need to be politically loyal.
Comment by Bill — November 5, 2009 @ 8:24 am
Kageman – you are so right on the grooming process.
Christie Wood has been grooming herself all over the place for elected office. Her quest for name recognition borders on being laughable. It is so blatant and obvious. Her nickname ought to be, “look at me!, look at me!, ooo, ooo, over here, over here!!!””
I found Mary’s comment in her newsletter that there were 126 more votes cast in the Kennedy race than in the McEvers race fascinating. Is this a smoking gun? Will we have our won hanging chad mystery right here in little ol’ CDA?
Comment by CDAShenanigans — November 5, 2009 @ 9:03 am
oops, sorry. I guess it was Bill that was replying to Kageman who pointed out the successor grooming. My bad.
Comment by CDAShenanigans — November 5, 2009 @ 9:04 am
I doubt if Brannon planned to become so ‘sacrificial’. No doubt he expected some degree of dirty tactics but nobody would expect what he was delivered. The message sent is do not dare challenge the establishment unless you can risk everything. What happened to Brannon was lower than low and fits well with the people’s involved.
Consider the fact that the incumbents probably had hundreds of pocketed votes. People who live here permanently or transiently whose incumbent votes were guaranteed. When you consider how hard Mike, in particular, campaigned you then realize how little real support he has in the general community. For that matter they all fared poorly even though they prevailed.
The turnout was again disappointing. Why all of our elections are not held on weekends astounds me. Also for all the political mailings and door flyers I received over this time period not one of them named my polling place and its hours. I can’t speak for others but my polling places shifts. I go to one polling location for Federal elections and a different one for local venues. Why?
Brannon has called for a recount and so should Dan. If nothing else hold their feet to the fires a wee longer. Who knows, if an independent group gets involved they may well turn up a different result.
If the election holds can we expect any changes? Not without a lot of legal prodding. The only thing that will shake these people up are court decisions. To them a win is a win and they will run as loose as ever for as long as possible. The corridor suit and other challenges will give them some pause. But for now they are fat and happy and back in their dirty saddles again.
Comment by Wallypog — November 5, 2009 @ 9:11 am