Disingenuity within the City Council?/Campaign Strategy

All but lost in the interest and activity surrounding the Council’s selection of a replacement for DiNatale was a comparison of which Councilor voted for which candidate in view of the controversy resulting from Turbo Ted DeSalvatore’s remarks printed in the Worcester Telegram.

Bloggers may recall the self-serving, rather sanctimonious pablum offered by Conry, one of the two Councilors vocally critical of DeSalvatore, decrying DeSalvatore’s remarks about “this honorable body” as "… false, contained innuendoes and pure suppositions." Yet, the actual vote (as recorded by Jason) indicates Councilors Donnelly, Boisvert, Kaddy and Conry steadfastly supported the identical candidate (Murray) on all three ballots. In a display of monumental stupidity given his remarks toward DeSalvatore prior to the actual voting, Conry continued to cast his vote for Murray after candidate Cruz had secured the necessary 6th vote.

Any number of speculative reasons can be attributed to DeSalvatore’s comments. However, Conry’s expressed outrage, given his votes for Murray and those of his colleagues, was clearly provided to confuse and dissuade the suspicions of an ever gullible public. Clearly, there is nothing untoward, or illegal, in engaging in prior discussion with colleagues-and the evidence shows there was considerable prior discussion. What’s the point to be made in Conry’s denying the obvious?

WANNA BE A “CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST?”

Imagine, for a moment, you are a campaign strategist for Candidate X, who seeks re-election as Mayor. What strategy would you suggest your candidate employ given a 6 year previous track record of:

1. Significant property tax increases year after year.
2. Continuation of a slow, steady decline despite prosperity in the adjoining citty and towns creating the impression a rebound in the near future is little more than a “rosy scenario.”
3. Significant increases in the rate of violent crime.
4. A downtown with empty, boarded up retail establishments and the memory of business failures.
5. Entire neighborhoods decling to slum status consequently diminishing the value of property in remaining neighborhoods.
6. Constant increases in spending and borrowing.
7. Massive increases (near 25% since June, 2005) of spending on schools.
8. Schools with faulty boilers and leaking roofs and kids lacking textbooks.
9. Appointment of personnel with questionable backgrounds and experience, not to mention a convicted arsonist, to positions of trust.
10.The findings by the Mass. Department of Education that several schools fall in the “non-performing” category and that a “sweetheart deal” was negotiated for the lease of space at a rate far in excess of anything paid in Worcester County for comparable space.
11.Continuing series of “screw ups” with the budget on an annual basis.
12.Award of salary increases during a period when the city can least afford such increases.
13.Possible candidate(s)-with unknown positions on these issues-hammering your candidate week after week, soon day after day, calling attention to your failures.

What strategems would you suggest to ensure the re-election of your candidate? Given such a lackluster track record while in office is it remotely conceivable, let alone an example of rational thought, your candidate could pull off an election miracle?