Gottstein vs. Gamble - A Few Thoughts

There are several interesting races to be decided on March 27, but the one that is going to be drawing the pyrotechnics, probably even moreso that the mayoral race, is the race for the 4th District At-Large. The Gottstein vs. Gamble race appears to have all makings of an ugly, ugly donnybrook - which is sad, because I doubt the truth is going to be well-served, and the candidates are both going to come out of it damaged. Maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevails, but I'm not feeling really optimistic. If anyone cares, here are a few thoughts about the race . . .

1. Go Roe or No Roe? Rumor has it that Jeff Roe is helping out the Gamble campaign, and when I say "rumor", I mean rumor. I have no idea whether it is true or not, or whether he's being paid in cash, or promises, or not at all. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were true, because even a political newcomer like Gamble can see that Roe is the kiss of death in Kansas City - ineffective and divisive.

I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it. Could this be a case of falsely-claimed victim-hood being used as a political tool by Gamble? Wow, that would be so slimey it almosts sounds like something Roe would do . . .

In short, until somebody comes forward with proof that Roe is working for one of the candidates, both sides ought to drop it entirely - kind of a Gamble/Gottstein/Godwin's Law.

2. Debates or Forums? Gamble is trying to make hay by claiming that Gottstein is refusing to participate in "one on one debates". This is silliness - they are both at so many forums, etc., that anyone who hasn't seen them together just doesn't care. Which is most of us - sorry, but this is a kind of sleazy attempt to make it look like Gottstein, who has been all around town and met just about anyone who cares to vote, is somehow dodging Gamble.

Why would Gamble do this? Because he was a late-decider - he didn't decide that the City Council race was worth his while until January. So now, in an attempt to make up for his own lack of effort, he's trying to make it seem like Gottstein is trying some kind of stealth campaign. I gotta call "bullsh#t" on this one.

3. Small Business vs. Non-Profits? The Star thinks that Gamble is a small-business voice. Everyone admires small businesses - scrappy providers of jobs in the face of economic challenge. Count me in - I think it's great that Gamble employs lots of people in the "service industries", cleaning rooms and making food. But let's not go overboard with the small business rhetoric - this is a guy who is tied into a TIF Tax-give-away to the tune of a few million tax dollars taken from schools and potholes and pumped into profit margins.

Gottstein's experience comes from the nonprofit sector - a large and growing segment of our economy, but not one that has the reputation of financial sophistication. On the other hand, she has a Master of Public Administration from one of the best MPA programs in the country, and is well-equipped to participate in running a city government.

In a nutshell, neither should be claiming that experience gives them an edge. Both would be rookies on the city council, and both would need to learn on the job.

4. Jew vs. Catholic If there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, it is the potential tension between the two communities. So far, with the exception of Tony's site, anti-Semitism has been silent, as has anti-Catholicism. Let's all hope it stays that way.

5. Clean Campaigns. I know Gottstein is committed to running a clean campaign, and I've heard that Gamble is similarly committed. On the other hand, both have lots of volunteers who want victory much more than they want a clean campaign. Also, exactly what is a "clean campaign"? Is discussing Gamble's TIF plan clean? Where should the line be drawn, and where will it be drawn in this race? What is responsible reporting of the truth, and what is smearing? And what of the "S/he started it" phenomenon, where one candidate engages in smear campaigning in response to a perceived smear from the other? Given the number of emails and outreaches I've already received in this race, I'm not optimistic that it will be a positive campaign focused on important issues. And that's disappointing, because what I know of both candidates is that they both deserve better, and are capable of better.