2009

Part of the "silly season" (thanks to Fred Black for that great term) is the bloom of letters to local papers supporting certain candidates.  In some cases, individual expressions seem quite heartfelt, regardless of any larger party or issue contexts.  In some cases, the letters seem pretty much obligatory, as if someone feels the endorsement musn't fail to appear among the other letters -- for example, regarding the Sierra Club endorsements. 

Often it seems, however, that there might be a somewhat more coordinated effort to flood the letters pages with statements endorsing a given candidate -- suggesting he or she may be an underdog but with a significant groundswell of public support. 

I am a graduate student in the UNC Planning Department (and the School of Law).  My Site Planning class tonight had guest lecturer Bruce Ballentine to talk about Glen Lennox.  About an hour into the lecture, a classmate of mine asked if Glen Lennox is an issue in the current municipal election.  In the discourse about his take on the municipal election that followed, Mr. Ballentine called several of the candidates "anti-growth, anti-business, anti-University, and anti-downtown."  He spared "three of the mayoral candidates" and DeHart, Pease, and Pohlman by name.  He portrayed the muncipal elections in a biased manner, one that I felt was purposefully misleading.  Regardless, it was an inapprorpriate forum for his stump speech.