My latest letter to the editor - Recent attack ads are uncalled for
Today, my latest letter to the editor was published. I find it really disappointing how much they try to attack the one candidate who stands up for the taxpayers in Saint John.
Recent attack ads are uncalled for
Telegraph-JournalThis week, I’ve had the displeasure of listening to a special interest group’s attack ad on the radio. This group does not believe that the citizens of Saint John are able to decide who to vote for on their own.
To sway voters, they have launched attack ads on the radio. The person that they attack is Councillor Stephen Chase. Unknown to many, he is the councillor who made the historic motion to reaffirm the city’s commitment to public ownership and control of its water supply.
Stephen continues to support looking at all options in service delivery and selecting the one with the best value for the taxpayers - after all, it is our money that council is spending.
Shawn Peterson
Saint John
Posted in Saint John Politics |
May 11th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
This blog seems to be always promoting Stephen Chase and knocking pro union candidates I worked all my life as a contract delivery man and lost my car and jobs last year after a heart attack If I belonged to a union I would have had protection.Now I have nothing and use my cell to email Any group can campaign for a candidate Even a group of Catholics wrote a letter to the TJ denouncing water privitization Mr Chase slammed this faith a few years back If the newspaper can support candidates it is fair game for unions and other groups also
May 11th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Hi Mark,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I don’t disagree with your argument that groups can support a candidate; however, I do disagree with the amount of money these groups are spending to attack other candidates. It is one thing to public support a candidate, but spending thousands of dollars on radio attack ads, with the goal of swaying voters, is not right. We shouldn’t need to create legislation to enforce this.
I promote Stephen Chase because he is someone that I know well, and he stands up for the issues that I care about. He has demonstrated how much he cares for the city and the people in it. He has worked hard to make sure that we are getting the best value for the tax dollar.
I would disagree with your comment about knocking pro-union candidates. I have been knocking candidates that are not willing to look at all options before making decisions – there is a big difference. How can we know that we are getting the best services if we only have one option to pick from?
This city needs clean, safe drinking water, and I am very concerned that if we do not look at all options we may end up missing an opportunity. Let’s use buying a house as an analogy. I would go out and look for a house in different locations. I would look at different price ranges. I would also look at various features (garage, fireplace, etc). At the end of the process, I would compare everything that I saw and select the one with the best value of my dollar. I might pick a smaller house in a better location, or maybe a house with all the features that is further away from the city. The important thing is that we are able to look at all options and pick the best option. It should be no different for the city, especially when so much of our money is at stake.
Shawn
May 12th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hi Shawn I still say that if candidates can spend thousands on a campaign then their opponents should be able to do so.The newspaper endorsement of Stephen Chase and Michelle Hooton equals thousands of dollars of free publicity.At least the unions have to pay for their ads. I would argue that the newspaper’s “attack ads”are far more vicious than the union ads Look at the recent editorial which called the Court brothers bullies.This support by the Irving press can backfire People do not like to be told how to vote as shown by the newspaper support of Ms.Hooton when she ran in the 2006 provincial byelection. Mr James Irving himself supported Paul Zed in a front page editorial in the 2000 federal campaign and Zed was trounced by Elsie Wayne.I admit the union ads could also backfire.My main point is that the unions have to pay for their “attack ads while the newspaper does not.