We got a few good laughs reading this morning's Scott Schwebke article, "Election suit sparks debate." For the second day in a row we were entertained by the preposterous posturing of Boss Godfrey, the mayoral candidate with the $140 thousand campaign war chest -- and the power of the mayoral incumbency -- posing as the victim, and trying to rope all his opposition into one neat little monolithic camp, marching to the beat of a single drummer.
Although the article wanders all over the field, there is one clear theme that binds the article together, more or less. This theme is set forth in the article subheadline, "Suit wants Godfrey disqualified; some signers say they were misled."
For purposes of this article, we're going to drill down to the single plaintiff who has now decided to withdraw from the lawsuit: Ogden resident Robert Cato. Here are Ace Reporter Schwebke's quotes concerning Mr. Cato's change of heart:
However, one of the plaintiffs, Robert Cato, of Ogden, said on Wednesday he was misled into signing a document he thought was a petition.Being the curious type, we contacted Dorothy Littrell this morning, and asked if she wouldn't mind sending an electronic copy of the written authorization (or consent form) that Mr. Cato signed, prior to the filing of the subject legal action. We were curious to know whether it was reasonable for Mr. Cato to have assumed he was signing a "mere petition." Ms. Littrell has quickly complied with our request, and this is the document Ms. Littrell sent us in reply.
Cato said he has asked Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney handling the lawsuit for Littrell, to remove his name from the complaint.
Take a good look at this document, gentle readers, and decide for yourselves whether Mr. Cato was actively "misled." We're not putting the "knock" on Mr. Cato, by the way. Over the years he's been an effective citizen activist, and we consider him to be a friend of Weber County Forum. We do however believe the term "misled" may be a little excessive in this instance; as we do know that Mr. Cato can both read and write. Perhaps, we'll suggest, Mr. Cato merely failed to read the heading on the document that bears his signature.
One of the other interesting aspects of this morning's article, for us at least, was the spectacle of the folks from the Van Hooser camp, dancing to the Standard-Examiner's tune "on cue," and frantically distancing themselves from Ms. Littrell's lawsuit:
We think a better Van Hooser reply would have been something like this: "Are you nuts, Mr. Schwebke?" "Why on earth would we introduce a distraction like this into the campaign, when we're sitting in the "catbird seat"?In a statement released late Wednesday night Van Hooser asked the petitioners to drop the suit against Godfrey.
“But we cannot allow minor technicalities to get in the way of discussing the major issues that face our city: public safety, economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and quality of life. I suggest that Ogden’s citizens, the media, and Mayor Godfrey direct their attention away from this ill-considered lawsuit and back to the real issues,” she said.
We're also going to dip into the comments in a lower article thread, and incorporate some wise words offered by gentle Curmudgeon:
What the law suit has done is take the focus of the press, and the public, off Godfrey's performance in office, his continuing belief that "let's build a gondola!" is the best solution for whatever Ogden problem is under discussion, etc. And it has instead shifted press and public attention to matters of who is behind this law suit --- note the Mayor's implication in this morning's story that the law suit is really an attempt by Van Hooser supporters to win at any cost --- and "were those who signed on misled by those who filed the suit" and such like. Every day the press and public spends discussing all that is a day not spent discussing the central issues in the campaign and, finally, which of the candidates represents the best choice to lead Ogden over the next four years. It has taken the spotlight off Godfrey's sorry performance and shifted it to side issues.Curmudgeon is mostly right. But we believe it isn't necessarily "the lawsuit" alone that's allowed this to happen. What has occurred on the pages of the Standard-Examiner demonstrates Boss Godfrey's continuing ability to control the agenda -- for a couple of days at least. And to the extent that the past two days' stories have "rattled" Van Hooser supporters, these folks are themselves complicit in keeping this story alive in Boss Godfrey's House Propaganda Organ, the Standard-Examiner.
Now that candidate Van Hooser has made her clear statement, we believe it's time for the Van Hooser campaign to remove this non-issue from the front burner, and take control of the campaign agenda. As one gentle reader suggested in the lower comments thread: "Her statement has been made, the Standard should respect that and stick to covering all the issues... Van Hooser should [henceforth] respond to Schwebke and others with a simple no comment. She said her bit already."
Good advice, we think.
And face reality folks. We've known Dorothy Littrell for several years. There's no way she'll "drop" her lawsuit.
Turning back to this morning's article, we're going to highlight our favorite Godfrey quote: "Godfrey said he believes that several of the plaintiffs support City Councilwoman Susan Van Hooser, his opponent in the mayoral race. 'It’s sad,' he said. 'It shows their win-at-all costs attitude.'"
"Win at all costs attitude?" Somehow that phrase has a familiar ring to it, we thought, upon reading Mr. Schwebke's article this morning.
And here's where we decided Boss Godfrey "lifted" that unique phrase -- Susan Van Hooser's campaign website. We invite our readers to navigate to her site, and click on the menu item "Information About Susie." There you will find this wonderful Kent Jorgenson endorsement:
I've been an avid supporter of the current mayor since he was first elected. However, I have come to disagree with the mayor, not on the basic goals, but on how these goals are accomplished. We need a mayor who will listen to all the facts, and we can't continue to have a win-at-all-costs attitude.What Boss Godfrey has done in making this cute "win-at-all-costs" accusation is to take a swipe at his former supporter, former Gang-of-Six councilman Kent, whom Godfrey now obviously perceives as having deserted to the "enemy camp." We see this as just another display of Godfrey's petty vindictiveness, now that Kent Jorgenson has come over from the dark side.
Government isn't always the same as private business. To move a community forward you need full disclosure and a democratic process with respect for our partners and the people we serve.
I have every confidence that Susan Van Hooser will work aggressively to keep Ogden moving in the right direction. Whether it's economic development, public safety, or transportation initiatives, Susan has Ogden's best interests in mind.
I urge you to be courageous in this year's election and vote for Susan Van Hooser as Ogden's next mayor.
Kent Jorgenson
Ogden City Council, 2002 to 2005
While you're visiting Susie's site, we encourage you all to navigate around it. This site is vastly improved since the primary election. Those of you who still have lingering questions about candidate Van Hooser or her platform will find a wealth of information on this site.
Take it away, gentle readers. We're sorry to have been so long-winded.
