Watching this town meeting (co-sponsored by Great Expectations), with various advocates parading to the microphone to comment, reminds you of a good thing about this city - how many smart people care passionately about issues that contribute to quality of life in Philadelphia.
But it also reminds of something that's maddening: the degree to which all these advocates tend to zero in on their pet issues, and lose focus on the bigger picture.
During the debate, the moderator, plucky Marty Moss-Coane, struggled to get the candidates _ five men of large ego and increasing desperation to make a splash -- to share the mike and actually answer her questions. She actually managed to cover a decent amount of ground.
Despite that, person after person rose to comment not on what was said, but to complain that their pet issue did not get what they deemed due consideration. Their issues were valid, but, I mean, get real. It was one hour, and it was mostly spent appropriately on the big stuff.
A moment ago, my wife got up in exasperation at the commenters and walked out, saying sarcastically, "I'm left-handed. I'm disappointed the candidates didn't propose more programs for left-handers."
You can see why I don't cross my wife. But you can also see why Philadelphia is a city full of well-meaning activity that rarely seems to cohere into sufficient solutions.
Oh, and about the debate, no new thoughts emerged except a nice discussion on why Philadelphians resist change. To do the scorecard, I thought Chaka Fattah gave one of his stronger and more focused performances. Nothing like dropping like a strone in the polls to motivate a guy. Dwight Evans showed again how an inability to finish off a sentence can prevent a really bright thinker from coming across as a really bright thinker. Bob Brady was Bob Brady, the life of the party. Michael Nutter was rigorously calm, like a man who suddenly realized he might win and was scared to death of making a mistake. I don't agree with his stop and frisk idea, but I thought he did decently defending it. Tom Knox got out his usual points with some vigor, but was extremely peevish when criticized by Brady and Evans.
-- Chris Satullo
Comments (2)
The problem with the town hall conversation was that you can't have an honest telivised dialogue with a bunch of single issue advocates. The cold economic reality for the speakers - the majority of whom seemed to represent one nonprofit organization or another - is that they will depend on whoever is the next mayor for funding.
This was most apparent when one speaker was asked who was his choice for Mayor. He answered that he wished he could combine the positive qualities of each man into one uber-candidate. He then went on to say something nice about each candidate. A deft maneuver for someone who will go hat in hand to whoever is sitting on the second floor of City Hall next January.
Seems like you would need "real people" to have a real conversation.
Posted by Anonymous | May 10, 2007 7:28 PM
Posted on May 10, 2007 19:28
In sampling the debates so far all the candidates are promising to apend more money to fix this or that but no one is asking the important question? Where is the money going to come from.
Posted by Jim Larsen | May 14, 2007 6:05 PM
Posted on May 14, 2007 18:05