Friday, May 14, 2010

Mayoral Debate---Interesting, But Not Much Accomplished

To the credit of Chris DeSimone & Joe Higgins of radio's "Wake Up Tucson," they did a good job setting up and moderating the only debate of the two Mayoral candidates, Mike Zinkin & Satish Hiremath.

It appeared that the room at the Hilton El Conquistador was filled with half Zinkin & half Hiremath supporters, although I did speak briefly to perhaps the only undecided voter in the room.

Chris & Joe were fair with the questions, fair with the time allocated to each candidate, and everything went well.

Was there a winner?

Not that I or others I spoke to could tell. From my perspective, both candidates came across of wanting to do right by the people of Oro Valley.

The voters will decide which candidate they believe will do a better job.
We hope it doesn't come down to how much one candidate spent (Satish), compared to how little the other candidate spent (Mike).(Satish out spent Mike by more than 2:1)

We honestly believe Mike Zinkin is the best choice based on his experience, his knowledge of the town's codes and General Plan, and the fact that he can dedicate more time to being a full time mayor.

In about 96 hours, we'll know who will lead us for the next four years.

Whether it be Mike or Satish, we wish them the best.


OV Objective Thinker said...

I believe that the tone of this posting says it all.

Mike Zinkin came out of the chute as an angry, argumentative candidate, completely disrespected the audience throughout by talking to the moderators and ignoring the citizens and generally was uninteresting.

artmarth said...

Well! Well! Cox is back adding his wonderful insight to our blog.

If BS was gold, Cox would be quite wealthy.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Zinkin's opening statement was superb. He was able to show the true character of Hiremath by outlining all of the lies and underhanded things that Hiremath has done throughout the campaign and also pointing out that he, himself, could have reported Hiremath for campaign violations but Zinkin chose to keep his integrity and rise above it. Zinkin doesn't waste his time on petty BS. Hiremath had to resort to pettiness during the campaign because Zinkin's credentials far outweight his own.

I also saw Hiremath's eyes bug out when the question was asked, "How would your former employers or coworkers describe you? What relevant experience can you bring to this job? What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses?"

You see, Hiremath can only answer questions pertaining to POLICY because he has those answers memorized. When he is caught off guard with a question pertaining to CHARACTER or EXPERIENCE, he panics. In this instance, his answer was a non-answer. He just rambled on, Sarah Palin-style.

It reminded me of the Library forum when he was caught off guard with the question, "How often do you attend council meetings?" He was not prepared for that question.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

I also noticed that the room was filled with Zinkin supporters and Hiremath supporters. This means that the debate was a waste of time since everyone in the room (with the possible exception of one person) has already voted or already decided.

Hiremath deliberately dragged out responding to Zinkin's repeated requests for a debate so that all of the mail-in ballots would have already been returned PRIOR to the debate taking place. Hiremath knew if the debate took place BEFORE the mail-in ballots were delivered, that he would stand to lose a lot of votes.

So if Hiremath is so confident in his abilities, why did he go out of his way to avoid a debate instead of welcoming one?

freedom fighters said...

Actually, my read on the so-called debate was that both candidates came off like lukewarm tea. Too little, too late.

Nombe Watanabe said...


There was a difference between the two regarding Public Safety. I heard that Dr H would always give into the public safety unions, to the point of raiding the rainy day fun. Mr. Z would insist on cutting some other department to support a DEMONSTRATED public safety concern.

I also heard Dr. H claim we can grow out of the financial slump while Mr. Z stated that OV has opportunities for growth, but that the banks will not lend money to individuals who wish to open a business.

I find Mr. Zinkin's views more compelling.



Anonymous said...

I have enjoyed the blog, Art, and appreciate the political discourse provided. It does seem that most folks have made up their mind.

For those who have not and sit on the fence, I ask, once again, for you to consider the "union" factor.

I will say this, "if" the economy does not rebound- and we can all debate this- "then" we will likely witness the dark side of unions through refusal to accept necessary cuts and perhaps even increased demands. This becomes pertinent in this election because SH is endorsed and backed by unions, some that don't even have an interest in OV.

All things being equal, one candidate has had his election financially supported by unions and the other has not.

Assuming tougher times are ahead of us (double dip recession?), I believe we need a Mayor who does not owe favors.

I write this as an educated professional with 20+ years experience in a public sector union environment who has been studying the economic climate for some time. I worry that, having experienced it directly, unions feel entitled to the publics' money, typically refuse cuts, and even make demands when there is no money to support their requests.

Ultimately, it's exciting that so many are engaged in the political, civic process and it is appropriate that we disagree and debate these issues. I'm not angry at those who would vote for SH, I only ask that they provide me with salient counter-arguments that have logical merit.

May the man who is most prepared to lead OV into perhaps a very difficult future and say "no" when necessary, win.

Nombe Watanabe said...

rainy day fund, not fun.

Although one can have fun on a rainy day!

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Toll for,

You asked Hiremath supporters to provide you with "arguments that have logical merit."

Good luck with that. :)

I don't believe I've heard even one logical reason that anyone is behind this man. Someone wrote a letter to this week's Explorer stating that she decided to vote for Hiremath because of Zinkin's use of the logo. Wow! What a great reason. She mentioned nothing about Hiremath's experience or his take on policy issues.

To all the people who think the use of the logo was deliberate, ask yourself this question...

Why would Zinkin deliberately use the town logo KNOWING that it was against the law, and therefore KNOWING that at least one person would file a complaint against his campaign, and KNOWING that he'd be contacted by the town attorney and told to discard the remaining postcards, and KNOWING that the whole story would then be reported in the Explorer and the Star, and KNOWING that this would result in his losing quite a few votes?

Long story short...why would Zinkin sabotage his own campaign?

And there's the PROOF that it was an inadvertent mistake and not a deliberate one.


Desert Voice said...


"...completely disrespected the audience by talking to the moderators and ignoring the citizens..."

The side of the room right next to the doors complained of difficulty hearing Zinkin. You must have been sitting there. Z's first question to the audience was, "Can you hear me without the mike?" Does that sound like a man who "disrespects" his audience?

You are, as I am, of an age when hearing begins to weaken. I sat near the front and had no problem hearing. You were free to change your seat. Why didn't you? Why insist on special treatment for you from him?

Maybe it was because you didn't hear or comprehend what Zinkin said as he began his opening that you described him as angry, argumentative. Let me refresh your memory.

Zinkin told the audience he and SH went for drinks at the beginning of the campaign and discovered their positions were similar. Their bond was defeating Loomis. In fact, they had so much in common they hugged each other as they parted. Sounds like the way gentlemen who are pitted against each other, let their opponent know it is an issue based campaign not personal.

Then Zinkin went on to say, how betrayed he felt when SH repeatedly misrepresented Z and his own position on property tax, how SH tenaciously pursued his use of the Town seal on his cards, appealing not just to TOV but to the State, that Z could have filed a complaint about SH's placing demonstrators on all four corners of Oracle, a violation of TOV code but didn't, etc. Maybe he felt a mistake by each washed out the others and they broke even.

If you, OVOT, thought you had an issue based gentleman's agreement about the campaign with your opponent whom you liked, how do you think you would feel if he betrayed you? Betrayal is one of the most penetrating hurts there is! Consider Christ betrayed by Judas, SC's Jennie Stanton by her Governor husband, your preteen by a playground friend who joins the group that is teasing him about his imperfect body, grades, zits,or athletic ability.

My interpretation of his statement is Z wanted this to be a campaign of integrity but his opponent who agreed, did exactly that, violated his agreement and made it personal.
Sounds pretty upsetting to me!

Like you and I, Z is an age peer. He turned to his questioners to make eye contact, to clearly hear and understand their questions and to observe their body language. It is polite to turn to the person who is speaking to you.