Negative campaigning in the city council election

Update at 6:21 p.m.: Dex Ellison did get back to me and said "I never asked a voter to vote for anyone other than me and I definitely never told anyone not to vote for anyone else."

Original story: Unfortunately, "negative campaigning" has become a part of the our country’s political process so I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised that negative campaigning has become a part of the Kyle City Council election. What does surprise me, however, is (1) the form this campaigning has taken and (2) it’s not even being directed at a campaign opponent.

Ever since all six of the candidates filed for the two seats up for election in this campaign, I have heard undercurrents of opposition directed toward Place 5 candidate Jaime Sanchez. Nothing overt, mind you, with the possible exception of one elected official hinting to me that Sanchez was "a crook." There was also an e-mail that Mayor Todd Webster sent to five of the six candidates saying he was willing to donate $100 to all the campaigns except for Sanchez's. There has been this subtle message floating around that Sanchez "is not one of us," which is strange since he is the only candidate running who has lived in Kyle since his birth. I couldn’t help but feel that much of the campaign for District 5 involved more "Vote against Sanchez" than vote for one of the other candidates and that many of the city’s "establishment" rallied behind one of Sanchez’s opponents, not because that person was a particularly viable candidate, but because they would do anything to keep Sanchez from being elected.

Then yesterday I spoke to a woman, Rayma Stone, who told me the strangest thing: two city council candidates, Tammy Swaton and Dex Ellisson, neither of whom were running against Sanchez, both came to her house located north of Goforth in Kyle and told her and other voters gathered in her home that, no matter what else they did, they should not vote for Sanchez. (I have left messages for both Swaton and Ellison to respond, but so far neither has chosen to do so.) Stone told me Swaton was particularly "very harsh and mean" when it came to Sanchez, saying the voters there should not cast their ballots for him because, among other things, he once sued the city.

And that’s certainly true. He did sue the city. And you know what else? He won that suit. The court determined Sanchez was right and the city acted illegally when it tried to take from him land for which he had legal title. But just because he sued the city doesn’t make him anti-Kyle. It means he fought the attempts of some city officials to, as the court determined, illegally take from him property he owned. To me, at least, that makes him very much pro-Kyle: He is going to do whatever he can to make sure the citizens of this city are treated fairly and legally.

Stone also told me Swaton said this about Sanchez to a group of voters gathered in her home: "We don’t want him in office. He has his own agenda."

Now, if Stone has accurately reported to me what Swaton said, I find her use of the word "We" extremely compelling. For all practical purposes it confirms my notion there is an organized effort among the city’s establishment to conspire to keep Sanchez from winning the election. I am also struck by her allegedly saying "He has his own agenda."

As if that’s a bad thing. From my vantage point, I think it’s high time there was someone on the council with his/her own agenda. Let me explain. Except for possibly the vote on the recently passed revised wrecker ordinance (which, I have been told, is a farce because it is not being enforced), just about every single item that comes before the city council is either approved or disapproved by a 7-0 vote. There is no dissension, thus there is no discussion.

I, for one, would love to see someone with his/her own agenda on the council. That’s not to say I would agree with that person’s opinion. In fact, I might disagree 100 percent of the time. But the important thing is that dissenter is going to promote additional, hopefully intellectual discussion of the items on the weekly agenda. And without that extra discussion, we the citizens live in ignorance because all we hear is one side. If we, as the voters who are supposed to control the ultimate destiny of the city we call home, are denied all sides of a particular issue, we are denied that basic freedom of choice and become nothing more than marionettes dancing to the tune of those pulling our strings.

And what’s the worst thing that could happen? Well, instead of having all these 7-0 votes, we now have 6-1 votes. And the winner is us, because we become much more informed on at least two sides of many issues, not just the one we are force fed.