There were two candidate forums in SKC last week and I attended both. I found it extremely interesting that at both John Sharp complimented the mayoral candidates, saying they’re running a campaign the way a campaign should be run - civilly. Then he turned right around and implied that his opponent wasn’t running a real campaign because he was opposed to the current monster of a bridge and it’s the ‘supposed’ Friends of Red Bridge that are his top advisors.
No matter where you stand on the bridge project, it’s remarkable that Mr. Sharp feels the need to continue marginalizing 500-600 of his constituents. The bridge is being built. The project is moving right along. It should not be brought up as if it’s still a point of contention, and the people who were opposing it shouldn’t be denigrated, even by implication.
Mr. Sharp likes to brag about his years of service and talk about his knowledge and ability to support SKC; but if that were really the case, why can’t he find a more effective and appropriate argument to build his case? Perhaps it’s a guilty conscience. After all, he went to city hall prior to his election and testified that the huge bridge should not be built. He led the Friends of Red Bridge to believe he supported their stance. Then after his election he changed his tune.
Again, it isn’t important which side of the issue a person was on. The issue is that Mr. Sharp apparently can’t be trusted. Maybe that’s why he can’t seem to put it behind him when others have moved on. It would be laughable if it weren’t so scary. If Mr. Sharp couldn’t be trusted over the last four years, what’s he going to be like as a lame duck?
4 comments:
Sharp has been a dirty campaigner for his whole political career, I have heard. I remember some nasty things he said about Alan Wheat that were close to racist. But what I know better is his last campaign in 2007 where he sent out a copy of a letter from one of his supporters (lobbyist Dennis O'Neill) just days before the election. The letter said the supporter was disappointed at the last-minute dirty trick by his opponent, Darrell Curls. The thing to note is that the letter didn't specify what the dirty trick was, and in fact, Curls had not done anything even mildly critical of Sharp to that point.
It fits a pattern of Sharp's. Look for him to send out something against his new opponent Terrence Nash later this week.
But Sharp was lying about Nash months ago when he was telling several people in private that Nash was a "tea bagger" despite Nash's support for health care reform and other programs opposed by the tea party. Nash opposes the corporate welfare that is Sharp's stock-in-trade. Sharp can't see the difference between the two.
Sharp has so many dirty tricks going on that he can't keep all of them under cover: one that has leaked out is this: his old Republican supporters (Sharp switched parties when it was politically expedient as Hickman Mills' Republicans fled the "Black Invasion" by moving to Lee's Summit and etc.) are calling people on an anti-abortion phone list to tell people that Nash is pro-choice and Sharp is pro-life (If Sharp is still pro-life, that would be about the only issue he hasn't flipped on during his career.) The fact is that the abortion issue is a non-issue in City politics so no one would ever know, but Nash is a practicing Catholic, a member of the Saint Thomas Moore Parish, and he never talks about abortion.
How convenient for Sharp that he is garnering support from people on both sides of the abortion issue: just as he did on Red Bridge.
John Sharp doesn't think that the rules apply to him: He had been informed twice before the forum, by the moderators, that distributing campaign literature in the room where the forum was being held was strictly prohibited. All other candidates observed and honored this rule.
Not John Sharp. He never does. The rules do not apply to him.
When told he was breaking the rules for the third time, he disrespectfully and reluctantly complied. Never apologizes.
Then during the forum, despite being made aware of a time limit in plain sight, he kept going on and on about his favorite topic: himself.
I find those entering the election refreshing. Terrance Nash and Tracy Ward don't sound like everyone else. It's the first time in a long time that we had free thinkers running. You know Funkhouser wasn't the only one making the decisions for this city and except for Cathy Jolly, they are all running again. I guess if you want to you can call Scott Taylor a pseudo incumbent being he's running for his wife. I went to the forums. I'll be voting for the new guys. No they don't have all the answers to the questions, but I think they deserve a chance to try. The rest have already mucked up the works.
Go Terrance.
Wishing you success with your campaign. I'm rootin for you.
Post a Comment