That apparently might still happen. Everyone be on rumor alert.
Zina Pierre Stays In The Race.
Showing posts with label zina pierre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zina pierre. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Democratic Process Influenced By Failure of Journalism
This is a continuation of this post. I could have included all this info in the same post, but the more posts you make, the more hits you get on your blog. And the more hits you get on your blog, the more likely you are to win the lottery. Why do you think people write such drivel on blogs?
(Note to bloggers: just kidding. Just trying to entertain the masses.)
(Note 2.0 to bloggers: don't write drivel.)
So, everyone likes to make fun of the media, and for good reason---many media outlets are terrible. In Annapolis, we have the misfortune of having only one major newspaper, The Capital, which is particularly infamous for inaccuracy. This blog named itself to point out the shortcomings of the newspaper. The bumper sticker "End Capital Punishment, Cancel Your Subscription" serves the same purpose. On the rare occasions in my life when I have spoken with people important enough to have their names/stories told in The Capital, I've heard horror stories of quotes that began as "Mrs. Politics is a great girlfriend" and ended as "Mayor Moyer kicked me in the rear end".
The Capital totally missed this story. The Post and The Sun missed it too, but they have an excuse because they actually have other real stories to write about. The Capital should have uncovered this long ago. I would have uncovered it myself, buy my legal team advises me that the farther away I stay from the court system, the better.
Imagine how different the campaign would have been if Zina's legal history was reported a year ago when she entered the race. Sam Shropshire, a sitting alderman, is facing highly publicized legal troubles....and he received 9 votes. NINE. VOTES. Before this campaign, Zina Pierre had no name recognition in this town. If somebody that nobody knows was labeled as having such problems, would their campaign have even gotten off the ground? Probably not. Instead of (essentially) a 3-person race, would it have been Josh vs Trudy? Who knows what the outcome would have been?
As it is, the media missed the story, Zina was elected, and now has withdrawn. The Democrat central committee gets to pick the replacement. Cohen certainly has to be a front runner. Will McFall lobby for the nomination? I would. One can't help but think that if the media did its job, she might not have had this burden.
(Note to bloggers: just kidding. Just trying to entertain the masses.)
(Note 2.0 to bloggers: don't write drivel.)
So, everyone likes to make fun of the media, and for good reason---many media outlets are terrible. In Annapolis, we have the misfortune of having only one major newspaper, The Capital, which is particularly infamous for inaccuracy. This blog named itself to point out the shortcomings of the newspaper. The bumper sticker "End Capital Punishment, Cancel Your Subscription" serves the same purpose. On the rare occasions in my life when I have spoken with people important enough to have their names/stories told in The Capital, I've heard horror stories of quotes that began as "Mrs. Politics is a great girlfriend" and ended as "Mayor Moyer kicked me in the rear end".
The Capital totally missed this story. The Post and The Sun missed it too, but they have an excuse because they actually have other real stories to write about. The Capital should have uncovered this long ago. I would have uncovered it myself, buy my legal team advises me that the farther away I stay from the court system, the better.
Imagine how different the campaign would have been if Zina's legal history was reported a year ago when she entered the race. Sam Shropshire, a sitting alderman, is facing highly publicized legal troubles....and he received 9 votes. NINE. VOTES. Before this campaign, Zina Pierre had no name recognition in this town. If somebody that nobody knows was labeled as having such problems, would their campaign have even gotten off the ground? Probably not. Instead of (essentially) a 3-person race, would it have been Josh vs Trudy? Who knows what the outcome would have been?
As it is, the media missed the story, Zina was elected, and now has withdrawn. The Democrat central committee gets to pick the replacement. Cohen certainly has to be a front runner. Will McFall lobby for the nomination? I would. One can't help but think that if the media did its job, she might not have had this burden.
Pierre Withdraws From Race; Central Committee Can Choose Replacement
Whenever something confuses me in politics, I always look for the most cynical explanation possible. Such an approach is usually accurate in ascertaining the truth, and has served me well on several occasions where suspension of total disbelief was a good quality to have.
One day after Zina Pierre was officially certified as the Democrat nominee for the Mayoral election, details of legal problems surfaced. The Capital sent out an email confirming that, in the face of these revelations and citing personal reasons, Zina had decided to drop out of the race. I believe The Sun will run a story tomorrow.
To quote a poker promo from ESPN: this is beyond fairy-tale, it's inconceivable. So what now? You're going to like this. Section 4.20.150 (C) of the city code allows a candidate nominated for office to decline their nomination within 10 days of receiving that nomination. And wouldn't you know it: it's less than 10 days since Zina received the nomination. And wouldn't you also know, section 4.20.160 allows the central committee--in this case the Democrat Central Committee--to fill the vacancy with WHICHEVER CANDIDATE THEY PICK.
Here's the email from the chairman of the Democrat Central Committee:
The statement that "we in no way urged" Zina is of course believed by everyone to be fucking bullshit. I'm sorry to cuss but it's such an arrogant attitude that one is left with no other articulation of one's feelings.
The email chatter has been off the charts on this issue, so I'll pass that along to you. In addition to the email chatter, I've had several verbal conversations about what's happening. My promise to you, the blog reader, is that I will plagiarize equally the thoughts I heard from emails and those from phone conversations.
I enjoy email chatter, because it tends to offer the most cynical and far-fetched explanations of any given event. And as we learned at the beginning of this post, that makes it correct. Even the most amateur politico could follow the storyline. The "chosen candidate", Josh Cohen, gets in the race because he has the backing of the machine and thinks he can win with their money and influence. The "machine" is defined as Mike Busch, John Astle, Ellen Moyer, and the Democrat Central Committee. The machine got Sam Shropshire elected in this manner, and they're at it again.
I guarantee this info about Zina is not new. The machine likely dug it up when Zina jumped in the race, but sat on it in hopes that Josh would win straight up and they wouldn't have to use it. When Zina won, they sprung into action--and they worked quickly because they knew the code says Zina would have to resign within 10 days of winning the primary. I mean, think about it....Zina knows politics. She worked for Bill Clinton, and runs a lobbying firm. She had enough expertise to beat Cohen--despite his machine backing; and to beat Trudy McFall--who ran a perfect campaign for 2 years. You mean to tell me that one setback would be enough to convince her to drop out of the race for personal reasons?? Shenanigans!! I call shenanigans! The legal problems seem to deal with economic circumstances. So Zina is facing economic hardship...just like half of freeking Annapolis! A clever candidate could spin that in their favor...not bow out of the race.
You know what else is interesting?? People always talk about "ending the partisanship"...the bickering between Republicans and Democrats. But this wasn't the Republicans sticking it to the Democrats--this was Democrat skulduggery all the way!! "Incest Partisanship" is what I call it--don't be surprised if that term catches on. Heck, the Republican candidate hasn't done anything political in, like...8 years! It's not enough for the machine to retain power for their party; they have to retain power for their lineage.
Now, as far as I know, Josh has not yet been officially selected as the replacement for Zina. I know Josh on a quasi-personal level, and I will say that he's been pleasant on the few occasions we've ordered beers from the same bartender. He's commented on this blog before, and is more than welcome to offer an explanation. But this whole thing reeks of a sinister plan executed as designed.
Edit: After posting this, I spoke with someone who I consider to be reliable and knowledgeable, and that person swears the machine had no prior knowledge of these issues. It's hard to believe but I guess it's plausible. Could it possibly not be Cohen that is chosen by the central committee?
There is still much to consider. First, as the first commenter says, what a failure of journalism. If the Capital spent as much time researching their candidate profiles as they do the Home of The Week, we would have known about Zina's problems long ago.
...which brings me to another point--Zina deserves blame. The charges against her, if intentional, represent characteristics we don't want in a mayor. There were questions--including on this blog--about Zina's candidacy when she entered the race. And for every question answered, we have 3 new ones in its place.
One day after Zina Pierre was officially certified as the Democrat nominee for the Mayoral election, details of legal problems surfaced. The Capital sent out an email confirming that, in the face of these revelations and citing personal reasons, Zina had decided to drop out of the race. I believe The Sun will run a story tomorrow.
To quote a poker promo from ESPN: this is beyond fairy-tale, it's inconceivable. So what now? You're going to like this. Section 4.20.150 (C) of the city code allows a candidate nominated for office to decline their nomination within 10 days of receiving that nomination. And wouldn't you know it: it's less than 10 days since Zina received the nomination. And wouldn't you also know, section 4.20.160 allows the central committee--in this case the Democrat Central Committee--to fill the vacancy with WHICHEVER CANDIDATE THEY PICK.
Here's the email from the chairman of the Democrat Central Committee:
Dear ADCC Members and Friends,
Zina has withdrawn her candidacy after the revelations of her legal
problems. We in no way urged her to do so and left it to her judgment. We feel
sad for her and all her supporters.This puts a great deal of importance on
the ADCC, that by city code is charged to name a successor by October 2. ADCC is
under no City Charter/Code restraints in our choice and we then must establish
the procedures for our choice.
We will have to meet shortly. Our meeting for September 23 is still on.
Let me know if these dates are available to the elected members: Sept. 24, 25,
26, 28, and 29. In the meantime, consult with Democrats in your wards, our
elected officials, and your own thoughts.
Still, Victory in ‘09!
Nick
The statement that "we in no way urged" Zina is of course believed by everyone to be fucking bullshit. I'm sorry to cuss but it's such an arrogant attitude that one is left with no other articulation of one's feelings.
The email chatter has been off the charts on this issue, so I'll pass that along to you. In addition to the email chatter, I've had several verbal conversations about what's happening. My promise to you, the blog reader, is that I will plagiarize equally the thoughts I heard from emails and those from phone conversations.
I enjoy email chatter, because it tends to offer the most cynical and far-fetched explanations of any given event. And as we learned at the beginning of this post, that makes it correct. Even the most amateur politico could follow the storyline. The "chosen candidate", Josh Cohen, gets in the race because he has the backing of the machine and thinks he can win with their money and influence. The "machine" is defined as Mike Busch, John Astle, Ellen Moyer, and the Democrat Central Committee. The machine got Sam Shropshire elected in this manner, and they're at it again.
I guarantee this info about Zina is not new. The machine likely dug it up when Zina jumped in the race, but sat on it in hopes that Josh would win straight up and they wouldn't have to use it. When Zina won, they sprung into action--and they worked quickly because they knew the code says Zina would have to resign within 10 days of winning the primary. I mean, think about it....Zina knows politics. She worked for Bill Clinton, and runs a lobbying firm. She had enough expertise to beat Cohen--despite his machine backing; and to beat Trudy McFall--who ran a perfect campaign for 2 years. You mean to tell me that one setback would be enough to convince her to drop out of the race for personal reasons?? Shenanigans!! I call shenanigans! The legal problems seem to deal with economic circumstances. So Zina is facing economic hardship...just like half of freeking Annapolis! A clever candidate could spin that in their favor...not bow out of the race.
You know what else is interesting?? People always talk about "ending the partisanship"...the bickering between Republicans and Democrats. But this wasn't the Republicans sticking it to the Democrats--this was Democrat skulduggery all the way!! "Incest Partisanship" is what I call it--don't be surprised if that term catches on. Heck, the Republican candidate hasn't done anything political in, like...8 years! It's not enough for the machine to retain power for their party; they have to retain power for their lineage.
Now, as far as I know, Josh has not yet been officially selected as the replacement for Zina. I know Josh on a quasi-personal level, and I will say that he's been pleasant on the few occasions we've ordered beers from the same bartender. He's commented on this blog before, and is more than welcome to offer an explanation. But this whole thing reeks of a sinister plan executed as designed.
Edit: After posting this, I spoke with someone who I consider to be reliable and knowledgeable, and that person swears the machine had no prior knowledge of these issues. It's hard to believe but I guess it's plausible. Could it possibly not be Cohen that is chosen by the central committee?
There is still much to consider. First, as the first commenter says, what a failure of journalism. If the Capital spent as much time researching their candidate profiles as they do the Home of The Week, we would have known about Zina's problems long ago.
...which brings me to another point--Zina deserves blame. The charges against her, if intentional, represent characteristics we don't want in a mayor. There were questions--including on this blog--about Zina's candidacy when she entered the race. And for every question answered, we have 3 new ones in its place.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Mayoral Debate Last Night
Paul Foer hosted a debate for Mayoral candidates last night, and you know the rule--when more than 1 candidate is in the same place, we write about it! Paul, realizing that writing about his own debate would constitute "100% bullshit", asked me to write a bit about the event. In return, I promised to keep the BS level to between 20%-44%.
All of the candidates were repeatedly invited. Six of the nine attended: Cohen, Fox, McFall, Pierre, Renaut, and Shropshire. Don't know where Cordle was. Don't know where Sears-Deppa was. Word is that Wayne Taylor was hosting his own meet and greet somewhere.
The debate was much more moderated than the recent HACA forum. Paul asked questions, either of his choice or submitted by the audience, and would interrupt candidates if they answered something that was not the question, or if they exceeded their time, or if they were "grandstanding". (Josh Cohen requested permission to grandstand, to which Paul replied "don't you always?"). The candidates were all able to practice avoiding a question when an audience member asked what they knew about "corporate memory" and "city employee hiring practices". Now, I switched from the business school to the behavioral & social sciences school halfway through college, but I have never heard of 'corporate memory'. The person who asked that question must have been some kind of consultant.
I thought the debate went well, with the first half focusing on general things, and the second half focusing on transportation. The candidates reaffirmed their positions on the city manager, and the budget woes. Regarding transportation, the general agreement was that the bus system, ADA compliance, sidewalk usability, and overall management of transportation was laughable. One could argue that Paul interjected a bit more of his own philosophy than was appropriate. One could more successfully argue that Paul has been building credibility on a wide variety of issues, and mentioned those issues to spur debate. One could most successfully argue that a bit of interjection made the debate entertaining, which is a requirement when listening to 6 people talk about the same thing for 2 hours.
Here's what I thought about the candidates' performances:
Josh Cohen:
Josh was characteristically somber and well informed on the issues. Perhaps in a reflection of his personality, he suggested that the reason the city and county haven't been able to get along is that the city has failed to approach the county in a position of humility.
Best Moment: Candidates were asked to distinguish themselves from the candidate sitting to their right, an apparent attempt to get them to attack each other. Josh was sitting at the end of the table, with nobody to his right, and Shropshire was sitting at the other end of the table. Josh got up and said "Sorry Sam, but you are not to my right". Get it? More liberal? Political humor!
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Development, Spending, Attitude.
Chris Fox:
Chris is looking more and more comfortable as he participates in more events. He hasn't had as much experience in political-type events, which actually benefits him at these events because he hasn't had experience lying to the public or failing to answer questions. He stuck to the platform he has been developing: let's save money wherever possible, let's bring professional city management, let's bring common sense to government: such as equipping buses with air conditioning.
Best Moment: When asked how he is different from the other candidates, he looked at the other candidates, smiled, and said "I'm the only one here who's guaranteed to be on the general election ballot". The audience laughed, as did the other candidates--certainly a nervous laughter that reminded them of their tough fight ahead.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Common Sense Decisions.
Trudy McFall:
In 11th grade speech class, we could win our debates either on content or on "speaker points". I think Trudy did really well on speaker points. She smiled a lot, was engaging, and communicated her vision reasonably well. She made it a point to emphasize 2 things: her attendance and involvement in even the most laborious city meetings, and her experience running both public and private organizations.
Best Moment: "I started my business like most small businesses start--sitting with my co-founder at a desk in a small room with my entire life on the line, determined to make it work".
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Experience Running Organizations.
Zina Pierre:
Zina does well at these events and this was no exception. She doesn't support the city manager, but made efforts to reassure voters that accountability would be maintained under her administration. She seems to keep locals in mind, making sure to oppose the idea of moving a city ladder truck nearer to Parole, saying that seniors in a nearby 6-story high-rise would be put in greater danger.
Best Moment: When talking about transportation, Zina went on a bit of a tangent. Paul interrupted her, reminding her that the question was about her experience with the bus system. 'Our bus system sucks' was her response, and then she sat down, realizing that no further elaboration was needed.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Reform, Revitalization, Reinvestment.
Gil Renaut:
Gil's style is what I envision my style would be were I to run for office. He answers the questions without a lot of flash or puff, and is able to convey vast knowledge of the issues and vast sense in approaching problems. He does well to position himself as a Democrat candidate somewhat unique from the other candidates, perhaps more conservative than his primary election opponents.
Best Moment: When talking about the city manager, Cohen said there would always be politics in local government, to which Gil responded 'I think we can take the politics out of potholes'.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Bring People Together.
Sam Shropshire:
Sam was certainly the most grandiose of the candidates, offering passionate and typically idealistic justifications for his policies. In some instances he seemed to stick to his rehearsed views on general topics rather than address the specific questions, even when abruptly interrupted by Paul for doing just that.
Best Moment: An audience member asked about the Market House, saying 'how did this happen? It wasn't just the mayor...the council voted on it', to which Sam replied 'yes, there were 7 or 9 votes for Site Realty, but we were 7 or 9 unprofessionals and we didn't know what we were doing'.
All of the candidates were repeatedly invited. Six of the nine attended: Cohen, Fox, McFall, Pierre, Renaut, and Shropshire. Don't know where Cordle was. Don't know where Sears-Deppa was. Word is that Wayne Taylor was hosting his own meet and greet somewhere.
The debate was much more moderated than the recent HACA forum. Paul asked questions, either of his choice or submitted by the audience, and would interrupt candidates if they answered something that was not the question, or if they exceeded their time, or if they were "grandstanding". (Josh Cohen requested permission to grandstand, to which Paul replied "don't you always?"). The candidates were all able to practice avoiding a question when an audience member asked what they knew about "corporate memory" and "city employee hiring practices". Now, I switched from the business school to the behavioral & social sciences school halfway through college, but I have never heard of 'corporate memory'. The person who asked that question must have been some kind of consultant.
I thought the debate went well, with the first half focusing on general things, and the second half focusing on transportation. The candidates reaffirmed their positions on the city manager, and the budget woes. Regarding transportation, the general agreement was that the bus system, ADA compliance, sidewalk usability, and overall management of transportation was laughable. One could argue that Paul interjected a bit more of his own philosophy than was appropriate. One could more successfully argue that Paul has been building credibility on a wide variety of issues, and mentioned those issues to spur debate. One could most successfully argue that a bit of interjection made the debate entertaining, which is a requirement when listening to 6 people talk about the same thing for 2 hours.
Here's what I thought about the candidates' performances:
Josh Cohen:
Josh was characteristically somber and well informed on the issues. Perhaps in a reflection of his personality, he suggested that the reason the city and county haven't been able to get along is that the city has failed to approach the county in a position of humility.
Best Moment: Candidates were asked to distinguish themselves from the candidate sitting to their right, an apparent attempt to get them to attack each other. Josh was sitting at the end of the table, with nobody to his right, and Shropshire was sitting at the other end of the table. Josh got up and said "Sorry Sam, but you are not to my right". Get it? More liberal? Political humor!
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Development, Spending, Attitude.
Chris Fox:
Chris is looking more and more comfortable as he participates in more events. He hasn't had as much experience in political-type events, which actually benefits him at these events because he hasn't had experience lying to the public or failing to answer questions. He stuck to the platform he has been developing: let's save money wherever possible, let's bring professional city management, let's bring common sense to government: such as equipping buses with air conditioning.
Best Moment: When asked how he is different from the other candidates, he looked at the other candidates, smiled, and said "I'm the only one here who's guaranteed to be on the general election ballot". The audience laughed, as did the other candidates--certainly a nervous laughter that reminded them of their tough fight ahead.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Common Sense Decisions.
Trudy McFall:
In 11th grade speech class, we could win our debates either on content or on "speaker points". I think Trudy did really well on speaker points. She smiled a lot, was engaging, and communicated her vision reasonably well. She made it a point to emphasize 2 things: her attendance and involvement in even the most laborious city meetings, and her experience running both public and private organizations.
Best Moment: "I started my business like most small businesses start--sitting with my co-founder at a desk in a small room with my entire life on the line, determined to make it work".
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Experience Running Organizations.
Zina Pierre:
Zina does well at these events and this was no exception. She doesn't support the city manager, but made efforts to reassure voters that accountability would be maintained under her administration. She seems to keep locals in mind, making sure to oppose the idea of moving a city ladder truck nearer to Parole, saying that seniors in a nearby 6-story high-rise would be put in greater danger.
Best Moment: When talking about transportation, Zina went on a bit of a tangent. Paul interrupted her, reminding her that the question was about her experience with the bus system. 'Our bus system sucks' was her response, and then she sat down, realizing that no further elaboration was needed.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Reform, Revitalization, Reinvestment.
Gil Renaut:
Gil's style is what I envision my style would be were I to run for office. He answers the questions without a lot of flash or puff, and is able to convey vast knowledge of the issues and vast sense in approaching problems. He does well to position himself as a Democrat candidate somewhat unique from the other candidates, perhaps more conservative than his primary election opponents.
Best Moment: When talking about the city manager, Cohen said there would always be politics in local government, to which Gil responded 'I think we can take the politics out of potholes'.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: Bring People Together.
Sam Shropshire:
Sam was certainly the most grandiose of the candidates, offering passionate and typically idealistic justifications for his policies. In some instances he seemed to stick to his rehearsed views on general topics rather than address the specific questions, even when abruptly interrupted by Paul for doing just that.
Best Moment: An audience member asked about the Market House, saying 'how did this happen? It wasn't just the mayor...the council voted on it', to which Sam replied 'yes, there were 7 or 9 votes for Site Realty, but we were 7 or 9 unprofessionals and we didn't know what we were doing'.
Three Word Summary of Closing Statement: No Tax Cap.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Zina Pierre
So, someone asked in my "Who will run for mayor" post if Zina Pierre was going to run, and at the time I didn't know who she was. I still don't, but apparently I should. 
So who is she? The short answer is an Annapolis native who has been active in politics, including at the federal level, for quite some time. She seems to be a Democrat super-lobbyist and career political operative. For the long answer, you can look HERE, to the extent that it's true.
Let's talk about some of the more interesting politics. A look at her report shows a lot of large donations, amounts large enough to disqualify her from eligibility in an aldermanic race, which suggests a Democrat candidacy for mayor.
There is a residency concern. In previous campaign reports, her address has been identified as 1915 WOODSHADE CT, Mitchellville MD. She now shows an address within the city (at 1901 West); however, the charter stipulates that a mayor must show voter registration in the city for 2 years prior to the date of the general election. There are other discrepancies. Notably, Ms. Pierre's campaign committee owes her $5000 for consulting fees. It is ok to pay yourself back a loan, but it's not ok to be a paid employee of your own campaign.
Today's rumor mill involves the office sought. The amount of money would say Mayor, but hold the phone. Zina Pierre lives in Ward 3, home of the soon-to-retire* Alderman Hoyle. Rumor has it that the Democrats are trying to convince Zina to run for Alderman to hold that seat. The experience is there, and the money probably will be there, plus the residency requirement for an alderman is more lenient.
(*if you believe the hype)
At least now we know something.
Zina has been raising money, and has been getting involved--at least in Democrat circles. Her campaign finance report shows her as having raised over $26,000 since September--a substantial amount for this point in time--and the Democrat Central Committee report shows her as buying tickets to a couple of events. However, her disbursements and obligations are amazingly high, and she actually owes like $5000 more than she actually has.
So who is she? The short answer is an Annapolis native who has been active in politics, including at the federal level, for quite some time. She seems to be a Democrat super-lobbyist and career political operative. For the long answer, you can look HERE, to the extent that it's true.
Let's talk about some of the more interesting politics. A look at her report shows a lot of large donations, amounts large enough to disqualify her from eligibility in an aldermanic race, which suggests a Democrat candidacy for mayor.
There is a residency concern. In previous campaign reports, her address has been identified as 1915 WOODSHADE CT, Mitchellville MD. She now shows an address within the city (at 1901 West); however, the charter stipulates that a mayor must show voter registration in the city for 2 years prior to the date of the general election. There are other discrepancies. Notably, Ms. Pierre's campaign committee owes her $5000 for consulting fees. It is ok to pay yourself back a loan, but it's not ok to be a paid employee of your own campaign.
(EDIT: A commenter pointed out that the $5000 probably IS to pay herself back for a loan, which is within the law.)
Today's rumor mill involves the office sought. The amount of money would say Mayor, but hold the phone. Zina Pierre lives in Ward 3, home of the soon-to-retire* Alderman Hoyle. Rumor has it that the Democrats are trying to convince Zina to run for Alderman to hold that seat. The experience is there, and the money probably will be there, plus the residency requirement for an alderman is more lenient.
(*if you believe the hype)
At least now we know something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)