Things are getting a bit snippy in the Council race, John Yellig writes in today’s Daily Progress. Republican candidate Rob Schilling is upset and on the defensive, accusing Democratic candidates Dave Norris and Julian Taliaferro of attacking him and claiming their campaign mailings and automated phone messages are a violation of campaign finance law, while disagreeing with their portrayal of him as an absentee councilor in their radio ads. (You can hear the ads on Jim Duncan’s blog and make up your own mind.)
The central point of contention is Schilling’s approach to the budget: he’s voted against every annual budget during his term on Council, demanding reduced spending, but never proposed any service cuts. He uses this position to claim credit both for popular services and for lower taxes; he’s trying to have his cake and eat it, too. The Democrats’ assertion that his votes against the budget are votes against funding all city services — schools, public safety, etc. — is no less logical than Schilling’s claim. When a congressman votes against funding the War in Iraq, isn’t he failing to support the troops? So what do we call it when a city councilor votes against funding the police?
Yellig’s got details about the rest of the points of contention in his article. The good news is that there’s only another 48 hours of this to go.