Thursday, September 15, 2005

Beginner mistakes

Cherelle Parker, still basking in her landslide win in the 8th Congressional District special election Tuesday (see here), is now being accused of violating election law with totally needless pandering to election workers. More likely an appearance than a reality of impropriety, but if the D.A. gets involved, that distinction ceases to matter. Whoops!

4 Comments:

Blogger Neighborhood Civic PAC said...

way to pass this off as a beginner mistake. Ms parker has been in polits since she was 17. With 15 years of experience under her belt, she knew what she was doing. She didnt have to cheat because she would have won anyway. It is a disgrace.

11:46 AM  
Blogger ACM said...

Well, she can't have been doing *too* much before she was even voting age, and my understanding is that she's a relative newcomer to electoral politics herself, however much she may have been doing for other folks. But perhaps I mistook early days of forging a strong political identity for nonexistent inexperience -- I certainly don't know much about her, since that's not my district. Working economic development for a City Councilwoman (as here) doesn't sound like the grounds for great political savvy on a larger scale (although she's also been a ward committee member).

Certainly if she was going to win anyway, that would make poorly considered over-friendliness seem more likely and craven maneouvering less so, was, I guess, my feeling. You might note that my headers are a bit loose anyway, so hardly worth getting het about...

11:59 AM  
Blogger ACM said...

actually, "beginner mistake" is the sort of thing that one would say dismissively. as in, "I'd think that Bob Brady was smarter than that; this looks like a beginner mistake to me." so I think it fits either way.

12:02 PM  
Blogger Rep. Mark B. Cohen said...

Cherelle Parker did not make a beginner mistake. The watcher's certificate she had obtained made it absolutely and unequivocally legal for her to enter the polling places she did.

After putting out the press release, Committee of Seventy CEO Zach Stalberg both discovered the existence of the watcher's certificate and agreed with me, in a telephone conversation, that there is no legal authority anywhere for the proposition that buying lunch for election workers violates state election law.

Stalberg promised me that a retraction from the Committee of Seventy would soon be issued.

Stalberg should not have made these charges without having done the necessary research in advance, without having a lawyer willing to sign his name to the conclusion that there had been illegal action, and without Stalberg's being willing to be quoted by name on the charges. The Inquirer should not have printed the charges under the circumstances it did. Hopefully, both Stalberg and the Inquirer have learned a valuable lesson here.

9:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home