My point with using the term “by default” was a reference to the fact that five other potential Dem mayoral candidates backed out of the race. As you suggest, Fung earned his position as unrivaled GOP nominee — my counterpoint to that is, Fogarty got the nomination only after everyone else gave up. I don’t think her loss to Nap in the 06 primary exactly scared anyone away from a potential campaign against her this year.

No, the reasons for the other defections were external — poor name recognition, strength in Fung’s poll numbers, lack of fundraising potential, distaste for the job the next Mayor will be expected to do (i.e., raise taxes and fight lawsuits against the school department).

Bottom line, this is a poor showing for both parties — they’re pitting the two losers from the last campaign against each other for this race. Not something I’d be proud of, to say the least.

As for using the term “kick off,” I refer you to the headline to this thread.

link to story

Then click on “Domestic Bank being investigated by federal authorities” in WPRI’s web site

I didn’t read your post as “an early sign of defeat.” In fact, I think you may be overly optimistic.

This is a point I’ve offered on a previous thread, and I’d appreciate your insight:

In the 2006 race, Mike Napolitano won by fewer than 100 votes out of 32,000 in what was termed a Dem “tidal wave.” That result tells me that many Democratic voters went for Fung — and, I believe, they will do it again this year. I don’t mean to misconstrue what you’re saying, but if you’re counting on 16,000 automatic Dem votes (or any number, for that matter), I’m afraid you’ll be sorely disappointed.

This is also part of the basis for my stance that the Fogarty campaign has to do a better job if it’s going to have a chance.

Nap had the money, the staff, the events, etc. and couldn’t pull off a major victory. Fung has had 2 more years in the press criticizing Nap, he has campaign money to burn, already has an office open on Reservoir Avenue (very cleverly along Fogarty’s route to work), and has probably paid for a poll or two. If Fogarty can’t at least reach the level of Nap’s campaign — and quickly — she won’t have a shot.

(By the way, is it 2 l’s or 1? You’ve spelled your name both ways and I want to post it correctly.)

GCF:

I don’t think my judgment is “clouded” by anything other than informed observation. Still, maybe you’d like to take a shot at arguing that 1.) getting the nomination by default and 2.) kicking off a campaign with a poorly-attended speech that was virtually ignored are good signs for a campaign.

And sorry I confused you by using quotation marks, but I’m certain it was a correct usage.

Just an observation, but in the past you made it clear that you don’t think highly of Cindy Fogarty. Make sure that opinion of her doesn’t cloud your judgment regarding her ability. And if you paraphrase, you may want to omit the quotation marks.

To Jesse; please dont consider my tone as an early sign of defeat, I am very sure we have a excellent and fair chance of electing the first female mayor of cranston. “we” being the democratic voters of course.

Now, Fogarty’s campaign kick off was on Tuesday at 4:00. So, even assuming that all went according to plan (e.g. snail mail invites, etc.) and a crowd of thousands appeared in front of city hall at the appointed hour, the event still wouldn’t have appeared in last week’s Herald. I haven’t seen this week’s edition so I don’t know if it made it in the paper.

For the sake of accuracy, I was at the kick-off, but went independent of the Herald. As for giving Cindy a “fair shake” I fully expect that she’ll receive one at least from the Herald. That, of course, doesn’t translate into a “free ride” but I’m sure it will be fair. As for our friends at the projo, historically that fine institution has had at best a spotty performance record of covering local political events. More often than not, the projo doesn’t even publish campaign press releases (which sometimes are newsworthy) let alone show up at “events”. As someone who’s been through this before, my advice is to just get used to it. It’s not you – it’s them.

While I appreciate your reply and wish you luck in your campaign, I’d simply say that if you’re already apologizing for Mrs. Fogarty’s campaign, it’s not a good sign.

The tone and management of a campaign are key qualities to predicting how a candidate would manage the office they’re seeking. What does it say when a campaign can’t get an invite in the mail in time to get a bigger crowd at its first major event?

As for the idea of a “fair shake,” consider this: Mrs. Fogarty is running for Mayor of Cranston. It’s not the White House, certainly, but in our neck of the woods, it’s a big deal. In a sense, the fair shake must be earned — a candidate can’t expect press coverage or donations, not to mention votes, just by getting his or her name on the ballot.

I still see no evidence that Mrs. Fogarty will be able to run the kind of organized citywide campaign that will beat Fung in the fall. Her next steps — getting into a campaign HQ (Mike Sepe is negotiating for Nap’s former digs on Park Avenue, I hear tell — but where’s the money going to come from?), hiring a manager for the campaign (someone who has actually done it before, preferably), and organizing a real, formal kickoff event — will have to be much better organized than this announcement if she expects to have even a remote chance in this race.

I’m paraphrasing, not making a direct quote.

Let me explain: She mentions the administration calling in a police officer. The officer had the power to arrest her if she had not left the meeting.

The main point is, I don’t see why she’s bringing up the issue at all. Not a very inspiring story, to me. Going to a contract negotiation in spite of the mayor, only to back down?

That’s what I meant by a “rallying cry” that would not be enough to gain supporters.