Fogarty Kicks off Dem Mayoral Campaign

Cindy Fogarty sent out the following announcement:

As you may be aware, I have recently announced that I am seeking the Democrat Nomination for Mayor of Cranston. The present mayor has determined that he is unable to seek a second term. After discussions and decisions throughout the Democrat Party, I was unanimously endorsed at the City Committee meeting last week.

In order to make an official announcement and kick off the campaign season, a press conference is going to be held on Tuesday, July 1 at 4 pm, outside Cranston City Hall.

All of the Democrat slate of candidates will be on hand to begin the discussion of issues important to all of us in Cranston.

I would be grateful if you could take a few moments from your day on Tuesday to join me in this announcement.

For those who are on Facebook, there is a Cindy Fogarty for Mayor group that you can join in order to show your support. This is a fun, easy way to rally for Cindy and also see who else is supporting her. If you are not on Facebook, now might be a good time to join. It only takes a minute to sign up and you will likely find many learning and networking opportunities as you surf around this growing “social utility.”

9 thoughts on “Fogarty Kicks off Dem Mayoral Campaign

  1. With apologies, and conceding that it’s an admittedly small point: Isn’t it the “Democratic” party?

    On a more serious note, while there may be a certain charm to the “run-from-the-kitchen-table” campaign, I don’t see much chance of success in the midst of the fiscal issues faced by the city, not to mention against a better-organized and -funded Republican candidate.

    As we’ve discussed here at length, fundraising is going to be a key factor in the race. I don’t see donors flocking to a campaign that doesn’t even use the proper name for the party and schedules a press conference instead of a big kick-off event. As bad of a cliche as it may be, you have to spend money to make money.

  2. Jesse,
    The race is not always won by those with the deepest pockets, ask Mitt Romney, or Ross Perot. The war is not always won by the seemingly better organized and more established combatant: see American Revolution; Afghan resistance against both Great Britain and the Soviet Union; the failure that was the aborted Bay of Pigs invasion; Vietnam; SCOS vs Churchill & Banks…In the above mentioned conflicts there is a common thread—-ideals,ideas, and principles. The fact that I do not subscribe to the views held by the Cubans or the Viet Cong does not matter–they fought for what THEY believed in. I believe, we, as a fiscally strapped municipality, are fortunate to have two candidates running for our city’s top office who will strive for and attain a sense fiscal stability for our city if elected. I will be supporting Cindy Fogarty during the upcoming campaign, and if your are the true “democrat” that I think you are, you will too. No one can discount the importance of fundraising to a campaign, but
    visibility can play just as important a role. Most campaigns in the City of Cranston need not spend money on TV/Radio ads,and there is only one truly local paper…lawn signs??? aren’t that expensive. But there are plenty of opportunities for candidates to get their message across—festivals, feasts, flyer drops, football games— and I trust there will be at least a few debates. Maybe I’m naive, but funding may not be the be-all, end-all in this campaign—it may come down core “democratic” values vs. established “republican” values; putting the many before the few, living with and accepting previously agreed upon contracts–yes a contract is a contract Steve; respecting and not fearing the collective bargaining process, and funding our future by properly funding our schools.

  3. Richard,

    While I share your optimism that campaign costs can be reduced through “free” events, media, etc., the fact remains that the higher up on the political ladder one climbs the more money it takes to be competitive. You’re right when you say that money doesn’t guarantee success, but the lack of adequate funding is as near a guarantee for failure as you’ll likely to get.

    In the end, irrespective of democratic core values, campaigns are really about one thing – getting your message into the hands (and minds) of as many voters as possible. To do that, a candidate needs to rely on actively and aggressively personally campaigning (door to door, senior housing, etc.)and mailings. On a city-wide level, this can be quite expensive when you calculate multiple mailings. The actual cost of mailing, let alone the cost of producing the mailer, can be even at bulk rates a budget killer.

    Then there’s the GOTV project – identifying voters in your corner and getting them to the polls. That’s multiple phone lines and that can get expensive. Clearly some volunteers will be happy to offer minutes on their cell phones, but the enormity of the project leading up to, let alone on election day is daunting.

    Any campaign for an office like this ought to at least have one (and preferably more) poll. The least important result of an initial poll w/b Fung = x% and Fogarty = y%, except that it w/b instructive to learn how the numbers moved with Napolitano out of the race and Fogarty in. More important is learning what issues are on voters’ minds. For example there’s been a lot of conversation on this blog about education but does that issue resonate with average voters as it does with Kmareka nation? If so, is it contract, budget or services? That’s key to know b/c if the candidate is talking about contract and voters are focused on services, there won’t be a great deal of campaign communication taking place. A good poll, and its use as a tool, won’t influence a candidate to take a position that s/he doesn’t believe, but can be used to direct a candidate to talk about what’s on people’s minds. There’s a difference between the two. A good poll (and its subsequent polls) is a good tool. Good tools cost money.

    Allan Fung is probably going to raise a fair amount of dollars as he did in ’06. That will give him access to all the tools for a first-class campaign. Add to that, at this point he’s probably better known than Cindy having run two years ago and narrowly losing that race. And as you suggest, people think well of both candidates. Fung began his campaign earlier than Fogarty. She’ll need a lot of resources to close the gap. While I don’t at this point subscribe to the notion that this race is Fung’s to lose (I’ve seen too much to come to that conclusion five months out), I do think Cindy will need a great deal of resources to compete for the office.

    Which is why we – at all levels – need campaign finance reform. Now if someone wants to talk about that…

  4. Richard:

    Apologies for repeating an earlier point I made on another thread, but I don’t think local Dems are simply going to vote for Fogarty because she’s the Dem candidate. I had argued that in 06, Nap didn’t get the unanimous support of Cranston Dem voters and that, just by looking at the vote tally, Fung had to take at least a few Dem votes. I think he’ll do it again this year.

    As for me, I plan to watch the race and decide on my vote later.

    Now, to your reply directly: If Fogarty were better known and had the kind of visibility we’re talking about, then yes, this campaign could rest on the values discussion. The truth is, though, that she still needs to build name recognition. At the very least, she needs to know where she stands — as Geoff rightly suggested, through polling. That’s easily $20,000-plus. Then, she can build a strategy of how to boost the name recognition and positives — again, that takes money to gather the right people, pay for the right mailers, purchase those lawns signs (they’re not that cheap), and host events that get the headlines in the ProJo.

    And while I don’t totally disagree with Geoff’s assertion about the need for campaign finance reform, I’d only suggest that in most cases, this term is used to mean either “make campaigns cheaper to run,” or “find somewhere else to get the money other than donors.”

    For the first way to work, you’d have to ask the sign makers, campaign pollsters, and function halls to accept less money for their services. They’re not going to do it for free.

    For the second way to work, you’d have to ensure that the mechanism created keeps up with inflation. We’ve seen on the federal level that the national fund just won’t keep up with the costs — $80 million is a pittance, relatively speaking, for a presidential campaign.

  5. Jesse,

    Relative to campaign finance reform, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. As I would envision it, any meaningful campaign finance reform would need to combine public financing for candidates (who meet a minimal standard to qualify) and some tax incentives for vendors to off-set any financial losses associated with providing goods and services for candidates. As for federally licensed entities, it could become a condition of their renewed license to provide “x” number of hours of free time for candidates to bring their messages to voters. (This free time would need to be during hours that people actually watch/listen to broadcast media)

    Now, those are the broad-strokes in a nutshell (and we can discuss the Zen of having broad strokes in a nutshell). That said, the problems are nearly insurmountable. Most of this is legal thanks to those whiz-bang jurists on the Supreme Court, the latest example being last week’s decision Davis v. FEC. Currently, the state (broadly speaking) can limit the amount of dollars from any one source, with different sources having different limits. The Supremes held that such limits were legal b/c of the state’s compelling state interest to take corruption out of the political process (were it only that easy!). However, the court has consistently held that there can be no limits on the amount of money that a candidate can spend as it bumps up against first amendment rights. Now of course nothing is absolute, and one might think that the state would have a compelling interest in fair, open and competitive elections to preserve our democracy. Not so say the Supremes.

    Now, taking that one step further, at the state levels (e.g. Maine and Arizona) all participation in public financing schemes is voluntary. One can opt in or opt out. In order not to penalize the candidate opting in, these schemes have a provision that if the opt in candidate runs against an opt out candidate, and the opt outer raises and spends all kinds of dough in his/her election, then the opt in candidate will get more money to equalize the competitive relationship. But now we have the Davis decision that, among other things, stands for the proposition that in some circumstances aiding the opt in guy would infringe, if not penalize, the opt out guy’s first amendment rights! Put another way, I have a constitutionally protected right to politically drown you out, but you have no first amendment right to be heard over my din if you rely on public financing. I’m thinking Huxley here, if not Kafka.

    I could go on, but the “logic” in most of this stuff is giving me a headache.

  6. Hey Richard,

    This is actually pretty funny:
    “putting the many before the few, living with and accepting previously agreed upon contracts–yes a contract is a contract Steve; respecting and not fearing the collective bargaining process, and funding our future by properly funding our schools.”

    It sounds like you are in a union here in Cranston. It also sounds like you’re a total hypocrite.
    Please rationalize the “putting the many before the few” with the contract part. As in, stupid idiotic contracts that benefit the few to the detriment of the many?

    Can’t you think two sentences ahead? You have to be in a union.

  7. Bryan,
    I am quite impressed that you managed to get through a single post without the use of questionable language… Now if you really try, perhaps you can get through a single post without sounding uneducated, maybe next time?
    Let me pose these questions directly to you Bryan: 1) If your home was to catch fire or a relative of yours was severely injured and required emergency treatment, would you still complain about the firemen’s contract? 2) If that same home was broken into and your valuable possessions stolen and then later recovered by the police department or, God forbid, a close relative of yours was assaulted and the attack was thwarted by a police officer and the assailant arrested, would you still balk at the police contract? 3) When your son or daughter graduates from West or East and is then accepted into a college or university, will you continue to complain about the teacher’s contract? If you own your own home, if you own an automobile, you will pay thousands of dollars every single year in insurance—to protect your property, in case of an accident…is your life and the lives of those you love worth less than your property? Our policemen, firemen, and teachers provide invaluable services to our city’s residents, both my family and yours Bryan.
    Part II: “A contract is a contract”… Suppose your mortgage company decided to raise the interest rate on your mortgage by 5%, would the first words out of your mouth be “wait a minute, I signed a contract locking my rate at 5.75% for 30 years”? I know those would be the first words out of my mouth.
    In closing, yes I am a union member, but I am employed by the federal government, not the City of Cranston. You are certainly entitled to point of view as uninformed as it may be.

  8. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Richard,
    Get out the violin. The fact is that to get on the various departments you mentioned people lie, cheat and steal to get those jobs. Why might that be?? So don’t tell me how lucky I am when someone does the job they are paid to do. What a stupid union loser attittude that is.
    Do you ever ask yourself why you need a union? Let’s face it, if anyone is worth their salt, they don’t need a union. And don’t give me that lame excuse that someone could just come in and fire you for no reason. That happens all the time in the private sector. But guess what, if that happens to you and you are good at your job, you’ll have no problem getting another job. Richard, it happens ALL THE TIME! Unless, of course, you are afraid of having to get another job, because you know you are not worth what you are getting paid. That is the truth about unions, Richard. It’s now down to, what, 10% of the work force that is unionized, so 90% of the people out there are fending for themselves, earning an honest living. It’s those like you who know deep down inside know that you are scamming us, you are overpaid, and you’ll never get another job if you were fired. People like you clinging to the past. All in all, Richard, unions are for losers. Happy 4th of July!

  9. Bryan,
    We have gotten off this thread’s topic and I for one apologize for that. I took your bait and ran with, so it is my fault. Geoff and Jesse offered opinions that were contrary to my own and backed up their statements with figures and cost analysis stats that I am not prepared to argue with at this time. Bryan, I am sure that there will be many other threads and topics for us to disagree on since our views tend to run in totally different directions—-we can joust then.

Comments are closed.