After Deadline: Convince me of something - that Monteith was an underdog

I would venture to say Janice had in the neighborhood of $300,000+- in funding, not to mention the backing of most individuals. Dick didn't have the signs, the money, the backing that Janice did. That's why I thought he was the underdog. 

But for whatever reason, people saw through the campaign. Monteith was a low-key senator who couldn't get much accomplished in a Democratic-led legislature in Sacramento. 

Adam, I remember seeing the campaign mailers issued by Janice -- I got at least 2-3 of them here at McHenry/Union almost ad nauseum. They looked cheesy and unreal. Something about our community, our values. And for whatever reason, it backfired.

I think Keating's total was closer to $200K, but Monteith had enough strengths to at least be considered on par with Keating if not the favorite. I do remember the mailings, though.

You think it's more of a bad campaign, then?

I don't think you could call either of those candidates an underdog at that point.  I remember thinking Keating was foolish to go up against Monteith at the time.

and Monteith isn't considered the underdog? Monteith had already been termed out by 2002. He had name recognition. I'd call it an even wash, but remember, too, Adam: Monteith had a reputation for being a nice guy even if he didn't get much done legislatively in eight years in the state Senate. 

Meanwhile, Janice at the time could have been considered an up-and-comer. She was in her late 30s, had tons of financial support and endorsements from a bevy of people... I'd consider that pretty formidable. 

I really can't remember if Monteith was really much of an underdog given his history at the State Legislature.  Overall, I think his experience may have won him the seat on the County Supervisors.  Beyond being a Council Member, Keating has no political experience. 

And, quite frankly, I think there are many people who are turned off by Keating's attitude.  I've spoken with her a couple of times, and have seen a fair share of Council Meetings where her attitude just really turns me away.  She has a knack for talking down to people (intentionally or unintentionally it's hard to tell), not just Staff.  It's to the point where she is downright disrespectful to folks are considered experts in their field, and she talks as if she really understands what is going. 

Sort of rant on my part, but that is where I think Keating went wrong.  Her lack of experience and attitude.

With two wins for the state Senate, Monteith was a better known candidate than anyone on the City Council, except maybe the mayor. What's the value of name recognition? And maybe he didn't get much accomplished, but he was a well-liked man.

Janice is a tough cookie make no mistake about it. Maybe it was her but I just saw right through it. I felt like Monteith, even if he didn't have the endorsement of the movers and shakers of Stan County, was more of an approachable, less harmful representative. He's like Cogdill in a sense - whether you're a Repub or Dem, you tend to respect the guy because he seems like a common sense individual who wasn't going to be a pawn of the special interests. 

I think it was more Monteith's affable nature and affinity for being a gentleman that resonated with voters. Perhaps voters that year went for the less controversial, more experienced candidate than a fiery up-and-comer. I wouldn't want to cross Janice for sure (never have talked to her but just based on what people say), but Monteith seems like the kind of guy you'd want as your next door neighbor or as a grandfatherly figure for your kids to hang out with. 

Well put.  She sabotaged her own career.  She definetly had a chance at one time to further if she could have acted with a little more humility.

I saw right through Keating's attitude as well.  It's really not that hard. 

Here is what broke it for me, and this happened well after the Supervisor race.  Not sure if you guys are familiar with AB32 (Climate Change) that was signed into law by the Governator in 2007 (I think).  Earlier this year Keating held what I thought was a Workshop talking about AB32, and how local business can comply with the new legislation.  Now mind you, AB32 had been State Law for over a year when this workshop was held.

Instead of providing new ideas and assistance on how local businesses can comply with AB32, Keating turned it into a political opportunity on how we should fight State Government, and not let the folks in Sacramento dictate local government and business.  This is totally a generalization but this was her general message. 

My only reaction to this.......where in the hell were you last year, Council Member Keating???? 

Keating is ideologically consistent on issues like AB32, which she views as a burden on business and local government when they can't afford it. I think that's one where you guys would just disagree.

On that attitude, she's sharp and she plays hard. As you've noted, that doesn't go over well sometimes.

What's that old saying about politics? Perception is reality (paraphrasing)... if that's the case, no wonder Monteith defeated Keating. It's all about how people view you, even if your record isn't that exemplary and scintillating. If people view you as being a sort of benign figure, they'll elect you to represent them. That's my take at the very least.

I don't necessarily agree with AB32.  In fact, I think we'll see over time it may further drive business out of California. 

However, recognizing that it is now State Law, we have no choice but to come together and see how we can implement it and still allow business to be financially viable.  That is where I took issue with Keating.  She wasn't interested in exploring ideas, she was more interested in political diatribe, which to me, it quite tiring.....especially if it occurs AFTER the bill had been signed.  That was my only complaint. 

But, I think Keating and I would both agree that AB32 is a burden.  Unfortunately, she was late to the party.....so to speak.

Keating's gone to Sacramento to lobby for compromises on AB32. I know it sounds like rhetoric, but she puts the time behind the talk.

I don't about AB32. It might jumpstart energy business. Check out The Atlantic this month for a good story about California energy policies. Worth your time.

Good to know, AD.  I guess in my personal experience with that particular Workshop I was really turned off by the complaining, especially when we had the opportunity to discuss ideas, solutions, etc.

Fortunately, compromises can still be made as the California Air Resources Board is still in the process of preparing the Implementation Plan (the Scoping Plan was adopted in December 2008).  From what I understand the Implementation is due for adoption sometimein mid-2010. 

There are positives with respect to AB32, and it has certainly jumpstarted the Alternative Energy Companies (solar just being one prime example, especially here in the Valley where a few have established themselves). 

However, there are some measures CARB is thinking of that will may kill the trucking companies.  And, that is where I personally think compromise has to occur.  It's ok to tell someone their diesel truck and no longer environmentally friendly and they have to get a new one.  But, who pays for the new one?  The trucker or company who owns it?  Or, the State, which by the way has no money.