Once upon a campaign, the progressive Meghan Sahli-Wells had a dream.
She not only would be re-elected to the City Council on April 12, she would be flanked on her left by Thomas Small and on her left, philosophically speaking, by Daniel Lee.
Two gentlemen who are young, handsome, smart and articulate to a fault, the table seemed set for a progressive sweep of the three-seat race.
Ms. Sahli-Wells has had a meticulously ordered agenda in her saddle for four years, ever since graduating from community activist to elected official – long-sought status for her progressive agenda.
For most of those four years, she was rather stymied.
Lacking an outright, not to mention reliable, ally, she has been surrounded by four philosophical middle-of-the-roaders.
Not a like-minded soul was in the building. Agenda progress was, um, slow at best, some said virtually indiscernible.
During the late campaign, there were scant substantive progressive accomplishments for Ms. Sahli-Wells to boast about.
The solution to that conundrum was to identify fellow progressives willing to run for City Council.
She found them. Few among the fair-minded would disagree that Messrs. Small and Lee are gems.
Problem was, a couple well-known community figures, business owners Goran Eriksson and Scott Wyant, stood in the way of reaching the Sahli-Wells dream of a Sahli-Wells-Small-Lee majority on the City Council.
No problem, said a battery of shadowy mudslingers, experienced progressive propagandists.
Experienced at masking their identities in the service of dirty tricks, and bored between welfare checks, with teeth-baring vigor, they aimed their shovels into the ground.
The soft-walking boys flung enough mud – outright lies – about Mr. Eriksson and Mr. Wyant at the voters that one would think only gullible residents receptive to left-wing mud could have swallowed the outrageous accusations.
Messrs. Wyant and Eriksson were painted as handmaidens of the Chamber of Commerce that was characterized as an enemy of non-thinking people, a cousin by propaganda marriage of the Islamic State. They were called robotic tools of the pro-business community, which the loudest progressives regard as dreadfully prejudiced against working people.
Authors of the dirty-tricks mailers, already comfortable with deceit in their daily lives, threw a white sheet over their identities and boldly ploughed into the community mainstream with their unapologetic propaganda.
They reveled in smearing two decent persons.
The result was that the race ended this way:
Ms. Sahli-Wells ran wildly far ahead of the field – 1,300 votes — after conducting an ordinary campaign.
Mr. Small was the runnerup by a wide margin, roundly 230 votes, after engineering a stunningly impressive campaign.
That Mr. Eriksson won the final Council seat may be attributed to the way he countered the ugly propaganda, with a blizzard of mailers.
This tactic kept him in front of onrushing Mr. Lee by 240 votes.
Mr. Eriksson has been active, visible in the community for three decades. Hardly any voters had even heard of Mr. Lee when the race began.
Then there is the well-known Mr. Wyant, 200 votes behind unknown Mr. Lee.
But then Mr. Wyant, a lifelong moderate to liberal Democrat, is accustomed to seeing the moon fall out of the sky when Culver City progressives huddle, whisper and conspire against him.
Remember what happened in January at the Culver City Democratic Club endorsement meeting?
On orders, obedient “Democrats,” some unseen before and since, refused to applaud Mr. Wyant’s answers even though they were virtually identical to those of Mr. Lee, who was cheered enthusiastically.
Coincidence? Yeah, sure, that sounds believable.
I’m sorry, but if pointing out the fact that Mr. Erikkson and Mr. Wyant were supported by the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, and making the point that candidates backed by a pro-business and famously conservative group poses issues for progressives in the city is “mudslinging” then let’s have more of this sort of “mudslinging” in future elections. Nothing that I read or heard questioned the personal character of any candidates as far as I can tell. Rather, the issues boiled down to questioning the wisdom of having more Chamber of Commerce types on the City Council after years of Council domination by a Chamber unresponsive of the needs of many Culver City residents concerned with the impact of development on the quality of life in our city.
“Authors of the dirty-tricks mailers, already comfortable with deceit in their daily lives, threw a white sheet over their identities and boldly ploughed into the community mainstream with their unapologetic propaganda.”
I never received any mailers anything like what you’re describing here, Ari. Can you post some of them?
Patrick, as I remember, the flyer that seems to have gotten Ari all apoplectic said a few things. First, it said that the Culver City Council was/is dominated by Culver City Chamber of Commerce endorsed candidates that aren’t particularly concerned about issues such as the environment, rights of renters, parking and traffic issues, etc.. It then went on to say that Goran and Scott represented “more of the same” and that if you feel it’s time for a change and want a council that truly puts resident’s interests before business interests, it advised that you not vote for Goran or Scott. I suppose some feel saying “don’t vote for these candidates” anonymously somehow represents a “smear campaign”. As far as I know though, this flyer did not come out of anyone’s campaign at all. I have it on pretty good authority that it was authored and distributed by some irate Vets Park residents who feel that the Chamber of Commerce has indeed been the 6th member of the council for far too long. It seemed to me that there was little to quibble with as to the facts presented. I think Mr. Noonan and others are most upset that the status quo has been attacked anonymously. I however see it as a continuation of the tradition of broadsides in a vibrant political environment. It’s not unusual for the subjects of these broadsides to feel attacked and defensive if they think the tactic has been effective, right?
Thank you, James. Do you know: how was this flier distributed? Was it, in fact, a mailer? I’m trying to figure out why I never saw it, or even heard about it.
“their unapologetic propaganda.”
Appalling. In my day, our propaganda was contrite, and we liked it that way. Did the flyer at least say “please don’t vote for these candidates,” or have we finally lost out last shred of decency?
So Mr Eriksson and Mr Wyant have both ‘been active (and) visible in the community for three decades’ and people still didn’t vote for them in the way they expected. I’m sure the community appreciates the level of engagement that these two have shown throughout the years but just being KNOWN doesn’t get you elected if voters don’t believe that you’re NOT going to represent their interests.
It’s no longer the case of ‘I put the work in (and the Chamber puts the money in), I get the seat’ and that level of entitlement which served the cabal of people who previously ran this town, is now being rejected by the people of Culver City.
If our Council members were elected on just ‘being KNOWN in Culver City’ I’m going to nominate Tito from Tito’s Tacos, Tim Robbins and the lovely homeless lady with the bike who’s alway at Starbucks on Washington.