While many of us struggle to make ends meet during these economic times, I find it difficult (even repulsive) to justify raising a pile of money just so I can go out and buy some signs and stick them on your front yard. I will not buy signs and put them out during this campaign season.
I ran against Elvig last cycle, and refused to put up signs. It is a stupid practice.
You go out in cold weather and pound rebar, and then police your locations for vandalism and such, and it is a total waste of good time.
I applaud what David Elvig is doing this cycle.
If only all political candidates would take a pledge to not do signs, a terrible way to get any message across except name recognition, then the process of local democracy would be greatly improved.
Some with a livelihood based on sign making would have to find more valid and productive work outlets, but that would be okay too.
It is as if there is some rite of passage. You do not pound rebar and go into sand bur and tick environs to parade your family name along highways and such, you are somehow disadvantaged. That makes no sense. In 2004 when I ran against Gamec for Ramsey mayor, I did the sign thing, and hated it and Gamec's people put up more to spend than I could and he got and had placed big four foot by eight foot signs, as large as a sheet of plywood, and it was like a cold war arms race; in spending terms and as stupid. But, bottom line, Gamec won. Elvig put signs up in 2002, a humongo number almost everywhere; and less in 2006; and now none.
David Elvig has a good-sense learning curve. People waste a lot of good money and time on signs and the signmakers probably snicker up their sleeves when not running and making signs for themselves.
Now - again - this is not why my already cast ballot was for Elvig. I believe I have made my thinking clear; and all of that was Crabgrassed well before this two page issues-oriented mailing was received.
And by the way, all I got from Niska was a card mailing, no detail about jack, with a couple of nice pictures showing he looks younger than his years, has an attractive wife, and a not abnormal looking child. So what? His Federalist Society ties, the wife's being an Emmer insider, and Niska being Jungbauer's campaign treasurer are the facts I view as important to know who Harry Niska is, and all were omitted from his mailed little card that did nothing but bandy around a few platitudes.
See this link.
You might read the Elvig mailing, and decide whether what he says squares with your own interpretations and beliefs about past Ramsey activity and who Elvig is and what he's done, but at least he gives you a threshold level gravitas presentation to work from and judge, unlike the unhelpful Niska "trust me" thing. With that prelude, here's the Elvig mailing:
This is not saying I have overnight become an unqualified Elvig fan or booster. Far from it.
I am giving credit where credit is due.
Much of Elvig's activity in office went against things I believed were better decisions and better judgment. I am not expecting any miraculous change in who Elvig is or how he will continue on council, if reelected.
I looked at two choices, rationally in terms of all I saw and knew, and chose the better of the two, again for reasons apart from what I am giving credit for in this post.
Again the post is focused upon crediting the choice to eschew signage as a major campaign effort and factor.
I do not anticipate a groundswell of change, from others, but David Elvig making the change is both newsworthy, and praiseworthy - independent of whatever other feelings you or I might have about him as a person and/or as a public servant.