Alex Cantatore
Staff reporter

When I left for work on Monday I was well aware that it was the first day of autumn.

I could feel it in the air. It was cooler, somehow crisper. A brownish leaf even caught my windshield as I backed out of the driveway that morning.

What I did not realize was that, with autumn, would come the start of the so-called silly season of local politics.

The run up to the Nov. 4 election has been building for some time, to be certain. Signs are up all over town imploring Turlockers to “Vote Fransen,” consider Amy Bublak’s “Dedication and Innovation,” or state that it’s really “about action,” as Mary Jackson would have you believe.

But these signs are really but warning shots off the bow in advance of the full force of the election. It’s just the start of the sort of turf war that makes tagging look pedestrian.

The signs are just establishing battlegrounds, showing who stands with whom. Of course, you’ve got to set up the board before any game can start.

Think Risk. Australia is old Turlock, Kamchatka is Downtown, and the Western United States is Monte Vista Crossings.

Of course, unlike Risk, not every territory has a flag in this race. Some Turlockers think that the council doesn’t really make a difference, and will end up voting almost at random this November.

But it’s once the flags are placed that the real game of politics begins.

In order to win an election, you have to rely on the people you’ve already convinced to continue supporting you while at the same time winning uncommitted voters and converting those who your opponents consider to be their loyal troops.

Basically, you’ve got to own more of the map than your opponent come Nov. 4.

So how do you change a voter’s mind? How does a candidate win the hearts of Turlockers who have already committed to another council hopeful, or those who refuse to commit at all?

Simple. You don’t worry about winning their hearts. You just point out the reasons why people might not be interested in a certain candidate, sit back, and reel in the disaffected, disappointed voters who will now side with anyone but the person they once believed in.

Ah, yes, the old stand-by of negative campaigning. It served Hilary Clinton so well at the end there.

In truth, of course, there is a need for the facts to come out. Voters should be given the complete picture and be allowed to make up their own minds.

And it’s on that note that I entirely sympathize with a Mr. Erick E. Swenson, regardless of who he supports or what his agenda may be.

On Monday morning, I received an e-mail from Swenson directed to all five remaining candidates and three local media representatives, myself included, that broke certain council subplots wide-open.

The two questions he asked of the candidates seemed simple enough, yet according to Swenson they were passed over by moderators at the Turlock Chamber of Commerce debate held Sept. 10. He merely wanted to get some answers, he said.

Question One: How much money have you accepted from developers? Question Two: Have any current members of the Turlock City Council contributed to your campaign?

Like any good candidates, most dodged the questions entirely.

Only one, David “DJ” Fransen, even chose to respond to the questions via e-mail. Of course it seemed he had nothing to hide-or lose-as he penned a short statement that he did not receive funds from either developers or councilmembers.

Other candidates simply did not have the luxury of responding so easily.

It’s public knowledge that some candidates have accepted major donations that might upset certain Turlockers. Take Amy Bublak, for example.

While she was only required to report campaign donations through June 30 by the last campaign finance filing deadline, Bublak-either through accident or intent-reported all the way through July 31. As a part of that filing, it was released that Bublak received $5,000 from Monte Vista Crossings Hotel Investors and $10,000 from Monte Vista Crossings East/West, all on Jul. 25.

That’s a hefty chunk of change by anyone’s definition, especially for out-of-town developers to spend on a Turlock City Council election. It’s certainly enough to have a major impact on the race.

But, as the figures won’t be out from the other campaigns until Oct. 7 at the soonest, it’s a little early to condemn Bublak alone. It’s currently believed that at least one other candidate received the same support.

There are also rumors flying all over town about current councilmembers supporting candidates, a point alluded to by Swenson’s second question.

At the Arts Commission Garden Party last week gossip was flying that Ted Howze, at one point, had Bublak and Kurt Vander Weide signs in his yard. However, at the same time, Bublak was telling voters that Howze was campaigning against her.

Vander Weide was spotted with a Bublak sign in his yard, too, leading some to ask questions at the Chamber of Commerce debate if the two were running as a ticket.

This all may sound inane to a casual observer, but these are potentially serious issues that can make or break a campaign this November. These are the things that local elections hinge upon. And the importance of it all came to the forefront as a result of Swenson’s e-mail.

Apparently someone on the e-mail list, though it is not known whom, forwarded the message to a Brett Tauser. In his reply, Tauser showed little restraint as he ripped into Swenson with accusations that the questions had been sent on behalf of a certain candidate.

The two carried on a heated discussion that carried over seven e-mails with various allegations about who was working for whom, who was taking money from whom, and where everyone’s allegiances lay.

But the issue isn’t really in the bad words, the questions of unethical behavior, or pseudonyms that may or may not have been employed in these e-mails, whoever they were really from.

The fact of the matter is that the election is just around the corner, less than six weeks away. The battlegrounds have been drawn and it’s time for the gloves to come off.

We’ve moved into that stage where all the dirty laundry will begin to come out, one way or another and, in the opinion of this observer, all of these potentially dirty details do matter. After all, as voters we’re asked to make a decision to determine the next four years of our city with little more than a cursory understanding of what kind of leaders these candidates will be.

So why shouldn’t we know all the information out there, good and bad, before election day comes? A candidate’s policies are just as important as whose pockets they are in.

So thank you, Swenson and Tauser for your spirited exchange. You’ve certainly gotten my Fall off to a rip-roaring start, and I, for one, can’t wait to see what happens next with this council race.

To contact Alex Cantatore, e-mail acantatore@turlockjournal.com or call 634-9141 ext. 2005.

Originally published in the Turlock Journal 9/24/2008.
Retrieved from the Turlock Journal Web site.