The Kyle Report is a column written by Kyle resident, Pete Oppel, that covers city leadership issues. You can follow The Kyle Report here on the Kyle Life or by subscribing to Mr. Oppel’s blog, The Kyle TX Report.
Unfortunately, “negative campaigning” has become a part of the our country’s political process so I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised that negative campaigning has become a part of the Kyle City Council election. What does surprise me, however, is (1) the form this campaigning has taken and (2) it’s not even being directed at a campaign opponent.
Ever since all six of the candidates filed for the two seats up for election in this campaign, I have heard undercurrents of opposition directed toward Place 5 candidate Jaime Sanchez. Nothing overt, mind you, with the possible exception of one elected official hinting to me that Sanchez was “a crook.” There was also an e-mail that Mayor Todd Webster sent to five of the six candidates saying he was willing to donate $100 to all the campaigns except for Sanchez’s. There has been this subtle message floating around that Sanchez “is not one of us,” which is strange since he is the only candidate running who has lived in Kyle since his birth. I couldn’t help but feel that much of the campaign for District 5 involved more “Vote against Sanchez” than vote for one of the other candidates and that many of the city’s “establishment” rallied behind one of Sanchez’s opponents, not because that person was a particularly viable candidate, but because they would do anything to keep Sanchez from being elected.
Then yesterday I spoke to a woman, Rayma Stone, who told me the strangest thing: two city council candidates, Tammy Swaton and Dex Ellisson, neither of whom were running against Sanchez, both came to her house located north of Goforth in Kyle and told her and other voters gathered in her home that, no matter what else they did, they should not vote for Sanchez. (I have left messages for both Swaton and Ellison to respond, but so far neither has chosen to do so.) Stone told me Swaton was particularly “very harsh and mean” when it came to Sanchez, saying the voters there should not cast their ballots for him because, among other things, he once sued the city.
And that’s certainly true. He did sue the city. And you know what else? He won that suit. The court determined Sanchez was right and the city acted illegally when it tried to take from him land for which he had legal title. But just because he sued the city doesn’t make him anti-Kyle. It means he fought the attempts of some city officials to, as the court determined, illegally take from him property he owned. To me, at least, that makes him very much pro-Kyle: He is going to do whatever he can to make sure the citizens of this city are treated fairly and legally.
Stone also told me Swaton said this about Sanchez to a group of voters gathered in her home: “We don’t want him in office. He has his own agenda.”
Now, if Stone has accurately reported to me what Swaton said, I find her use of the word “We” extremely compelling. For all practical purposes it confirms my notion there is an organized effort among the city’s establishment to conspire to keep Sanchez from winning the election. I am also struck by her allegedly saying “He has his own agenda.”
As if that’s a bad thing. From my vantage point, I think it’s high time there was someone on the council with his/her own agenda. Let me explain. Except for possibly the vote on the recently passed revised wrecker ordinance (which, I have been told, is a farce because it is not being enforced), just about every single item that comes before the city council is either approved or disapproved by a 7-0 vote. There is no dissension, thus there is no discussion.
I, for one, would love to see someone with his/her own agenda on the council. That’s not to say I would agree with that person’s opinion. In fact, I might disagree 100 percent of the time. But the important thing is that dissenter is going to promote additional, hopefully intellectual discussion of the items on the weekly agenda. And without that extra discussion, we the citizens live in ignorance because all we hear is one side. If we, as the voters who are supposed to control the ultimate destiny of the city we call home, are denied all sides of a particular issue, we are denied that basic freedom of choice and become nothing more than marionettes dancing to the tune of those pulling our strings.
And what’s the worst thing that could happen? Well, instead of having all these 7-0 votes, we now have 6-1 votes. And the winner is us, because we become much more informed on at least two sides of many issues, not just the one we are force fed.
Update: Dex Ellison did get back to me and said “I never asked a voter to vote for anyone other than me and I definitely never told anyone not to vote for anyone else.”
What was the source for the email ? Why was it not included I n the report?
After reading this, I would say that it is you, sir, that is negative campaigning. You have clearly made up your mind who you want to win the election. You slander Dex Ellisson and Tammy Swaton with no proof other than unsupported hearsay. I will no longer read your posts (which I once enjoyed) since it is you who clearly has the agenda. So much for unbiased reporting.
pete, your reporting is biased and I also will no longer follow your posts. you favor daphne tenorio and jamie sanchez from the start. daphne has campaign signs all over the city. From having been involved in elections before those signs are not cheap. daphne filed $0 on her campaign finance expenditures but has signs everywhere. even if someone donates the signs those are supposed to be in kind contributions…. but you dont report that.. you report negatively about the other candidates in the race.. you sir yourself are a puppet for someone else speaking of puppets
I have seen all the actual campaign finance reports. Daphne Tenorio has paid for those signs out of her personal pocket. She has accepted no contributions from other sources. She did report expenditures, just no contributions. There is a difference. Get it?
You are obviously either Jaime Sanchez’s buddy who was asked to write a “poor me story”, or you are extremely uninformed as to his behavior as a prior council member. Have you done your true due diligence about what he said while on coucil to “the people of Kyle” verses what he did? He is a “Do as I say, & not as I do guy”. I have first hand experience with him at a previous council meeting where he proved my point in front of everyone. There are rumors he threatened the former City Manager, & used his then position to further his own “agenda”. He has personal vendettas to fill, a family member to get out of trouble with the law, etc… Come On!!!! A vote for Sanchez is a vote for trouble. We should be happy our council members are so aligned in their votes. Have you thought that perhaps they reach their decisions because they all share the same Vision & Values our community needs? Coming to the defense of someone who clearly ruffled feathers with lots of folks is an example of poor research. Saturday will show how the people who actually follow what is going on know the difference in the two men’s character that are in the run off. Not that many people will have been swayed to vote against Sanchez due to rumor. It will be because of his past performance, period. Go Jarod!!!!
What exactly are those “same Vision & Values” of our community? WOW – No one has ever let me know what those are! Were they voted on at a City Council meeting?
Your comment speaks for itself
More endorsements from Louisiana. This following article speaks for itself.
http://www.smalltownnews.com/article.php?catname=Accomplishment&pub=The%20Hays%20Free%20Press&aid=183900
Todd Webster so nice to know you read my posts for a mayor who practices lies and deception. There are many articles out there with my name I suggest the citizens read them and than vote this mayor out of office
Great article, Mr. Oppel. I really appreciate having a good reporter around.
i sat nest to him at the last council meeting he appeared to not want to communicate so we both sat and followed the proceedings in silence .
Mr. Oppel is not a “reporter.” He writes an opinion blog. There’s a difference. And he even states that is what it is. And everyone who has commented below obviously has their opinion as well. My question is: why is it okay for you to state online who you think is the best candidate (and state some pretty outrageous things – unsubstantiated – about their opponents), but then you criticize Mr. Oppel for doing exactly the same thing?
Well written and thoughtful.
Todd Webster so nice to know you read my posts for a mayor who practices lies and deception. There are many articles out there with my name I suggest the citizens read them and than vote this mayor out of office
I have tried to post multiple times under the original story posting yet none of my comments are there. It says they have to be approved. So I guess only Pete Oppel’s opinion and that of those backing this piece matter.
When Tammy Swaton came to my door, she spoke only of the issues, her experience, and her excitement in Kyle’s future. That is the same experience others had that I spoke with as well. Seems to me that this is untrue and someone is working hard to pull voters’s focus away from the issue.
Hey Alex, I’m an editor here at KyleLife.com … I can verify that we aren’t censoring any of your comments. Did you perhaps use any links OR “bad” language? The filters that our commenting system uses are sort of fickle and I apologize if you’ve been trying to comment but, rest assured, nobody is censoring you.
I’m sorry for the confussion. I have not had trouble posting here. I was originally sent a link to the article at a blogspot link. It was there I tried to post several times but it said it had to be approved before posting.
I edited original post since I was unclear that I originally tried posting under the blogspot link to this opinion piece. It was there that it said my comment had to be approved first. I had no isdue posting on kylelife. (After posting here, my last comment at the blogspot link was posted but not the others. There was not foul language or links in the comments.)