Wednesday, September 12, 2007

"Spoiler Steve" Website

The website for City Council candidate "Spoiler Steve" Monks (running as part of the Vote Change for Durham ticket) is now up. Monks, of course, made a name for himself as a write-in candidate in the DA's race, when he confined his campaigning to areas where the Recall Nifong movement was strongest, thereby splitting the anti-Nifong vote and allowing the ex-DA to be elected with a plurality. Despite running at 2% in the only public poll, Monks refused to withdraw from the race, and incredibly asserted that he (whose 2% had him 26% behind the Recall Nifong line in that N&O poll) was the only candidate who could beat Nifong.

The website intro suggests that Monks is running on behalf of four issues:
  1. Do you feel safe in your person or property?
  2. Has the present leadership effectively managed our resources and provided quality city services?
  3. Are your taxes too high?
  4. Has Durham’s image improved under our present leadership?

Yet the "issues" section of the website only contains positions on the first three of these issues. No wonder "Spoiler Steve" didn't want to discuss Issue #4, given his own role in facilitating one of the most harmful events for Durham's image, Nifong's election.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is Monks a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Now, that is funny today. I am surprised Monks has the nerve to show his face in Durham. Did her not lose the Republicaan Chairmanship over this event?

Anonymous said...

Apparently, 11:48 thinks this is cute.

Anonymous said...

The only thing I WON'T MISS about the end of DIW blog, is whoever keeps asking if everyone is a Communist?

Anonymous said...

He's like the annoying mosquito in the tent while camping. You know he's going to bite you, you just don't know when. Maybe someday he will actually have an original thought. Well, maybe ------

Anonymous said...

The pole that had Steve Monks at 2% also had the Wake bond referendum as failing, so there.

The whole notion that the vote was even split is a fallacy because most people that voted for Monks weren't under any circumstance going to vote for Lewis "I won't serve if ellected" Cheek. No way in hell I am letting Easley appoint some random democrat I've never heard of to be my DA. Talk about a recipie for disaster.

I know all you genius types will go after me and call me old fashioned, but I believe that if Cheek wasn't going to serve, he should never have let himself become the focal point of a write in campaign. If the Democrats had any viable candidates, who would have served, Monks never would have entered to begin with.

Anonymous said...

Issue #3 Are your taxes too high?

Yup, and they will go up another 2% to cover the lacrosse settlement (assuming it is "only" $30M)

Anonymous said...

I agree with the Cheek distractors. What was he doing??? Monk may have been a spoiler but I do not think he got Cheek's votes.