Does Harry Bronson's Campaign Have a Death Wish?

Does Harry Bronson's Campaign Have a Death Wish?
By: Aaron E. Wicks
Posted: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:58 pm
................................................................................
Analysis: Should The Media Handicap Political Campaigns?
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/326
................................................................................
Harry Davis on Mayoral Control of Rochester Schools
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/23
..................................................................................
Mayoral Control: Where Bob Duffy Went Wrong
http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/363
.................................................................................

Rochester, NY (June 23, 2010) The designated Democrat running for the 131st Assembly District appears to be stumbling. Receiving only lukewarm support from the committees, County Legislator Harry Bronson is running a conservative campaign. But his three declared primary opponents are not letting him hide...does the Bronson campaign have a Death Wish?
.......................................................................................................................................................................
To some, Harry Bronson was seen as an approachable, intelligent Democrat. Politically well-connected, but willing to take one for the team (i.e. his windmill tilt against Joe Robach in 2002), Bronson scored points with Democrats for being loyal to the party. But lately, Bronson has been running much more like a "company man" than the Democrat that some of his peers recalled. Longtime observers have noted, with some concern, that Bronson is running an insider-style campaign in a year when voters are looking for transparency, openness and some healthy "spit 'n' vinegar."

The Mayoral Control Stonewall

Earlier this week, Bronson's opponents, as well as fellow Assembly candidate in the 133rd District, Van White, held a press conference demanding that Bronson take a position on mayoral control. Bronson had previously declined to take a stand on the issue, adopting a Supreme Court nominee-style stance. http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/303

He argued -- with some reason -- that with no legislation before the Assembly, there was no legislation on which to take a position. While academically true, this position was intolerable to the many residents of the 131st -- particularly city residents -- who felt strongly one way or the other. Regardless of the legislation, the bill would be certain to eliminate the elected school board, taking away from voters the right to elect the people with direct authority over their children's schools. Bronson evidently did not feel that voters' concerns over their future rights as voters merited his taking a position. Fair enough.

But the situation changed in the past week when legislation was introduced into both the Assembly and the Senate. With concrete, actual legislation before the chamber, Bronson could no longer use the old argument that a mayoral control position would be merely hypothetical. He can now (in theory) state very clearly whether he is for the legislation or opposed to it. For the record, Willa Powell, Malik Evans, Harry Davis and Van White have all clearly taken positions against mayoral control.

Bronson's flummoxed response to a local reporter regarding the issue? "I don't think we need to go there." http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/307

Not exactly a profile in courage. It is difficult to imagine that this is the character voters are looking for this year -- a candidate who refuses to take a position on the most prominent issue facing residents of a large portion of his district (not to mention the fact that suburban residents also have a right to know if Bronson believes that citizen-elected school boards are ok for some and not others or if he is for/against them across the board?).

The longer Bronson dithers on the question, the more voters think. "Looks like just another politician afraid to say what he really thinks..."

Afraid to be straight with voters -- or is that exactly what he's trying to do?

Recently Davis challenged Bronson to openly declare a fact Bronson has already declared on several occasions: that he is gay. Why is this suddenly an issue?

Evidently, the Bronson PR machine has decided that while a gay Harry Bronson might play well with the liberal voters of southeast Rochester, the, shall we say "more traditional" voters in the suburbs might not cotton to his "alternative lifestyle." Accordingly, Bronson, in committee meetings in the district's suburbs described his family status as "single", leaving it simply at that.

Because same-sex marriage is not legal in New York, Bronson can only describe his status as single -- from a legal perspective. And if Bronson's long-time relationship is in a state in which he considers it not a committed relationship, well, who is anyone to question that? Relationships are personal issues, not political footballs.

But Bronson is walking a fine line. By studiously refusing to be as open with his potential constituents in the suburbs as he has been with his urban constituents, Bronson risks alienating both -- making each group feel like they are being pandered to. And Bronson has muddied the waters even further with literature that leaves voters with the impression that he is a traditional family-man-type (read: heterosexual): pictured with a woman in front of a playground full of children. Nothing wrong with that, of course: Bronson supports families and children and he certainly has every right to depict himself out among his constituents. But it causes one to question whether Bronson might be quite content if voters misread this imagery -- he has, thus far, made little effort to contradict it.

Jill Terreri, D&C reporter, has noted that Bronson is "offended" by this flap. http://www.harrydavis2010.com/node/308

Bronson supporters are likely to circle the wagons, portraying the issue as a classic case of people beating up on someone because of his sexual orientation. In reality, the Smugtown elite will defend Bronson because he is using a play straight out of their playbook: tell voters only what you think they need to know, when they need to know it. What is truly offensive is that Bronson, a man generally considered one of the more ethical local politicians in the area, has cast his lot with the likes of Morelle, Gantt and Duffy.

Voters still have good choices in the 131st: Evans, Powell and Davis remain straight shooters, opponents of mayoral control and offer some hope that politics can be conducted differently. Bronson, sadly, has communicated to voters that he will fit very nicely in Albany -- just what New York does not need.