Fred Boykin Reflects On Reelection
Decatur Metro | November 4, 2009From his blog…
It’s the morning after the election and a time for reflection. I won re-election to my third term on the Decatur City Commission with 69% of the vote. The widest margin of any of the city races. I deeply appreciate the community’s support and vote on my behalf. I will continue trying to do my best for Decatur.
I can’t tell you how I’ll vote on the issues, but I can tell you that I will do the research, ask questions, listen to what folks have to say, think about what I’m about to do, and use my best judgment.
Thank you.
Latest from Decaturish
Hmmm. Considering how gracious James Radford was in defeat, I find it a tad disheartening that Fred doesn’t even mention him in reflecting on his victory (except to point out the huge margin by which he crushed him). I realize it’s a blog post and not an official statement, but still…bad form.
Thank you arbiter of political etiquette…raz….
You can’t win. Some criticized Rob Pope for not being assertive enough in challenging Valarie Wilson on issues, said he was too polite. I guess you have to be nice and positive, but not too nice and positive. A fine line.
During the race, perhaps the line IS fine, but after the race? Isn’t it de riguer to at least give token thanks to your opponent, especially when that opponent went out of his way to (repeatedly) compliment you? I don’t mean to sound like Emily Post here, but Boykin came off as a bit smug and dismissive to me, and that’s not what I’m looking for in an elected official.
I agree. Can’t see the harm in graciousness. I think perhaps all the incumbents are a little defensive about having some robust, credible opposition, even if they still held onto their seats.
I agree that Boykin is smug and dismissive–not just here but in every discourse with him that I’ve been party to. That’s why I voted for James Radford.
Why didn’t Fred thank Radford? Because Radford did NOT run a clean campaign. He slung mud and intimated that Fred was in favor of taking over the school system. Which is not true.
I have known Fred for years and I have never found Fred to be smug and dismissive. CSD Mom is welcome to her opinion and to her vote.
Methinks some of these comments are coming from Radford supporters who may have been doing some of the slinging.
Decatur Voter: What you’re calling “mud slinging” came from me, and it was simply a report something that I found quite shocking that Fred said to me. If you’re unfamiliar with the details, see here:
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2009/10/26/oakhurst-candidate-forum-tonight/#comment-21009
I don’t “intimate” anything by it, just report what he said to me and two other witnesses. It may not be flattering to Fred, but simply reporting a conversation is not “mud slinging.”
Yes, Judd. I call that mud-slinging. I think you took what Fred said out of context, told other people, and used that to imply that he’s in favor of shutting down the city school system. I didn’t hear your conversation, so I don’t know what ELSE Fred said. Perhaps Fred was trying to make a point. Things can get taken out of context. And that’s what you’ve done. I consider that mud slinging.
Fred’s got kids in the school system, and Fred is NOT in favor of shutting down the school system.
So, if this is your idea of how to run a noble clean campaign, remind me not to vote for you.
On what basis do you say they were taken out of context? His comments came near the beginning of the conversation, which up to that point had been friendly chit-chat, and I was expecting a basically friendly meeting, so it was all really quite stunning. All we had said was that we had found errors in the City’s report on annexation that we wanted to show him (our spreadsheet was ready on an open laptop), and that we were concerned that annexation would be harmful to CSD and raise school taxes. That’s the context. Not much more to it than that. I really think your anger is misdirected at the messenger here.
Could I briefly intervene before this argument escalates? Voter: Fred won the election, fair and square, despite the arguments that I and my supporters made regarding his comments about the schools. The election was the best forum for everyone to channel their grievances and their expressions of satisfaction. It has now concluded, so lets let it be concluded.
I have gotten to know Judd well during the campaign, and can vouch that his efforts on my behalf did not arise out of any personal animus for Fred, but rather a genuine concern regarding the City’s stance on annexation and the schools. While we certainly threw punches in this race, we strove to ensure that they were punches on policy issues, and never personal attacks. For democracy to function, citizens must throw these types of punches on substantive issues. While you and I and Judd may disagree on what Fred said or meant on this particular issue, I represent to you that neither I nor Judd knowingly distorted Fred’s words for the purpose of political gain. All statements made by my campaign were made in good faith.
Let’s move forward here and not continue to fight.
Mr. Radford, your supporters are on this site disparaging Fred because he did not thank you. Fred has personally said that he does not intend to dismantle the school system. I think that spreading negative information about an opponent is what mud slinging is about. Often there is an element of truth to what is said.
You may believe that you did not distort Fred’s words, but that’s not the way it looks to me. If you asked Fred, I think he would agree with me.
I agree, we ought to move forward. But I don’t think you can claim the moral high ground here.
OK, Mrs. Boykin. We feel your pain. Now, please try to curb your high dudgeon, and enjoy your candidate’s success.
I am disappointed that people continue to attack and disparage candidates — which shouldn’t be done at all — AFTER the election results are final.
I was, and am, a supporter of Mr. Radford, however he did not win the election. His comments, at least from what I have heard and seen, have been nothing less than gracious and congratulatory. What more does ‘Decatur voter’ want — being a sore winner is just as wrong as being a sore loser.
I believe that the majority of the people in Decatur do not agree with the majority of people in this blog. I guess this is true because I think that many of the people who contribute to Decatur Metro are new to the area. Those who have lived here know that Fred is a person of integrity. When I heard some of the things said by the supporters of Mr. Radford, it was not in keeping with the kind rhetoric I have heard in the past during these elections. I guess I’m an old fogey. In fact, I know I am. I hate to see Decatur elections begin to emulate what is going on now in national politics.
And in fact a very large majority of people in Decatur didn’t bother to vote.
What majority of people on this blog? There were a total of three people who posted what could be termed “negative” comments about Fred in this post. Is that a majority of commenters, let alone readers?
You seem to imply that transplants lack integrity, which is honestly kind of hurtful. Unfortunately, they/we are now the majority according to that census info from the other day: over 10,000 Decatur residents were born in another state.
Erg, I’m probably going to regret stepping into the fray here, but…
Probably the most negative campaigning that happened in this election were the attacks made against Kyle Williams (“his contributions are from outsiders!” “he’s a career politician!”, etc.) And these attacks were mostly advanced in support of a candidate favored by long-time residents, against a young, newer-to-the-area candidate. The negative campaigning on behalf of Patti was very aggressive indeed, and, I would imagine, not “in keeping with the kind rhetoric [JEM has] heard in the past during these elections.”
And I will continue to defend our campaign. Yes, we threw punches. But they were on POLICY ISSUES. And, yes, while attempting to defeat the incumbent, by its very nature, requires one to make arguments against he incumbent, I feel that we successfully did this while never making personal attacks. Unless, like “Decatur voter,” you consider it a personal attack to tell voters that your opponent said X (about a policy issue), and that you reasonably interpreted that statement to reflect a disageeable stance on a policy issue. If you can’t do that, than you can’t run a meaningful campaign against an incumbent.
James, can you clarify something? Are you suggesting that the sources and amounts of a candidate’s financial support, or the length of time to which they might commit to service, are questions that should be off limits because they’re not based in policy? They seem like a reasonable component of the total package. I don’t think I’ve ever met a voter that voted on policy alone. People seem to factor in all kinds of things — sense of leadership, ability to work with others, relationships, rhetorical skills, whatever — along with positions on the issues.
The money thing didn’t influence my vote so I’m curious. You seem to have a pretty strong take on the issue. Are those issues “off the table” in a civilized campaign?
Nope, I’m making no comment whatsoever regarding whether those are appropriate things to ask. I’m of the view that there is very little “off limits” when one is running for office. Only responding to JEM’s comment that new residents “go negative” in campaigns, while longer-term residents stick to “kind rhetoric.”
Please, Mr. Radford, do not twist my words. My remarks were not against all of the people new to the community. They bring a vibrance to Decatur. My concern is that some of the rhetoric, (in my opinion, but not in yours) was disconcerting to me. It reminded me of the methods used by many politicians of both parties to win elections. That’s why people are so fed up with politics.
Fair enough. I’m going to take this opportunity to part ways from this discussion. Not sure if it continues to serve any constructive purpose at this point.
Did Kyle or his supporters ever question or make the argument that because Patti’s husband donated and/or loaned her campaign over 25% of the amount of their campaign budget that Patti was trying to buy an election? It is true, but he didn’t bring that up, he stuck to the issues instead. But would that have been within the range of civil campaigning if he had? I think he would have been blasted for bringing it up by the very same people who attack Kyle for his contributors. Am I wrong?
Did Kyle or his supporters ever bring up the fact that over 20% of Patti’s campaign funds not only came from outside Decatur, but outside of the State of Georgia? Again, no he didn’t, but would that have been within the realm of a civilized campaign if he had? Again, I don’t think most on this blog would have thought so.
Patti ran largely on the fact that we needed to keep 2 women on the City Commission since she was replacing Mary Alice Kemp. Did we ever hear Kyle bring up the fact that only 4 years ago, Patti Garrett supported her neighbor Robert Soens (a man) in his bid to unseat Commissioner Kemp (a woman)? Did Kyle try to score political points and bring that up? No. Would he have been criticized for doing so? Sure would have.
So, in the end, it looks like Kyle was in a tough position. Respond to Patti’s negative attacks and allegations that he would be unduly influenced by the money or that his had other political aspirations? Come up with his own allegations as listed above? Or just stick to the issues? Based on what I saw, he decided to stick to the issues. It would have been a big risk to go negative against a woman 25 years older than he is.
Was that a mistake? Who knows? But it was an honorable choice, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the other side didn’t do the same. But they won the election.
Politics is politics. You decide as the voter wheter what any candidate brings up is appropriate in your campaign. But as an observer I would urge anyone to really hesitate before I charge either Kyle or Patti with challenging their opponenet’s integrity.
Campaigns can be expensive, even in Decatur. Mailing post cards, purchasing signs, and websites cost money. If you think the real world operates on good will and lollipops, well. you are not operating in the real world.
What was the difference between Patti and Kyle? Both love Decatur and asked a lot of their life partners when they decided to run for office. So get personal and challenge either Gary OR Larry’s committment to their partner if you want to do so. It says a lot about you when you do it.
Thank God people like Kyle and Patti open themselves and their lives up so that we may enjoy our elected government.
Well said. I take back my rant (sort of) and agree with nugget.
Hold your horses, Rodger. Spending one’s own money to the tune of $2-3k to get a municipal campaign going doesn’t really qualify as “trying to buy an election.” Whereas raising $20k+ from outside sources to inject into a non-partisan municipal election where candidates typically spend $10k or less, might qualify. People had legitimate concerns, and Kyle never took an opportunity to answer questions (includingn at the candidates’ forum in Oakhurst a few weeks ago).
Patti Garrett didn’t run on a platform of electing another woman to the City Commission. She ran on issues, which she discussed on her blog and with anyone and everyone who was interested in having a conversation about Decatur’s present and future. One of the reasons people have had so much to say about everything except Kyle’s stands on issues, is that he never really talked about issues in any specific way. His campaign rhetoric focused on his love for Decatur, having moved to Atlanta without knowing anyone, his intention to help seniors, to re-open 5th Ave school (which was decided long ago), etc. So what does he think about pedestrian safety, traffic calming, annexation, zoning to optimze the benefits and minimize the penalties of growth and development, etc., etc., etc.? Hard to say.
By the way, Patti never uttered a negative word about Kyle, or about any aspect of his campaign. If other people questioned or expressed concerns about aspects of Kyle’s candidacy or his campaign, it isn’t fair or realistic to attribute any of it to Patti. For an accurate look at her thoughts and observations during the campaign, check out her website and blog. For an accurate look at her post-election demeanor, read her “thank you” posted elsewhere on this blog.
No one who supported Kyle is doing him any favors by continuing to whine and denigrate Patti. Kyle clearly has a lot of energy and a fire in his belly, and he’ll be back. He took down his midnight tweets pretty quickly once the light of day hit. Everybody else ought to stand down.
What Scott said.
I am a transplant myself. I am sorry if I offended you, DM, by my comments. By newcomers, I mean people who haven’t lived in Decatur very long. .The opposition to Fred, as I understand it, is over the annexation issue. More people on this blog have been against it than for it. Therefore, I concluded, maybe incorrectly, that most people on this blog voted for Mr; Radford. I wish Fred had said something nice about Mr. Radford. Then, none of these comments by me or anyone else would have come up. I am glad you are here, DM.
Gotcha JEM. I misread your statements and overreacted a bit. My apologies.
Indeed there has been a lot of vocal opposition to annexation on this site, but it’s never bad to remember that out of the 50 or so that comment regularly, there are 15- 20 times as many that don’t. But I understand your point.
That said, I haven’t heard about the anti-Fred, anti-annexation vote before.
Dear Yankee Metro (can’t resist), sometimes it is hard not to get your back up when people who have been in your community about six months pop along and think they know the local scene better than you do. I am actually thinking in particular about someone I know who has honestly lived in Decatur literally 8 months and has been very loud about his/her knowledge of local politics. I can see where long-term, not just native, residents get really annoyed. I am not THAT old and have lived in Decatur 17 of the last 20 years (not giving away my age since I swear I am 25). I supported Kyle because of a personal connection that lends some insight into his character and because I got the vibe from Patti that she felt somewhat entitled to the job. I voted for Rob because I think the school board is too complacent and needs a wake up. I would have voted for Fred because I have seen his care and consideration on issues personally.
Most of my reasons listed above = persona,l right? Sara Evans posited in the 80s that all politics are personal and every choice we make in our lives is political. I don’t think there is anyway to remove the personal from local politics when there aren’t that many of us to begin with. I hope everyone who gets upset over local political mudslinging remembers that we are insulting people that many posters actually know!
Clarence (aka Nellie), I’m not sure how this comment relates to the one above but I think it’s a good and important observation.
Personal votes are well and good in a small community…I’m living in some odd, lonely Utopia if I don’t admit that. But I believe that a community is healthier, not only when it knows it’s candidates, but has heard them discuss and promote their positions on issues. Many towns across this country vote based on personal alliances…but I’m not sure they are any better for not also taking a step back and thinking about the community a bit.
The other great side-effect of discussing issues, instead of having a popularity contest, is that it dilutes the personal side a bit.
Talking about issues is the responsibility of the populous and the candidates. But maybe Decatur is becoming a victim of its own success. Issues are few and satisfaction is high. Why take the time to analyze a system that already gives you everything you want?
I was sorta free associating.Can’t you tell
?
To clarify, I am not Mrs. Boykin (that was a cheap shot, but that’s been characteristic of the campaign), but I did support Fred in this campaign. Put signs in my yard, voted for him, went to the party. Have known Fred for 18 years and consider him a good councilman. Not related to him by blood or marriage, although I do ride a bicycle and get my repairs at his shop.
I found it petty that bloggers attacked Fred’s lack of graciousness about Mr. Radford, and lauded Mr. Radford’s graciousness, when during the campaign, his opponents persistently tried to mischaracterize his position on school issues.
Now, Mr. Radford is free to campaign as he sees fit. But please don’t tell me that kind of campaigning is gracious and noble and honorable. In my opinion, and the opinion of others, Mr Radford and his campaign took a comment made to biased supporters and spread it around with the clear implication that he supports something that he doesn’t support (dismantling or taking over the school system). They continued to do this even after Fred said he supports the school. And, when Mr. Boykin tried to refute some of the comments on Mr. Radford’s blog, Mr. R. refused to allow him to do that, from what I understand. And from the comments on this blog, they think that’s fair game, and they’re not ashamed of operating that way. Maybe that’s one of the reasons they lost?
They also produced a YouTube Video ridiculing Mr. Boykin, perfectly legal, if more than a trifle sophomoric.
Here’s the link. Is this something Mr. Radford is proud of? Is this “gracious.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrldWG6mpag
(By the way, Fred emailed the link to all his supporters. He says the Monty Python Lumberjack skit is one of his favorites!)
So, Decatur Metro readers, judge for yourselves. Do you think this is what any reasonable person would call honorable campaigning? It’s a free country. You’re free to take pot shots at Fred Boykin all you want.
But don’t start lauding Mr. Radford as being gracious and honorable, at the same time belittling Fred for not being more gracious and thanking Mr. Radford for this kind of campaigning.
James is just about one of the nicest people I have ever met. I can’t say the same for Fred. Fred has weaseled his way through conversations about the “dismantling the schools” comment without ever swearing the sort of allegiance to protecting the schools that James did. Fred continually used the schools as a threat, positing that we have an either/or situation with the schools and annexation. We either annex and keep the schools, or we have to give up the schools.
James had nothing to do with that video, and the people who made it have been very clear about that.
Sophomoric, I’ll accept.