Council endorsements in St. Pete
The Times editorial board made its endorsements today in four St. Petersburg City Council races. Read the endorsements here. But in case you don't feel like the extra click, the editorial board likes Herb Polson in District 1, Ed Montanari in District 3, Jamie Bennett in District 5, and Gershom Faulkner in District 7. All but Bennett, who faces "New Election" Nov. 6, are also endorsed by Mayor Rick Baker.
UPDATE: After first indicating he would stay out of the race in District 5, Rick Baker has endorsed Jamie Bennett after all. Bennett is running against "New election." If new election wins Nov. 6, the city would have to pay almost $250,000 to have a new council election in District 5. "He doesn't want the expense," Bennett said Monday afternoon. (Props to a Buzz poster for the tip).

Didn’t Baker also endorse Capelli and Bryan?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Once again the Times has overlooked obvious character flaws (including multiple arrests) and recommend candidates based on their own personal and political agendas. Either that, or Tricky Rick simply told them who to pick. It's all about the quan!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Baker wrote Bennett a check for $100.00 and verbally endorsed Bennett.
Aaron, check your facts, dude!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Gershom Faulkner got arrested THREE times????
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Yes, THREE times!
But according to the Times…
“The difference in the two candidates comes down to who has the better experience and temperament for the job.”
I guess breaking the law has a way of preparing one for office!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Maybe the crackdown on the south side is working?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:37 AM
What was his license suspended for?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Who did he bounce a check to and for what amount?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Has anyone ever ran for office who was arrested three times? I'm incredulous.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I find his criminal lifestyle to be a choice and not in God's way.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:41 AM
You just got to dig the Times’ criteria… check this dichotomy…
Newton: “…has some good ideas on crime prevention.”
Faulkner: “… was arrested three times between 1999 and 2002 - twice for driving with a suspended license and once on a bad check charge.”
But here’s the bottom line… “Faulkner's two former bosses, Peterman and Castor, are supporting his candidacy.”
It’s all bout keeping the “good-ol’-boy” and “crony” system in bidness!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:43 AM
“Although he is still a little shaky on the details of key city issues, as is his opponent, Faulkner has shown the ability to connect individuals with their government.”
Translation: “I don’t know a thing about issues, but I can show you where the jail is!”
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Isn't Gershom a bail bondsman? Maybe he got the entrepreneurial idea after he got arrested so many times!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Newton is also "gregarious." What is this- the Happy Negro stereotype back in a new form?
How about telling us that Wengay Newton was endorsed by:
Firefighters
Police Benevolent Assoc
Pinellas Realtors Org
It's HUGE that Gershom didn't get the Realtors- what's up?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:53 AM
That's who he wrote the bad check to!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Didn’t Baker also endorse Capelli and Bryan?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 11:57 AM
My my what a difficult discission, who to inherit the Bush legacy. Over extended Excutive Power, World Bank Power, and last but not least the US Justice Department in you back pocket, heck, lots of folks would like to step into that, lets just hope they will actually use the power to help better all americans lives.
Posted by: tweenyd | October 22, 2007 at 12:12 PM
It will be hard for the Times to criticize future office seekers who have broken the law- not that they have overlooked this
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 12:15 PM
who would agree that helping the richest and upper class is not the same as actually helping all americans equally, I feel that this kind of public policy only servers to empower the Haves and leaves the have not to suffer the empowerment of their oppressors.
Posted by: tweenyd | October 22, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Opps I forgot my place, I am suppose to be just a worthless, no good outcast, that needs guidance and instruction from the better part of society.
Posted by: tweenyd | October 22, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Isn't Newton's brother the fire union president? Pretty much explains that endorsement.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 12:19 PM
doesn't explain the Realtors, though
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 12:26 PM
People who are homophobic might do a better job to avoid prison.
Posted by: free advice | October 22, 2007 at 01:08 PM
Free Advice 1:08 - It was a suspended license, not child molestation or embezzlement.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 01:16 PM
tweenyd, what the hell are you talking about? This is a City Council race, not the election for the head of the New World Order/Illuminati/Rich White Guys/People More Successful Than You.
Take the time to actually post in the correct blog.
Posted by: rjm | October 22, 2007 at 01:46 PM
How many higher ups who endorsed Gershom spat out their coffee then they read about his arrests today?
Faulkner's judgment. Worst. Ever.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 02:26 PM
I think you guys are reading this all wrong. I mean, what’s better… finding out they’re crooks after they get in office, or knowing they’re crooks goin in? Low expectations, no surprises… it’s an interesting concept.
Take the Board of County Co-Criminals for example; the Times is 0-for-7 on those endorsements. But, if their endorsement was based on those most likely to be called in front of a Grand Jury over a shady land deal using taxpayers dollars… they’d be 7-0!
It’s too bad we fried Bundy before the Times could endorse him for Governor! Heck, he might have done better than Chuck has so far. And couldn’t you just see Osama Been Forgotten as a Congressman, appointed to Chair the Committee on Homeland Security.
I say, go for it Times!
Posted by: Booger | October 22, 2007 at 02:27 PM
BANG-O-RANG, 2:27!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 03:00 PM
BANG-O-RANG, 2:27!
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 03:00 PM
You most can do time in the slammer for bouncing checks, and you should.
Thou Shalt Not Steal.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 03:08 PM
Tweenyd and Booger should hook up.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 03:10 PM
Gee, I don't even know anyone who has been arrested three times, much less voted for them.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 03:46 PM
So vote opposite of liberal Time's endorsements?
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 03:59 PM
3.59PM, the St. Petersburg Times does not endorse liberals in St. Petersburg
city elections. See Cathy Harrelson,
Darden Rice, etc. This pattern has been true for many years.
The Times is foundation of the Good Old
Boy network along with the Chamber.
They endorsed Baker from the beginning
and have run supportive editorials every month or so since then.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 06:30 PM
Looks like Newton has been busy on this blog. Almost all of them are from the Newtons, with the exception of a few. Internet popular in Newton family .. his brother ( head of the firefighters union, thus endorsement) is involved with a really nasty website for firefighters, complete with foul language, loads of misinformation and ugly pictures of urinating cartoon characters. Angry that he can't close a contract for his union members in 4 years.
Vote for Faulkner. Even with his faults from 6 years ago he is still a better candidate.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 07:31 PM
Faulkner's supporters don't have time to blog today. They are busy putting out the fires and apologizing to supporters who never heard of his arrest record until now.
Posted by: | October 22, 2007 at 07:48 PM
All the city council candidates will be at The Unitarian Universalist Church of St Pete. on Oct 28th from 4-6pm for a forum/debate. Check out their web at www.uustpete.org. Show up and get answers to the important questions you have.
Posted by: julie | October 22, 2007 at 08:46 PM
All the city council candidates will be at The Unitarian Universalist Church of St Pete. on Oct 28th from 4-6pm for a forum/debate. Check out their web at www.uustpete.org. Show up and get answers to the important questions you have.
Posted by: julie | October 22, 2007 at 08:46 PM
What I read from these self-righteus folks on this blog sometimes amazes me. I guess that's why I never care to respond but I know for a fact that Faulkner is awesome guy and is definitely a much better candidate then his opponent. Yes, I did my homework before I “endorsed” him and he was not arrested three times. According to PUBLIC records there was only one situation with his license. But hey I don't have to defend Faulkner because his character and passion for improving District 7 speaks volume then something that happened over 6 years ago!
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 12:29 AM
"Internet popular in Newton family .. his brother ( head of the firefighters union, thus endorsement) is involved with a really nasty website for firefighters, complete with foul language, loads of misinformation and ugly pictures of urinating cartoon characters. Angry that he can't close a contract for his union members in 4 years."
I'm a Fire Fighter and the web site is my personal creation. My Union President has nothing to do with it's content. If you don't like certain elements of this city's political regime, then you're probably more aligned with the political conscience of my website than you can ever know.
As to prior comments dealing with his brother's endorsement by the St. Petersburg Association of Fire Fighters, President Newton was not a part of this year's candidate screening. For many of the same reasons, we don't care for Faulkner, either.
Fire Fighter
(speaking solely for myself)
Posted by: Fire Fighter | October 23, 2007 at 03:21 AM
3:21 That you would publically claim a website which makes good, hard working firefighters look selfish and crude is hard to fathom.
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 08:42 AM
What is hard to fathom is that the Times endorsed a guy who was arrested THREE TIMES. Come on. Don't dance around that. It's a crying out loud shame.
Gershom is lucky he has an opponent who could screw up a two car parade. He's only winning because the other guy is so gregariously novice.
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 08:46 AM
What's more self-righteous than going to the Stonewall Dems and telling them you judge their lifestyle but will take their money?
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 08:48 AM
"3:21 That you would publically claim a website which makes good, hard working firefighters look selfish and crude is hard to fathom."
So you take umbrage with...
a. a website?
b. (in your opinion), that they could look selfish and crude?
c. your prudish nature?
d. that anyone other than yourself should espouse their views?
e. real life events?
Let me introduce you to some folks that have just returned from fighting in Iraq. They're kinda rough around the edges too, but they get the job done.
You need to get out, more...
Posted by: Watcher | October 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM
You guy can hammer at each other all day long about why the Times did this… but, because it warrants repeating for clarification…
... But here’s the bottom line… “Faulkner's two former bosses, Peterman and Castor, are supporting his candidacy.”
It’s all bout keeping the “good-ol’-boy” and “crony” system in bidness!
It really is as simple as that, and if you think the Times puts any “real and unbiased” thought into who they endorse and/or recommend – and why… you are one naive puppy.
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Here's a simple question...
What has Faulkner done for his community (other than being a do-boy for his boss') that would place him in the same league as Wengay Newton?
Wengay is an active participant at the community level (no paycheck there). Whereas Faulkner's claim to fame lies with those who've written his past pay checks. Where are the 'group' endorsements?
Pretty simple but obvious comparison.
Posted by: Northsider | October 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM
The Times editorial board must have been told what to do and who to endorse. This isn't new. I urge everyone to vote for Newt Newton. He's born and raised in St. Petersburg and knows more about the city that all the Council persons and Mayor's staff combined. For Gershon to have the endorsement of all politicians - while Newt gets the firefighters, the real estate folks and the police - tell you all you need to know about which candidate is for the PEOPLE and which candidate is bought and sold by the SYSTEM.
Vote Newt Newton.
Posted by: Denise | October 23, 2007 at 01:15 PM
The Times would endorse Osama Been Forgotten if directed by either Rick, Chuck, or any number of systemically-trained good ol’ boys.
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 01:40 PM
The End of Times??????
Yesterday the SP Times endorsed several candidates for the upcoming city elections? One of whom has a felonious criminal record that they proudly displayed to the public????
I'm more concerned about the activities that this candidate has not gotten caught for.... I mean think about it, if you were arrested twice for DWSL, imagine how many times he actually drove and didn't get caught? We have all gotten the NSF notices from our banks, but how many or how much over did he write that one check(?) for to warrant an arrest?
Deliberate disrepect for the laws that protect the people!
I wouldn't want this person on a council that determines the citizens' well being and budgets for the city in which they raise their kids.
Election to public office should be won based on a person's merits, past history and the platform for which they stand.
I get it..... SP Times has become lazy, as has the entire journalistic profession. They take direction from the administrations, who no doubt is behind this endorsement, for alliance reasons and not the constituents. "ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?"
The SP Times have no regards based on the integrity of the candidates, but to create controversy and sell more papers.
That is a direct slap in the face of the hardworking people that buys their rag! I don't know about you but when honesty takes a back seat to glorified criminals and yes-men then this is truly "THE END OF SP TIMES!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by: Juan | October 23, 2007 at 04:40 PM