When I was in graduate school, a journalism professor liked starting his class chatting about current events.
One morning, a student, commenting on a political issue, suggested that a presidential candidate wouldn’t take a particular position because “the party won’t like it.”
“Party?” shrieked the professor back at him. “Party? What the hell is this? The Soviet Union?”
Or, as he might have stated, Harrisburg, Pa.
Not one, but two, mayoral hopefuls learned that lesson the hard way yesterday, as independents Nevin Mindlin and Nate Curtis were tossed from the November ballot by Dauphin County Judge Bernard Coates Jr.
Both Mindlin and Curtis were challenged for not filling out a section of their nominating petitions. This mandatory section seemed to apply only to party candidates, not independents. So, they logically didn’t fill it out.
Even testimony by Mindlin that he tried to get clarification on the section but got bum advice from the county Bureau of Elections was not enough to sway Judge Coates to his side. Coates didn’t even rule on Curtis’ oversight, as his failure to meet a residency requirement tripped him up first.
So, two weeks ago, it seemed like one Democratic candidate would be facing two independents. Now, after several bizarre twists and turns, it’s one Democrat and one Republican, which, to the major parties, restores the political balance of nature—their wonderful world of mutual antagonism made whole again.
Unfortunately, what’s best for the parties is not what’s best for Harrisburg.
Until recently, it seemed like we’d have a fresh race with some new ideas and energy. Instead, we have a choice between the same two guys who ran in the Democratic primary just a few months ago. Only now, one’s a Republican.
Which brings me, once again, to the subject of Dan Miller.
In recent blog posts, I’ve said a number of critical things about Miller (an opinion solely my own, by the way). I wanted to clarify that I respect Miller’s years of public service and, in fact, very nearly voted for him in May.
But I just don’t understand the guy.
I don’t understand why he skipped debates; why he ran such a lackluster campaign; why, after his defeat, he blamed others, not himself, for his loss. I really don’t understand how he can continue to advocate a financial plan for Harrisburg that seems lost somewhere in 2009.
And now I don’t understand how this Democratic state committeeman can run for mayor as a Republican, having secured that nomination with all of 196 write-in votes. I’m sure he’ll do his best to hide his party affiliation during the campaign. However, being a Republican means certain things, things I’m pretty sure Miller does not believe in and cannot advocate. So then what we’re left with is political opportunism masked in a noble disguise of giving voters a choice—the same “choice” they just had three months ago.
What this portends for November is already taking shape.
Papenfuse, by his meek, non-response response to the petition challenges, has done damage to his campaign. How much is uncertain. I assume he hopes, once this ugly episode dies down, he can simply push forward and resume his quest for the mayoralty. Miller, naturally, will try to keep Papenfuse’s evasiveness alive as long as possible, trying to take maximum advantage of the public’s sudden turn against him.
I continue to believe that this race is Papenfuse’s to lose. The Democratic advantage in this city is very strong, and it’s hard to see, absent more serious stumbles by Papenfuse, where Miller’s support will come from beyond his primary followers. Given Miller’s anti-GOP positions, the conservative vote is hardly a lock for him, and he certainly won’t get much support from Mayor Linda Thompson’s crowd.
One near-certainty is that this will be a fascinating election campaign to watch. We have a Republican candidate who repudiates the Republican-led financial recovery plan for the city, while the Democrat embraces it. Is this the best thing for Harrisburg? Certainly not, but it’s the only choice the engrained two-party system has left us with.
