No, I’m not a “desperate Norwood” supporter. I am someone who can spot a poster with “interests” to protect. By the way, Mitchell’s forthcoming was simply a case of getting the bad info out before your opponents do. Surely you know that. The contract with his brother was shady. Imagine if Mueller had given a contract to a sibling. Would you be as forgiving? Methinks not. And did his brother really get 68K? That’s a nice chunk of change, especially when you can buy t-shirts wholesale for less than $2.

Notice Martin’s endorsement has nothing to do with Clair’s accomplishments as a legislator of what she’s done for the City. They’re friends, and they’ve known each other for some time and he got out in support of her. Who’s supporting Ceasar? Check for yourself: http://ceasarforouratlanta.com/site/endorsements. It’s from a pretty diverse group and not just the “homies” (as is the case with Clair with the exception of Creative Loafing’s endorsement where Ceasar had too many ideas for Thomas Wheatley).

As to your second question, he’s proposed a host of initiatives that could generate revenue for the City. He’ll advocate that the next mayor commission a revenue optimization study to identify NON-PROPERTY TAX SOURCES OF REVENUE (they comprise only about 28% of the City’s revenues) to fund the expansion of APD (see: http://ceasarforouratlanta.com/site/on-the-issues/thriving), he’s open to managed competition and shifting more city services to the private sector when there’s a solid business case for doing so (see the link above), he’s proposed legislation to create zero-based budgeting across City agencies, he’ll also support the institution of annual budget growth caps to reign in non-public safety spending, he’s supported the IBPO’s revenue-generating ideas (like taking over the City’s towing operations) to generate more dollars for APD and he’ll ensure that the next mayor has his/her pension reform strike team in place within the first year of his term (see above link again) to finally get our pension challenges under control. He’ll do more than find alternative revenue streams, he’s proposed measures to restrain spending. Both cost and revenue ideas for our fiscal crisis. What else do you want to see? And given all of his proposals (some of which he’s already introduced as a Councilman), are you willing to cast your vote for Clair anyway simply because of the ethics violation? So, you’re telling me finding alternative revenue sources is what you’ll need to see, I’m showing them to you, but you’re probably still on the fence. Is this REALLY about alternative revenue streams for you or about something else?

I’ll reiterate a point I’ve made a few times. When Mitchell first contracted with his brother, it was legal. The law changed, and he made the mistake of keeping the contract intact. Was that stupid? Yes. Should he have known better? Yes. But the larger question: what did he do about it? He brought it to the attention of the Ethics Office, paid his fine and made a part of his platform advocacy for the creation of an Office of Inspector General (http://ceasarforouratlanta.com/site/on-the-issues/thriving) to build upon the City’s Integrity Line. He’s realized the need for a “top cop” in the City and the value of bringing Legal Compliance, Ethics and Audit under one organizational umbrella to investigate fraud, abuse and waste in City Hall. And, he wants to put City contracts over one million dollars online. What do you think about that?

And how do I know this stuff? Because it’s either: a) on his website; or, b) he’s said these things on the campaign trail. So, that’s why I’m “in the tank” because he has a vision for this City and a record a stand on. I can’t say the same for Clair. She’s been on a lot of committee, and according to Graves Hall, she asks great questions and apparently knows the legislative process better than Ceasar (still waiting on some proof of this). And his response to the ethics violation is more telling than anything else he’s done — it speaks of the kind of leadership we want in this City. Man up to your shortcomings and address them substantively. What else would you want?

Yep, I’m in the tank for any politician with a record and a platform that instills in the me the confidence that they’ll do what’s right for the City’s public safety and fiscal challenges. The better questions is given the public availability of everything I’ve said, why aren’t you all in the tank as I am. And again, don’t worry about the Morehouse connection because I don’t support Lamar Willis, I cheered when Maddox retired and I’m not a fan of Michael Julian Bond.

Instead of the knee-jerk reaction to just raising my taxes, what has your boy done to find alternative revenue streams of income for the city. If the answer is nothing, then his actions are no better than Clair. He’s a lawyer who should know an ethical violation when he sees it. Going to the Ethics board and making them aware of his indiscretion does not let him off the hook for doing it. He was gonna get caught anyway when he filed his yearly financial statements with that same board. Try something new.

I find it hard to believe that the better educated voters in this city are voting for Norwood. Her supporters on this thread are very shallow.

II’m still trying to figure out how anyone could come to the conclusion that Muller would make a better City Council President than Mitchell as it seems that the only knock on Mitchell is one ethics violation that he brought to the attention of the Ethics Office and paid his fine. Reed also has a state ethics violation in his background, so why doesn’t that also disqualify him? See the inconsistency here? Now, I’m a Reed supporter for many of the same reasons that I support Reed — they’ve both shown in the campaign to have the most viable set of proposals to address public safety and the City’s finances and they both have impressive records of legislative accomplishment. I simply don’t see the appeal of Mary, though I do see why people would might vote for Clair (she’s spent twenty years on the Council and hasn’t rocked any boats…awesome!) though folks like Mitchell, Reed and Farokhi strike me as the future of the City.

But then again, if you want people who voted to create the furloughs and then failed to provide an alternative to a tax hike, seems like Norwood and Muller are a perfect pair!

Creative Loafing lamely described Muller a “technocrat” in the same breath that they dismissed Mitchell for having too many bright ideas (now, wouldn’t you expect the technocrat to have a more substantive platform?).