Prediction. Big News by Trump on Thursday

After all this time the TV pundits still don't understand Trump.

They speculate back and forth on what makes the most sense for Trump. For Trump the only thing that matters is staying the center of attention. That is what makes sense to him.

Show stealer

It is all about Trump.

A prediction comes true: On Sunday morning frequent Guest Post author Thad Guyer sent the me the following e-mail:

"Trump must have a severe itchy trigger finger on Rosentein or budget bill. The Kavanaugh show largely excludes Trump. He hates that. He can crash that show by firing Rosenstein or vetoing one of the 2 pending budget bills. I'm 50% sure Trump is going to explode DC media Wednesday night or Thursday morning.

Hey, you either believe Trump is now 25th Amendment crazy, or you don't. I do."

Guyer is already right about crashing the show. 

For a week the top story had been Brett Kavanaugh. His supporters say how perfect Kavanaugh is, so smart, so good, such a good husband, soccer coach, judge. What was Kavanaugh really like as a teenager? What did Kavanaugh do at parties? What about Kavanaugh and female law clerks. Breaking News!  Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh!!

Trump is taking it back.

Guyer had it right. It must be driving Trump crazy.

The very fact of being put into a "supporting role" breaks the Trump brand. He does not want to be a leader. He is the leader.

Trump is taking back the spotlight. The Kavanaugh story puts GOP Senators in the position to make or break someone. We were seeing Senate power at work. Trump is retaking center stage with a dramatic meeting ,showing himself to be holding the strings of power, with poor Rosenstein dangling over the pit of fire, held aloft by an angry, temperamental, and wrathful Trump. Trump could fire him and create chaos.

Trump is stomping all over the Kavanaugh story. While the accuser accuses, Kavanaugh denies, and Senators do their posturing, the news anchors will cut away to go to the White House, for the real drama.  What will Trump do?

We are already in the suspenseful build-up period, with the drama of Rosenstein taking the quiet journey to the White House where Trump met and put this on hold until Thursday, of all days. The Kavanaugh nomination problem can be fixed with a new nominee, and, besides, it is an ensemble story about people in "supporting roles," Senators and Judges. It was only the big story if Trump let it be. Trump-Rosenstein story has the potential to be a constitutional crisis, a Thursday Massacre, by firing Rosenstein and impairing the Mueller investigation. Besides, this story is about the leading man.

Kavanaugh got Trumped.

Trump's narcissism feeds Trump's power. The Kavanaugh story weakens the Trump brand because it is about supposed co-equal branches of government. Senate confirmation demonstrates that Trump's power is checked and balanced. If the process works as anything but a rubber stamp then it demonstrates that Trump is one of several who govern.

With Trump, it is never someone else's turn.

Trump is not as fearsome--and therefore not as powerful--if others have independent power. Trump's power over the GOP comes from being the indispensable person, the person GOP voters cheer, the person whose condemnation ends a career. GOP Senators operate by the grace of Trump and his power to motivate his base. Their base.

Briefly Kavanaugh moved the Senate into the center ring of the circus. Trump must always be in the center of the center ring.

Partisan politics in non-partisan races.

Non-partisan city council races have a partisan undertone.

City Council candidates signal their party.

Ankerberg opposes him. Poythress and Dobrin, too.

Yesterday this blog wrote about partisan whisper campaigns in judicial races, where judge candidates do partisan signaling. Local judges are supposed to be non-partisan because there is a public interest in the idea of impartiality and equal justice for all. But partisan affiliation sneaks in.

Southern Oregon city council offices are non-partisan by design. Cities wanted to emphasize civic unity. Moreover, the issues that come before local governments simply don't match up with national party platforms. 

I know from personal experience as a County Commissioner here that there is almost no partisan position to inform local issues. There isn't a Republican or Democratic position on whether to extend an urban growth boundary in one direction or another. 

Local issues affect people, but they aren't partisan. Example: Striping a bike lane. A homeowner who parks his second car on the public street in front of his house cares a lot whether his handy parking spot becomes a no-parking bike lane. Meanwhile, people who would like to bike safely prefer a bike lane along that collector street. At first glance, one might assume a partisan approach, that the bicyclists are young environmentalist liberals and the person who wants to park on the street in front of his house with a pickup truck thinks bikes are silly, and therefore the issue divides by party. Democrats are bike people; Republicans think streets are for cars.

But the real world of local politics is messier than that.

Facebook post

At the public hearing on the issue of striping the bike path, a council person discovers that the person leading the effort for the bike lane is a disabled Iraq veteran missing an arm and leg, who bicycles on a special three wheeled bicycle from his home to the park where he leads a weekday morning group of fellow veterans in an exercise class. Meanwhile, the homeowner who wants to park his car on the street is a liberal who has weekly Indivisible meetings at his house and likes street parking to accommodate them, and has pro-gun-control signs all over the truck he parks in the street.

OK, so now what is the partisan answer regarding bike lanes?

The recent series of posts on a local Medford City Council race documents silent partisanship in this nonpartisan office. (The focus of the series was Ward One, because this is the campaign that includes the angry and disruptive provocateur, Curt Ankerberg. Ankerberg was sanctioned by the US tax courts for submitting fraudulent tax returns for himself, and he has a pattern of getting notoriety for angry and profane attacks on local citizens. This makes his name well known locally.) Three of the four candidates in the Ward One race specifically criticized Kevin Stine, a Council person in a different ward. 

Stine is a young husband and father, a Navy veteran, and he is employed by Rogue Community College doing veteran outreach. That sounds like the biography that would be acceptable to Republicans, but in fact Stine is a Democrat who has run for higher office as a Democrat.

That makes Stine a visible target for attack and partisan signaling.

Dobrin. Opposes Stine.

Those three candidates did not criticize Stine based on any actions or decisions he took as a City Council person. But he is a Democrat, hoping to have a future in politics, and that is more than enough. Alex Poythress listed Stine as one of three council people he said should be replaced--a significant house cleaning of the 8 person body. David Dobrin listed Stine as the single Council person he named to oppose, he said to me based on his having heard that Stine supported gun registration and that he disapproved of people holding an office while seeking a higher one. Each of them were firm in telling me they opposed Kevin Stine.

Ankerberg attacked Stine along with dozens of other people, including Republicans, Democrats, the media, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and most certainly me.

Two things are happening.

Poythress. Opposes Stine

One is partisan animus. Candidates for non-partisan office who are Republicans oppose people identified as Democrats. They are on the wrong team.  (A Republican city council person currently running as a Republican for State Representative, Kim Wallan, was not mentioned by Dobrin for disapproval, and was singled out for praise by Poythress as his "inspiration.")

The other is partisan signaling.  Voters who are Republicans get cued that Poythress and, Dobrin are part of the "GOP tribe." Honest, civic minded people can differ amicably on whether a four way intersection fronting on a fire station, a park, and a shopping center should be serviced by complicated signals or a roundabout, but there aren't established tribes on either side. So candidates don't campaign on such an issue. They campaign by demonstrating that they dislike something that some block of voters also know they dislike: Democrats, even a non-partisan office.


There is an alternative approach: signaling non-partisanship. One candidate is positioning himself saying he can work with different people with different points of view and parties. Steve Dickson listed several Council members he admired, including four council people and the mayor, all people with a different known political orientations. Dickson is a Republican but mentioned Stine, along with Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Kay Brooks, and Mayor Gary Wheeler as people doing a good job. 

Do voters actually value nonpartisan civic-minded cooperation? That is the underlying theory of non-partisan seats on a city council. 

Steve Dickson

That is the attitude Steve Dickson is signaling, but possibly there is no "bipartisan cooperation tribe" to attract, even in local races. Dobrin and Poythress are signaling they bring Republican partisanship to a local office, and it might be the smart approach. A secure block of voters know they dislike Democrats; they don't know what they think about local issues.

Still, there is some appeal--certainly to me--to the idea that, at least at the city level, we have a council that can work together cooperatively with civic minded non-partisanship. That appears to be Steve Dickson's approach as he voiced it to me. 

The question is whether voters actually value what he is signaling.

.

Non partisan judges

Whisper campaigns. Non partisan judicial races are becoming partisan. 

The notion of non-partisan civic mindedness and equal justice is supposed to be a virtue by itself.  But maybe now, not so much. Winning is the highest virtue.

Republican Party booth. Note the Parker sign.

We elect judges in Oregon, and they are a nonpartisan office. Increasingly people running for judge are letting it be known to local party people that they belong to a partisan tribe. 

Candidates are subtle and quiet about it. Judge candidates don't put the words "Republican" or "Democrat" on their lawn signs or brochures. That would be illegal and against judicial ethics. 

But they signal their partisan orientation. It is a wink-wink thing. It is totally legal. 

A judge candidate doesn't publicly say he is Republican or Democrat.  The word gets out more subtly by who endorses them, by what signs are next to theirs in lawns, whether they reveal they go to an evangelical church. Let others do the talking. Then it goes to the next step and the local political activists and parties take over.  Democratic or Republican Party people get the message and choose on their own to carry literature for a judicial candidate, put their signs up in booths, or mention them as part of a partisan slate of candidates.

The judge candidate didn't do anything illegal. It was the political parties, doing what they do, promoting people who see things their way. They spread the overt partisan message.

I consider whisper partisanship to be bad for the authority and dignity of the courts. We expect partisan legislators to  have points of view they advance, but we expect something entirely different from judges. We expect judges to be fair. We expect equal justice. 

Maybe I am naive.

Election realities push toward whisper campaigns and partisanship. It is Gresham's law in politics. Bad behavior drives out good. Partisan whisper campaigns are a winning strategy.

In judge races, candidates are expected to run on the basis of non-partisan qualities of reputation, character, polls by fellow members of the local bar. It is a popularity contest based, supposedly, on their judgement and ability to be fair and reasonable. Since the criteria are so vague and amorphous the votes tend to divide roughly evenly among two candidates with approximately equal campaigns. But if one or the other of two candidates gets whispers going among Democrats or Republicans that "Candidate John Doe is really one of us," then that person gets an extra boost from voters who previously had no particular compelling reason to vote one way or the other. 

The ideal strategy to win is for ones opponent to "play fair" and avoid partisanship on behalf of the intended rules and the impartiality of the judicial system, while you give high minded non-partisanship lip service, while simultaneously doing a whisper campaign. The whisper campaigner wins.

It isn't really cheating because it is a a mere whisper. Wink-wink. It's legal. And besides, the candidate's friends did the actual work. The judge candidate has clean hands. It is a legal fiction but that is the nature of legal fictions. They are legal.

Legal fiction

If whisper campaigns are accepted in a community, then the stable equilibrium is for both candidates to do it. It is an arms race, in which a secret-Democrat runs against a secret-Republican, both sneaking. But the result is that people in the know realize the judges only pretend to civic-minded, equal-justice non-partisanship. They are really mere sneaky politicians, in robes.

If a community tolerates that, then that is what we will get. 

But there is a possible alternative, although it will not succeed unless there are people and institutions in a community that have moral authority to be spokespeople for the non-partisan authority of the justice system and its commitment to equal justice. This would require people who are committed to that virtue to condemn, publicly and clearly, the whisper campaign of a candidate if one is taking place. If credible, respected people and institutions immediately condemned partisanship gaming in judicial races, then the repetitional cost of doing a whisper campaign could be greater than the value of signaling that one is really a Democrat or Republican, hiding under a judge's black robes.

Would that work?  Possibly.

It would require something which may no longer exist: people and institutions who cared deeply about the appearance of judicial fairness. Maybe a body of judges could do it. Maybe senior, respected lawyers could speak on behalf of justice rather than partisanship. Maybe newspaper editorials would care to advance that virtue.

Or maybe it is simply too late, and civic-minded nonpartisanship simply isn't that important a virtue anymore. People may not expect it, demand it, or believe it is possible. And besides, at this point no person or institution has credibility outside a little silo. Who cares what judges think, what the local Bar Association thinks, what the newspaper thinks?

These are new times. Things have fallen apart, the center cannot hold anything, and we have the anarchy of winning being a more important virtue than the appearance and reality of impartial justice

Heads Up to Local Candidates: Your words now matter.

It is easy to criticize.  It's fun. It seems harmless. 

And then you file for public office.  

Everything changes.

New people are getting involved in politics, inspired by the heightened polarization and interest in politics. And some of those people are filing for local offices, city and county government, school boards, and special service districts.

New candidates need to learn something and adjust their thinking.

1. If you say it in front of a TV camera you might see yourself on TV that evening saying what you just said. If you say it in front of a someone planning to amplify it by quoting you, then you may read your own words the next morning. In either case, you may not like it.

Making every mistake in 1982

2. When you criticize the decisions or motives of people in local government, you are talking about real people, your neighbors. They probably will not like reading that you think they are foolish or corrupt, so you had better think carefully about what you say. 

This blog's readership has gone up dramatically during some recent posts about people running for local office. There is a shortage of coverage of local candidates and I am attempting to step in. So I am giving unsolicited advice for all candidates running for local office. I had to learn these lessons myself 40 years ago when I was an aide to a Congressman and a candidate and officeholder. I made mistakes. I had to learn.

Talking to a reporter is different from talking to other people. Casual, throw-away jokes and offhand comments are part of natural conversation. But if there is a TV camera or a note-taking reporter, stop. If you say it, you own it. Particularly dangerous are complex sentences, ones with subordinate clauses. Tentative candidates hoping to appear "reasonable" and willing to see all sides of issues often make this mistake. A candidate might lay out a position and then say, "that said" and then make their real point, the opposite of the original thought. That is dangerous. 

Here's an example: "I want to show compassion and empathy for homeless people sleeping on our streets and parks, but we cannot tolerate them using our sidewalks as a toilet."

Sounds reasonable, right?

Heads up to candidates: There are two thoughts in that sentence, and you might read your words or see yourself on TV described as "Candidate Jane Doe expressed the need for compassion and empathy for people who use your doorstep as a toilet."  

More common is the problem of a candidate wanting to say punchy, somewhat provocative things. Knock heads. Rampant waste. No talent. What sounds OK to the ear in common speech looks different in print, especially when thousands of other people read it. In print "knock heads" might seem violent. The candidate may have said it in a temperate tone. But "knock heads" is what a candidate said.  If the candidate wanted to be quoted saying "make careful changes, as needed" then he or she needs to have said that.  

In politics people don't know the "real you." They won't have had a chance to have had dinner with you, see that you actually are gentle and respectful and see all sides of many issues. They will know the vivid things you said.

When you criticize local government you are criticizing real identifiable people, your neighbors, people whose kids play with your kids.  These are people whose feelings get hurt.

Politically interested people talk about politics with friends. Careless criticism is easy, especially when it is about people we see on the national news. Examples: Hillary is a crook. Trump is childish. Roy Moore is a child molester. Politicians are on the take.

Easy to say. 

But once you file for office everything changes.  A candidate might say "City Hall is full of self- interested corrupt politicians who ignore flagrant waste" or "the school board has sold out children because they are paid off by the teachers unions." Watch out.

People say things like that so often without consequence they may not see the peril once they run for office. Think a moment. Candidate Doe just said the 8 real people on each board are corrupt or "paid off." It is an insult to those neighbors, and it makes a charge of immorality and malfeasance. 

They won't like it. Their friends wont like it. 

Moreover, you yourself as a candidate might not like how it looks.

You may wake up in the morning and read words that seemed so harmless when uttered the previous day, for example that the "politicians on the Council are bad," and all of a sudden you see yourself as others see you, as a person throwing out casual insults and accusations of neighbors. "But I am a nice person," the candidate might think to herself. "I am a concerned citizen, just trying to make the city or schools better. That comment makes me look nasty. That's not the real me."

But apparently it is. As a candidate, reported on radio or TV or in print, you just told thousands of people you think your neighbors in public office are guilty of dishonesty and malfeasance.  People have a right to know what you think, and if you think the City Council or School Board is corrupt or foolish, they have a right to know. Maybe you are right. Maybe you have a case to make. The reporter did the public and you a favor. He or she described what you said. You got your message out.

If that isn't your message, or how you want your message to be read by third parties, then don't say it aloud to someone who plans to quote you.

A final note: I am a slow note taker, and as an independent blogger I realize I have no institutional credibility. So when I talk with candidates I take notes slowly. I stop them from time to time, rapidly write out what I just heard, and then read the words back to the candidate verbatim. "Did I get you correctly?"  I happily let people revise what I heard them say, to fix the grammar, change words to get the tone and content right, let them write their own quotes, and then I read it back to them another time. I don't put quote marks around it until the interviewee says, "OK." Then I have something I feel comfortable quoting. That's how I work.

David Dobrin: Candidate for Medford City Council

This post has been deleted.

The original post was based on an interview with David Dobrin a long time ago, when he was a brand new candidate for Medford City Council. 

He was 27. He is older now, five years later in 2023. His comments were unsurprising and commonplace for people just getting interested in local government and just beginning to dip a toe into running for office. He wrote me today saying his views on matters are no longer reflected in the comments I published. Yet the internet freezes words in time, long after they are no longer relevant or reflective of the present. 

I am happy to erase my former blog post and move on.

Peter Sage

October, 2023

Steve Dickson: Candidate for Medford City Council

"I believe what you give out, comes back. I can work with people."

                                                                             Candidate Steve Dickson

Steve Dickson says the Mayor and City Manager are doing a good job. He gives Ward One voters a real choice:  "I am the healthy alternative to psychotic episodes."

Steve Dickson

Steve Dickson is one of the four people running for Medford City Council in Ward One. The other candidates are Alex Poythress, David Dobrin, and Curt Ankerberg. 

The race has drawn local attention because frequent candidate and political provocateur Curt Ankerberg likely has the greatest name familiarity of the four, having received widespread publicity for filing fraudulent tax returns, for outbursts against the County Clerk, for vulgar Facebook posts, and for multiple runs for public offices.

Steve Dickson presents a very different demeanor. "I believe in kindness, charity, goodwill. I am people centric." 

Dickson, 39, is married and works in Human Resources at the Veterans Administration. He and his wife have lived in Medford since 2010. He serves on the Medford Budget Committee, the Urban Renewal Budget Committee, and on the Grants Committee. He describes himself as fiscally conservative.

I asked him what the big issues were in Medford. 

"Housing. Children can't stay in the Valley with housing at $200 a square foot." He added that safety and security are major concerns. He said that the city can and should do more. "The police can better engage with the community partners to deal with the opioid crisis." He said that the city could become more "business friendly." 

Homeless transients are a problem. "A city can't do it by itself. We need to engage community partners. St. Vincent de Paul and the Maslow Project are examples of the kinds of partners we need to work with.

A theme emerges when meeting with Dickson. He isn't angry. 

He says he has a close-up look at City Hall in his current positions and he sees progress and good work. I asked which City Council people are doing a good job. He was quick to say Tim Jackle, Dick Gordon, Kevin Stine, and Kay Brooks. I asked if anyone was doing a poor job. He declined to say.

He credits Mayor Gary Wheeler, who "has shown exceptional leadership through multiple administrations of City Managers. A lot has happened under his watch, and the city is better off for his leadership."

Is City Manager Brian Sjothun doing a good job, I asked? 

"Yes! Brian is leading the expansion and renewal of the Bear Creek Park. And he is pushing to get new police officers. Our budget is balanced." Bottom line, Dickson said, this City Manager is working out well. 

I asked him about some of the issues brought up by Poythress who said some downtown commercial developments were allowed to build without adequate parking. Dixon said he had no complaint.

"I'm happy Lithia is downtown. They could have chosen other places to build but they chose downtown" and that is very good for Medford, he said. 

I asked about Ankerberg's charge that the Chamber of Commerce leaders are involved in crony dealmaking. He said "I don't know if the Chamber of Commerce is engaging in personal enrichment at the expense of taxpayers. If they are, it is wrong, but I haven't seen evidence that supports that." 

Dickson said he was business friendly. "Business is important for the health of the community."

I asked how he would distinguish himself from Ankerberg. Dixon said he brought an entirely different temperament. "I'm the healthy alternative to psychotic episodes," referring to the written outburst Ankerberg posted regarding evicting the Kid Time Museum. Dickson said he supported bringing children downtown to the Carnegie Bullding, saying it is part of the family friendly tone he wants the city to project.

I asked what he was planning to do become well known and to get his message out. He said he was in the Voters Pamphlet, that we was developing a Facebook presence, and that he had brochures printed. He said he recognized he needed to do more, and that this would involve spending money. In his original campaign filing he said he planned to spend less than $750. He said he planned to revise that filing.

Can he win?

He has something unique to offer, a different point of view from Poythress and Ankerberg, both of whom present themselves as candidates of change and discontent. Each, in different ways, want to shake things up. 

Dixon represents continuity and stability at City Hall. Voters who are happy City Hall worked through a period of management turmoil and who now want things kept on track with low drama have their candidate. That may be a majority of voters. The question is whether Dixon will have succeeded in communicating his message to those voters. 

Note: In every case in which Dickson is quoted above I read back the proposed quotation to him, gave him an opportunity to clarify it for grammar or nuance, and got his affirmation that I was quoting him correctly.



This post is part of a series of profiles on Ward One candidates.  Yesterday I posted about candidate Alex Poythress Click: Poythress   Earlier this week I posted twice regarding Ankerberg, primarily by quoting him verbatim Click: Ankerberg part one       Click: Ankerberg part two

Alex Poythress: Candidate for Medford City Council

"As much as I have frustrations with Medford, I still love the place. It's beautiful. There is no rush-hour."

Alex Poythress

Alex Poythress is running for Medford City Council in Ward One. He is a 29 year old marketing entrepreneur, owning and operating internet based businesses. Ward One voters seeking an alternative to the troubled anger, drama, and disruption of Curt Ankerberg have three alternative candidates: Alex Poythress, Steve Dickson, and David Dobrin.

Poythress says he is frustrated with Medford's problems. "People have had to move out of town because of how hard it is to do business in Medford. I was about ready to move out myself," he said. But he decided instead to stay, serve in office, and be "part of the solution." He currently serves on the Medford Planning Commission, and he is Chair of the Medford Parking Commission.

Alex Poythress is forthright, saying things he said he recognizes will surprise people in their frankness. Asked what the biggest problem Medford has, he said "Talent. Lack of it." 

He said Medford's business culture is characterized by too many laid back people, people who came here to take it easy and retire. "Medford is not a great place to excel in ones career. There is not a strong talent pool for hard working, driven professionals. There isn't a hustling sentiment in Medford. The talent here is very underwhelming, and this is Medford's biggest problem."

Poythress says City of Medford could benefit from some changes, police staffing for one. He said we need many more police on the streets, and he would work to change that. How to pay for it? "There's a lot to be done looking over the budget."

Poythress's big theme is enabling Medford's growth and increasing its business vitality. He wants Medford to encourage entrepreneurs and new businesses. He credits SOREDI and says Medford should be working aggressively with them. "We need more people with hustle and talent." 

Medford is the metropolitan center for the region and city government needs to recognize and act on that, he said. He cites Bend as a model. "Downtown Bend is beautiful; Medford's is not. Bend is beautiful because it is kept that way" and that attracts tourists, new businesses, and new people.

Medford has a parking problem, he said. "Parking is a big thing You need parking for business and customers. "Some big businesses have been allowed to be sited downtown without providing adequate parking. That's not acceptable." I asked which ones. He declined to answer, saying there was one big answer, and that the answer is obvious.

Medford has a transient and homeless person problem, he said. "I want to make transients very uncomfortable. Nothing illegal. Not rough them up. But i want them to be uncomfortable  [in Medford]. We should be patrolling the greenway daily, not just doing occasional sweeps." 

Poythress has a vision for a better downtown. "I want a mall downtown, with parking structures, with window shopping, with retail downstairs and apartments upstairs. High density housing in downtown can go a long way toward revitalizing downtown." He wants more transit and bicycle use. "I am absolutely in favor of multimodal transportation. I want bike share."

And he wants more vibrant and local restaurants. "We have no local cuisine," he said. "Medford has very few small local restaurants." He said he was a home chef and takes food seriously. He said when he wants to take his wife out for a nice dinner "we need to go to one of just five local restaurants, or else drive to Jacksonville or Ashland."

Asked who on the City Council he thought was doing a good job, he said Kim Wallan. "She is an inspiration to me," he said. 

Who don't you like, I asked? He said we should replace Kevin Stine, Kay Brooks, and Clay Bearnson.

Asked how he is different from Curt Ankerberg, he said "I pay my taxes."  And there is the added element of temperament. "There is some need for decorum to have partnerships and successful negotiation, two things that are essential in government. Without that you are an empty suit." 

Ankerberg said in a Facebook post that he would work to evict the Kid Time Children Museum from the City's Carnegie building. Poythress disagreed, saying activities like that are exactly what Medford needs to affirm its family friendly atmosphere.

He plans to run a vigorous campaign, he said. Lots of advertising. Lots of Fliers. Direct mail. Yard signs. Going door to door. and other things he said will be a surprise.

Can he win? He said he recognizes that Ankerberg is well known as a perennial candidate, even if he is well known for being disruptive, angry, and in trouble with tax authorities. Poythress says he intends to become well known himself, but in a positive way.

Note: In every case in which Poythress is quoted above I read back the proposed quotation to him, gave him an opportunity to clarify it for grammar or nuance, and got his affirmation that I was quoting him correctly.

I plan to write profiles of the other Ward One candidates in future posts. 

Two prior posts profiled Ankerberg, using primarily direct quotations from Ankerberg:
https://peterwsage.blogspot.com/2018/09/curt-ankerberg-watch-out-medford.html
and
https://peterwsage.blogspot.com/2018/09/curt-ankerberg-watch-out-medford-part.html