Negative Campaign Smears Candidate Ric Schecter.
In our last edition, UVB broke the story that negative campaigning had begun in the District # 1 El Paso City Representative's race. What tipped us off was the unabashed effort by Martin Paredas to smear candidate Ric Schecter on his web site, while allowing Schecter's opponent Roy Gray to have free rein and dump what amounts to a "free ad" in the form of a campaign speech.
The problem, according to Paredas, is that Schecter is not playing ball fairly and is attempting to use his position as head of the West El Paso Voters Coalition (WEPVC, previously the Westside/Upper Valley Voters Coalition) in order to gain unfair advantage by scheduling his appearance with the incumbent Rep. Susan Austin. Paredas wants Schecter to either allow all four candidates to "debate" on the same day or let Gray "debate" Austin.
Furthermore, Paredas suggests that Schecter is not ethical and should "recluse" [recuse] himself from the race as Schecter is "not worthy of a vote" and is "unqualified to serve as City Representative District 1."
Now those are harsh words and could amount to something if they came from a credible and unbiased source. But nothing could be further from the truth as we will point out the behind-the-scene shenanegans that resulted in the Paredas "editorial commentary".
First of all, it is important to point out the numerous factual errors in Paredas' editorial. One is that the WEPVC does not hold "debates". They hold "forums" for the candiates to have time to present their platform and values to the constituents. This has been made clear to all candidates in the Mayoral race as well as the races for District # 1 and # 8.
Next, Paredas points to Schecter's "insistence on him to be the one to face off directly against the incumbent Susan Austin?" Nothing could be further from the truth. Schecter didn't choose Austin. Also, at these forums, nobody faces off with anyone. They are strictly informational.
Instead of Austin being "chosen"; the WEPVC uses date of announcement for candidacy as the criteria for setting the schedules of all forums. Schecter explains "The reason for this is as soon as a Candidate announces, he or she starts getting requests to appear. In order to make sure that WEPVC members would be able to hear all Candidates, early contact was required."
Paredas suggests that a "lottery" would have been a better solution or that Schecter should have had a "temporary" designee for the scheduling. Obviously, the criteria of FAFS (First Announced First Scheduled) would have arrived at the same pairing regardless who scheduled the forum.
Mangrum, Campaign Treasurer for Gray, in attempting to have Gray meet Austin, states that "For the record Mr. Gray was the second person to file... after the incumbent...." Mangrum is incorrect. The City Clerk's office has Gray filing next to last. Therefore, if filing dates were used as the criteria, which they were not, Austin would meet Lilly, and Gray would be paired with Schecter. Paredas didn't obtain the criteria before "publishing" his slanderous message.
It should be obvious that Paredas has no knowledge of WEPVC and only received his information from Schecter's opponent Roy Gray. It is even more obvious that Paredas is attempting to manipulate the voters of District # 1. Paredas spins that Schecter, "who coincidently is in contention for third place in a slate of four candidates according to some internal polling numbers commissioned by the El Paso Tribune".
The criteria used by this so called "poll" is not provided. Paredas' poll even has Schecter in last place. Well, why have the election? Why not let Paredas and his commissioned internal polling numbers decide the election? At press time we were not able to obtain the "reliability data" about this "internal poll".
Now Paredas has "published" Schecter's opponent, Roy Gray's second promotional ad under the guise of a "featured article". Perhaps this is more of a info-mercial format.
The question must be asked "Why is Paredas so intent on harming Schecter's candidacy and promoting that of Gray?" UVB may have the answer.
In a recent interview with Col. Roy Gray, (Next Edition, And UVB addressed this forum issue straight up.) it was discovered that Gray and Paredas are thick as thieves. Gray even indicated once that Paredas was "staff". At any rate no one could doubt that they are working together on Gray's campaign.
Now the issue of Schecter's actions must be viewed in the fresh light of fact rather than Paredas' imagination. Schecter announced first, then Austin, then Lilly then Gray. Each candidate was notified of the forum as soon as they announced. Initially, Schecter and Austin were set for April 9th and when Ann Lilly announced, the three were set for that date. When Gray announced his candidacy (last to announce) the forum maximum limit of 3 candidates was surpassed. This meant that the 4 candidates had to pair off. Gray was invited to speak on another date and Lilly was informed that she had been rescheduled also. Lilly agreed.
Gray declined the invitation. According to Gray "... no one is going to tell me where to be and what time or whom I will sit next to". But he didn't stop there. Gray and his Campaign ("assistant, advisor, manager according to Mangrum)" Treasurer, Gerry Mangrum (Gray indicated that Mangrum is not his Campaign Manager, although he has one who wants to remain behind the scenes) have been attempting to pressure Schecter into changing the pairing so that Gray can "meet her (Austin) any time, any place".
Schecter has suggested Gray reconsider and attend the 3/19 forum and if he needs a "debate" with Austin to arrange one himself. Still, Gray refused to attend the WEPVC's forum which paired him with Lilly. Gray may have felt that it made him look bad to have to sit with Ms. Lilly rather than the incumbent. But it is the voters who lose. At press time, the WEPVC election forum for District # 1 will be held on April 9th at Ay Caramba restaurant with Austin, Lilly and Schecter scheduled to appear.
It is clear now that this whole smear campaign was "commissioned?" by Gray and Paredas. Paredas never interviewed Schecter. This is an example of why dirty politics and negative campaigning are so vile. The voters are manipulated by the sound bites. The mere fact that Paredas is attempting to decommission Schecter's candidacy indicates that Schecter is much more of a threat than the last place Paredas' "internal poll" gives him credit for. But Schecter comes out of this smelling like a rose and Paredas has given Gray's candidacy a black eye.
It is also clear that the credibility of Paredas and his site is dubious at best. Upper Valley and Westsiders are too inteligent to be manipulated by such clearly a staged attempt at harming one candidate and giving credibility to another. Both attempts failed.
Let's clean it up. There are plenty of issues to address; mostly notably the voting record of Austin.
Send feedback to:
Editor, Upper Valley Beacon
Copyright 2004 Valley Publishing Company
| 
