Write-in candidates are as legitimate as the official ones. Often more so.

I agree with Steve that the show a "Junior Corporate News" feel to it. The exclusion was partisian and unfair--both to us and to the voters. The reasons given showed prejudice.

Also there were no call-in's. None of the questions presented in advance above were asked.

The show was mostly candidates doing commercials for themselves with little mention of critical issues and less dialogue on them.

Not surprising. Emily (Corpy?) probably hasn't followed City Council that carefully (not that I blame her).

None of the Council's critics were there--other Madrigal, whose criticisms are soaked in milk. I'm sorry, but if you haven't got the ammunition to ask the hard questions, you need to get it, or acknowledge it's "fluff and fold" time.

That's why Kennedy has repeatedly declined to come on my show. It seems he doesn't want someone who has the factual record at hand to hold him accountable.

I admit that the more info we can get on our rulers for the next four years, the better. I'm glad Emily did the show.

I also believe in giving credit to the candidates for giving credibility to FRSC by coming on the air, even under the prospective threat of another FCC raid.

Still I am (was) a write-in candidate. I took that status late in the race because--once it became clear how few candidates were running (the fewest ever). It became likely that the Kennedy Council incumbents would have a slamdunk (except for Porter and possibly Primack).

Those who are alreadly informed about how bad the line-up is needed to have a chance to cast a protest vote.

A major issue in any election is the record of the politicians in office. Why wouldn't Emily want that matter challenged or discussed--even if--god forbid--things got more heated than exchanging platitutes and smiles?

The point of a race is to educate the electorate--especially where incumbents have the race sewn up because of name-recognition, prestige, organization, and money.

Emily characterizes me thusly: "The history of Robert Norse and his relationship with the city council kept me from inviting him...i did not want this show to be the 'why Robert Norse thinks the santa cruz city council sucks'... I was not interested in hearing a combative debate between Robert and Scott Kennedy...I do not think Robert was interested in discussing the issues so much as criticising..."

I think it is absurd to suggest I'm not interested in issues--that's what I talk about, what I write about, what I risk jail for. I hold politicians accountable--and what else is an election for? Anyone who reads my posts on this website knows my concern is that these politicians who brightened the line-up of Emily's show DON'T address issues.

There's also an element of catering to power here that has a bad smell. Often, election time is the only time when raising real issues can get anything close to a revealing response from a politician. And it is truly the only time (other than during a recall) when you can hold her accountable.

If Emily's desire is to get "on good terms" with the Kennedy Council reruns, then excluding me made sense. If you offend the other candidates-particularly Kennedy and Reilly, who are sure likely to be re-elected--then they might not respond well to the next invitation.

But if she wanted to air issues, to treat all candidates fairly, and give the public access to a dialogue they would not otherwise hear, she blew it.

In Emily's reply above I hear a defensive tone about a bad decision.

She worried I'd get into a "personal fight" with Primack, or a "combative debate" with Kennedy.

I doubt it. Actually, when I'm in someone else's forum, I tend to over-compensate by being super-civil. Cause I'm trying fruitlessly to outrun the myth that I'm "disruptive" or "hostile" or "uncivil". That's one way of discrediting me without addressing the issues I raise.

After you've had the calm reasonable discussions and they're still arresting innocent people, then raising your voice in anger is a healthy reaction. Remaining silently "civil" under such circumstances is the kind of illness we're going to have to fight as the corposes come home from Iraq in greater numbers.

People who know me know that I can get cranky, but that when I speak angrily in public, it is to hold public figures accountable. And I believe it is largely appropriate.

But even if the worst happened and folks got heated on the air, wouldn't that be as interesting and revealing as a tepid tea party?

We don't want to emulate Kennedy who uses his power at City Council to do agenda-shifting, meeting cancellations, oral communication and public comment cutoff to shut down critics he doesn't like. He turns off the microphone and the tv camera before he arrests critics.

Emily selected one question above where I refered to myself (actually regarding a policy that impacts everyone). On the air, she ignored the other 14 questions and all the issues they raised.

Emily lost a real chance to ask about rent afordable housing for De Anza Seniors and Clear View Latinos, the undead Downtown Ordinances, the crackdown on the vehicular homeless, etc. Even the issues raised (what to do about UCSC's theft of housing downtown?) got the softball from the candidates with no response.

I guess any kind of exposure is better than no exposure. But selective treatment that fluffs favored candidates gets my thumbs down.

By the way, you're welcome to come on my show (or to call in) and discuss your thoughts.

You won't be censored there. But then Scott Kennedy probably won't agree to join you either.