Who came out ahead after this week’s debate? Who lost ground? And who’s stuck in the middle? Here’s our guide to this week’s winners and losers.
Winners
Steve Martin — After stumbling at the first debate, he was back on his game, proving he knows the issues backward and forward. He set the tone for the entire debate with his opening comment, “There’s a malaise in City Hall. There is a culture that doesn’t respect the residents,” and then went on to name the three incumbents as forming a high schoolish clique that rules City Hall to the exclusion of all others. He also proved he’s not afraid to call a spade a spade, even in public, when he got some memorable zingers in at the incumbents. The best was when John Heilman commented about wanting to dispel “misinformation” about Weho’s government, to which Martin said, “I think there’s a lot of misinformation about alleged misinformation.”
- Related:
John D’Amico — The epitome of polished, D'Amico carries himself as if he’s already on the council. Calm, cool and professional, he showed class by acknowledging those who have helped him shape his opinions (late Planning Commissioner and longtime activist were mentioned by name). Capping off a winning presentation, he went so far as to thank Abbe Land and Heilman for their service to the people and then telling them it was time to move on to something else.
- Related:
Scott Schmidt — Looking more viable and polished with each public appearance, he’s not afraid to be out as a Log Cabin Republican in a town that treats Republicans like pariahs. Offering finely researched facts and well articulated ideas, he’s a candidate who refuses to be dismissed. And he knows how to turn a phrase with the best of them; after an evening where green buzzwords and the moniker “The Creative City” were thrown around liberally, he said in his closing remarks, “There is nothing creative about recycling the same politicians.”
- Related:
— A true politician, she remained cool even as she and her colleagues were being continually accused of various misdeeds. Only once did she break her poised demeanor—when she irritatedly replied to D’Amico’s assertion of her pay for play fundraising, “Our city is not for sale.”
- Related:
— After looking so extremely uncomfortable at the first debate that many thought he was about to get sick, the incumbent bounced back this week. Poised and prepared, he demonstrated a vast understanding of the issues facing the city. He even managed to drop the off-putting, haughty demeanor with which he carries himself during City Council meetings. More important, he easily deflected the many shots fired at him, like any seasoned politician does.
- Related:
Mito Aviles — Having toned down his angry delivery from the first debate, he came across as more reasoned and thoughtful, someone who shouldn’t be dismissed simply because of his youthful age.
- Related:
Losers
Lindsey Horvath — She got sympathy points during the first debate for enduring a constant barrage of personal attacks about her appointment. But this time with only a handful of shots being fired at her, we got a better gander at the real Horvath, only to discover she is rather bland. She merely puppeted the standard City Hall answers (“We do have term limits, they’re called elections”). But as LA Weekly revealed, she was allegedly being fed her answers via text messages to her phone by campaign manager Dante Atkins (several candidates confirmed she spent the entire debate looking at her phone). And even with that live feed, her answers were still uninspired.
- Related:
Mark Gonzaga — While he loosened up and showed a comedic side with some of his answers at this debate, he’s not offering solutions to problems, only complaints.
Cable TV viewers — The debate was 150 minutes long, but Weho cable access viewers got to see only the first 90 minutes for some still unexplained reason. And there is apparently no plan to rebroadcast the debate. With 24 hours of programming to fill, surely there is time for a repeat in there.
City Hall — Displeasure with City Hall was at the center of much of the debate griping. Does an entity that employs 200 professionals really allow itself to be ruled by a high school clique mentality as was asserted repeatedly throughout the evening? A tenth of those employees make more than $100,000 a year, but they can’t behave like adults? Sounds like a serious shake-up is needed to get everyone to grow up and to clean up his or her act.
Heilman, Horvath, Land and Developer Dollars — When pointedly asked what percentage of their campaign donations came from developers, all three deflected the question with the same answer: They don’t know a breakdown of the percentages. (Horvath especially sounded like the puppet she’s frequently accused of being with that answer.) Do they honestly expect us to believe they don’t know how much developers are giving them? At least a ballpark figure? By not answering that question directly, all three offered credence to the claims that they’re in the developers’ pockets.
- Related:
One Step Forward, One Step Back
Lucas John – The angry, bad boy antics were somewhat refreshing at the first debate. This week, he changed his target from Horvath to Heilman, someone far more accustomed to taking enemy fire. And he did get in some memorable zingers, including, “Other than John Heilman, parking and transportation are the biggest issues facing our city.” But what we’re not hearing are his specific solutions to the issues facing the city. Is his entire platform based on attacking the incumbents? Many politicians have gotten elected on that, but what many voters really want to know is what Lucas can offer.
- Related:
The last day to register to vote is Feb. 22. for more election information.
Be sure to follow West Hollywood Patch on Twitter and "Like" us on Facebook.
