Interesting dilemma, Hank. I don't like mud-slinging politics, and the timing was bad, being too close to the election to sort it out. But I could theorize another reason for the "dump", which is that Sundberg has been running under a flag of family/community/Rotary, etc. as his expertise (which doesn't necessarily prepare one for the complexities of county supervision, but so it goes). If the voters are hiring him under that impression, then perhaps a recent excessive DUI is relevant, because it contradicts the image his campaign has built? I don't know who was your contact or their actual motivations... but it can be frustrating when you feel a candidate is winning on a portrayal of being something they aren't; and, people do interesting things when they feel their community is at stake.
Separate question -- when is an error in judgment or a moral failing or a crime so great that it should prevent someone from being in office, regardless of whether their actual duties are relevant to the failing? And, how can we measure true remorse (as in, "I screwed up badly, but I have learned, made amends, and will not ever screw up that way again") as opposed to political & moral posturing?
And finally... when do we stop expecting our politicians to expose themselves bare for our scrutiny? The idea that Sundberg "owed" it to the public to tell us about his DUI is silly. While we each, as individuals, have to decide what failings we can tolerate and/or forgive, we're not gods at the pearly gates, deciding whether the lowly candidates should be allowed entry. They don't need to abase themselves for our judgment.... (why do we insist on treating so badly the people whom we ask to represent us?) We need to make our own decisions about what is "good enough" behavior from our chosen candidates... but we don't need to shame them in the process. We all have failings in our lives.
Anyway, thanks for making your best call... not an easy one!
Re: “DUI or Don't I?”
Interesting dilemma, Hank. I don't like mud-slinging politics, and the timing was bad, being too close to the election to sort it out. But I could theorize another reason for the "dump", which is that Sundberg has been running under a flag of family/community/Rotary, etc. as his expertise (which doesn't necessarily prepare one for the complexities of county supervision, but so it goes). If the voters are hiring him under that impression, then perhaps a recent excessive DUI is relevant, because it contradicts the image his campaign has built? I don't know who was your contact or their actual motivations... but it can be frustrating when you feel a candidate is winning on a portrayal of being something they aren't; and, people do interesting things when they feel their community is at stake. Separate question -- when is an error in judgment or a moral failing or a crime so great that it should prevent someone from being in office, regardless of whether their actual duties are relevant to the failing? And, how can we measure true remorse (as in, "I screwed up badly, but I have learned, made amends, and will not ever screw up that way again") as opposed to political & moral posturing? And finally... when do we stop expecting our politicians to expose themselves bare for our scrutiny? The idea that Sundberg "owed" it to the public to tell us about his DUI is silly. While we each, as individuals, have to decide what failings we can tolerate and/or forgive, we're not gods at the pearly gates, deciding whether the lowly candidates should be allowed entry. They don't need to abase themselves for our judgment.... (why do we insist on treating so badly the people whom we ask to represent us?) We need to make our own decisions about what is "good enough" behavior from our chosen candidates... but we don't need to shame them in the process. We all have failings in our lives. Anyway, thanks for making your best call... not an easy one!