which is better viagra cialis

I have to say, I feel like I've projected anything *but* a "can't we all just get along" attitude. I have railed against the ethical violations of Cromartie, Devine & Co. If anything, my campaign has been a crusade against the status quo and I have never concerned myself with "playing it safe" on my Facebook feed, my website or my campaign materials. I have pointed out time and time again that the TIF plans are terribly conceived and I would certainly demonstrate backbone to see to it that those plans are put away for good. If ethics are really important for the future of this city, I think that every media outlet in this city has been remiss for not covering the City Council At-Large seat until the final hour, and even then only notionally. Grant Robertson will be an amazing breath of fresh air in comparison to the continued ethical quandaries that Mrs. Devine has gotten herself into.

I suppose I simply feel that one can be an idealist, respectful and cordial and still have teeth. This lesson I draw, especially, from the example of our founding fathers, who disagreed vehemently on several key issues and squabbled incessantly over the particulars of political doctrine and dogma, yet who still seemed more than capable of maintining (for the most part) a reasonable and mutually respectful discourse through terrible hardships and against terrible odds. I believe we have lost that in this day and age, especially with the powerfully entrenched two-party system, which pits otherwise reasonable and rational citizens against one another. But if there's one thing I've learned in this campaign, it is that there is a chance to restore that spirit of passion and resolve without resorting to the deceitful measures of realpolitik that high school government teachers have always been so fond of.

Ps, I am aware that not all of our founding fathers were amicable at all times. But Adams and Jefferson found strength and inner progress through reconciliation, and Burr was made a national pariah for killing Hamilton. At any rate, what those people managed to accomplish despite their differences has been a great example for the world and we have strayed from it in favor of glitzy ad campaigns and general apathy. There was a time when candidates "stood" for office on well-defined platforms of ethics and policy. Now we "run" for office on the wings of empty promises and vapid slogans, pull quotes and sound bites and look at the damage it's done.

Aaron, quoting from your response to my Feb. 2 blog post: "But I posit that the only team we should be rooting for is the City of Columbia and maybe, just maybe, this spirit of moving forward together is a new method of electioneering. Perhaps in the future of politics we ain't gonna study war no more." With that statement, you were referring specifically to how candidates treat each other. Fair enough: I think it's great that you have been able to maintain cordial relations with your fellow candidates. But there has also been a lot of rhetoric in your campaign indicating that you would apply a similar idea to politics in general -- that it is somehow possible to arrive at a form of politics where competition is not a central theme or defining element. Of course, that isn't possible. As my high school government teacher taught me, politics is about who gets screwed and why. It's about who gets what and how. We might wish for politics to be a lot of other things -- and every once in awhile, politics can indeed accomplish something noble, with some wheeling and dealing invariably tossed in. But ultimately, politics is a perpetual battle for the allocation of resources, and that's what it's always going to be. Civic engagement should be applauded. Transparency and ethical behavior should be applauded. But the fundamental nature of politics is competitive, and no amount of goodwill or civic engagement will ever change that.

Looks like our comments got thrown a little out of order there, o Danny Boy. :)