David Lansford’s overwhelmingly victory in the Clovis mayor’s race sends a clear message that a majority of Clovis voters believe quality of life — and its different meaning for every person — is not government’s responsibility.
Forget all the emotion voiced on Facebook posts and comments left on websites about Barack Obama and socialism and whose side the newspaper was on. The race came down to two candidates who care about Clovis, want Clovis to prosper and grow, and will do their best to listen to the taxpayers’ many voices.
The primary difference is Brumfield says government is responsible for some creature comforts and Lansford says it should focus on basic necessities.
As we stated in a recent editorial, neither candidate fits our idea of the perfect mayor.
We are not always comfortable at efforts to blend taxpayer dollars with those of private business, as Brumfield has proposed. We have criticized her willingness to spend money on recreation when our water future is very much in jeopardy.
And while Lansford’s campaign was full of words about less government and happiness being a gift we can only give ourselves, our concern with him includes his earlier mayoral actions (1996 to 2008) that produced results similar to what Brumfield champions: public-private business arrangements, Big Bother’s heavy hand in private business operations (banning smoking) and a city-owned civic center that competes with private business.
Many people obviously dismissed the idea that Lansford’s characterization of President Obama as “the carnal manifestation of evil” could negatively impact the community’s efforts to regain its federal tax dollars when we need them, especially to fund the Ute Pipeline. Time will tell.
So the bottom line is the mayor-elect, as with the outgoing incumbent, is not the ideal mayor. Our hope is that he follows through on his campaign ideas for less government, on which the community based its decision to hire him for this job.
We plan to send out regular reminders.