Leigh was contacted by Ann Arbor safety officials (firefighters and I believe some police officers) and was asked to do something about couches because they are regularly fighting fires that are started on couch porches. Leigh brought the motion to the table after having a valid interest in protecting the public…and then after listening to both sides, allowing suitable debate, and meeting with the very students (that you claim he is trying to disenfranchise) he chose to table the motion, respecting students rights to have those couches.

The purpose of the “couch-in” was not meant to enlighten people on the issue, because there was never, while I was involved (which was until after the couch-in), any discussion about providing information that Leigh tabled it.

Lastly, I am not going to continue this petty argument about the legitimacy about my leaving Rebekah’s campaign, because I have no interest in attacking Rebekah (and I have made it very clear that I left because I didn’t like the negative direction some of the campaign had taken). I have a lot of respect for many of the volunteers and staff members that I met while working with her, and I have no intention of trying to tear her down as a candidate. I, personally, find you to be abrasive, dishonest, and blatantly rude, and I hope for Rebekah’s sake you don’t have direct contact with many of her potential voters. Furthermore, if you honestly think that openly attacking my intelligence and my ability to understand politics, when I am a student at one of the nation’s leading public universities is strengthening your argument (or wearing me down) you are sadly mistaken.

Good luck on Rebekah’s campaign…and I wish you the best of luck in being capable of being able to intelligently debate someone, without simply attacking them personally every few sentances!

And further - you claim that you want primaries to concern “platforms, records, and goals.” As you apparently do not wish to comprehend, the planned Students for Warren “Couch-In” was intended to highlight a exceedingly pertinent aspect of Mr. Greden’s record, that being his intention to disenfranchise his student constituents in passing a couch-ban during the summer months of 2004 (and if you want to see the e-mail that proves that fact, I’d be happy to show it to you). Yes Travis, we all know that Mr. Greden tabled the motion in the end; what you always seem to want to ignore is that he introduced it in the first place, and only tabled it in response to the understandably alarmed reaction of the community.

Pointing out that a man running to represent most of Ann Arbor could not honorably represent the 3rd Ward is clearly relevant, and SFW’s efforts were based on reports published in the Ann Arbor News, Detroit Free Press, and other publications. I’m still waiting for a valid explanation from you on how this constitutes an “attack” or “negative campaigning”.

I am sorry if I went over the top with your above post. While you are correct that you didn’t specifically “attack” Leigh’s campaign, you definitely implied that he was at fault and because I felt that the tone of the primary was extremely negative, I was already fed up….so I apologize about the above.

Also, my direct contact with the Warren campaign was at a time when there was definitely negative campaigning being planned by Ms. Warren, and her staff. I actually could probably look up the email that Luke (I assume you are the same person…but since you haven’t given your last name, I can’t jump to that conclusion), a student volunteer of Rebekah’s, sent me when I voiced my concerns with her “Couch-In” plans. It specifically stated that the couch in was coming from the Warren campaign and that voicing concerns was simply being counterproductive. Luke was actually a major reason why I left the Warren team.

Furthermore, I strongly feel that true Democrats should want primaries to be completely about platforms, records, and goals. I think it is horrific that Democrats would want to tear eachother apart in a primary, because it only serves to weaken the party and the candidates. That is why I take immediate offense to negative tones that relate to nitpicking at candidates to simply drag them through the mud….if you ask David, I am sure he will tell you that I voiced my concern with his original post attacking Rebekah for her misspelling…and I also mentioned it to Leigh when I told him I was drafting a response, telling him that I was unsure that I wanted to send it to Dave, because I felt he lost credibility when he posted something like a misspelling on Rebekah’s site, which she probably didn’t even type herself.

I will be supporting Rebekah in November and if I am still registered in Ann Arbor, i will likely vote for her. I don’t wish to continue to squabble over her campaign, because I accept that she is the winner and the Democratic Party candidate for State Rep. However, I was just really pissed off when you posted a comment AFTER the primary that was tearing down Greden’s campaign even more.

I agree, it is time to move on, I just hope that in the future Democrats stop attacking Democrats.

The fact, however, that you interpret this as an “attack” perfectly illustrates the type of knee-jerk propensity for rhetorical vomit that led to your departure from Rebekah Warren’s campaign. I can’t tell if you are insincere or just dim, but neither Ms. Warren nor anyone on her staff has had anything to do with “negative” campaigning, or anything approaching it. You may believe any time your candidate is not showered with affection that someone, somewhere must be guilty of attack politics and negative campaigning. This is simply not so, and betrays a paranoia and naïveté that you might not want to advertise so publicly.

The fact is that candidates at every level of government often do a service to the electorate by raising questions about their opponents’ ability to hold public office. As long as these questions are based on a voting record, published material, etc. - and are demonstrably relevant to the responsibilities of holding said office - it is certainly not “negative” anything. Perhaps the best way to deal with such a situation - rather than crying “attack!” - is to simply work harder to communicate a counter-message to voters. Acting as an apologist for Mr. Greden’s inability to do so is pretty silly. You should just move on.

Congratulations on a campaign filled with negative campaign, divisive politics, and inaccurate information.

Oh, also: Rebekah Warren defeated Leigh Greden by 1855 votes, or 22% of all votes cast. In other words, for the politically impaired (you), Greden lost decisively (to say the least). My “bubble” is alive and well, but thanks for your concern.

Leigh Geden
Councilwoman Easthope
and Major Heifije

…were completely the mistakes of the Ann Arbor News. The draft that Leigh sent to the paper was checked multiple times and was correct. Furthermore, it was the topic of many jokes and provided much laughter, but I believe that the Greden Campaign was pursuing the possibility of a partial refund for the mistakes made by the News.

…Sorry to burst your bubble Luke, but your and other Warren supporters’ continued attempts to attack Leigh’s campaign, even after the election, do not hold water.