Peterson Plan III Is Light Reading

The Star's "Behind Closed Doors" comes to the same conclusion I did after reading Peterson Plan III, a document which purportedly outlines Mayor Peterson's vision for the next four years if he's re-elected. It's very light reading. The column item notes previous Peterson Plans were released months before the election while this one came with only one week left in the campaign. It reads, in part:

Republican critics compared the third plan to the diminishing returns of a Hollywood sequel. The third document is 24 pages.

"A little less vision going on there," GOP council member Phil Borst said. "It doesn't surprise me. I haven't seen any big ideas coming from the mayor's office."

Michael O'Connor, Peterson's campaign manager, said the mayor put the plan out later than in past years because his eight years in office means he has to spend more time defending his record before looking forward.

"Besides, that's when it was done," O'Connor said.

O'Connor isn't doing too well with the spin as of late, particularly after his recent attack on Greg Ballard's military service. His "that's when it was done" excuse never went over well with your teacher, who would have marked it with a big red "F" for being late, incomplete and simply repeating failed policies outlined in Peterson Plans I and II.

Both Peterson and Ballard appeared in live interviews on WTHR this morning with Kevin Rader and Matt Tully. Rader and Tully grilled Ballard with one tough question after another ala Tim Russert. The two repeated the false claim by Peterson and the Star's editorial board that Ballard hasn't outlined any specifics on what he would do if he is elected mayor. Ballard has offered many specific proposals, which have been noted on this blog and can be found on his website. The news media has just failed to report on his proposals. Ballard adeptly handled every question to their disappointment. His message was well-honed, showing a dramatic improvement during the course of this campaign. Rader, who apparently consulted with Wilson Allen on his questions for Ballard, tried to make a deal out of the fact that Ballard had missed one municipal election four years ago. Ballard noted he had consistently voted in other elections but couldn't recall specifically why he missed that one election.

The two suddenly went soft when Peterson appeared, lobbing one softball question after another to him. Peterson labeled Ballard's claim that there won't be 100 new police officers on the street any time soon despite the mayor's tax increases as "nonsense", but he simply didn't and couldn't refute the claim. Peterson repeated the false claim that his mergers have produced $20 million in savings and blamed obstructionist in the legislature (i.e., Rep. Bill Crawford) for the failure to produce even more savings through mergers. He claimed his administration had been very frugal, notwithstanding the fact city spending has increased 40% on his watch and taxes have been raised 19 times, or as Democrats contend "only 15 times." I nearly choked on my drink when Peterson claimed he is winning the war on crime and that it is down in most categories.

UPDATE: An apology to Matt Tully is in order. I attributed the question about Ballard's voting history to him. Matt pointed out to me the question was actually put to Ballard by Rader. The mention in the main post has been corrected.