The unofficial results are in – Salisbury election 2009

Here are the unofficial results for the 2009 Salisbury city election. There’s still a number of absentee ballots to be counted but it appears that Jim Ireton will be the new mayor by a fairly significant margin.

There’s also a decent possibility that the constitution of City Council will be unchanged, although the absentee ballots will determine the District 1 results between Shanie Shields and Cynthia Polk – after the initial count just 3 votes separated the pair.

Probably the only real surprise to me was the strength of Ireton’s win, since I was thinking more along the lines of an 8-to-10 point win rather than the 18 point bulge he enjoyed. Obviously the primary win margin held true through the general election as those who supported the also-rans and those who skipped the primary split in a similar fashion to the March 3rd balloting.

The District 1 result could echo that of 2005, where it was the absentee ballots splitting in Shanie Shields’ favor which allowed her to oust an incumbent. If Cynthia Polk picks up just four votes history could repeat itself.

While I would have liked to see Muir Boda put up a little better number, it’s no surprise that Debbie Campbell won handily. As I said in a comment for the last post I’m hoping Boda takes another shot in 2011, when there will be three District 2 seats open.

Looking ahead to 2011, I seem to recall in the dim recesses of my mind that Louise Smith only wanted one term in office so that seat would open up. Terry Cohen would be a formidable incumbent but voters may be more inclined to throw out Comegys as a loser in the previous election. Thus, it is possible that we could have significant turnover in the City Council at the midpoint of Jim Ireton’s term.

Of course the question now becomes just how much of his ambitious agenda Jim Ireton will be able to accomplish with the limited funds he’ll have at his disposal. Perhaps the better question may yet be just how high he’ll need to raise taxes and fees to cover those items near and dear to his heart – or how indebted he’ll be to Barack Obama and Martin O’Malley to chip in and defray the overt cost to city taxpayers.

As far as City Council is concerned, the question now becomes whether that infamous 3-2 split will change if Polk overtakes Shields in the final count. On a number of key issues the Council split with Comegys, Smith, and Shields lining up against Cohen and Campbell. With longtime Mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman out of the way, it’s assured that for a certain segment of the population there will be no one to blame if Salisbury’s struggles continue.

Another change certain to be pushed is a change back to a line-item budget once again. Over the last several years the trend has been to a more general departmental budget, but Jim Ireton campaigned on a platform of transparency and we’ll see if he follows through fairly quickly on his promise once the FY 2010 budget is put into shape.

Above all, I hope Ireton allays my concerns with some of what I see as anti-growth positions. Even though my paycheck doesn’t completely depend on growth anymore I certainly don’t want this part of the Eastern Shore to stagnate any longer than it has. We seemed to be one of the first areas into the recession and hopefully we’ll be among the first out.

There are a number of strikes against us, though, and if the wrong parts of the Ireton agenda are enacted too quickly it could set us back even further.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

22 thoughts on “The unofficial results are in – Salisbury election 2009”

  1. “Of course the question now becomes just how much of his ambitious agenda Jim Ireton will be able to accomplish…”

    How assuming of you, Michael.

    Perhaps the real question is why you did not stand up for family values as a so called “conservative”?

    Shame on you, Michael, for dreaming of Cheetos when a greater cause demanded you arise from your stupor.

    I hope a pink sleeveless T-shirt with little rainbows and portraits of Barney Frank and Jim Ireton comes hurtling down from the heavens and affixes itself to your bodice for eternity.

  2. Quite honestly, I don’t give a rat’s rear end who Jim Ireton sleeps with. That’s not my place to butt my nose into, nor should government do so.

    However, with that freedom comes some responsibility and accountability for choices made in life. And if Mayor-elect Ireton wanted to earn a little of my respect he would enact an ordinance (and support it on a state and national level as a Constitutional amendment) banning discrimination for or against anyone based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc. The tricky part is that which I highlighted.

  3. Michael, thank you for that statement. Personally, I think too many voters associated Outraged Richard’s despicable comments and mailings with the Comegys campaign and that’s partly why Ireton won so handily; in other words, Outraged Richard’s tactics backfired. And while I applaud Salisbury voters for that backlash, I also feel badly for the Comegys csmp if they had to unjustly suffer the consequences of that horrible campaign that was waged by Outraged Richard.

  4. I like reading your coverage of local politics and events. I hope you continue to give it equal time with the State and National.

  5. Outraged Dick,
    Thanks for ensuring that Jim Ireton became our next mayor. The backlash against your nasty tactics really helped seal the deal, and I am proud that our city rejected you. And Susan, I’m not sure if the Comegys camp got associated with that nasty campaign which clearly did not come from him, but why didn’t Comegys hold a news conference denouncing it? That might have helped, but the silence was deafening. I know it was a lousy position to be in, though, so I hope Comegys supporters help us in identifying the culprit (note to Outraged Dick, libel is illegal, pal) And while he was at it, why didn’t Comegys denounce landlords for telling their tenants who to vote for or their rent would go up? It went beyond saying “hey, your rent may go up” to a wholsale invention of a “renter’s tax.” I know Gary said he knew nothing about it, but c’mon!

  6. Dear Michael, I have lengthily addressed these outrageous comments you have made here on my accursed blog.


    Obviously, by your comment, you understand nothing of family values and standing up for them.

    So the rabble have an ignorant reaction to satiric but honest revelation that a man’s rectum found on the beaches of Rehoboth is not a treasure? What of it? Should no one have stood up for family values, as would truly have been the case?

    Your charge against me of waging a “horrible campaign” is completely out of context. The issue of homosexuality being a credible launching (and laughing) point for Jim Ireton as mayor of Salisbury was the greater context. If you want to more fully understand matters instead of picking and choosing among button responses, read up on the homosexual agenda and the countless homosexual/lesbian/transgender web sites. There you will find the meaning of horrible.

    Young lady, you know not true horror yet.

  7. Richard wanted everyone to know Jim is gay. Well, they know and guess what? NO ONE CARES!

  8. Outraged Dick,

    You lost, and you lost huge. Newsflash: you are in a tiny minority of people who seem to think that being gay means you cannot function in society, or that you have nothing to contribute to this world. Let’s see . . . Jim Ireton has stood up using his real name to try to improve this city, and you are a huge coward hiding behind a fake name and a fake organization to try to destroy him. And you lost. Who is the real blight on society?

  9. Who would have thought? On the topic of anti-gay bigotry, Final Frontier and Mike Swartz are in agreement. I’ll add my voice from the libertarian perspective and say that attempts to smear Ireton are reprehensible. So we’ve got libertarians, conservatives, and liberals all outraged at the type of ignorance and hatred spewed by Outraged Richard. Thanks for bringing us all together!

  10. “You lost, and you lost huge.”

    Sir, this had nothing to do with me. I was merely pointing out that a man treasure seeking on the beaches of Rehoboth for men’s rectums was unqualified for political office.

    Huge is a matter of perspective, Sir, and you are one of many commenters on Delmarva blogs who submit short sighted quips. I am just one man as well, but in fact every legitimate church denomination in the United States (even the few who have ‘gone gay’) have as their forming authority a significant and overwhelming consensus that homosexuality is intrinsically sinful.

    Take that a bit further with the most rudimentary of logic and you would reach my conclusion that Ireton is unqualified as an unrepentant homosexual to be a leader of a community.

    I will always press my heart against wisdom and proven morality than emotionally regurgitated button responses. Other reasonable people draw the same conclusion.

    You mentioned that “being gay means you cannot function in society…” Did you know that has much to do with why the A.P.A. reversed their original rational findings on homosexuality as a mental disorder?

    It had to do with “psychiatry’s attempt to adopt a new “adaptational” perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory–particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation–claiming that if we do not readily see “distress, disability and disadvantage” in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered.”

    In essence, scientific findings on homosexuality were completely revised because of a sociopolitical struggle. Does that make sense? Of course not.

    Here is a brief summary:

    The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:

    1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
    2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.
    3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

  11. I will also offer that being knowledgeable about sexuality is more than what a screaming clip-haired lesbian on your doorstep is demanding:

    Michael, and I trust you will agree with me, the proper discussing of issues is not a talking point quip or the falsely justifying “anti-this” and “anti-that” banter. A person has to EXPLAIN their position past a few sentences.

    I have been attacked for bits I did like Jim Ireton’s BrownBerry, but rarely does anyone intelligently address the lengthier support I have produced against Jim Ireton as mayor:

    I used a three point process evident in my static top post on OR, respectively: reason, ridicule, and rejuvenation. Now we are in the rejuvenation stage, I suppose, or “healing” stage as Ireton puts it.

    But he still doesn’t get it – he is the one who needs to heal from a serious sexual and mental disorder. Once again, it is the “Reverse Victim and Offender” illogic so common in introductory psychology textbooks that he is callously throwing around. If Jim Ireton has no regard for himself, how can he have regard for other people?

    What else can I say? The ignorant ARE heralded.

  12. I’d be careful talking about psychological problems and mental disorders, Richard. Your constant fixation on what other men do with their rectums and your childish and crude sexually-focused posts on your blog might lead one to conclude that it’s not Jim Ireton who has mental issues.

    As to your “logic” point, how would anyone conclude that being an active homosexual disqualifies one for elective office? If you think homosexuality is a sin, does that mean a sinner cannot serve in elected office? Wouldn’t this disqualify every one of us, since all are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God? Or do you mean being an unrepentant sinner should not serve as an elected official? Because by that definition, no one who is not born again should be in office, since the person who is not saved is, by definition, an unrepentant sinner.

    Your “logic” is, in fact, no logic at all unless you apply it consistently. If you are willing to say that no one except a born-again Christian should hold public office, then I’ll accept that you are being logical. However, if you are saying that a homosexual should not serve in office because he is an unrepentant sinner but you do not care about all the other unrepentant sinners in office, then it’s pretty clear you’re just a bigot.

    As to my view, since only God knows the hearts of men it seems to me that it’s foolish to worry about who is a sinner and who isn’t. If Jim Ireton is a homosexual, that is between him and God, not him and you, Richard. God will judge, not you. I’m just happy to see that your ignorant view of both the Bible and homosexuals is pretty clearly a minority position, since the kind of crap you spew wasn’t even an issue in this election.

  13. Hey Outraged Dick,
    You know what else is sinful? Being a mean-spirited, prideful person! And there’s this whole part of “love thy neighbor” you seem to be missing, and I seem to recall something about “judge not lest ye be judged.” But I guess you are a superior being. Be sure not to mix textiles, pal, or you are going to hell, as are watermen for plying us with sinful creatures from the deep. Why didn’t you send out a similar mailing about the divorced Comegys? After all, the Bible makes no distinction between mortal sins, and therefore he should be in the exact same category as Mr Ireton. Or is it that you have an inordinate fascination with some sins over others? Paging Dr Freud . . .

    What I really loved about your nasty mailing was the contrast between your hateful nonsense and Jim’s thoughtful letter that you seem to think was so terrible. You really rallied the troops on that one–pastors, elderly women, and total strangers called Jim to give him support after your expensive effort to turn the election.

    Here’s the “secret agenda” that Mr Ireton is working towards: more police, lower crime, clean and safe neighborhoods, a revitalized downtown, and a clean river. Wow, truly scary stuff.

    Now go back to your bizarro world of hate and let the adults talk about politics on Michael’s blog.

  14. “Hey Outraged Dick…You know what else is sinful? Being…mean-spirited”

    Case closed.

    Well, almost…It is true that all sins are equal, but not in the way that you disparage them being so. Any perceived differences between sins should not be construed so that you can justify one over the other.

    Comegys is still rooting about in the ditches surrounding a tattered framework of family values. Ireton is not even in the ballpark or its parking lot.

    Ireton does not understand the simplest of biological anatomy. However, both Comegys and Ireton should be flogged in the public square and floated down the Wicomico Cess. How either is considered a leader is astonishing.

    Michael, would you enjoy a bowling group setting up in the middle of a Shorebirds baseball game? or a naked streaker interrupting your live baseball game?

    Also, would family values detractors would be so kind as to specifically point out by quotes and explanation what was “nasty” about the C.F.S. letter?

    I guarantee that no one will intelligently address what was wrong, specifically, with that letter.

  15. What was wrong with that letter is that you manipulated and distorted the facts. I personally have been on the beach in Rehobeth, at all hrs of the day and nite, and I am about as hetero as they come. Plenty of straight people go there. Even if Jim is gay, and even if he was there with another gay man- there is no evidence that any sort of public sexual contact was going on. Are you familiar with the American principle of “innocent until proven guilty”?

    What was wrong with that letter, in regard to the posting “about children”, was that the issue being commented on was how to deal with children with homosexual desires, tendancies and experiences- which is a real problem in society today. You made it out like Jim was out to prey on impressionable heteosexual children and magically turn them into evil homosexual children. It just doesnt work that way. In case you haven’t noticed, the old standard of branding homosexuality and fornication as evil jest isn’t working. Gay children/teenagers have a very high rate of suicide. People who spout your kind of venomous tirades are a big part of the problem.

    What was wrong with that letter is that you did not have the integrity to sign it. You also made it look like it was from some larger group of concerned citizens, when it was just one nutcase religious zealot’s opinion. You did not have the cajones to stand behind your libelous statements until you were “outed”. It was just an all around despicable thing to do– and that why it created the backlash that turned Jim’s victory into an all out landslide. What Jim does with his rectum on his own time is his own business, whether it’s pooping or pleasure. What I care about is what he’s going to do about REAL crime in Salisbury. PERIOD.

  16. Outraged Dick,
    You are a true genius, noting “Any perceived differences between sins should not be construed so that you can justify one over the other.”
    Umm . . . apparently you have focused mightily on one over the others. You are a cowardly hypocrite. Why didn’t you sign your name to the letter if there was nothing wrong with it? It was factually incorrect (sorry to disappoint your weird fantasies, but nothing was going on at the beach, or Mr Ireton would have been charged with more than a $25 citation for being on the beach after hours), the guy you think is his “boyfriend” is his friend and campaign manager (married, happily, with kids), and your fear of a secret agenda to go after kids is ridiculous. Jim is dedicated to solving the crime problem, cleaning the river,and making safer neighborhoods. How horrible!

    Why you don’t focus on other “sins” that have a much more dramatic impact on our society is rather telling: say, domestic violence, alcohol abuse, greed, etc.. My retirement account did not take a massive blow due to a gay agenda, not did a gay agenda cause the housing crisis.

  17. Zazu,

    1. There is a point reached where an intelligent conclusion must be made on a set of data.

    2. The homosexual agenda specifically targets children. Creating a special class protecting children with sexual disorders is part of the homosexual agenda, a stepping stone to justify other evils.

    3. My name is Outraged Richard. I am merely the messenger. The message is what you should tune your tin ear to. The number of families in Salisbury who are concerned for the public good and their children’s good is more than the misfits and drones who voted for Jim Ireton, I hope.

    4. Crime largely stems from the breakdown of the traditional family – the glorification of single motherhood, for example. If a man does not understand and uphold traditional family, how can he reduce crime?


    Are you telling me Jim Ireton is a heterosexual? Can anyone, for the record, affirm or deny that? I assumed from his letter to Camp Rehoboth that he is a homosexual. If I am mistaken I will issue an apology forthwith.

    I said, “both Comegys and Ireton should be flogged in the public square and floated down the Wicomico Cess.” What more do you want from me?

    Lastly, the housing and financial crisis was due in no small part to the fantasy of liberalism and its basis of over leveraging. True conservatism in no small part has to do with frugality. Therefore, I would say the social fantasy of homosexuality as another great imbalance is indeed part of the housing and financial collapse. Social views and economic views are interconnected, should you know.

    Mike, got a real ripper coming in the form of a “pingback” in a few hours to a post further up. You’ll get a few chuckles… STAY TUNED!!!!!!!

  18. “My name is Outraged Richard.”
    Now you are getting delusional–that is NOT your name, you are just too cowardly to use your real name. You cannot deal with the real world, so you’ve created a fantasy land where there is a secret “homosexual agenda” to turn kids gay (only a nut would misread Ireton’s letter that way rather than what it truly says–that gay kids are at high risk of suicide thanks to people like you), and where homosexuals are somehow responsible for the financial crisis facing this country.

    Jim Ireton is a good guy, a great teacher, and a good human being. Too bad you will never get to know that thanks to your twisted view of the world.

Comments are closed.