The following television ad is currently running on cable and broadcast television. It is part of a three-part series produced by A.D. French & Associates and paid for by the 21st Ward Regular Democratic Organization, which I am treasurer of and who has endorsed Lewis Reed for President of the Board of Aldermen.
Comment away.
UPDATE 3/3/07: A commenter has asked about the context in which Shrewsbury’s comment was made. It was made at a recent candidate forum in north St. Louis in response to a direct question from the audience about why he does not have his business located in the city. Here is the complete unedited video of both candidates’ responses:
And here’s a little additional context for the use of negative (or contrast) advertising in local citywide campaigns. The following is a negative ad Comptroller Darlene Green ran against Shrewsbury when he unsuccessfully challenged her for that office in 1996.
And again, despite appearances on his website, Comptroller Green has maintained that she is not supporting Shrewsbury for re-election.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
bland. innocuous. inoffensive.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The commercial is to the point,concise and effectively characterizes Shrewsbury’s inefective tenure as president of the BOA! It is definitely time to boot him out of office so he can work 100% in his St. Louis county law office!
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Not good Lewis. Sounds like negative school board material. Jim like other elected officials have a life. Look at the state legislators. Gibbons and others have a profession. this just only makes it look like you are living off politics. This is not you Lewis. Bad move
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Reed we thought Slay was in your camp? Uh not good timing for negative ads. Also when your opponent has more money than you chances are he can out negative you in the last week. Bad move. French stick to whatever it is you do. Shrewsbury is going to come back with a bang.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Lewis you are suppose to win. Pull these junk and get some advice from someone else. Now you are running radio commercials about the school board issues. This is how Jim lost votes early he got involve with Coleman and began to look like her bad.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hit ‘em! Attack, attack, attack! It’s time for “Part-Time Jim” to retire! Let’s get out the votes and win this thing!
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Did anyone listen to the ad? The man openly said he does not invest in the city. How can he lead the city’s revitalization if he won’t even participate himself?
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Reed is spinning.
Even his own bought-&-paid-for media, the venerable STL American, can spot this sinking ship.
“…his campaign has had some glitches, stumbling on many points and involving itself with more than one operative with questionable competence.”
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Once again, Reed and French manipulate the truth.
Can you please post something on lewisreed.net about how “lucrative” his law practice is? The part you cut out states that he does wills and probate, we all know that isn’t that lucrative, especially since it is on the side.
You also claim that Jim considers the job part-time, but in that same debate he explained how he is at different commission meetings, neighborhood meetings and handling constituent services all over the city. That hardly sounds part-time to me. Do you have a video or print clip of Mr. Shrewsbury saying “this is a part-time job”?
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
The REAL REASON that Shrewsbury gave up that city car is because it would stand out like a sore thumb always in the county.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Reed will not win doing this. Every knows Jim has invested himself in the city. Hopefully Reed will read this advice and jump ship and be Reed and that is how you will win. If this is what Reed has for the next week then it looks like Jim back in charge.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
It is getting old reading the same comments from campaign workers day after day, on every blog entry.
Antonio, can you just copy and paste a few pro Shrewsbury (Reed doesn’t return calls, Protects Citizen’s Rights, Pound Puppies) and a few pro Reed comments (Part-time Jim, County Law Office) so the campaign staffers can do some real work? Half the stuff that gets talk about on each post isn’t topical.
Thanks.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Someone made the point that state legislators have side jobs, but they have to. They only make 30-something a year. There is a BIG difference between that and 82k a year. Are there any other elected officials in City Hall who work part time with a salary like that? Are the License Collector and Comptroller part time positions? How much do they earn? How much do the part-time Aldermen earn? Let’s get a spreadsheet and look at the numbers people.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
if that’s all Reed has, he has nothing; seems disingenuous and out of context, and not fair, and most people will know that; might persuade a few, but not impressive campaigning he can be proud of is my opinion; whatever wins, I suppose, but I generally expect more of Reed than that.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
As Antonio said and you can read very small at the end of the ad (which I have seen on TV, by the way) this ad is paid for by the 21st Ward Democrats. Who knows if Lewis Reed knew anything about the content. As a matter of fact he might not be able to know by law.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
It’s Friday night. Go outside.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Yes you are right we need a life but be real this is serious stuff. Reed is about to throw it away listening to French.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
The most damning statement Shrewsbury makes is where he says the President of the Board of Aldermen can do nothing to generate economic activity. He sees the job as purely a ministerial function.
No creativity, no energy, no vision required. Yet by his own words, “with fourteen (or is it fifteen?) other aldermen, he is the most powerful elected official in city government.”
How is the most powerful elected official in city government unable to generate economic activity? If Shrewsbury’s right, we’re in big trouble.
Sounds like a way to abdicate leadership. As he’s supposedly said before: “all the power, none of the responsibility”.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Do we know the context in which Shrewsbury made this comment? This seems like a cyncial manipulation of words to me.
I’m ambivalent in this race; it’s going to be a tough call for me, but a lot of comments on here are far from fair.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Has anyone considered that the reason Mr. Shrewsbury works in the county is to avoid conflicts of interest? There are prohibitions against such things, you know. http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=707
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
“Professionally, [Reed] was Director of network communications for the Edison Brothers Stores, and currently continues that work as a computer network consultant.”
http://stlcin.missouri.org/alderman/bio.cfm?Ward=6
Part-time alderman?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
If one is an employee for the City, for example the Director of IT or Rollin Stanley of Planning, if they had their personal business in the City, I am sure people would criticize them as having a possible conflict of interest. I think Jim is trying to avoid a conflict as he is an attorney, and many of the Estimate and Apportionment deals are very much in the legal domain.
I support neither candidate as both have accepted campaign contributions from Paul McKee, who is behind Blairmont.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
When a person running for office starts to use negative ads that says to me they really dont have a plan! There plan is to do the oppsite of what the other person did, while that may sound good it also expresses that the person lacks the vision or insight for the position. When I start seeing these I think ok, here comes the low blows. If you have a good plan and are productive, your good vision or track record should sell you to the people, but if you dont have a leg to stand on, you have to cut the other person down lower than you to make you look bigger. Sad day for reed!
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
It seems to be a conflict of interest if you are supposed to be representing the city and you don’t invest in it. I don’t like negative campaign ads, but that says a lot about his character. It also points to his being out of touch with the real needs of the city.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Jim must have changed his mind about his ability to create jobs. After saying it was outside of his job description, he sent a postcard today in which he takes credit for creating jobs.
His polling must have told him that his position on BJC lease was a loser. He is a piece of work.
And Doug, as you know people who work in the city pay city earnings tax. That is one of the reasons that job creation is important. I can tell you that the idea of a city worker locating their business outside of the city to avoid a conflict is a load of horse manure and every right thinking person knows it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Bloggers, going to neighborhood and ward meetings is not a part of city government, therefore it is not considered “working”. An alderman, or the President of the Board of Alderman’s job is legislation. If he is not creating legislation, and at City Hall, then I don’t think he is working. Going to neighborhood meetings is like starting Alderman meetings on time. It is not part of the job and should not be claimed as an accomplishment.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
It could be a political liability for Mr. Shrewsbury if he had his offices in the City.
Then again, one could say that he is being overly cautious as St. Louisans really do not seem mind conflicts of interest. Lets look at a few:
Reed’s campaign HQ is in a Pyramid Building.
The Arch City Chronicle is in a Pyramid Building.
Callow and Geisman cohabitate.
BJC gave money to those who were the proponents of the Park Deal, specifically the sponsor, Alderman Roddy.
Paul McKee, Chairman of BJC, is buying off our politicians in order to receive silence, and so they ignore his blockbusting.
These are a few and I am sure many more could be listed.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Once again, Reed works in Clayton! No one outside these blogs and a few cable starions will ever see this or any other Reed ad anyway. He’s blown through all of his money!
March 4th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Good point bnd. No one reads this junk but a few people and the same people talk to themselves on this blog. Most are school board people like Purdy and the few people he leads around. Most don’t take this blog serious as it is more about negative talk than issues. Lewis you made a bad move. Get a real person to help you with commercials.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Besides, Lewis proves once again that he doesn’t know anything about the City of St. Louis. Whether Jim’s law practice was in St. Louis City or County, the city will get the same amount of revenue. Lawyers do not pay a business license, so its not like that money is going to the county instead of the city, it is doesn’t exist. Since he lives in the city (and has for his entire life) he pays the city earnings tax on his second job as a lawyer.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Shrewsbury’s days as prez of the BOA are numbered,it is time for a positive change!
March 4th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Reed’s day as a politician period are over. It’s time for the 6th ward to be able to get ahold of their alderman. Shrewsbury will answer our calls.
March 4th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
It appears that there is indeed a sense of divisive reparte’ concerning the candidates in this race. But one thing stands without question or doubt; The voting record. Has Ald Reed voted heavily in favor of the proposals that Mayor Slay endorsed; that proved to be destructive of the fabric of the African American community (housing, families, economy)? Is it quite possible that a fresh perspective on LIFE, as it is in St. Louis, be warranted for the demographic representation of this city? I firmly believe that the ONLY reason why people in the City Of St. Louis are continually voting Mr. Shrewsberry into office, is due to lack of voter education and political savvy; not to mention the low voter turnout for local elections. People need to realize the importance of solidifying their political base and influence with unified local voting strength, before they RUN to the polls to be mortified by the loss of a national political candidate. I encourage everyone to read “HORTON HEARS A WHO”. The people of whoville, although they had a strong advocate above, found the only way they could get their message heard was by coming together and building a device to have ALL voices heard. St. louis will always be the who’s as long as they continue to stay uneducated to what it REALLY takes to be heard. That is why I have joined the International Urban Institute. They are committed to build the device so that all voices can and will be heard as ONE. Peace
March 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I’m glad you put this ad in context. Once you see Shrewsbury’s words in context it seems perfectly reasonable that he keep his personal business out of the city as much as posible. If he were a big local business wheeler and dealer, buying property, setting up big businesses, or an atorney with business before city judges, I’d think he was a crook, because the conflicts of interest would be obvious. Good move on his part to stay out of that fray all together. In that light I think the ad is dirty, and makes me think much less of Reed for running it. I commend any public official who not only avoids conflicts of interest, but goes to lenghts to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. Yes we need investment in the city, but not from the president of the board of aldermen. Not that his little one man law practice would make a huge difference if it were in the city anyway.