Suffolk, VA blogger endorses Mayoral Candidate

Short answer:
I endorse Dr. Mike Debranksi for Mayor of Suffolk.

Long answer:
If I had a magic wand, I would create a secular Powell who used Debranski's model to implement Damiani's platform.

On Debranski:
Cons: He is not the best public speaker, often getting too caught up in analyzing the question to come up with a concise answer. He sits on the School Board and I am not sure if this creates some conflict of interest regarding City Council/School Board interactions.
Pros: He has a specific business plan model in mind for improving city operations, he is honest, straight-talking, very friendly, experienced, open minded, caring, family-centered, approachable, down to earth, and well educated. I think his run for Mayor is rooted in a desire to improve the city rather than with any personal ambition. In a word, he is a mensch.
Read my interview with Debranski.

Damiani crafted his platform to match our existent City Charter, and so it is the platform that makes the most technical sense. But Damiani is not in a position to successfully implement that platform due to his age.
Read my interview with Daminai.

The candidate with the best personality, hands down, is Powell. I think he would make an excellent "ambassador" for the City and his marketing background would be useful in upgrading the public perception of Suffolk. My issue with Powell is that I cannot separate his religious orientation from his leadership values, and neither can he. There are very few situations where this would come into play, but they are important situations for me. For example, Powell could be an obstacle to a Planned Parenthood in Suffolk. Also, he has very conservative affiliations, like Forbes, which I could not get over.
Read my interview with Powell.

Leonard and Nixon wrote me off and I'm returning the favor. Leonard never responded to me at all, not even to politely decline. And Nixon agreed to an interview and then failed to actually schedule it.
Read my not-an-interviews with Leonard and Nixon.

Wahlstrom had the most articulate plans for the city, but she did not have the required number of signatures to be printed on the ballot. Yes, a write-in candidate is a legal and viable way to campaign. I cannot shake my discomfort that other candidates gathered the required number of signatures but she did not. Her write-in status excluded her from all public debates, making it hard to assess her comparatively with her peers. Here is a follow-up post that explains the write-in situation in more detail, and Deb Wahlstrom has been very kind about sharing information on ballot access with me.
Read my interview with Wahlstrom.

Johnson had my attention for some time because: a) she is female, and b) she is very knowledgeable. But Johnson left out some really important information when we talked, such as the fact that her husband and Councilman Gardy operate a law firm together. I've been told that she and Councilman Parr have real estate holdings together, but have not yet been able to independently verify this. While there is nothing inherently wrong with these associations, I found it very troubling that she didn't mention them herself. Even when I specifically brought up transparency as it relates to "back room deals." I think being Mayor is a business association tactic for her, not a mission of service to the city.
Read my interview with Johnson.