This is another mystery I’ve been trying to figure out, why John Moak won the mayoral election. Now I can understand why “conservatives” (see previous post) voted for him, but why “liberals” apparently voted for Mr. Moak in droves (well maybe not droves, but pretty much droves) alludes me.

When a project I had been working on “went south,” Donna Holaday called me up and said how sorry she was and that she knew how hard I had worked on this particular issue. She was the only one in the entire City of Newburyport who did that. With that one phone call she won me over for life.

So the question I keep asking myself is why didn’t the people of Newburyport see in Donna Holaday what I came to see? And different people have pointed out that it took a while for me to “come to see” Donna Holaday, whereas people seemed to relate to John Moak immediately. And as I’ve said in earlier posts, I agree, John Moak is a very affable person.

And John Moak was also an excellent candidate. Because “liberals” ( I still haven’t come up with a good phrase) apparently assumed that he would be open to their ideas and there would be some genuine give and take.

From what I can make out, so far there hasn’t been any genuine give and take. But if there could be some genuine consensus building then John Moak could end up being a pretty good mayor. And if there is no give and take ( the Mayor’s letter to the editor about Waterfront parking in the Newburyport Current on March 10, 2006, is a tad discouraging in the give and take department) then John Moak could end up being a not so good mayor.

So, please John Moak, I want to advocate for you, I want you to be a “pretty good mayor.” Learn from your political “wise men, ” (I hope you have political wise men) even though I know I would probably disagree with them politically, I can’t imagine them not counseling you that the “give and take,” consensus building thing is part of being a very good politician.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport