. . . for explaining clearly and persuasively why the proposed Special Election for Mayor, that would deny City residents a meaningful choice, is a "totally undemocratic scheme."
The D&C sourly countered the former Mayor's essay with yet another editorial about the matter, on the page opposite. Pushing the Special Election scheme, that would deny City voters a Democratic primary in circumstances where the Democratic primary is the whole election, the paper deploys once more its clumsy lie:
. . . there's precedent for outsiders to win. Both Duffy and William Johnson weren't endorsed by the party but won anyway. In a special election, other candidates besides the party's pick and ones from other parties can run.No ethics and no shame. Sure, Duffy and Johnson "weren't endorsed by the party but won anyway." They won in a Democratic primary!
Fat chance either would have made it in the subsequent general election, running as an independent or minor-party candidate against a Democratic nominee. Which is the snake-oil argument the D&C wants the public to swallow.
And its just such a Democratic Primary that the very top-drawer, oh-so exclusive Committee to Coronate Tom Richards proposes to bypass.
No comments:
Post a Comment