The Concord Monitor published its endorsements for city council and, at the same time, chastised some of the candidates for not presenting solutions to some of the city's problems.
The endorsement is here: For city council: Coen, Shurtleff and Lacasse.
What is strange about this endorsement is that it can only be perceived as a cheap shot against Merwyn Bagan and Al "Tinker" Foy, two of the at-large candidates running. While it doesn't mention them by name, it is easy to figure out. Trisha Dionne has dropped her race and at the end of the endorsement, some good things are said about Stacey Catucci. Having just moved here from Massachusetts, she isn't going to win against the better-known candidates, although I like a lot of what she had to say and agree that if she doesn't win, she should definitely run again [anyone who has read some of my writing knows that I don't think there are enough moms on the council].
That leaves the other two who are clearly being spoken to, for lack of a better term, through the editorial. To suggest that they don't have a clue as to what needs to be done in the city is a farce. One could wonder what race the editorialist has been watching. Maybe they didn't like their solutions. Maybe the candidates had bad interviews with the editorial board [that has happened before]. But anyone who has truly kept up with this race, viewed any of the forums on cable access, or even read the newspaper's own account of some of the events, could never come to such a foolish conclusion.
The endorsement is here: For city council: Coen, Shurtleff and Lacasse.
What is strange about this endorsement is that it can only be perceived as a cheap shot against Merwyn Bagan and Al "Tinker" Foy, two of the at-large candidates running. While it doesn't mention them by name, it is easy to figure out. Trisha Dionne has dropped her race and at the end of the endorsement, some good things are said about Stacey Catucci. Having just moved here from Massachusetts, she isn't going to win against the better-known candidates, although I like a lot of what she had to say and agree that if she doesn't win, she should definitely run again [anyone who has read some of my writing knows that I don't think there are enough moms on the council].
That leaves the other two who are clearly being spoken to, for lack of a better term, through the editorial. To suggest that they don't have a clue as to what needs to be done in the city is a farce. One could wonder what race the editorialist has been watching. Maybe they didn't like their solutions. Maybe the candidates had bad interviews with the editorial board [that has happened before]. But anyone who has truly kept up with this race, viewed any of the forums on cable access, or even read the newspaper's own account of some of the events, could never come to such a foolish conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment