Time to Take Cheap Shots
Just last August The Transcript editorial page told us that the lack of challengers to the city council and Mayor was a sign of the voters' contentment. Those of us who actively watch local politics said it was apathy.
Last night's city council beauty pageant, with no calls whatsoever from residents, appears to have brought our hometown paper's editor over to the apathy interpretation
But that is where my agreement with the paper's current editorial end:
If Glenn feels so strongly about national issues invading local politics, why on earth didn't he write a similar editorial after the Mayor was recently interviewed on Channel 9 during Sen. Kerry's visit? It was a brief but very pointed commentary on federal budgets and foreign policy - not on Lowe's or Mass MoCA or schools - It was about the war.
Maybe I am in a minority who thinks that local governments should selectively opine (sometimes loudly) on national issues in order to create platforms for residents to join larger movements, but criticizing a council candidate simply because he wants to occasionally engage issues that don't end at the city limits is, in itself, naive - Especially when the current council doesn't do much of anything aside from add the constitutionally required legislative legal window dressing to North Adams' charter and the body-politic. Name more than three issues the current council has taken up *on their own* in the past two years. Do you get my point?
This editorial cemented my vote for all three council challengers simply because....
As of right now I can only think of four incumbents who are worth keeping. The rest aren't bad (with the exception of one who *really* needs to go.) They just aren't very good, either.