Report a Comment

I assume by "it" you mean ethics reform, because the Council hasn't passed campaign finance reform, right?

In any event, your complaint is that the article attacks council members for not supporting campaign finance reform, but doesn't give them credit for supporting ethics reform?
But the article isn't ABOUT ethics reform in general. The only reason it was mentioned was because that was the last time campaign finance reform was before the council. While it's a bit much to say that general ethics reform is irrelevant to this article, it's certainly tangential, at best.

I mean, sheesh, the article seemed to go out of its way NOT to mention Wells, or laud him for his stand on campaign finance reform. The only way it remotely referred to Wells was the note that the council declined to include campaign finance reform in the broader legislation by a vote of 12-1, and I suspect that the vote count was included to show how many Council members opposed campaign finance reform, not praise the one who voted for it.

those who are unbridled and nonobjective in their support of him.

I know you don't see it this way, but if you change "support" to "opposition," in the above sentence, you're describing yourself perfectly. I know, I know, everyone else just follows along after Pied Piper Wells and you're the only one immune to his siren song (wow, that's just an awful mixed metaphor), but as Thaps posted, the derision with which you routinely refer to Wells makes it impossible for you to plausibly claim the "objective critic" badge. That you somehow construed this article as a paen to Wells that required your "objective" rebuttal really demonstrates your reflexive dislike for and fixation with him.

by dcd on Mar 28, 2012 5:07 pm • link • report