Monday, June 09, 2008
This is like deja vu all Clancy again
I'm too tired to do the follow up that I planned to my last post (about the favorable reactions to the mayor's state of the city address), but I think I covered the most salient point anyway. Not the most important, just the most obvious. When the paper's only responsible* op-ed writer, the editorial page writer of the local daily, and the editor of the city's main "alternative" weekly all praise the mayor for taking responsibility, when all he's done is offer the same excuse that he offered a year ago, it sticks out like a sore thumb. It does to me, anyway. Throw in the conveniently ignored lawsuit, and it's a very sore thumb.
There were more serious problems with all three pieces, especially the Picayune's editorial, which I'll try to return to. In case I don't, it does seem that the Picayune's editor's could use some of Sarah Carr's skepticism about "buying momentum" and long-term stability. For more on the Sarah Carr article, see We Could Be Famous.
In the meantime, it's interesting to compare Clancy DuBos' reaction to the Mayor's 2008 "State of the City" speech to his reaction to the Mayor's 2006 "100 Day" report. They're nearly identical. I'm curious about where DuBos got the notion that we elected a "visionary" in 2002; I was under the impression that we were electing a practical "businessman," albeit a "businessman" who understood the practical consequences of widespread corruption. At any rate, a visionary might be the best person to lead a stagnating city out its doldrums, I don't think you'd want a visionary to oversee the practical task of rebuilding a city.
Am I the only blogger who has trouble coming up with titles for posts?
*By responsible, I mean that Stephanie Grace usually gives the impression of taking some account of the facts before writing her columns.
There were more serious problems with all three pieces, especially the Picayune's editorial, which I'll try to return to. In case I don't, it does seem that the Picayune's editor's could use some of Sarah Carr's skepticism about "buying momentum" and long-term stability. For more on the Sarah Carr article, see We Could Be Famous.
In the meantime, it's interesting to compare Clancy DuBos' reaction to the Mayor's 2008 "State of the City" speech to his reaction to the Mayor's 2006 "100 Day" report. They're nearly identical. I'm curious about where DuBos got the notion that we elected a "visionary" in 2002; I was under the impression that we were electing a practical "businessman," albeit a "businessman" who understood the practical consequences of widespread corruption. At any rate, a visionary might be the best person to lead a stagnating city out its doldrums, I don't think you'd want a visionary to oversee the practical task of rebuilding a city.
Am I the only blogger who has trouble coming up with titles for posts?
*By responsible, I mean that Stephanie Grace usually gives the impression of taking some account of the facts before writing her columns.
