Voices

Editorial substitutes pat, baseless rhetoric for perspicaciousness

BRATTLEBORO — The slant within the editorial "Plenty of blame" [The Commons, December 2008] caught me by surprise, as it did not seem to fit with the publication's usual perspicacity.

It was easy to read that independent gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina “might have built a coalition with the Democratic Party" as a resentment that he never tried. He did try and was rejected. That point should have been made clear.

Then you go on to suggest with the phrase "mutually assured destruction" that both Symington and Pollina were themselves responsible for the highly negative distractions of tax returns (Symington) and campaign contributions (Pollina). Symington herself chose to do her tax returns as she did and thus clearly invited scrutiny. Pollina, in accepting contributions as he did, followed the rules. The unsupportable charges of not following the rules were out of his control.

And then you state that both "left-of-center candidates spent precious time and money fighting each other in the general election." I have no recollection of Pollina spending any time whatsoever disparaging or "fighting" Symington. In fact, he made it a point to run a clean and positive campaign.

I feel the editorial was far too full of pat and often baseless rhetoric and not indicative of good journalism. I have not yet come across a useful analysis of the gubernatorial election and look forward to reading in The Commons the kind of thoughtful, mature and professional review that regularly sets it apart from other publications.

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates