The logic of this editorial escapes me. Environmental preservation is paramount. But vote for the incumbent who has proven he puts economic development above environmental preservation. And not for the veteran who showed his bona fides in office, because he's "out of touch". (i.e. Old) And oh yeah, if the incumbent follows the path he's demonstrated he's already on, then, in four years, don't support him... Can anyone explain the rationale here? Gabe?
2013 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation