To the editor:
Sherri Mahoney and Sam Mundel have already improved the financial prospects for the town. They have given us a screenplay to pitch to Hollywood that could bring the town fame and a …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
Sherri Mahoney and Sam Mundel have already improved the financial prospects for the town. They have given us a screenplay to pitch to Hollywood that could bring the town fame and a production crew with millions to spend locally while making a movie.
Here’s the pitch: Two relative newcomers to town, one who gives tax advice to clients and the other who makes millions buying and selling investments, decide to run for office against two longtime residents, one of whom is a plumber and the other of whom is a building contractor.
So far not so interesting or funny, but, get this! Their platform is entirely based on the claim that they (the tax advisor and the investor) represent “the hard-working people in our community” and that their opponents (long time journeymen residents) represent an elite of “certain groups of people who have moved to town and promoted people to positions of power.”
It’s unclear at the moment what their motive is in doing this — we’ll have to work on that. But, they see an opportunity to get themselves elected by exploiting and stirring up existing resentments in the town — particularly those felt by the town’s farmers who have recently taken a lot of heat for animal abuse mostly committed by out-of-towners on a tenant farm on the border of an adjoining town.
Other than stirring up bad feelings, they don’t have much to say. There is not really a platform. They have no record of service to the town and have never before shown much interest in participating at Town Meeting or elections.
They try some tepid mudslinging. They suggest that their opponents have been “bought” by people who contributed the money for a few lawn signs around town. They suggest that government is being conducted in secrecy, despite the fact that all proceedings (except those that are required by state law to be held in “executive session”) are open to the public, videotaped, and run on the town’s Community TV stations.
In the end, it is all pretty serious, but you can’t help laughing at the couple’s hijinks and their nerve in presenting as their closing slogan: “Give us your vote on June 23, and we will give you your town.”
Where did they get the idea it was theirs to give?
Betty Slade
Westport