P-B Article on Wojcik

The Post-Bulletin apparently published an article on the Progressive Majority (the scum fucks—PageRank that!) support of Wojcik's City Council bid. My remarks:

Mike Wojcik says, "...it is sad that my opponent is trying to link this endorsement to partisan ideology." Marcia Marcoux has not tried to do this. The people who know Mike and/or oppose him noticed and rightfully tried to point it out. Marcia has been nothing but respectful to Mike despite his attitude, and hasn't made any negative statements about him that I've seen or heard. Obviously Mike has been making a lot of negative comments about Marcia regardless.

Mike did not disclose his affiliation previously. Furthermore, it's reasonable to assume that if an organization supports a candidate that, should that candidate be elected, the organization will expect something in return. It's illogical and unreasonable for Mike to say that partisanship shall play no part in his campaign. This is a blatant conflict of interests, and if he really is so concerned about ethics (as someone who knows Mike, I can say that he has no business talking about ethics whatsoever), he would've run without Progressive Majority's partisan support.

The only ethical thing for Mike to do now is to resign his campaign. But that'd be too much to expect from an ambitious, aspiring politician, wouldn't it?

To bloggin: The endorsement wasn't on Mike's website until recently; after he was "outed," I think. The Progressive Majority link was uncovered in mid-September via a Google search. (And no, it wasn't me that posted it to P-B, but I wish it had been!)

And:

To schmittts:
"...this just smells like a hatchet job at the request of the incumbents [sic]."

Wait a second, the P-B published an endorsement of Wojcik and you suggest that this afterthought was a smear? If the incumbent had the clout to instigate a smear, then for sure her opponent wouldn't have gotten the backing of the paper! Sorry, your conspiracy theory logic doesn't fly. Truth of the matter is, the media will publish anything they think will attract them eyeballs. Worked, didn't it?

Regarding individual activists, why would that be news? An individual helping a campaign is what happens normally. What isn't normal is a concerted effort by a large political group to alter supposedly non-partisan local politics and provide significant organizational support and training, which is the purview of decidedly partisan political organizations.