Reading is fundamental

Shortly after 7 this morning a posting on PennLive by Linda Thompson's campaign trumpeted the Patriot-News’ endorsement of her candidacy for Mayor.

Trouble is, they didn’t endorse her. They were going to, but Thompson’s whacked out behavior this past week caused them to rethink thier nod. Even a newspaper as sad as what the Patriot has become takes a dim view when a candidate for office tosses one of their reporters out of a press conference.

Nonetheless, Thompson supporters trumpeted the non-endorsement on the PennLive Harrisburg Forum as though it were Gospel Truth.

7287. Experience Matters

by ThompsonforMayor, 10/27/09 7:20 ET

Today the opinion page of the PN has an article in which the editorial Board of the paper endorsed Linda Thompson for Mayor. The Board shared how they had processed the decision and although thinking both candidates were imperfect, they decided that Linda Thompson has the best match of skills and experience to move Harrisburg forward at this time.

Linda Thompson has never claimed to be a perfect servant. What the PN editorial Board ultimately concluded however was that she has been a committed and competent public servant. Linda Thompson thanks the PN for their endorsement for Mayor. The time has come for those of us who seriously love this city and can recognize the important issues we are facing to put aside differences of style and unite with Linda Thompson as the person with the best knowledge and experience of city government to meet these challenges.

You can find the entire editorial here.

If you continue reading, you will encounter pull quotes from the editorial that have been taken out of context and twisted to suit our own nefarious, partisan ends. You’ve been warned.

The Patriot did say this about Thompson:

"At one level, Thompson has the greater potential for success as mayor. Unfortunately, she also offers the much bigger risk."

Since the editors didn’t quantify how much bigger the risk, we’re left to our night terrors on that point.

"At her best, Thompson brings her experience on City Council, an intimate knowledge of the issues and many of the players, a life story of overcoming odds, a passion for the city, several plans, a committed following in parts of the city that have felt disenfranchised and the potential to quickly unite all parts of the city."

She certainly has the potential to unite, but given her “style” the citizenry may disinclined to join hands and sing “Kumbaya” and more interested in uniting to storm City Hall with torches and pitchforks.

"At her worst, she sometimes offers solutions to problems with no clear plan to execute them. Too often, she can focus on running against Reed instead of focusing on the city’s future. As we have seen increasingly during these last few days, she can lash out angrily at those who disagree with her, even going as far as asking a Patriot-News reporter to leave a news conference last week. This raises questions about her commitment to transparency."

Really? Tossing a reporter out of a press conference “raises questions” about Thompson’s commitment to transparency? That’s it? We expected freaking alarm bells, sirens and strobe lights in the editorial suite. Pussies. 

"Mindlin offers much less risk. He has proved a thoughtful candidate, listening to residents and deeply considering issues. Yet despite his background and all the time he has spent talking to residents, he offers limited details related to the city’s problems. Instead he talks generally about the need for better management with few specifics. He also lacks local government experience. Commendably, he speaks strongly about transparency and so far has acted accordingly."

Whoa. Stop right there. Those first five words: “Mindlin offers much less risk.” That alone would be compelling reason to vote for him, but the Patriot also calls him thoughtful, notes he considers issues and cheers him for his strong stand on transparency in government. He gets dinged because in the Patriot’s view he “offers limited details related to the city’s problems.” As opposed to Thompson who “offers solutions to problems with no clear plan to execute them.” Sounds like a wash to us.

The editorial board soldiers on:

"It is based on Thompson’s greater potential that this board had decided to endorse her for mayor."

Note to Thompson campaign – “had” is past tense. We know its just a little word, but the entire meaning of the sentence changes. We can understand how in your excitement you overlooked that little detail and made asses of yourselves. Again. As a courtesy to the Thompson campaign, we’ll highlight the Really Important Words in the remainder of the pull quotes.   Anything to help the cause of literacy.

"We had hoped that she would bring her best traits to the task of unifying the entire city, taking advantage of her years on City Council, her passion for Harrisburg’s future and work to find the experts this city needs to help solve its financial and crime issues. We also hoped her City Council experience would allow her to move quickly — in particular when it comes to the issue of the incinerator.

"The events of the last week related to her finances, ongoing and unresolved issues related to her nonprofit organization, as well as the way she has responded to legitimate questions have given us further pause given that there is still a week to go before the election and it is unclear what might or might not develop during that time.

"We also think it’s unfair to offer an endorsement right before voters go to the polls because it dramatically limits the time people can respond.

"We still believe Thompson has the greater potential, but ultimately the choice boils down to one of priorities.

"Do important questions about Linda Thompson’s personal financial issues and temperament outweigh her greater advantage in experience?

"Does Nevin Mindlin’s lack of Harrisburg government experience and his vague proposals outweigh his measured, methodical approach?"

Sounds like a choice between a loose cannon and a steady hand.