Discussion | 22 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

• so sick of thisNovember 12, 2010 - 4:42 pm

  That's why he removed all my comments stating "the public should expect nothing but honest and ethical practices from our local newspaper and law enforcement". Repeatedly removed my comments.

• R.J. CarterNovember 12, 2010 - 4:21 pm

  BINGO...

• so sick of thisNovember 12, 2010 - 4:20 pm

  That leaves Esposito.

• ED.MOMNovember 12, 2010 - 3:10 pm

  Oh I'm not leaving the blogs- I just refuse to have to pay to have the paper sent to my home. And the renewal will stay at the bottom of the bird cage

• James LonghoferNovember 12, 2010 - 11:40 am

  Wild guess: Not Mr. Raffety, not Ms. Lakey. Who's left? If it was someone from Craig's camp it would have been noted as a guest editorial. See, if you left, see added above 11:31 am, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Renew your subscription.

• ED.MOMNovember 12, 2010 - 11:32 am

  I'm thinking it was either Raffery (which is the rumor out there) or someone from Craigs camp....Wouldn't it be nice if someone from this paper owned up to it? What are your thoughts on the matter Mr. Longhofer

• James LonghoferNovember 12, 2010 - 11:31 am

  Added: ED.MOM, the editorial is the opinion of the newspaper, either matching or opposing your views. If you don't agree, you can then point out the flaws and the public decides. If you and 'so sick of this' leave you lose the chance to point out flaws which can destroy editorials. Stick around, both of you, do the job of citizens guarding the fourth estate. Bottom line, The Mountain Democrat is a good local newspaper with a vibrant Letters to the Editor section which gives us all the chance to praise them or criticize them. I think it's a good balance.

• James LonghoferNovember 12, 2010 - 8:32 am

  ED.MOM: Who wrote the editorial? Well, it wasn't Larry Weitzman. Go ahead, make a guess.

• ED.MOMNovember 12, 2010 - 7:56 am

  Sorry Mr. Longhofer, but I have to agree with "sick of this" - The Mt. Demo's behavior during the Sheriff's election was "biased" to say the least, and after repeated requests on the blogs- they still won't say who wrote the editorial that slandered John (yes the Mt. Demo still needs to “Man Up”), and the Congrats that they gave not to John, the voters or the need for Department change was ludicrous to say the least - Dont get me wrong- Sheriff Pacileo is a great man and Sheriff, but to give the impression that the credit to John's win was strictly due to Sheriff Pacileo's endorsement was wrong. If the Mt. Demo follows true to form- I’m sure the only notice that the public will see when John is sworn in will be a 2 inch blurb buried somewhere in the middle of the paper. My subscription renewal came in the other day- It’s at the bottom of the bird cage-

• R.J. CarterNovember 12, 2010 - 7:54 am

  So sick:.. I also noticed that the congratulatory editorial concerning John D'Agostini was weak at best...The first sentence came close, but the next 1500 words or so just back-peddled and referred other stuff such as ballot measures, propositions, etc. ...The editorial also sited the endorsement of retired Sheriff Dick Pacileo as the tipping point for D’Agostini yet anyone who was paying attention knows where Therkildsen's campaign went south...The endorsement of Sheriff Pacileo didn't carry near the weight with voters as Therkildsen's attempted character assassination or the tax-payer funded smear campaign he tried to wage against D'Adostini ...That's what made the big news and was the real turning point in the election, not the small blurb in the MT concerning Sheriff Pacileo's endorsement..