Chris was called upon to denounce Salzman at the time. He refused.
And why does it matter?
Because Kerrigan is back to the same old sleazy shit.
"But this editorial is not about supporting Rex Bohn or Chris Kerrigan, or even about Richard Salzman, who appears to have gotten a little carried away in his campaign enthusiasm.
It's about how we choose our elected leaders, and if we're willing to support the politics of personal attack as the nasty new standard in local elections.
We don't believe Eurekans want that kind of politicking in their town, whether they support Bohn or Kerrigan."
Said the Times-Standard then. What say ye today?
There was an interesting little tidbit, selectively edited, in ◼ Eric's post this morning.
What could have been a positive press release from the Kerrigan campaign touting the opening of his Campaign HQ is just more of the WEB OF LIES
I'm giving Chris Kerrigan until tomorrow morning to retract the lies in Salzman's latest.
The question for the Times-Standard is this - do you stand by your words? Every editorial in recent memory - the ones relating to campaigns - has called for being nice. Are you still going to say "Richard Salzman, who appears to have gotten a little carried away in his campaign enthusiasm."? Or are you finally going to admit there is a serious problem here?
I remind you that in 2004, Hum CPR did not exist. The hate and lies... you support this? or you don't.