It seems like every time there is a disagreement between the mayor and a majority of the council that the SM Post kinda guns for the council. Big issue, little issue, it doesn't matter.
Here's one, not super important but goes to show a little bit of what I am talking about. At afairly recent meeting Councilmember Gillette referred to the mayor as a "lame duck". The SM Post reporter commenting on that said that a "lame duck" was someone whose successor had been elected. And since we haven't had the mayoral elections yet it didn't apply to Mayor Distler. Distler was so thrilled with the SM Post that at the next meeting she thanked them for publishing that explanation.
Horse nonsense. Just another example of the Post's staff needing a review of Government and Politics 101. A "lame duck" is one whose successor has been elected or will soon be. Basically, a person whose end of the term of office is approaching and they will not be serving past that date. It can also be applied to a non-elected person, such as one who has tendered their resignation or who will be retiring. A "lame duck" can and sometimes does things that because of their impending exit from the scene cannot be held accountable for their actions. Another example, IMHO, of the staff of the Post doing PP research.
What I find incredulous is that Distler, based on her education and the number of years that she has been on the political scene did not know the true meaning of the term. She knows, just playing dum-dum. Hey, anybody who gets arrested for felony perjury can't be a clear thinking person.
That was obvious when she said she could just go ahead and veto items approved by the council (even if she agreed). She could. But she would look like a a real dummy when the council overrode the veto.
Sidebar: With all the fuss the SM Post has made about city employees leaving how come they haven't said anything about the SMSD? Oh wait a minute, isn't that board made up of a bunch of southpaws?
