Dana Garrett misses the point once again. He has a post up about the convention (I was there, we was not), and once again makes an assumption that is way off base. He says this:

"In my view, the falsehood propagated about Mr. Protack at the convention is symptomatic of the confusion, which probably pervades the party’s leadership, between constructive democratic debate and deliberate mendacious smears. The former practice historically characterizes democratic institutions while the latter characterizes elitist tyrannies."

That quote implies that anyone who supports Jan Ting does so merely because he is the one that the state party supports. Dana, have you ever cared to think that maybe the relationship between support for Jan and the endorsement is causal in the reverse direction? That people support Jan for the same reason the Party "elites" do? That he is someone who is an excellent candidate that represents our party's ideas?

And of the whole letter thing, "Z's" comment is the only thing that has been said that is factually correct. And I am not Z.

Posted by Ryan S. on Monday, May 01, 2006 at 11:56 AM | Permalink |