Yesterday, fellow blogger Bernie O'Hare patted the blogosphere on the back for it's election coverage. Bernie did provide much information, but some with much more bias than he may concede. I found his coverage of the Cunningham/Ott church housing situation so spinning, I got dizzy reading it. According to O'Hare, Cunningham may have been justified sicing the IRS on Ott, because a church was encouraging it's members to vote for the more spiritual person. My understanding of the sequence of events, was that Cunningham first questioned a church affiliated camp about providing housing to Ott, who was a former employee. The question asked if this indeed was a contribution in kind from a tax exempt church to a political candidate. (I wouldn't think so, because he was living there previously and it was part of a severance compensation) Bernie's spin on the story included humorous distractions, such as Mennonites throwing rocks at Cunningham's house from a horse buggy.
I don't relish the idea of questioning O'Hare's version of a story. We all get tired when Bernie and I go at it. But Bernie's version, spin or not, was about the only coverage on the subject.* BUT WHY BRING IT UP NOW? THE ELECTIONS OVER. Today, in The Morning Call, Brian Callaway analyzes the County Executive election, and Cunningham provides a DIFFERENT REASON for the IRS letter.
Cunningham defended the tactic, saying Ott had based most of his campaign on fears of a tax hike but doesn't pay property taxes of his own here.
This revelation raises several questions. If he really didn't believe the housing situation was a contribution in kind, the letter to the IRS really was vindictive and petty. Does Cunningham think that only voters who pay property taxes are entitled of having an opinion on County policy? SmileBoy should know that some of our Congressional Representatives and Senators are tenants.
* Bernie does link to Ken Petrini and his posts at Examiner.Com Apparently Mr. Petrini also covered the Cunningham/Ott/Church issue.