COMMENTARY

MILT THOMAS

The Press Journal has already given its endorsement to Dick Winger, and only Winger, so it would seem that any articles they write about the candidates after that endorsement would at least be impartial. This was not the case in the front page story about the Tea Party candidate forum held on October 17, but the apparently mixed signals were subtle.

 The article in question, “All Vero Beach hopefuls back electric sale” began by stating “Winger said he was ‘unequivocally’ for the sale to Florida Power & Light Co., but Carroll noted Winger has voted twice against paying for the city’s transactional attorneys and a question from the audience noted he had voted against the contract to sell the system (to FPL).”

So what’s so unusual about this statement? First of all, to put the term “unequivocally” in quotes and then point out how he voted against the sale is a way of dismissing Winger’s use of that term. In reality, the question posed by moderator, Toby Hill, was “Given that the majority of city voters consistently voted to approve the electric utility sale to FPL, will you unequivocally commit to support the sale based on final contract terms as long as they are revenue neutral based on the current terms?”

The Press Journal’s chosen endorsee, Dick Winger, answered that he was unequivocally in favor of the deal. He went on to say that if it wasn’t revenue neutral, the contract states that FPL can make good on it. He also said, “Anyone who thinks we can back away without lawsuits and other problems is fooling themselves.”

Instead of providing Winger’s answer to the posed question, the Press Journal quoted Tracy Carroll’s comment that Winger had voted twice against paying the transactional attorneys. The paper also quoted an “anonymous” question from the audience that Winger had voted against the sales contract. By the way, putting the word “anonymous” in quotes is meant to be the same as “unequivocally” in quotes.

Winger has often rebutted that charge, and the Press Journal in its endorsement story, wrote “Carroll has particularly criticized Winger. ‘He ran for election during his first term as pro-sale, but on numerous occasions voted no on the process or on payments to our transactional attorneys, leaving many to wonder if his pro-sale promises were/are a ruse.’ The issue has been settled, Winger says, and his actions have been an effort to get the sale accomplished in a more timely manner.”

The Press Journal went on to endorse Winger for City Council, so apparently they discounted Carroll’s claims. However, in their story about the Tea Party forum, her claims were repeated and reinforced by a so-called anonymous question from the audience. Is that how to treat your endorsee?

Conversely, Tracy Carroll has considerable baggage in her record on City Council. The Press Journal endorsement story recounted how she “created a furor with ill-considered comments….perceived intolerance of others’ views….stirred controversy again, defending herself in a council meeting over questionable operation of a rental property she owns…Her defensiveness on these issues was unfortunate.” The paper did not endorse Carroll.

Yet in the Tea Party forum recap, when moderator Hill questioned her about the rental controversy, the PJ story quoted her response that she would work to strengthen current codes, then went on to refer to her work to sell the electric system and other promises from her campaign speech.

The Press Journal may have declined to publicly endorse Tracy Carroll for re-election to the City Council, but there are subtle ways to do the same thing.