NASH: “Maybe Coffey is the problem.”


SPOILER WARNING: The mirror would crack.

Matt has been a wonderful addition to the Tribune’s guest columnist roster, but don’t take my word for it. Just consider the many anonymous threats (likely emanating from one or two poison pens) to “drop my subscription” because of writers like Matt, and you’ll see just how effective his pieces have been in promoting discussion.

In many ways, Matt has it worse than me when it comes to rocking the world of New Albany’s entrenched obstructionists. After all, I’m an “outsider,” having been raised a whopping eight miles away in Georgetown before moving to New Albany 17 years ago. Matt is under closer scrutiny from the mad-as-hell wannabeens because his is a local political family, and to some, primarily Democrats of the “In Name Only Sans Any Discernable Coherence Whatsoever” variety, he quite simply is a traitor to his political class.

So, to repeat: If “King Larry” Kochert is against you, you have the luxury of knowing that your position is probably viable, sane and representative of thought, not biochemical processes approximating habitable brain plains.

And, consider my own two choices next Thursday: Go to the Public House, drink progressive pints, and attend the second gathering of the Louisville Area Skeptics, or go to the city council meeting, remain bone dry, and watch Dan Coffey make a mockery of law while his seatmates yawn.

I’m a masochist … and a working journalist, to boot.

Does that give you a clue as to my probable choice?

Take it away, Matt. And thanks.

NASH: Maybe Coffey is the problem

When I decided that I would try to write this column for The Tribune a few months back, I had in mind a few things I wanted to accomplish. I wanted to have fun, I wanted to entertain and I hoped that we could all learn something from what I had to say. It was never my intention to become part of the story. That all changed drastically on Aug. 20 when I decided to attend a New Albany City Council meeting …

… As I was leaving Mr. Coffey cited “the rules” for not allowing me to speak. What are these rules that he speaks of? Why are only people he disagrees with subject to these rules? Why are his supporters and district constituents given special exception of “the rules”? Why am I subject to his rules but he is not subject to the constitution of the State of Indiana and its rules on proper redistricting?