Yep, Mr. Zevon, the local DemoDisneyDixiecrats have some effed-up shizz. It explains their silence in the face of Slick Jeffie’s ethical shambles.


The late, great Warren Zevon (2000).

I have a question for my Democratic friends.

In your own personal world — your life, not the lives of others — do you believe the end justifies the means?

Do you believe it doesn’t matter if people and principles are trampled, so long as you get what you want?

Do the rights and wrongs of the procurement process matter, or is to have and to hold the exciting bright and shiny object enough for you?

How’s it working out for you to become accustomed to cringing and looking the other way?

This fall many of my friends will have cast their ballots for Gahan, a mayor who has consistently fudged, bullied and self-monetized his means in justification of his ends.

Friends having done so remain friends all the same, at least on my end. But I harbor the strong suspicion that many of these same voters don’t sanction those means embodied by Gahan’s political behavior when they pertain to the ends in their own private worlds.

I suppose they tolerate it from Gahan because the daily rationalizations borne of Democratic Party affiliation are all too easy: the “nice” things they choose to see look so good; all politicians are corrupt but he’s on OUR team; we can always pay the bills some other time; or least convincing of all, “the Republicans are worse.”

This entire year I’ve been asking the following questions of Democrats. I’d ask them of Gahan himself, although as we know transparency and accessibility are the very least of his considerations — and he routinely refuses to debate political opponents.

  • So tell me, why does Gahan get a pass from you when he can’t tell the truth about budgets, rate increases, taxes and TIF debt?
  • Is saying that “things look good” satisfactory without asking how they got that way, and who’s paying the bills?
  • Have you noticed that every street grid “improvement” hailed as a victory for walkability actually enhances car-centrism?
  • Why does one man need almost $700,000 in career campaign donations, or to spend more than $200,000 of it in one year?
  • Does it bother you that these out-of-town special interest donors receive no-bid contracts and sinecures, just like magic?
  • What is there in the Democratic Party platform that encourages “luxury” development to the exclusion of public/affordable housing occupants?
  • Is it a healthy civic trend for mayors to bully and harass city employees whose only offense is to opt out from worship of him?
  • Isn’t the “silo” approach of all decision-making, emanating from a tiny clique at the top of a pyramid, ultimately injurious to our city’s success?
  • Isn’t Gahan’s personality cult akin to self-deification, and can this ever be a sign of stable mental health?

The only substantive comment I’ve received in return all year long came from an Independent/Libertarian, which of course I appreciate. It would be nice to hear a die-hard Democrat answer the preceding questions.

Although the fact of their persistent refusal tells us quite a lot about cognitive dissonance, doesn’t it?

ON THE AVENUES: Socialists for Seabrook, because we desperately need a new beginning in New Albany.

Election 2019: The buying and selling of a city, or our updated master list of 73 Gahan wheel-greasers, a veritable pornographic potpourri of pay-to-play.

These 30 free-spending special interest donors top Jeff Gahan’s 2019 pay-to-play campaign finance windfall of $150,000 (so far).

CFA-4 Follies: OMG, just look at Gahan’s huge pile of special interest donor cash flowing to out-of-towners.