I'm violating one of my cardinal rules today.
I almost always cut off political letters to the editor on the Sunday before Election Day.
I usually do that because very often it's not exactly fair to have a letter appear Monday or Tuesday making a claim and not offer the other side the opportunity to respond before voters go to the polls.
So why is there a political letter on today's op-ed page.
This started yesterday morning, literally as I was riding in the car, returning from a family breakfast celebrating my wife's 60th birthday.
Ironically, one of the topics I has been asked about over the eggs (which I don't eat by the way) was the bitter race for County Council in Delaware County, including all those ads saying terrible things about one of the Democratic candidates, Elaine Paul Schaefer.
When the phone rang as we were riding home, I responded the way I almost always do. This was my work phone, and I offered the following thought: This is not good news.
And who would be on the other end of the line?
That would be Elaine Schaefer.
She was requesting the chance to write a letter to the editor for Monday, to defend herself against some of the claims that have been made about her.
I decided to grant her request.
She has been attacked in print, on radio and TV in connection with something she was only tangentially tied into as part of her duties as a Radnor commissioner.
Some of those claims by her Republican counterparts have been included in our coverage as well, in fact it was mentioned in Sunday morning's preview story on the County Council race.
That would be the matter of former Radnor commissioners president Phil Ahr, who entered a guilty plea in federal court to child porn charges.
If you listen to some of the ads, you easily could come away with the impression that Schaefer, and in fact all three Democratic council candidates, are supporting Ahr and giving a platform to a predator in another matter, that being an endorsement from a county prison reform group in which a convicted child molester holds a position.
The arrows against Schafer stem from a vote she took to keep Ahr on the board. That vote was taken before he was charged, but apparently after police and investigators informed them of the decision.
Let's be clear. I don't think Schaefer handled this situation all that well. She probably should not have stood behind Ahr, a fellow Democrat.
But none of the ads ever mention the fact that she immediately called on him to step down after he was charged.
And to suggest that she somehow is supporting a child predator is just simply wildly off base.
I simply could have informed Schaefer that it was too late, that she missed her chance to respond.
I decided not to - and I am betting I will be getting an earful for that decision today.
We go to the polls tomorrow.
Not a second too soon.
Comments