As I was reading your editorial condemning Philip Levine’s practices as Miami Beach mayor, it sure looked as if your endorsement would go to challenger David Wieder.
Right off you cited the “political stink” Levine generated by his “ethically questionable decision” to get involved with the discredited Relentless for Progress PAC, and the ties between him, his lobbyist, the PAC, and his slate of candidates.
Then you said that Levine should adopt his challenger’s standard: “to restore trust, integrity and responsiveness to our city government.… and not allow cronyism, backroom dealings, sole-source contracts . . . pay-to-play politics.”
When you topped this off by citing Wieder’s disadvantage in light of Levine’s “deep pockets and flashy TV ads,” I was certain you’d use the power of the press as a counterweight to the role of big money in politics and endorse Wieder.
Did something happen on the way to the printer? After condemning Levine and praising Wieder you endorsed the former. The disconnect between the body of the article and its illogical conclusion defies explanation.
Frank Del Vecchio, Miami Beach