Anti-Goldman Essay Tastes a Little Bitter 

What's the deal with Bill Farrar's character assassination piece on Paul Goldman (“The Goldman I Knew,” Back Page, Oct. 29)? Goldman already dropped out of the race, why make the effort to smear his name?

Farrar's most serious “charges” — that Goldman received compensation for being executive director of the mayor-at-large campaign, and that he landed a job in Wilder's administration — aren't anything questionable. Why does Farrar attempt to cast him in an air of corruption? Richmond was thrilled to get an at-large mayor and we all knew Wilder would run, and it was no surprise that he won in a landslide — of course Goldman would work in the administration!

No, Goldman's not perfect, but if the worst things we can say about him are that he didn't really think Blackberries were a waste of money and he came into work late, that's pretty good for Richmond. I mean, it's not like his friends were bribing other council members to vote him for council president. It's not like he was chairing a privately owned, publicly funded white elephant construction project that will bankrupt the city at the expense of taxpayers and the profit of a few wealthy investors. 

Farrar's little essay tasted like a vintage 2005 wine pressed from sour, sour grapes.

Stuart Squier
Richmond

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

  • Re: Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

    • You are blinded by your privilege, Mr. Slipek.

    • on December 3, 2016
  • Re: Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

    • I suspect that Mr. Slipek felt it was a timely moment to write a short…

    • on December 2, 2016
  • Re: Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

    • No one cares about your racist hero's architectural taste and love of fine wine.

    • on December 2, 2016
  • More »
  • Copyright © 2016 Style Weekly
    Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
    All rights reserved
    Powered by Foundation