INDEPENDENT'S SHOCKING 'SNEDDON ISN'T LEFT ENOUGH' REVELATION!

Well, butter our biscuits and call us surprised! The Santa Barbara Independent, in a truly groundbreaking moment of introspection, has published a piece questioning the mayoral suitability of Frank Sneddon, primarily because he might, gasp, consider the actual cost of things. This stunning exposé reveals that a candidate who expresses concern over 'increasing fees and taxes' and 'spending money' might not be the Indepedent's cup of organic, fair-trade kombucha. We're on the edge of our seats wondering if they'll next uncover that water is wet or that county bureaucrats enjoy a good, long lunch.

The thrust of the argument, if you can call it that, seems to be that Sneddon lacks 'sound judgment' because he's not enthusiastic enough about emptying taxpayer pockets for every progressive pipedream that wafts through City Hall. One can only assume 'sound judgment' in their editorial office is measured by how quickly one can greenlight another boondoggle or how many consultants can be hired to study how to study something that was already studied. The gall of a politician wanting to keep a few more of our hard-earned dollars in our own wallets is, apparently, a bridge too far for the ideologically pure.

What the Independent conveniently forgets to mention, of course, is the subtle dance between their chosen candidates and the deep pockets funding the very projects Sneddon might scrutinize. While they wring their hands over 'sound judgment,' they fail to connect the dots between campaign coffers overflowing with developer cash and the endless march of 'affordable housing' mandates that mysteriously benefit those same developers. Perhaps Sneddon's 'poor judgment' is simply his refusal to play the same old game of back-scratching and budget-busting that has become a hallmark of our local political scene.

This isn't about Sneddon's policy positions; it's about the Independent’s predictable outrage when someone deviates even slightly from their prescribed progressive catechism. The real story here isn't Sneddon's judgment, but the paper's utter lack of self-awareness. They've effectively endorsed every other candidate by process of elimination, all while pretending to offer critical analysis. It's less a political commentary and more a public service announcement for anyone wondering which candidate received the tacit blessing of the establishment.