Magazzu loses bid for NACo

You heard it here first – Matt Dunn comes in a close second. This article appears to be mostly fluff, making Louis appear almost heroic in his decision to withdraw his name from consideration.

“Even though I had significant support, it wasn’t enough for the majority and it didn’t make sense to contest the election,” he said, explaining his decision to drop out of the contest.

We hardly think that global warming was the reason that 50 states rejected Louis. Texas and California both challenged the nomination. Every other state neglected to second the nomination. Without a second to the nomination, and with two challenges we have a difficult time believing that Lou had “significant support”. In fact, our sources from the inside tell us differently.

Of course, the question remains. This question has not been asked by any local news source. Who paid for the trips while Lou was campaigning? Who paid for the other Freeholders and the Sheriff to attend what Lou hoped to be a media circus as he waltzed into the new job?


8 Responses to Magazzu loses bid for NACo

  1. tryagain says:

    Why the continual cheap shots at Dunn? And seemingly all the repoters from both papers? If you want to write for the paper I suggest you start your own newspaper or apply for a job at a legitimate newspaper. Perhaps the National Enquirer?

  2. There are no continual cheap shots – we are questioning the validity of a puff piece. There was no investigation to determine the real reason, Lou was taken at his word.

    We have heard from other sources that Lou’s version is not quite the way it went down. Why doe the News have this urgency to protect Lou’s reputation?

  3. DEEP THROAT says:

    Matt does not deserve to be so scorned. He simply is not an investigative reporter. There are few left.
    The News has neither the staff or resources to do any investigative reporting.
    The papers depend on stories that are handed to them for filler pieces.
    Thw e papers have no way to pay to have someone go to the convention to get the truth.
    Result: You get the story from a lawyer with their expert spin.

  4. tryagain says:

    Dunn’s story seem balance and credible. I assume he spoke to the media person from Naco as indicated rather than anonymous sources that are constantly used on this website. Dunn has always seemed balanced, fair, and accurate. Deep Throat has very valid points. This site would only be happy if the papers just ripped Magazzu rather than just reporting the story.

  5. DEEP THROAT says:

    Never assume . You know it will make
    Remember Matt Dunn is Not an investigative reporter.
    Spoon fed stories only!

  6. tryagain says:

    You don’t give Dunn enough credit for his work. Just because he is not what you call an “investigative reporter” doesn’t mean he doesn’t ask pointed questions and attempt to give a credible report. He seems to be as thorough a reporter as any newspaper reporter. Not many papers have full time investigative reporters who can devote hours upon hours to single stories, especially small town papers. This is not the Washington Post or the New York Times with massive manpower and unlimited resources. He writes far more tha Spoon fed stories only!!! Think your screen name of Deep Throat may be a hint as to what you would expect from local newspaper reporters. Naco elections are NOT Watergate issues! Cut Dunn a break, he does a good job!!

  7. DEEP THROAT says:

    According to NACOs website, votes are allocated according to population as are the cost of dues.
    Low population counties get 1 vote to a high of 12 votes for high population counties.
    Under Magazzu’s excuse a few rural counties with 1-2 votes were more powerful than say L.A. San Francisco,or Sacramento counties with up to 12 votes.
    Now that is Magazzu math.

  8. WuLi says:

    In the DJ today:

    “When I arrived at the conference, I realized that it would have been difficult to win,” said Magazzu. “ …I believe very strongly in this organization, so I withdrew my name in order to avoid a protracted and potentially divisive contest.”

    What a load of crap! Is this to mean that Lou does NOT believe very strongly in the Freeholder position – being that he is very quick to turn every campaign into a protracted and divisive contest?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: