Mike Napolitano is a one term mayor. Many of those who voted for him, and subsequently met him, are shocked that they ever voted for him. The best thing that he can do for whoever wants to run against him is to meet as many people as possible. Once they see what a dope he is, they won't be voting for him.

Ask Charlie Lombardi about his recent run in with Napolitano: "You know Mike, you have a big mouth. In fact, you've always had a big mouth"

Nappy will do himself in because he just can't shut his big mouth.

"The allergic Mayor of Cranston"

Anyone find it odd that the letters from Jerry Baron & Alan Fung have an indentical, word-for-word paragraph?

Go to the "Herald" site and compare side-by-each.

It's the one that begins "The city's pension for this year..." Right down to the NOTHING in all caps at the end.

Look, I voted for Fung because I truly thought he was the better candidate, by far. But this kind of takes talking points to a whole new level.

Everyone knew that Cranston was going to be in tough shape for FY'08 and that yet another tax increase was going to happen. As I said back in 2005, I think this was a major factor in Laffey's decision to run for the Senate--to get out of Cranston before another unpopular tax increase.

It didn't matter who got elected, Fung or Napolitano, they'd both be in the same position. You had to be drinking the Kool-Aid to believe otherwise.

There's really not much surprising here. The RI Auditor General's recent report shows that Laffey-era Cranston may have overestimated certain revenues. At the same time, Cranston's investments are doing well.

This corresponds with what one would expect from a Laffey-run city hall. Strong investment returns are indicative of Laffey's professional background. An unrealistic optimistic assessment of revenue is indicative of Laffey's over-confidence, the same over-confidence that made him feel certain that he had won the election even after the polls had closed.

Now for the irony.

The pro-Laffey people are criticizing Napolitano for underfunding pensions while Napolitano defends his actions by saying that Cranston's pension investments are outperforming benchmarks. Then Napolitano decides to remove the Laffey appointees to the city's investment committee because he thinks the pension investments are not conservative enough.

So Napolitano is using the above average investment returns to justify not fully funding pension funds, but is seeking the removal of those individuals who were in part responsible for the above average returns?

I never believed in the Cranston "miracle". I think it was a lot of hype, reflecting Laffey's carnival barker style. But I do believe that Laffey made some tough calls and that Cranston made a fair amount of progress while he was mayor.

Napolitano would do well to build on the things Laffey did well rather than to dismiss them simply because they originated with Steve Laffey.