Will Not Answer a Simple Question

Last Friday an article was printed in the NHR about the comment made by a 3rd District candidate, and after translation to English it was basically said by this person that all prior elected people in town were Anglo-Saxons and a place where there was racism and an inequality of the races.  This statement and others within her explaination doesn't change my mind as too her truth meaning. It was a racist comment.   I bring this up not to continue the story of those comments but to another 3rd District candidate.  Many many times in the commenting section of the NHR article this candidate was ask not only by myself but numerous others to explain why he didn't have a problem with what was said but still had a problem with what was said by Mayor Maturo.  How could he justify one being a racist comment and the other not?   Isn't that a little hypocritcal on his part?

I bring to your attention an article in the Patch writen by this candidate on May 27th, 2012, titled "Common Sence Solutions".   In this piece he wrote when asking himself how he would had answered the same question posed to Mayor Maturo, and he said "I would not have as Mayor Maturo did, make a joke out of the question asked and say I might have Taco's for dinner.  That was inexcusable".
"Inexcusable": Impossible to excuse or justify, unpardonable".

"Excusable": To explain a fault or an offense in hope of being forgiven or understood". So, last year he considers the Maturo comment as a joke that didn't come out right, but after that it became a racist comment.  So, once again, I ask why, why is what his running candidate said Ok in his mind and all is forgiven but what the Mayor said can't be?

Do the people of the 3rd District want either of these two having any part in running the town?  One who appears by her own statements to have problems with the white race, and the other a political hyprcrite.