So close to the election, this story was already in the pipeline. I doubt it would have mattered much here, but the magazine might be owed a bit of appreciation. Normally, these types of stories are intended to undermine candidates, not publish footnotes after decisions are made. At this point, if true, good for the magazine for taking the high road and getting political. Hopefully, they have a similar policy with vetting your candidates before elections. It's an interesting thing if the environmentalists don't have anything to say about paving over wetlands.
