The mayor of a large Midwestern city appoints all members of city commissions, which must then be approved by the city council. A few months after being appointed, one appointee was charged and subsequently convicted of having taken a bribe to vote for giving a very lucrative contract to a particular bidder. Now the mayor is running for reelection. The mayor’s opponent has used the case of the bribe‑taking commissioner to accuse the mayor of having run a corrupt administration. What action seems most appropriate to winning reelection?
Place the blame on the city council for approving the appointment.
Ignore the charge, but do point out that the mayor has appointed many commissioners who have been accused of no wrongdoing.
Publicly declare that the mayor thought the appointee was honorable.
Do nothing; to respond will only give more credence to a rather unsubstantiated charge.
Point out that the mayor started the investigation that led to conviction of the corrupt commissioner.
Or what?