I didn't mean that he was let go because of his opinion - he stepped down because he couldn't lead in controversy, and the donation was the sole reason there was a controversy AFAIK. If politics was so relevant for the previous candidate, it would be this time too. I had forgotten that he was already interim CEO, though, so it's a good point that anything interesting would probably have already been covered.
> If politics was so relevant for the previous candidate, it would be this time too.
This conclusion is only justifiable with the assumption that the salience of politics to the community with which the incumbent in the office in question must deal is fixed. This is a fairly counterintuitive claim that requires some justification; salience of issues -- particularly those aside from the ones that define a particular community -- is generally quite fluid.
