Believe me, what you do or don't do matters not to me either. I have it on good authority that my favorite candidates are going to win walking away, therefore what you do - in the end - will make no appreciable difference.
But now that the campaigns are drawing to a close, let me make a comment about newspaper endorsements. I'll put it in the form of a question: Is there some kind of editorialists' manual that you guys use to compose your stuff? Is there a chapter entitled "When Referring To GOP Candidates ...?"
Let me drill down to something I find annoying.A remarkably similar line - a tediously familiar line - was used by the Roanoke Times and by the Bristol Herald-Courier in recent days in their respective
Let me quote from both. First the Times on 6th District Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-Wytheville):
Crockett-Stark has toed the party line and continues to defend egregious legislation such as the transportation bill.Note the usage of "toed the party line" and "entrenched loyalist." Bad things, one would presume.
Crockett-Stark is an entrenched loyalist with a majority party that has proved itself incapable of making hard choices necessary for good governance.
Now the Herald-Courier on 5th District Delegate Bill Carrico (R-Smyth County):
Carrico is a reliable partisan. He votes in ideological lock-step (sic) with the House Republicans – a group that couldn’t find the political center if they tripped over it."Idealogical lockstep." "A reliable partisan."
Although there is blame to go around, it was primarily the House Republican leadership that pushed the transportation funding package that included the loathsome ...
About now you're thinking the same dude is writing for both papers, right? Wrong. But it's not hard to imagine that the authors went to the same underfunded, poorly staffed public school.
Note: Both editorials refer to that infamous transportation bill. The one both editorial pages hated (in lockstep?) and worked diligently to kill. The transportation bill that House Republicans "toed the line" on and voted in "lockstep" to pass.
Want some facts?.
Let's look at the vote count, by party affiliation, that took place on February 23 of this year:
Republicans - 46 yays, 5 nays.
Democrats - 27 yays, 10 nays.
Did those 10 Democrats vote in lockstep with their jackbooted Republican colleagues? I don't remember reading that editorial.
You want lockstep? You want toeing the party line?
Democrats - 16 nays, 0 yays.
At least the Republicans had two senators who went against their party and voted against the measure (Chichester and Potts).
But where was that editorial? Why weren't Phil Puckett and Roscoe Reynolds, two grunts who can always be counted on to do what they're told by their party leadership (that would be the Democratic Party), accused of toeing and lockstepping?
You know why. Because nowhere in the newspaper editorial Manual On Political Endorsements is there a chapter on Democrats & Party Loyalty. Their loyalty is expected. And is a good thing. It's encouraged. They vote the way the editorialists want them to vote. So no hate-filled rhetoric is directed toward them. They do the Lord's work. The righteous mission to save us from the GOP.
Anyway, a point that a locally prestigious weblogger made a while back needs to be repeated. It has to do with one of those goose steppers, her toeing, and her lockstepping:
A better argument could easily be made that the incumbent, Republican Anne B. Crockett-Stark, has exhibited far more "independence of thought," having defied the powers that be in this state - every major newspaper (including the largest in Southwest Virginia), every head of our institutions of higher learning, the mainstream media (local, state, and national), the entire Democratic opposition, sitting Governors, former Governors, sitting Senators, sitting Congresspersons, half the Republican Senate delegation in Richmond, not to mention all the celebrities, and a large percentage of the citizenry - and fought them all to a draw on raising taxes on an already overtaxed populace.Lockstep my ass.
Stereotyping - clichéing? - is so beneath you, editorial people.
Or, maybe not ...