The Post’s (non-)endorsement

The Washington Post predictably endorsed Jim Moran a couple weeks ago (before the voter fraud story broke, though it’s doubtful that the Post would change its mind given its almost exclusively Democrat endorsement history). This is the entirety of their endorsement of him this year, a full two sentences:

Mr. Moran, a Democrat who has long represented the heavily Democratic 8th District, has embarrassed himself, and his constituents, with ill-considered comments in the past. But he is conscientious and constituent-oriented, and his opposition in this election, as in past contests, is weak.

Really? That’s the best they can do? “He’s bad but we don’t like the other guy(s)?”

National Review‘s Jim Geraghty sums it up nicely:

“Here’s the entirety of the Washington Post editorial board’s endorsement of Moran this year:

‘Mr. Moran, a Democrat who has long represented the heavily Democratic 8th District, has embarrassed himself, and his constituents, with ill-considered comments in the past. But he is conscientious and constituent-oriented, and his opposition in this election, as in past contests, is weak.’

He’s the embarrassment to northern Virginia who has earned our trust!

Come on, Post editors. Moran’s Republican opponent is Patrick Murray. Give him a shot. Worst case scenario, he doesn’t work out, we can vote him out in 2014. You’ve already conceded that the guy who’s in there is an embarrassment to himself and his constituents.

If you continue to endorse him, and refuse to even mention the name of the major alternative . . . well, then you’re just embarrassing yourselves.”

  • http://gravatar.com/glsalva81 glsalva81

    I disagree with the Post’s belief that Moran is “constituent-oriented.” He quite easily labeled people racist when they disagreed with the Obama administration’s policies without considering the opposing perspective. How does that make him anything but an ideologue?

       1 likes