Truly the most bizarre editorial I have read in years.
The editorial pages of the Washington Post seem to be looking for any excuse not to endorse Republican Ed Gillespie, despite having given Ralph Northam a solid F on education. So this editorial, after reaming Republican Ed Gillespie for his ad excoriating Northam and McAuliffe for restoring the rights of convicted pedophile John Bowen, concludes with this:
Technically, it is true that Mr. McAuliffe’s policy, which Mr. Northam backs, made it easier for Mr. Bowen to obtain firearms, serve on juries and vote.
OK.
So why does the Washington Post decry Gillespie for being right before declaring his ad as “a poisonous strategy for the nation and for Virginia” in all too quippy and sound bite ready prose easily gobbled up for the Northam cam–
…oh, that’s right. Someone needed a third party with a smidgen of authority to give a good one-liner to use in an ad — just in time for the closing argument, and just in time to turn off any independent suburban moms who might be a tad bit concerned about a policy that gives convicted pedophiles the right to sit on juries, vote, and own firearms.
Of course, one might argue that stalking a mother and her daughter in a dragnet outside of Gillespie’s home is “poisonous” to the debate. As is an overt reliance on anonymous sources in an effort to disparage and discredit Gillespie. As is a once-a-day barrage of negative press on Gillespie from the Washington Post.
At what point do Republicans simply give up on the pretense of an objective press? One might helpfully suggest that such a line is crossed when condemning a policy is considered “poisonous” while the actual act of restoring a pedophile’s voting rights, firearm rights, and right to sit on a jury barely elicits a shrug from the Washington Post.
Such is the world in the post-Weinstein Democratic Party, one supposes.
