Like the dog that didn’t bark, sometimes the most telling comment is the one not made.
The WaPo proved that again today in its endorsements for the Virginia state Senate.
After dismissing Cooch on a variety of policy grounds, it turned to his democratic opponent, The Hoot. To my amazement, the Post, after laying out why it was not backing Cooch, then declined to back The Hoot.
Why? Because the Hoot “has run a lackluster campaign, at times embarrassingly short on substance”.
Gosh, who’d a thought the WaPo would have a problem with a candidate…
*who is running on a bundle of glittering generalities as opposed to specific issues;
*who refuses to say who she would vote on past legislative matters because that’s a “hypothetical question”
*who runs from debate;
*who calls her opponent Kooky-even when his position has considerable mainstream support (as was noted by the Post itself several weeks ago),
* who apparently cannot get through a televised debate without having a partisan co-moderator there to lead her and sometimes respond for her.
“…a lackluster campaign, at times embarrassingly short on substance”, indeed Now you have an idea why I call her The Hoot.
This is not even the token WaPo “endorse a GOP candidate so we look bipartisan”…that’s over in the JMDD-Chap! contest.
Nope, this was just a stone cold blow off…
Of all the endorsements the WaPo would give this time, the endorsement of The Hoot was the one sure endorsement.
Except they didn’t…and that is more than a condemning silence. That is somethinf of a hoot in and of itself…