Congratulations to the Washington Post for getting two endorsements correct: Bruce Roemmelt (against Del. Bob Marshall in the 13th) and Bill Day (against Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter in the 31st). Here's the Post on Marshall:
The mention of Del. Robert G. Marshall's name is enough to inspire eye-rolling at his legislative antics, even from fellow Republicans. Few lawmakers offer so much off-the-wall legislation on divisive social issues; fortunately, little of it is enacted. When it comes to bread-and-butter issues such as increasing transportation funding for his district, Mr. Marshall was one of the few delegates to vote against a compromise forged by moderates in his party. In Richmond, he is seen mainly as a provocateur. Little wonder that, in a break with tradition, he was denied the chairmanship of a state commission on immigration established by his own legislation.
That pretty much nails it on "Sideshow Bob" -- "off-the wall," "divisive," "provocateur," gets little done. In contrast, the Post says that Bruce Roemmelt "would represent an enormous improvement if he did nothing but sit mute in the House of Delegates; in fact, he offers constructive ideas on education funding and energy conservation." This election is a complete no-brainer; Bruce Roemmelt is so far superior to Bob Marshall it's not even funny. Well, actually, Bob Marshall is kind of "funny," come to think about it, but not necessarily in the "ha ha" way.
Now, here's the Post on L. Scott Lingamfelter:
Republican Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter claims credit for increases in state support for public schools that in fact he strenuously opposed. In further blatant disregard of his constituents' interests, he spurned repeated efforts to increase funding for Northern Virginia's roads. As elections loomed this year, he finally flipped to support new transportation spending -- only to squirm a few months later when it turned out he'd voted for sharp increases in fines on abusive drivers.
Great, a delegate who's anti-public schools, who disregards the "interests" of his constituents, who flips and "squirms" on his positions, who voted for the abuser fees, etc., etc. In contrast, the Post says that "Democrat Bill S. Day Jr., has a wealth of experience -- as a Harvard MBA, a developer and, currently, a mental-health counselor -- that would make him a much more promising lawmaker."
This race is another no-brainer; how any Democrat, Independent, or reasonable Republican possibly vote for Lingamfelter over Day (pictured at left) is beyond me. Heck, it's as "plan as Day!" :)
It really was outrageous for the Post to write what they did in the 37th race. I still maintain, the Cuccinelli campaign knew Janet would be vulnerable in a forum or debate setting and they have tried to paint her as a know-nothing candidate as a result. I honestly think the Cuccinelli campaign effectively "put this out" early on, and because of Janet's manner of speaking publicly, it stuck. But shame on the Post for perpetuating a nasty Kook attack in their editorial.
If I were a Post editorial writer, and I really felt that Janet didn't deserve the endorsement (which I do feel she deserved), I would have simply said that she hasn't provided a good reason for voters (which she has) to select her over Cuccinelli and provided a few examples. I would not have slammed her the way they did WITHOUT providing even a SHRED of evidence or any example to back it up.
Pathetic. The Post apparently gets some of its writing directly from campaigns.
Democrats they endorsed include:
-Dave Poisson
-Margi Vanderhye
-Steve Shannon
-Vivian Watts
Tomorrow they're coming out with the rest of the endorsement and I hope they continue to stick with their realization that Republicans are bad for Virginia and are "running on some combination of "antis" -- anti-illegal immigrants, anti-taxes, anti-abortion and anti-development. Ask them what they're for, and many draw a blank." True words.