Newspaper editorials probably don't mean a lot anymore, and the Washington Post editorial board is not exactly the "best and the brightest" (Harris Miller over Jim Webb? Jeannemarie Devolites Davis over Chap Petersen? Jill Holtzman Vogel over Karen Schultz? Frank Wolf over Judy Feder? Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.) Still, occasionally even a blind squirrel finds an acorn, and this morning, the Washington Post editorial board is munching on a tasty nut:
...One candidate, Democrat Mark R. Warner (no relation to John), is a successful entrepreneur who rescued Virginia from insolvency by streamlining government while modestly raising taxes -- and still left office with an approval rating above 70 percent. The other, Republican James S. Gilmore III., is an unapologetic, not very thoughtful partisan whose reckless tax cuts nearly drove Virginia to financial ruin. We endorse Mr. Warner without reservations.
Look, this didn't exactly take a bunch of rocket scientists to figure out (a fortunate thing, as the collective IQ of the Washington Post's editorial board is about 100 points lower than the average rocket scientist's). Still, Mark Warner is so far superior to Jim Gilmore that even the Post pinheads could figure it out. As could 60%-70% of Virginians, who will go to the polls in 3 weeks and cast their ballots for our next great U.S. Senator, Mark Warner!
P.S. I can really see Jim Webb and Mark Warner complementing each other and making a great team for Virginia in the Senate. That should make all of us excited and proud as Virginians.
If this were a job interview, would George Bush get the job of fixing the economy over Mark Warner? What ever happened to LOOKING AT A RESUME when we hire someone? Because "hiring" these politicians is exactly what we're doing on Election Day.