For those who believe the Washington Post to be a "liberal" paper, today we have yet more evidence that it is not. In its editorial on the 45th District House of Delegates race, the Post shows two things about itself: 1) it loves "moderates," especially moderate Republicans; and 2) it's confused. Let's look at this puzzling editorial for a minute.First, the Post editorial board extols retiring Delegate Marian Van Landingham, a "liberal." Then, it proceeds to all but endorse the most conservative candidate in the field -- Jim Lay, a 39-year-old former Republican, saying he "deserves serious consideration by primary voters." Huh? Does it make any sense at all for one of the most progressive districts in Virginia to elect someone who's not a progressive? Please explain, Post editorial board, because your reasoning is making my head hurt really bad. And that's even before all the Memorial Day beer drinking! :)
Second, the Post contradicts itself by arguing that Lay is OK despite the fact that he's a "novice," while highly impressive young candidate David Englin is less OK because he's, well, a "novice." Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. To confuse matters even more, the Post's positive comments on Libby Garvey -- aside from calling her "occasionally prickly" -- almost all relate to the fact that she's a "relative veteran" with "the experience to be a capable delegate." Got that straight? It's good to be a novice, or to have experience, or not, or....something.
Third, the Post editorial disses and dismisses David Englin, one of the most impressive and thoughtful young candidates I've seen in a long time, despite the fact that he "has developed detailed, substantive stands on taxes, transportation, education, health care and other critical questions." Well, hello, shouldn't it count for something that Englin has taken the time to lay out his positions in detail on all these issues? Seems like a no-brainer answer to me - yes! But the Post, in its usual high-handed, arrogant way, simply waves the (back of its) hand and relegates Englin to "promising newcomer" status. Oh, puh-leeze.
Here's the real deal: Englin isn't one of the Post's "go along get along" type political lifers/cronies, or one of its all-time-fave "moderate" Republicans that they so love to endorse (see Tom Davis). As a consequence, the Post editorial board probably didn't have the slightest clue what to do with him. Making matters even worse, Englin is a true believer in the power of the "grassroots," the average people, and an energetic, proud, progressivist ideology, something that probably scares the bejeezus out of all the bland corporate hacks at the Post.
Finally, the Post dismisses the other three candidates -- Richard R.G. Hobson, Elsie Mosqueda, and Laura Mandala -- with barely a word. Nothing bad about them, just a rousing Post "see ya later, it's been nice knowing ya!"
The bottom line here is that today's Washington Post editorial on the 45th District is a hopelessly confused mishmash of flawed reasoning, internal contradictions, and moderate Republican/top-down biases. It deserves to be completely and utterly ignored (as, frankly, do most Post editorials).
Instead, voters should go the websites of the 45th District candidates, read about them and study their positions on the issues. In addition, voters can check out the exclusive RaisingKaine interviews with the two (deserved) frontrunners in this race -- David Englin and Libby Garvey - plus our detailed writeup on the recent 45th District debate, including detailed profiles of all the candidates. Then, voters can make up their own minds about how to cast their votes in just over two weeks.