Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Big bad Wolfe, little worse editorialist

While the "news" paper can't seem to find any room, or qualified reporter, to report on John Wolfe's views or positions on any campaign issues, it always finds room to mention some failing.
In the Saturday, 30 October, issue, is a big mention on his campaign's not having its filings up to date, and a mention that his 2010 campaign is running with money left over from a previous campaign.
Really important stuff.
But what does John Wolfe stand for?
For that matter, what does any candidate in this or, really, any other race stand for?
Even the allegedly endorsing editorial -- Times editorial endorsements are just knee-jerkily for Democrats -- takes time for a sneer:
"John Wolfe may be fighting a losing battle in carrying the Democratic banner -- again -- in the District 3 race, but he is easily the best informed candidate around." Which is sheer nonsense, of course.
However, in the "debate" mentioned previously, Mr. Wolfe did show more knowledge about foreign policy than the two others who showed up.
However, Mr. Wolfe is woefully lacking in knowledge about, for example, economics, about the Constitution (even though he is a lawyer), and about the nature of human rights.
Come to think of it, that also, and better, describes the editorial writers of the Times.
I guess, if I had to choose between the Times and Mr. Wolfe, I'd take the latter. He, as evidenced by his late radio talk show, is at least willing to listen to other opinions.

No comments:

Post a Comment