If my little mind went searching for the hobgoblin of foolish consistency, it sure wouldn't find it on The Journal Gazette editorial page today. The JG endorses Democrat Tom Hayhurst for 3rd District U.S. Representative because his:
superior understanding of the issues, proven record of service and bipartisan temperament make him the better choice, especially considering the difficult economic and political climate.
But in the same editorial, it endorses Republican Mike Pence in the 6th District:
Pence, seeking his sixth term, is a staunch conservative who is knowledgeable and has provided his constituents with effective representation consistent with his convictions.
Hoosiers in the 3rd District would be better served with a "bipartisan temperament," but those in the 6th need a "staunch conservative"? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
"Vote for the man, not the party." We've heard that all our lives from people who seek to be "moderate" or "nonpartisan," and it's a lot less thoughtful than it sounds. "Party" is useful only as one indicator of a person's philosophy of government, which is the main thing we should be thinking of. We send people to Washington or Indianapolis to vote in certain ways based on our own views of what should happen or not happen. What's the point of recommending the "best person" if it means choosing two peole whose philosophies are likely to spur votes that cancel each other out?
Comments
Dr. Hayhurst may be a nice individual, but isn
Leo, as you know, it is the practice of the JG to endorse candidates in both parties, with the obvious understanding that most voters won't cross party lines.
As you perfectly well know, the JG was merely saying that if you plan to vote Republican, your best bet is Pence. If you plan to vote Democratic, your best bet is Hayhurst.
I don't know if that practice is a good idea or not. But you've worked here long enough to know that's what they do.
If you wish to criticize that practice, you'll get no argument from me.
Leo, was Littlejohn a former superior of yours? With the numerous personal corrections, name-dropping, and mind boggling critiques of you and all things "newspaper", one would assume he used to be the Editor In Chief?
Or perhaps he worked in the mail room and simply has an over-inflated ego?
I'll go with the latter until I hear otherwise.