The editorial endorsement today of Peter Theron by the Wisconsin State Journal over Tammy Baldwin for the Second Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives is just silly.
If the WSJ is mad at Rep. Baldwin for taking her House Judiciary Committee duties seriously and concluding impeachment is the best course to defend the Constitution, that's not sufficient to toss out a Congresswoman who has gained clout, delivered for the District in too many ways to count here, and is in line politically with the majority of the District's voters.
If the WSJ endorses Barack Obama, Ron Kind, and Paul Ryan, fine. It's not consistent, a stretch, but almost rational. When it endorses almost every local Republican Assembly candidate, regardless of qualifications, we can just think, "That's the good old knee-jerk State Journal we all know and try to tolerate." But Peter Theron?
The WSJ admits Theron is way out of the mainstream of Republican thought and has no support:
In fact, Theron is by far the weakest candidate the Republicans have ever put up for the Second District since Scott Klug retired. So what's up with the deliberate disrespect towards Tammy Baldwin that this endorsement represents?
"Bizarre" and "ridiculous" are too weighty to describe this endorsement. "Ludicrous" or "surreal' come closer. But "silly" fits best.
- Barry Orton
Good call, Barry.
And remember, alot of their new decisions are silly as well.
Posted by: Brian | October 26, 2008 at 06:45 PM
I don't think you can honestly compare Baldwin to rightist liberals like Obama and Kind. If you follow the Journal's logic Obama shares much of the logic of their Theron endorsement - free trade for example.
No matter what the Neocrybabies try to sell us Obama is no socialist and will keep business taxes low. Republican libertarians like Theron are supporting Obama in droves. It seems to me the inconsistency would be endorsing Baldwin. To say its inconsistent simply because of the party label seems kind of silly.
I actually thought of voting for Theron because of Tammy's bail out vote. I will most likely vote NOTA, but there is no way Baldwin will get my vote. I have very few complaints with Baldwin, but this one was a whopper. There is not one human being I know of who says a corporate bailout on banks is a great idea. It is only partisan bloggers, hacks, and politicians who defend it.
If Theron had a Ron Paul position on NAFTA, WTO, and "free trade", he'd have my vote.
Posted by: Henry Dubb | October 26, 2008 at 07:14 PM
As a former coworker of Theron's, I just gotta say... wow. I gotta... yeah. I'm voting for Baldwin.
Posted by: Programmer | October 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Here, here! Scary to think people might trust an editorial like that.
Posted by: Lou | October 28, 2008 at 10:13 AM