Shorter Freeman: We're Not Relevant Without Access

Our local paper, citing. . . no reasons at all, really (seriously, can anyone find anything of substance in their editorial?), endorsed Chis Gibson today:

Our ambivalence with regard to Gibson has to do with the direction of the congressional Republican Party. For instance, House Republicans have suggested defaulting on the nation’s debt might not be so bad, and that climate change, which most scientists say has been cause by human actions and must be reversed, is a natural phenomenon that requires no action.

BUT we have found Schreibman’s campaign elliptical, at best. Schreibman has attacked Gibson, who, after all, has had the responsibility of casting votes, but has not made a powerful case for his own vision.

We’re endorsing Gibson with a challenge and hope that he will, indeed, stake out and advocate positions with which both sides can live. The country can’t tolerate two more years of congressional gridlock. This is a diverse district. We’re willing to give Gibson an opportunity to show he can effectively represent it.

Huh? "We're ambivalent about the other guy, but the new guy is just too 'elliptical.' Because of this, the guy we feel ambivalent about needs two years to prove. . . we don't really know, but we do know that he deserves two years to do so."

Actually, what you are seeing here is the Freeman's desperate attempt to remain relevant. And I would make the same cynical choice if I were the editor of a newspaper in danger of going out of business. A Congressman Schreibman would be much more likely to forgive the Freeman for their stupidity than would the thin-skinned and rather testy Gibson. Essentially, they want to ensure that the next congressman from this district will deign to return their calls. Sad, really.