I must have missed the many editorials wherein the editor excoriated her predecessor, Rick Renzi, for voting too often like a Republican, as well for not voting at all after the indictments started coming in. Maybe the editor was out sick that decade.
See, here's how it works. Since the editor voted against her for Congress but she still won, in order for her to properly represent The People (= The Editor), she has to vote as the editor would. Doing otherwise obviously makes her a puppet of the evil California liberals who want to put the editor in chains, take all his guns away and give them to North Korea.
Never mind that Ms Kirkpatrick is among the small group of congressional freshmen demonstrating the most independence from the party line. If she votes against the editor, she's been bitten by Nancy Pelosi and become one of her army of liberal zombies.I'm sure it's also very confusing to the editor that the Representative has failed to demonstrate her zombieness on issues the editor holds dear, like guns, congressional pay and deficit spending. Those initiatives couldn't possibly be anything other than a "smokescreen of conservative credibility." I tell you, nothing gets past this guy.
Seriously, editor, why can't you just write that you don't agree with Ms Kirkpatrick's vote on health care, using research to back up your argument on the issue rather than personal attack and innuendo?
Do you even care what's in the bill? Wouldn't it make more sense to help inform your readers on its merits and demerits? Or are you really only concerned about whether your team is winning?
And once again the "editor" brings in the 2nd amendment and the non-existent Obama plan to ban guns. This in an editorial about health care reform? What makes me think the "editor" is more than a little bit single-minded?
ReplyDelete