Charleston's Republican newspaper enthusiatically lauds Charleston's Republican congresswoman, and in the Democratic primary endorses the man who was until recently a Republican.
I'm shocked, just shocked.
What I find particularly amusing though is their description of Mark Hunt, and why they apparently think he shouldn't win the Democratic primary. This is all the editorial says about him: "Hunt is better known to voters, having represented the 31st District in the state House of Delegates. He is experienced in the legislative process. But he is a wealthy trial lawyer, unlikely to help rein in the excesses of an overly litigious society." I see - so apparently rich lawyers shouldn't be in Congress. Wouldn't adopting that criteria nationwide basically empty the Capitol?
Oh, and apparently Mike Callaghan shouldn't win the Democratic primary b/c ... he's a Democrat. The Daily Mail does write some priceless editorials.
UPDATE: By the way, I suppose I should note that the Gazette (Charleston's traditionally Democratic paper) endorsed Mike Callaghan in the primary to take on Rep. Capito.
Posted by armand at May 6, 2006 10:16 AM | TrackBack | Posted to West VirginiaTrial lawyer trial lawyer trial lawyer! Eeeeeevil!
Posted by: binky at May 6, 2006 10:29 AM | PERMALINKI'll let you know what the local paper says on Sunday (the Morgantown Dominion Post is publishing an "election guide" tomorrow, and I expect they'll endorse in the same issue). Given the right wing tendencies in the paper (they ran Mollohan's ethics troubles above the fold on the front page for six staight days when he was having issues), I suspect they'll be just as bad.
Posted by: baltar at May 6, 2006 11:21 AM | PERMALINK