Bill Sali

The Idaho Statesman today refused to endorse either of the two candidates in the up-coming GOP Primary for 1st CD in the US House of Representatives.

The Editorial Board clearly stated its reasoning. I understand the "why" of their decision regarding one of the candidates, in that the challenger was a newbie and apparently held no real distictive differences from Mr. Sali.

My question about the Editorial Board's failure to endorse the more-experienced/original candidate (now running for re-election) revolves around the "where" question.....

The Primary races are now....in each party. The challengers are listed. The decision to endorse is specific to each individual race/office. The choice was between these two candidates. Not between two potential candidates in the General Election...at least not yet.

The Editorial today would have had so much more power to it had the Board simply said that they WOULD NOT endorse Bill Sali in 2008...rather than seemigly (and coyly) postponing its political autopsy until the autumn. I endorse and support Bill Sali. I disagree with the reasoning of the Board. The examples given are a wee bit weak. They appear to be somewhat strained. Surely deeper philosopical divides are there to discuss - and could have been brought up.

Now is the time. Later is later. I think the Statesman blew a chance to show its balanced perspective.

Den

Comments

[Believer]

Since when is the Statesman balanced? Since when is any media outlet balanced? I know they have been good to New Hope and I am thankful for that. But historically, the Statesman has been very biased and just as much of a problem with the hysteria and nay-saying as all other media. I strongly believe that such "reporting" has lead to many of the societal problems of today. Yeah, I know many will disagree with my point of view. But that is simply the way that I see it.