So today, The paper did it's endorsements in the Assessor's race. Again, experience, the card they play when it suits them, was left off the table.
The paper, to it's credit(?) did only endorse two Republicans in that race, for reasons that may or may not have merit. That, however, is grist for another mill.
Of note was this parting shot:
Other candidates include Janet Seekins, a Democrat with almost 30 years in the county assessor’s office but who has no management experience, and Republican Peter Van Nortwick, a certified appraiser who has been running a negative, attack-dog campaign. Among Van Nortwick’s strongest supporters is state Sen. Don Benton, who ran for county assessor against Franklin in 2002 and lost.Could anyone explain the relevance of Benton's support vis the fact that he lost for this job in 2002?
Of course not. Gratuitous face shots seem to be a hallmark of the Columbian. One has to ask them: "Why?"
Benton supports Van Nortwick. Therefore, Van Nortwick's experience and qualifications have no role or impact in the deliberations as to who is the best candidate.
As I understand it, Van Nortwick is the only candidate running who has attained "Certified General Appraiser" status. The paper fails to mention this.
Even I, occasionally, give credit to political opponents for their achievements (Not often, but it DOES happen) so how is it that, once again, actual qualifications have no impact in the paper's endorsements?
Support by Benton seems to be the kiss of death to candidates if this paper's constantly shifting playing field for endorsements is any gauge.
Benton has also supported Lucas, Kimsey, Zarelli, Orcutt, Rivers, Peck, Harris and a host of others. Will this paper beat them up as well?