You see? The Columbian can be disciplined into breaking old habits as well.

.
Sometimes, when you've been a bully whose entire existence editorially has been to beat the hell out political opponents or further an agenda or forget the task of recommending the best candidates instead of those most closely align with your agenda, you wind up like the Democratian.

But when I was a kid, my Mom taught me and I learned the only way to confront that kind of arrogance and pain.... that kind of bully... was head on... like I have on my blog.

Continually hammering on the Goliath of a daily paper has not been a pain free exercise. To take on a bully, particularly one like Lou Brancaccio who then frequently emails you to bait you only to get some sort of reaction, can be an uncomfortable exercise.

But its worth it. And sometimes, holding a mirror up in front of them... and maybe hitting them over the head with it... can mean results. And this seems to be one of those times.

The only person or entity around here with more arrogance than Brancaccio is Jim Moeller.

Election after election, the rag has endorsed this ego-maniac. Year after year, he has engaged in an Obama-like socialist agenda... an agenda that defies the reality the rest of us have to live with.

But because he carried their water like Gunga Din, they endorsed him. And, of course, he is a democrat. To that point in a moment.

But now, the paper has allowed their "likability" factor to again determine their support.

Now, I have no problem with this endorsement per se'. Craig Riley is a fine candidate who should be elected. But then they also endorsed Jim Jacks... and, as Lew Waters pointed out "What is 'bi-partisan' about voting 'yes' on 1,526 bills and 'no' on only 4 with the obvious partisanship seen during his first term?"

So, they oppose Moeller... but endorse Jacks, who's voting record is essentially a mirror image of Moellers. And even in endorsing Moeller's opponent, they still can't bring themselves to remind people that Moeller is the reason we're in the middle of an initiative battle costing millions to undo the damage Moeller has caused with his moronic "this is candy, this isn't" tax... a tax he no doubt introduced because he believed himself to be in a "safe" district.

That, of course, makes no sense. If you oppose Moeller then it follows that you should oppose his legislative twin.

Nevertheless, getting them to oppose someone besides democrats when that's been their history for ten years is a singular achievement. For me, it's right up there with scooping them on Baird's fake death threats and Anthony Bittner going on a crime spree.

This shows that they CAN change, especially when a spotlight is focused on them by someone who "knows" (me.) When they are held accountable for their bullying, good things can happen.

Now, if we could just peel them off the downtown Mafia on the horrific bridge/loot rail project and get them to demand a vote before this train wreck goes any farther...
.