When you're a democrat front publication, it's difficult to break the leash from your fellow fringe leftists and it's even harder to treat a bridger/looter Gunga Din water carrier for our local rag the same way they have treated, say, Peter Van Nortwick.
So, here's what we've got: a fringe-leftist who voted almost exactly like neo-communist Jim Moeller; who was a drunk, and who engaged in misconduct with female staffers.
The other thing we've got is a self-neutered newspaper, who, like the people living across the street from Dachau who didn't know it was a concentration camp, doesn't "know" about Jacks' well known and easily verified misconduct... misconduct that led to his resignation and subsequent expulsion from the House... that, because they're too stupid to find a paper trail, can't "prove" anything so they refuse to "speculate" about Jacks' expulsion.
And like those living in Dachau... if they don't know?
It's entirely and only because they don't WANT to know.
Yeah, I know his lies about "resigning." But he didn't "resign" so much as he left under the threat of exposure. The rag knows this, of course, but because Jacks was their faithful lackey, well, they couldn't go out there and follow up... and then publish it, could they?
The hypocrisy of the rag is obvious: they refused to allow what they called "speculation" about Jacks' misconduct, even though hardly a day goes by when they, themselves, don't engage in rampant and complete speculation when it suits them.
The word for that, of course, is hypocrisy. But then, that's what out rag is known for.