The Herald-Leader lets off steam

In this editorial, published last Friday, the Lexington Herald-Leader editorial board has its own tantrum over the election results. Admittedly, Kentucky saw some ugly campaigning, on both sides, which hopefully will not be repeated in the next election cycle (by which time pigs will fly and hell will be ready for its spring thaw). The newspaper's endorsements were apparently not very persuasive, and in response it chose to lash out at voters who follow "fundamentalist teachings," who are apparently too ignorant to vote for their own selfish interests. Rather, the voters were more concerned with moral values and security in rejecting the paper's candidate recommendations, "vot[ing], against their own economic interests, to stay the course." The editorial concludes, "[c]oncerns about moral values carried the day, but telling the truth apparently is no longer a moral value." By essentially dclaring that Kentucky voters don't know what is best for them, the paper joins the list of newspapers and columnists blaming the election results on the voters' ignorance. That's not the best way to persuade those voters to come to your side.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what was the paper's position on former President Clinton when he was found, by a federal district judge, to have committed perjury by giving false testimony under oath in a civil action? If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that there was some "tsk tsk"-ing around the editorial room, but no outcry at Clinton's failure to tell the truth. There are probably some pretty long noses at the Herald-Leader itself. But it's wrong to, in a knee-jerk fashion, blame the voters for poor judgment when, considering the poor showing of the paper's anointed candidates, it is more likely that the Herald-Leader is the one exercising poor judgment, and is out of touch with what Kentucky voters want.