Usually an Oklahoman editorial flows off the front page of NewsOK.com after a day or two. (Hey, at least they’re not putting them on the front page of the actual paper, the way they used to.) But their preposterously early Presidential endorsement what, do they think they have some clout in Des Moines? has hung around for the better part of a week; in fact, they’ve built a whole subsection around it in the hopes of luring some of those social-media types.
Given the usual quality of reader commentary at NewsOK you have to wonder how these people have time to respond to every single item on the site and still meet their meth-delivery deadlines this has the potential for truly epic, possibly even biblical, fail. It wouldn’t matter so much were the centerpiece stately and timeless. But, as Clark Matthews points out, it falls a bit short of that mark:
Look, I don’t mind that the paper endorsed Mitt Romney. As far as Republicans go, he’s my second favorite (after Jon Huntsman) of the field. I don’t even mind that they pretend President Obama is some all powerful divisive force instead of a middle-of-the-road pragmatist who pisses off the liberals in his party. What bothers me is they are journalists purveyors of the truth and the entire article reads like idiotic rantings of ill-informed internet trolls.
Especially compared with the Romney endorsement by the Washington Examiner, Opubco’s corporate sister. Perhaps the Black Tower believes or has been instructed to believe that a lack of coherent style will be perceived as honest and homespun. Surely nothing else explains a piece of hackwork like this:
Oklahomans knew Obama was a poor choice for president in 2008. Now the rest of the country knows it. But on Election Day next November, we won’t be checking “yes” or “no” beside the name of the incumbent. It is not a recall election. We will either check Obama’s name or that of another candidate. Romney is the name we must check.
That’s high-school level stuff, and not in the advanced-placement classes either.