Lets be up front, the head line is what is appearing in most right leaning publications, but the truth is, The LA Times has headline is more appropriate:
Choosing not to choose
In both parties, the races for governor and Senate have been undermined by politics and money.
The Times has chosen to NOT Endorse anyone in the Governor or Senate Race. We think the choice is rather telling, when in the past the LA Times had energetically endorsed Barbara Boxer. By not doing so this time it speaks volumes how unhappy folks are with Boxer’s performance. Most are pointing to the Senators over all attitude toward her own constituents and those who appear before her in her committee assignments on the Hill. This may be Barbara “call me Senator” Boxers last term in Congress. Ma’am, we won’t be sad you are gone.
On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could. We appreciate the challenge brought by Robert “Mickey” Kaus, even though he’s not a realistic contender, because he asks pertinent questions about Boxer’s “lockstep liberalism” on labor, immigration and other matters. But we can’t endorse him, because he gives no indication that he would step up to the job and away from his Democratic-gadfly persona.
The fast-growing population of California voters who no longer affiliate with a party are seeking a dynamic and creative representative to help direct national policy. But the substantive debate about whether Boxer or the Republican nominee is the best person must wait until after the primary. Then, we hope, it will be possible to endorse a candidate.
We take the two races together because they are united by the same issues that keep us from being able to endorse in either: the usurpation of voter prerogative by party and by money, and our disappointment in how the candidates measure up to their promise.
In general elections, we put ourselves in the shoes of voters and call on ourselves to make a decision one way or the other, no matter how disappointed we are in the choices. We do not allow ourselves the luxury of not endorsing. But we view party primaries differently, and we laid that out at the beginning of our endorsement process. Primaries are decisions made by party members, and are optional in a way that general elections are not. In this case, we exercise our options, we reject the choices, and we call on whomever party members do choose in June to have a constructive, substantive five-month debate on issues.
BigGovernment.com put it this way:
Amazing but true: the Los Angeles Times, which hardly ever met a Democrat it didn’t want to endorse, today has decided to remain neutral in the California primary.
On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could.
I mean, really?
You’re kidding, right? Not enough “intellectual firepower?”
Why, not since Pericles of Athens –
Maybe you’re right…