The Washington Post -- given the role it could play in the media -- is a really unforgivably lousy rag with, admittedly, some good people writing for it. Why the paper is so bad is beyond this reader. Maybe it's an indication of Washington's culture -- government and DC's civilians -- that the town is a political slum with a couple of really crummy papers. Beats me...
The Post's editorial board has come up with an indictment of Mitt Romney today which is true, but which is also an indictment of the Post itself. If Romney is as bad as they say (and I think they're right), why in god's name haven't they been harder on him all along when their indictment could have been useful?
Why, all along, didn't they slam Romney for hiding his financial issues -- money for the campaign and money paid in taxes?
Why haven't their reporters and fact checkers been harder on him for his blatant lying as their editors are doing now, at the last minute, on the dusty, grey editorial pages?
Why haven't they drawn attention, as clearly as they are doing now, to the fatuity of Romney's budget proposals? "Mr. Romney," the editors now write firmly, "seems to be betting that voters have no memories, poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the curtain."
Behind the curtain! Who's responsible for operating the ropes on that curtain if not the press? In a time when TV news has been so biased and unreliable, shouldn't the Washington Post, of all papers, have been willing to take Romney on well before the last hours of the campaign?
The Post this morning, on its front page, in reference to its editorial, writes "Romney's campaign insults voters." So do you, WaPo. So do you.
