"Well, that just about does it."

Ryerson pretty much stuck a fork in the once proud hometown newspaper this time.

Do you seriously think they have even the pretense of objectivity and any even basic journalistic integrity left?

As our colleagues Hailstone and Gillespie point out in their earlier posts on this topic, (See Gillespie here and Hailstone here) the local cage-liner has actually endorsed a candidate who is

(A) pending a court appearance for an eviction hearing (the day after the election ... convenient, huh?). It appears that she hasn't paid her rent in a year or so. Good fiscal management skills - she'll fit right in with the bailout crowd;

(B) has foisted off a resume that is (to be kind) "embellished" - well, actually, largely fabricated. Good thing Pelosi doesn't do background investigations on her caucus, huh? And;

(C) apparently, the Cage-liner ed board didn't realize that their endorsed candidate doesn't know or understand campaign finance/election law. No worries here either - well, except for those pesky ethics investigations.

So this is the candidate that the Ryerson crowd thinks will best represent the good people of the 5th CD? As Hailstone points out, they used the massive Wall Street bailout bill as the benchmark ... and only endorsed the guys who voted against it when they knew there wasn't a snowballs chance in West Texas they'd be defeated. One wonders about their judgement. Rather than look at the totality of votes over the past two years, they choose one or two that fits their agenda. That's what I call objective, and you?

No wonder Burton doesn't give these idiots the time of day. No wonder they can't sell newspapers for anything other than an inexpensive alternative to store bought puppy "piddle-pads".

Hailstone was right. They're full of something ... but the aroma is less than intoxicating along Penn St.