Would your newspaper endorse a weaker Dem candidate to help a GOP candide?

[Czolgosz]

I was reading my local paper today, which ran a judicial primary election endorsement. There is one endorsement that has many local lawyers scratching their heads. Please tell me what you think.

The first Democratic judicial candidate has 14 years experience as a County Attorney, a District Attorney, a US Attorney, and he's tried over 80 cases. He's been endorsed by the local Police Officers Association as well as other labor groups, and if you go to the Texas Ethics Commission's website for Campaign Finance Reports, you see that he's supported by a wide representation among the local lawyers (family lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, civil defense lawyers, consumer advocate lawyers, lawyers who previously chaired the local Democratic party, etc.) as well as very many traditional Democratic party supporters.

The second Democratic judicial candidate is a very charming attorney but she has only 4 and a half years of legal experience (the required-by-law minimum experience is 5 years, which she will barely have by the November election). Ask lawyers you know if they would have been a good (or even barely competent) district court judge after only 5 years of experience, and they will laugh; rarely will you ever meet lawyers (a pretty overconfident bunch) who are so vain about their legal abilities that they would consider themselves qualified to be a district court judge after barely 5 years of experience. Plus, floating around the courthouse are copies of the candidate's prior criminal conviction for theft, which she pleaded guilty to and the offense was dismissed after she completed her punishment. If that weren't enough, a local federal judge has been outspoken against this candidate because the judge believes this candidate unethically hid a witness from the other side in a case. On top of all of this, if you go to the Texas Ethics Commission's website for Campaign Finance Reports, you see that most of her financial support is from three law firms and one of those firm's corporation clients (on an odd note, she also lists the cost to "meet with Republican candidate to discuss campaign" as one of her campaign expenses).

As you can imagine, many people consider this judicial race a very easy call. Astoundingly, the local newspaper endorsed the 4-and-a-half year lawyer and -- wait for the punchline -- cited her "legal experience" as the reason.

Why would the newspaper endorse the Democratic primary candidate who barely meets the legal minimum for qualifications? The only answer that anyone I've talked to can figure is to help out the Republican candidate in the general election. The Republican candidate is a long-time darling of the newspaper. He's a "hang 'em all, 'n let God sort 'em out" prosecutor of "gang activity," which in South Texas means everything from serious crimes down to the stuff that is called "mischief" when nice middle-class white kids get caught doing the same things but which are called "gang crimes" when Hispanic kids get caught doing it.

So, here's the question: Do you ever wonder if your local newspaper would endorse the obviously less qualified Democratic primary candidate in order to boost the newspaper's favorite Republican's changes in November?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.