Reply #7: I wonder if that's what my paper is up to. There seems to be a pattern of,

[Czolgosz]

first, endorsing the least qualified candidate and then, later, hounding that candidate over some issue which they should have known about back when they made the official endorsement.

For example, not too long ago, the newspaper made a huge deal about how one judge made judicial appointments in cases which, frankly, no one wished to be appointed to handle so no one particularly cared who got appointed because the appointment wasn't doing anyone a favor (it would be like making a big deal about appointing someone to wash the dishes as if that was some plumb appointment). Anyway, one of the biggest appointment hogs (again, not that anyone really cares) is now running for office against an incumbent Democratic judge. Will the newspaper even mention this fact that this guy has received a ton of appointments from a certain judge after making a huge deal about that same issue just a few years ago? Don't count on it. I think they would rather see the appointment hog nominated so they can raise this phony issue during the general election. Is this too cynical?