“In making endorsements, members of the editorial board consider which candidates are well prepared to represent their constituents — not whether they agree with us or belong to a particular political party,” the editors of the Kansas City Star assured their readers just two weeks before the election.
“We evaluate candidates’ relevant experience, their readiness for office, their depth of knowledge of key issues and their understanding of public policy,” the editors continued. “We’re seeking candidates who are thoughtful and who offer more than just party-line talking points.”
Having deceived their readers once again, the editors went ahead and endorsed Democrats for all the key races in the region—Kansas governor, Kansas secretary of state, Missouri senator, Missouri auditor, and House reps in Kansas Districts two and three. They also endorsed all the ballot issues in Missouri that the Democrats endorsed.
For cover’s sake, they threw the Republicans one tiny bone with Vicki Schmidt for Kansas insurance commissioner position no one is fooled by the ‘R’ next to Schmid’ts name. Her 38 percent lifetime score on the Kansas Freedom Index, indicating the degree to which she votes for consitutional principles and economic freedom, shows she’s pretty much in the Star’s ideological corner.
Among their endorsements, a few stand out, most notably their endorsement of Sharice Davids for Congress. Said the Star editors of Davids, “What she lacks in experience, though, she more than makes up for with intelligence and thoughtfulness.”
Did the editors not read the editorial they wrote after the debate between Davids and Kevin Yoder. As a reminder, here is what they said. Yoder “was the clear aggressor in the debate. He showed more of a mastery of policy details, while repeatedly criticizing Davids for vague answers and inconsistent positions on issues such as health care and immigration.”
The editors continued, “Davids had several opportunities to defend her views on important topics in the debate, yet did not do so. Instead, she sought to attach Yoder to Trump.”
Davids, in fact, offered nothing more than “just party-line talking points.” Her performance at the debate should have embarrassed anyone who posted a “Davids” yard sign.
Yoder, by contrast, was masterful. He obviously had more “relevant experience,” showed much more “readiness for office,” exhibited hugely more “depth of knowledge of key issues,” and his “understanding of public policy” dwarfed that of Davids. Is there anyone on that editorial board willing to publicly say otherwise?
Equally revealing was the Star’s endorsement of BAM, Brian A. McClendon, an alumni of the leftist group-think factory known as “Google.” McClendon moved to Kansas about 15 minutes before the election. By contrast, Scott Schwab, a savvy veteran state rep, knows the state well and believes, as his predecessor did, that our constitutional republic works better when only citizens get to vote.
Like Davids, McClendon got much of his money from California, a state that the Left has turned from America’s promised land to its basket-case in a generation. McClendon had hoped to do the same to Kansas.
Maybe the Star editors get a feel-good moment by pretending to be non-partisan, but really, why bother?