The Washington Post Plays Fast and Loose With the Truth to Support Liberal Joe May

Today’s Washington Post editorial criticizing 33rd Senate District Republicans for supposedly forcing Joe May to run as an independent misses the mark entirely. The Post either failed to do its research or is intentionally trying to mislead its readers.

POST: The editorial claims local Republicans should have chosen an open primary to nominate their candidate.

 FACT: This is nonsense. Virginia law mandates that special election nominees must be chosen in a process run and funded by the political parties; thus, an open primary (which is run and funded by the state) was not even a legal option.

POST: The editorial claims local Republicans’ motivation in conducting a mass meeting was to doom Joe May’s chances.

 FACT: In an open primary – the very process for which the Post argues – Joe May lost his seat this year by a staggering 15 points in an election that drew over 5,000 votes. It’s clear Joe May would have been defeated no matter what selection method was chosen.

POST: The editorial claims the selection of a mass meeting prompted Joe May to run as an independent.

 FACT: The Post itself reported three weeks ago that Joe May was likely to run as an independent, not a Republican. It’s pretty clear what May did here: he announced as a Republican hours before the nomination method was selected, then disingenuously used the party’s decision as his excuse for going independent, when in fact he lost an open primary in June by 15 points.

POST: The editorial praises local Democrats for choosing a firehouse primary, which netted 1,100 votes.

FACT: The GOP mass meeting will draw several hundred voters perhaps closer to 1,000.  Is the difference between, say, 600 votes and 1,100 votes really a significant distinction that would have produced different results? Of course not.

Once again the Washington Post plays fast and loose with the truth to support their preferred liberal candidate, Joe May.

<<<Cross posted at TheBullElephant.com>>>


10 thoughts on “The Washington Post Plays Fast and Loose With the Truth to Support Liberal Joe May

  1. Hi LL, Satchmo………….and Robert…………YOU FOLKS are the ones calling Joe a Liberal!!! I know Joe and some of his family members…………damn nice people, bu LIBERAL??? your boy must be a Fascist…..I’ll keep watching………..slow down or your growing nosie will pull you down!!!

    1. When it quacks like duck, votes numerous times for tax increases, including the big whopper tax increase, votes against 2nd amendment and Life, it’s probably not a conservative duck.

  2. Ken, I was referring to LL’s perception on liberals and was quick to support her for a promising attack on TAG Greason the liberal.

  3. I haven’t been following this closely, but I think a lot of the problem is having two candidates with the same name. LL talks about “Liberal Joe May”. If that guy runs in the same election with Joe May, the knowledgeable, fiscally responsible, Competent Governance Republican who has served Loudoun so ably for so many years, there really is a chance that he might draw votes from the real Joe May. I see the problem and am not sure how to avoid the confusion. Perhaps ballots with pictures would help. Virtually everyone knows the public servant, the real Joe May. if the Liberal Joe May attempts to siphon off votes because of name similarity, the pictures would help.

  4. Scout, I think you give way to much credit to LL. She really has no clue when it comes to judging candidates. Her track record supports this.

    1. You might want to ask Bearing Drift about that. I was the second most accurate predictor on the elections. Didn’t catch your name in the top 100+.

  5. She could be dumb as a post about candidates (I don’t think she is) and still have a legitimate concern about two candidates with the same name. What are the odds of that? And if one is a dreaded “liberal” and the other a responsible, capable Republican who admirably served the district for years, how would a voter know which is which? I think this is a legitimate concern.

Comments are closed.