When is an endorsement not an endorsement? When it calls the candidate great because he'd do the opposite of what his voters want.That's the clear implication of the Post's endorsement of Aaron Ringel over Arlington incumbent Bob Brink:
Mr. Brink is a competent legislator but he has opposed widening Interstate 66. That wins points with some homeowners who'd be directly affected but does little for the tens of thousands of commuters who suffer that road daily. Mr. Ringel takes a broader regional view of that issue.That Bob Brink! Always pandering to his constituents! Somehow I don't think Ringel will be changing his campaign slogan to: "Aaron Ringel: He Won't Look Out for Arlington Homeowners!"
Look, if delegates from the distant suburbs want to push to widen I-66, that's fine. It's their residents that chose a trade-off -- accepting a longer commutes in exchange for a less-expensive homes. And it's not their community that has to worry about the added pollution, noise and threats to local biking and walking trails, right? That's Arlington's concern. And that's why Arlington delegates like Bob Brink have taken the right stand against the expensive, inefficient widening of I-66.
But to say Arlington's delegate should give Arlington's concerns lower priority than those of other districts? That's just plain crazy.
As Lowell detailed, this is clearly the Post trying to look bipartisan by carefully endorsing a few Republicans with no chance of winning. I mean, we're really supposed to believe best candidate for Arlington is one who has nothing to say on his issues page about education, energy or the environment?
