By John W. Lillpop
As one who loathes the bias and distortions in liberal publications, I do appreciate one service that such papers provide.
I refer to the editorial “recommendations” offered by liberal elitists before elections. In these parts of Northern California, the San Jose Mercury can be counted on to compile a list of all candidates, state referenda, and local issues facing the voters.
Having the Mercury News recommendations in hand can reduce the amount of time one would normally spend on researching the issues and deciding how to vote.
When I receive my Absentee ballot from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, I simply refer to the recommendations of the editorial board and vote exactly the opposite!
For example, in the September 22 editorial, editors reviewed Proposition 83, an initiative that would put additional restrictions and heavier penalties on sex felons. Because the initiative is “based on fears, not facts,” the paper advocates a NO vote. Go here
The NO recommendation means the initiative is a common sense, logical, and reasonable proposal that should be implemented.
In other words, voting YES on Proposition 83 is the prudent voting decision.
Some will contend that using such an approach is haphazard, arbitrary, and dangerous. What if the Mercury News gets one right, they argue, and one ends up voting the wrong way?
Trust me, fellow Americans. The Mercury News has not gotten one right in over 20 years, and I do not expect that record to be interrupted any time soon.
When a liberal publication makes a recommendation, voting otherwise can be assumed to be in the best interests of America!
John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal.