Courier loses its perspective with Fitzpatrick's "second coming"

The Courier Times today endorsed Mike Fitzpatrick’s call to limit spending in the November Congressional race – while admitting that “some will say it's hypocritical, given that Fitzpatrick once held the seat and didn't hesitate to take advantage of the fundraising benefits of incumbency.”

Note how the editorial explains that “some will say …” Certainly not the editorial staff at the Courier since it is acting like Fitzpatrick’s candidacy is akin the second coming of the lord.

It was only nine days ago that the Courier trumpeted the story that “Fitzpatrick makes it official: He’s running.” Read the story and tell me if you don’t think it sounds like heralding of the second coming.

Quick, tell me the names of the other five Republican candidates running in the primary. Of course you can’t. Because they aren’t getting any coverage by the Courier.

Two days later, the Courier runs another big story about Fitzpatrick calling for an open primary.

Two days after that, another editorial by the Fitzpatrick-adoring editorial staff endorsing his call for an open primary. With the kind of coverage they are giving him, calling for an “open primary” seems a little hypocritical.

Five days after that, the Courier runs another big story about Fitzpatrick’s call for Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy to limit spending in the election campaign.

And, a day after that, the Courier endorses his proposal.

Give me a break! Doesn’t anyone but Fitzpatrick make proposals worthy of endorsement? Can we expect an endorsement every time Fitzpatrick opens his mouth? Why not end the suspense, Courier, and give him your full endorsement now, even before an “open primary” decides who the Republican nominee will be.

If the Courier really took a hard look at Fitzpatrick’s behavior since his loss four years ago, I don’t think its writers and editorial staff would be enraptured. So stand by because I plan to provide some enlightenment of my own.