In looking at the last five days of Intelligencer and News-Register editorial pages in one sitting, it's not hard to see a pattern:

CLINTON --14 editorials and columns, all negative

Thursday editorials:

Clinton is Tardy in Ethics Concern

Clinton Probe Was Ended Prematurely

Crooked Politics Prevails

Friday editorial:

Clinton's Denials Are Not Believable

Friday columns:

The Colin Powell Defense (Rich Lowry)

She's Overwhelmingly Corrupt (Ben Shapiro)

Neither Candidate Can Claim Mandate (Michael D. Tanner)

Saturday columns:

Clinton Counting on Big Cities (Mike Myer)(The column includes two all-time Myer favorites: the Obama quote - "clings to their guns and religion" and Clinton's statement about putting a lot of miners out of work.)

Lots of Smoke Here (Pat Buchanan)

Sunday columns:

Clinton May Dance on Edge of Truth, But Often Falls Off (Kathleen Parker)

Clinton Lifeline Amounts To a Technicality (Charles Krathammer)

Monday editorial:

Friend in High Places

Monday columns:

Hillary's Felonious Friends (Mona Charen)

Clinton Can Still Lose Race (Scott Rasmussen)

TRUMP -- no editorials and 5 columns, two with neutral analyses and three with negative comments

Thursday column:

Trump's Refusal to Change May Hand Election to Clinton (Jules Witcover)(The column is mostly analysis.)

Friday column:

Neither Candidate Can Claim Mandate (Michael D. Tanner)(negative to both)

Sunday columns

Trump May Suffer Backlash From Anti-Immigrant Crowd (Linda Chavez)(Chavez's analysis points out that Trump's softening on immigration may alienate some of his hard-core followers.)

Naked Trump Sculpture Something We Didn't Need (Connie Schultz)(negative)

Monday column

Trump 'Charm' Offensive Will Not Work With Women (Froma Harrop)(negative)

In five days, we've had 14 negative Hillary Clinton columns and editorials compared to just three negative columns and no negative editorials for Donald Trump. Okay, these are editorial pages, that's their prerogative. Focusing just on their editorials, however, the question that needs to be asked is whether Donald Trump has ever done anything worthy of a negative editorial? The answer is obvious -- the complete absence of anti-Trump editorials in either "newspaper" suggests that there is nothing for which he should be criticized.

In just the last week Trump has hired some of the most reactionary people in American politics, he's has flip-flopped again on immigration, and he once more demonstrated his narcissism and total lack of sensitivity in responding to the death of Dwyane Wade's cousin on Friday. Beyond this week, the locals have been consistently silent on Trump's racism, his nativism, his sexism, his suggestion of a 2nd Amendment solution to Clinton's position on guns and his refusal to release his tax returns. (Imagine for a minute their response had Trump released his tax returns and the Clintons refused to release theirs.) Since they (or their syndicated columnist stand-ins) have no problem criticizing Clinton as most of the above suggests, the locals' failure to editorialize about Trump's positions on any of these matters can only mean they agree with his position. Both newspapers see themselves as conservative and Republican. (Look, for example, at how their editor consistently uses "we" when referring to both groups.) Their editorial silence on Trump's reactionary populism, however, leads to the inescapable conclusion that, despite a formal endorsement, they support Donald Trump and his policies regardless of how sexist, racist, or nativist they might be.