Can the Intelligencer get more petty? This morning's editorial asks why Hawaii (along with Alaska and Vermont) was exempted from the recent EPA rules on fossil fuels. (Actually, according to the referenced AP article, Alaska and Hawaii were not "exempted," they were given "deferments" by the EPA.) The editorial then quotes the AP that:

They are isolated from the rest of the nation's electrical grid, leaving EPA officials without the data they used to set goals for the other states.

A "deferment," it seems to me, makes sense until they have workable data. But that isn't good enough for the conspiratorial-minded editorial crew at the Intelligencer. As the final sentence in the editorial suggests:

In 2012, 71 percent of Hawaii voters cast ballots for Barack Obama for president. No other state came even close to that.

Yes. Of course, that's their reward for voting for him. And the real reason why West Virginia will have stricter requirement is because they didn't. As the Intelligencer has pointed out on a number of occasions, it's a "vendetta."

Is it me or are the Intelligencer anti-EPA and anti-Obama editorials getting more and more desperate?