The front page of this morning's Intelligencer carried about 80% of the AP article on the likelihood that Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic Party's nomination.
On the editorial page, however, it was business as usual as we got Patrick Buchanan's anti-Hillary column from last Thursday. I'm sometimes amazed that . . .
This morning's Intelligencer editorial follows the same playbook as last Monday's editorial on the WASPs : pick a topic that was not covered originally by the "newspaper," misinterpret and lie about what happened, and then conclude that it's all the Democrats' fault.
Today's "Ryan Should Take Hard . . .
Of course, it's the Democrats' fault -- it's always their fault
From this morning's Intelligencer editorial on the state's budget problems:
Politics - with some in the Legislature's Democrat Party minority blocking reasonable action by Republicans - has made the budget-balancing process frustrating for all concerned, including taxpayers.
The Democrats are blocking . . .
A desperation editorial: "Shoe on Other Foot on 'War on Women'"
A meeting of World War II Women Airforce Service Pilots
(source - National Museum of the U.S. Air Force)
Invoking their favorite metaphor (shoe on other foot), this morning's Intelligencer editorial argues that the Obama administration along with Democrats, are guilty of a war on women. The editorial about honoring the . . .
Another shoe on the wrong foot? It's the Intelligencer's excuse for more projection
From this morning's editorial in the Intelligencer:
Just a few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton and other Democrat Party leaders were chortling with glee at what they called disarray in the Republican Party. . . .
Funny how . . .
Worse than Obama "death panels"
Here's the conclusion of the lead editorial, " Democrats Have Selves to Blame," in this morning's Wheeling Intelligencer that blames Democrats for the rise of Donald Trump:
It is those Democrats in the Senate who set the stage for Trump's rise. For all their criticism and condemnation of the Republican . . .
The West Virginia Supreme Court vote
Who not to vote for
The lead editorial in Saturday's Intelligencer did not endorse any candidate for the West Virginia Supreme Court. Instead, it was a 230-word editorial on the candidate we should not vote for. With the title, "One Candidate Not to Support," it was not hard to guess who that might be. Of course, . . .