I have two comments on the Herald’s editorial recommending U.S. Senate candidates. Both come from a nonpartisan perspective:
First, your complaint about party favoritism toward certain candidates seems overblown. When Sen. Marco Rubio decided to run for re-election, three candidates took the hint and dropped out; but how is the Republican Party thereby responsible for “leaving its members with fewer choices?”
On the Democratic side, you deem it “unfair” that President Obama has endorsed Rep. Patrick Murphy in the primary election, and that’s fair game for criticism.
But how exactly is that unfair? (And I don't recall your making any similar comment with regard to Democratic leaders endorsing Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz — whom you endorsed).
Endorsements will be made, and ads will be run, but do they matter unless voters are persuaded by those ads and endorsements?
Second, are your endorsements of Sen. Rubio and Pam Keith consistent? All you say about Rubio’s challenger, Carlos Beruff, is that his campaign “has failed to catch fire.”
You then recommend Rubio because he’s best positioned to win the seat. But that’s not at all how you discuss the Democratic race, ultimately supporting a “long-shot candidate.” So what ultimately matters to you — who can win, or who should win?