I found this line of their editorial decision to vote “present” in the primaries interesting:
On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could.
Why do they say this? What possesses them to imagine that she’s capable of any better? She is haughty and arrogant, with much to be modest about. And the following sentences were interesting as well:
We appreciate the challenge brought by Robert “Mickey” Kaus, even though he’s not a realistic contender, because he asks pertinent questions about Boxer’s “lockstep liberalism” on labor, immigration and other matters. But we can’t endorse him, because he gives no indication that he would step up to the job and away from his Democratic-gadfly persona.
So they’re saying that if he’d taken his campaign more seriously, acted like he was actually trying to win, and wanted to go to Washington, they would have endorsed him? After everything he’s said about them? I wonder if that’s really true.
Any regrets, Mickey?