Thanks for saying it

Ricky Matthews and Jim Amoss must not have been invited to any Gumbo PAC parties. 

Our state needs a committed, resolute chief executive with a desire to govern and a plan to lead on many fronts.

David Vitter is that leader.

Ha ha good one.  Oh wait.. they're serious.  Okay why, though? 

His understanding of how Washington works and his connections there should help the state maximize federal resources for its $50 billion coastal master plan.

There is arguably no more important issue for South Louisiana than shoring up the coast. Lives depend on it, and Sen. Vitter knows that.

Well certainly that makes a lot of sense.  Who better than "Big Oil's boy" to get right to work on fixing the coast big oil destroyed?  It's really ingenious in a counter-intuitive sort of way if you think about it. (Don't think too hard about it, though.)  Anyway, tell us more about "how Washington works." 

We are convinced that Sen. Vitter, having witnessed the paralysis of government in Washington, will understand the need to build consensus while not giving in to the forces that keep us mired in mediocrity.

This is the biggest laugh line in the whole editorial.  Never mind the part about having witnessed a trainwreck, Vitter now knows how a train works. Vitter didn't just "witness the paralysis of government in Washington," David Vitter was the paralysis in Washington.  Look. Everybody hates Vitty, including the Republicans there. 

Many Republicans also hate Vitter in Louisiana, by the way.  The polling has shown this all along. This is why he has two strong GOP opponents in the primary and  big PACs organized on the specific purpose of electing anybody but him.  But, OK, he knows how to "build consensus" says the TP. We'll take that under advisement.

This election has been a particularly disappointing showing for the local press. The reporting has been mostly good as usual, but the editorial side of things has ranged from incompetent to insulting. I'll say more about this later in the week.

But let's give the T-P credit at least for one thing.  At least they make endorsements.  The Advocate, by contrast, makes recommendations about ballot measures like constitutional amendments or local tax propositions but it does not endorse candidates. This is a fundamental failure on their part to provide the transparency their readers deserve. Every news organization has a point of view.  They're all owned by some person or corporation. They all make hires and set standards in accordance with the views of the organization.  It's okay for them to tell us what those views are. Rather than diminishing the overall quality of the publication, it helps the reader understand how to interpret what they're reading.

The T-P still does some good reporting. It employs some talented writers.. even if it now employs fewer of them and treats them poorly.  All the Vitter endorsement does is confirm that their management is comprised of the shitty people we thought it was.  But the pretentious lie that the Advocate provides a "view from nowhere" is actually worse than that.  Are they better or worse than the T-P? Who knows? They aren't telling us. What are they hiding?

The T-P is run by terrible terrible people. But at least they aren't afraid to say so. The Advocate really should start being more honest with their readers. Otherwise we're going to go on assuming the worst.