As I noted yesterday in my NB Extra piece, in an October 26 editorial listing endorsements for the Montgomery County [Md.] Council, the Washington Post erroneously stated that the incumbent County Executive Isiah "Ike" Leggett (D) was unopposed in his reelection bid.
That simply is not true, and the Post today issued a correction noting that Leggett does indeed face a challenge, from Republican Doug Rosenfeld.
Yet in today's correction notice, the Post noted that it will print an "editorial on that contest... in the coming days."
The Post most certainly has a right to make such an endorsement, but considering its gross negligence in the first place, should the paper opt simply to refuse to make an endorsement?
A search of the Nexis database from September 15 (the day after the primary election) through October 27 found just two mentions of Rosenfeld. The second was today's correction notice and the first was the very last paragraph of Metro section reporter Michael Laris's September 15 roundup of local primary election results:
In the Republican primary for county executive, attorney Douglas E. Rosenfeld, who county elections officials said registered as a Republican in April, was leading ghostwriter Daniel Vovak. The GOP winner will have the unenviable task in strongly Democratic Montgomery of taking on incumbent Isiah Leggett come November.
By contrast, aside from those two aforementioned articles, Isiah Leggett was mentioned in 11 stories in the same time frame, although it appears all of them are connected to Leggett's duties as county executive, with none specifically focused on his reelection bid.
Clearly the Post has neglected to report on the Leggett/Rosenfeld matchup in any substantive fashion.
Issuing an endorsement in light of that and yesterday's gaffe would seem to serve no purpose other than to make a pronouncement in favor of a liberal incumbent.
Of course, the Post could pleasantly surprise this conservative Montgomery County resident, but I'm not holding my breath.