I'm trying to figure out how to make sense of two recent Tribune editorials.
First, the editorial "Rob Bishop: Insider can have clout in capital" (Our View, Sept. 1) strongly implies that in the 1st Congressional District race, Democrat Donna McAleer has better overall credentials than her opponent, five-term Rep. Rob Bishop. But it concludes: "There is just one thing Bishop has that McAleer doesn't have: seniority in Congress." And for that sole reason the editorial board endorses Bishop over McAleer.
Then barely two weeks later, the same editors published "Buying incumbents: Donor limits would reduce influence" (Our View, Sept. 14), in which they decry the corruption that marks incumbency, noting that incumbents typically out-raise challengers 5-1, most of the money coming from powerful special interests who thereby gain unfair legislative influence.
The Tribune first exalts incumbency, then it disparages it. If that doesn't qualify as complete incoherence, I don't know what does.
Salt Lake City
See more about comments here.