The unethical idiocy of the so-called "dual endorsement."

Endorsements, particularly in a primary, are an interesting aspect of elections and politics.

Some, like those of the local stain on journalism; the ethically, if not financially bankrupt paper, are worthless. Anyone following their perspective knows that when there's even a possibility that a leftist will win, the rag will endorse that leftist.

Others, like that of Ryan Hart, Clark County GOP Chair, are an inexcusable violation of the office they hold. Hart and those in similar circumstances should resign. Deanna Horton, Hart's democrat counterpart, is well aware of this and has refused to endorse in the primary.

Who knows for a certainty if any endorsement actually causes anyone to vote for, well, any one? But they are, presumably, nice to have. They are SUPPOSED to mean full support, and that the they are SUPPOSED to indicate that the candidate receiving them is enthusiastically supported by the person giving the endorsement.

SUPPOSED to.

Then there are those of the bizarre practice of the so-called "dual endorsement."

Typically, a situation like that evolves when a candidate gets the early endorsement, but then an opportunist comes along, not unlike our local cardboard cut out, Jaime Herrera.

Herrera worked the phones on double overtime, BEGGING those who had already given their word and support to other candidates to then cheapen that word... violate that word... by also, worthlessly, endorsing poor, little ol' her.

When I heard that Herrera was running around, urging others to abandon principle and integrity, I thought "well, good luck with that. Who would be so base and integrity-challenged69 to engage in that kind of unethical conduct? I mean, I'm not surprised Herrera would WANT someone to engage in that kind of thing. But I would be stunned if anyone actually did it."

So, I thought that was the end of it. But then, I thought, "you know what? Maybe I ought to check and see.... because, actually, you never know..."

So, I began to compare the endorsement lists of the congressional candidates.

We already know why Slade endorsed someone that otherwise wouldn't qualify to bring him a donut.

But what about the rest? Who else diluted their word and integrity by straddling the political fence?

Hhhhmmmm..... Ed Orcutt and Shannon Barnett.

Nah. That HAS to be a typo.

Why would EITHER of these two be so shallow as to renege on their commitments, just because an empty suit parachuted in to run for congress with the resume' of a box of Kleenex?

This is one of the reasons why I'm not so hot on the GOP as an organization.

The things they claim to be for are mere situational suggestions.

No one is held accountable. When the GOP was in charge at the federal level, "cutting spending" and "smaller government" were unknown concepts.

Now we can add questionable integrity and a lack of ethics.

Bully for us.

Cross posted at Clark County Politics.