Umm... really? The North Shore doesn't share Tierney's view on national security - getting out of Iraq? The North Shore isn't in favor of marriage and family equality, which is Tierney's position on the "sanctity of the family?" Heck, even on immigration, the North Shore is probably closer to Tierney on that buzz issue than his opponent. Finally, the North Shore would probably think this is a great policy on making sure there's little money wasted in the budget.
It's time the North of Boston region has a congressman who more closely reflects their views regarding government spending, national security, the sanctity of the family, and immigration policy.
The editorial seemed to be a stronger rebuke on John Kerry and the thing I said I wasn't going to talk about than on John Tierney. Not only that, but it was suspiciously devoid of any actual proposals, bills or positions that Tierney holds in which the Salem News wasn't a fan. Even in the selection quoted above, the newspaper didn't present Tierney's position. Worse yet, the Salem News didn't even seem to present what positions Tierney's opponent supports. Here's the extent of the paper's details:
Barton's goals are simple and straightforward: "A homeland security system that protects and secures our borders. A vision of limited government, a simplified tax system, family values, jobs and safety for all our children."
Pardon me while I go put in some Visine. All those details just strained my eyes.
If the Salem News would like to be taken seriously, I suggest it infuse its "facts" with some statistics to back it up. With more than 70% of the state either supporting full marriage equality or civil unions, it would almost be statistically impossible for the North Shore to be against equality. Furthermore, where are the polls to back up the editorial's other claims?
In all honesty, there probably are none. Speaking of "none," that's about the amount of integrity the Salem News seems to have today.