First it was the endorsement along the lines of: "Yup, he's been a disaster for the county, but we heartily endorse him for governor!"
Now this:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/112034419.html (Gridlock to the last:
In this case, gridlock is good - these state union contracts should not have been approved. But the last-minute drama illustrates why voters are dissatisfied.)
Keep that headline in mind. It's pretty clear: "these state union contracts should not have been approved,"
EXCEPT, when you read a few paragraphs in when the editor writes:
"Yes, these contracts are long overdue.
They should have been approved before the election."
Yup, that's right, that's a direct quote from the same article. It's like as soon as the JS editors get Walker in their minds, they completely lose coherence and rationality. And we get editorials that declare that the contracts should have been approved, but now that Scottie has a shot at hosing WI, well, then they shouldn't be approved.
What the heck Journal. If you're going to shill for Walker, at least keep your story straight. Or get an editor for your editorials that won't miss when you let your panties (bias) show.