When the newspaper is complicit

The editorial in Tuesday’s Virginian Pilot calls for the resignation of Portsmouth Mayor James Holley. While I applaud the editorial board for coming to this conclusion, I think it only fitting that they take responsibility for helping to create this situation.

As the editorial acknowledges, the Pilot endorsed Holley in the last election:

The popular incumbent, James W. Holley III, is a shoo-in against his challenger, grassroots activist Martha Ann Creecy.

Holley, now 81, is no longer the forceful presence he once was. At this juncture in its history, Portsmouth needs far more than a ceremonial mayor who’s quick with a joke and quick to praise the city. Creecy deserves thanks for providing voters a choice on May 6, but she doesn’t offer a compelling alternative.

A shoo-in? Hardly. Holley won by a meager 202 votes. Just goes to show you how in touch the editorial board can be.

What the Pilot’s endorsement reflected – once again – is their bias toward incumbents. Rare is the case where they believe the challenger is the better choice.  This is the same man who had three car accidents in two years and whose remarks about a “black hotel” prompted an outcry from nearly every corner. That Holley has become an embarrassment for Portsmouth and Hampton Roads is stating the obvious.

And I doubt Holley will be taking the advice of the editorial board, leaving the citizens of Portsmouth to start another recall effort against him, 22 years after the last one.

It’s bad enough that localities like Portsmouth (and Norfolk) continue to engage in Byrd-era-styled politics with May elections. It’s worse when the newspaper is complicit.

Bet Creecy is providing a “compelling alternative” now.

UPDATE: Brian Kirwin has his thoughts on this. And Mayor Holley plans to apologize tonight.