Does Norm have something on Scott Gillespie at the Strib? What gives? I normally agree with the Stribs editorial, but Gillespie is making an ass out of himself

The Crookston Daily Times editorial is tough to put in the "Stay the course for now, Norm" column (http://www.crookstontimes.com/opinions/x1098989992/Editorial-Coleman-just-wants-to-win-thats-all).

Taken as serious, it says implicitly "politicians are useless;" hence, it makes absolutely no difference whether we have one senator or two. Mr. Brauer, however, reads it as "snark" (and rightly so).

Since the verb "snark" means "To find fault (with), to nag" (says OED), if the noun form used is in the same vein, what is the fault it discusses? When the editorial satirizes snarkily, it brings an important wrongs to light: winning by any means possible is the only objective for the career politician. "Let Coleman appeal," it says. With the snark-factor, this is to be taken as sarcasm--politicians shouldn't work this way, and we shouldn't tolerate it.

That notion certainly rings true.

The Crookston Daily Times editorial highlights Norm Coleman's quest for victory with an angry sharpie, and it should be moved to the "Quit now, Norm" column. To leave it as is like saying, “Colbert is Bush’s biggest fan;” it’s just not the case. Worse, it not only misrepresents the author’s intentions, it misleads MinnPost's readers.