A few minutes ago, our colleagues at Twitchy caught up with the latest development in the Virginia election for Attorney General. Incumbent Republican Jason Miyares tweeted out last night that the Washington Post editorial board "agrees that decency is on the ballot," and had blasted Democrat challenger Jay Jones as "deranged."
Curious as to the context, I clicked through to the link, and then to the editorial. I scrolled to find the passage. And scrolled. And scrolled. And scrolled.
Literally, at the very end of a very long paean to "moderate" Democrat gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger, the editorial board of the Post added this final paragraph, almost as a post-script:
The most suspenseful race in Virginia on Tuesday is for attorney general. Republican Jason Miyares is seeking reelection against former Democratic delegate Jay Jones. The revelation of deranged text messages in which he mused about violence against children, among other things, has cast doubt on Jones’s temperament to be the state’s chief law enforcement officer. If Jones rides Spanberger’s coattails to victory, it would be a sad reflection of a discomfiting willingness among voters to prioritize partisanship over human decency.
"Cast doubt"? Jones put in writing his desire for the children of a political opponent to be murdered in order to advance Jones' own policy agenda. He allegedly told the same person whom he texted that he also wished more law enforcement agents would be killed so as to teach them to avoid lethal force. Jones denies the latter, but his credibility isn't exactly at its zenith in this cycle.
The man who seeks to become the commonwealth's chief law enforcement officer cheered the idea of murders, so long as it helped his career -- and this only "cast[s] doubt" on Jones' fitness for this office? Whoa there, WaPo, let's not rush to judgment here!
Then I read back over the rest of this editorial. The Post's editors filled several paragraphs preceding their "by the by" addendum on Jones with descriptions of Spanberger's moderation and pragmatism. "If Spanberger governs as a pragmatist," they opine, "she could be successful." They also ask, "If she wins, to what extent might Spanberger serve as a check on the most liberal impulses of the General Assembly?", as if she'd be inclined to do so.
Let's ask the most pertinent question about Spanberger's "moderation" and "pragmatism." When Jones' texts and alleged remarks endorsing murders of children and police went public, what did Spanberger do? Did she choose "moderation" and "pragmatism" by denouncing Jones and his deranged comments? Did she pull her endorsement of Jones? Did she stand for "human decency," or did she "prioritize partisanship"?
The answer is no. Spanberger kept her endorsement of Jones and refused to distance herself from him.
Spanberger failed the very test that the Post's editors demand from Virginia voters today.
Why didn't the Post's editors hold Spanberger accountable for that choice? Why did they fail to include that in their review of Spanberger's supposed moderation and independence from partisanship? That's their acid test for human decency, and Spanberger failed it.
And so did the editors of the Washington Post.
Addendum: Miyares is making this part of his final pitch to voters today. This cuts off before Steve Doocy loops this back to Spanberger, but everyone knows that's what he means. Everyone, that is, except the Washington Post.
"A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON DECENCY."
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) November 4, 2025
Virginia AG @JasonMiyaresVA makes his final pitch to voters after his opponent’s violent text messages were leaked. pic.twitter.com/lRP6xPm4FH
Editor’s Note: The Democrat Party has never been less popular as voters reject its globalist agenda.
Help us continue exposing Democrats' plans to lead America down a dangerous path. Join Hot Air VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum, and use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member