Greensboro resident Richard Koritz says the N&R was “way too forgiving” of 6th District Congressional candidate Mark Walker in its editorial following Walker’s comments about going to war with Mexico:

In an editorial ironically entitled “A way with words,” the editors appear to be doing their best to explain away Walker’s words, his extremist public statements during the Republican primary regarding Obama impeachment and waging war against Mexico. Rather than taking Walker seriously and criticizing his positions, the N&R editors “gently” suggest Walker “should not have tried to appeal to the most bellicose sentiments of that electorate” and “he can choose his words a lot more sensibly.” They are not so kind to Fjeld. They harshly describe her as “unkindly” for holding Walker accountable for what he actually said.

….Meanwhile, an article reports that five local sheriffs, Democrats as well as Republicans, have all endorsed Walker. Evidently, these “law and order” officials are influenced by Walker’s inflammatory words. The recent tragedy in Ferguson, Mo., where the police forces played a military role of occupation and suppression of citizens, highlights the importance of taking politicians like Walker seriously.

A vote for Laura Fjeld is a vote in favor of civil society and against martial law.

As if saying that a vote for Mark Walker is a vote for martial law is an example of civilized debate? Note also that Koritz doesn’t use Fjeld’s exact words —“plain crazy”— characterizing Walker’s comments. So far I haven’t read anyone taking offense for that comment on behalf of mentally ill people worldwide.