The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board’s recent endorsement of State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta in Pennsylvania’s race for Auditor General is unsurprising, but disturbing nonetheless.

Unlike the incumbent, Tim DeFoor, who boasts over thirty years of experience investigating waste, abuse, and contractor fraud in both the public and private sectors, Kenyatta has zero experience in auditing. In fact, he was recently sued by Drexel University for unpaid tuition. Yet, somehow, his glaring lack of qualifications did not seem to deter the Inquirer editorial board. 

What’s even more baffling is that during this year’s primary, the paper found Kenyatta to be “lackluster” in their interview with him. But now, in the general election, they’ve given him a do-over, suddenly discovering his “energy, passion, and focus.” Hmm — what changed? Could it be that Kenyatta is now running against a Republican? Perhaps that is why the Inquirer editorial board now applauds his “expansive vision.”

Apparently, possessing an “expansive vision” — one that conveniently aligns with the Inquirer editorial board’s far-left ideology — is more important than having the proven competence and skills necessary to run the Office of the Auditor General.

This raises the question: Does the Inquirer apply this same logic to their own hiring decisions? Are they willing to overlook twenty years of journalistic experience and hire someone with no background but “an expansive vision”? Because that is precisely what they are asking Pennsylvanians to do in this election.

The Inquirer’s endorsement of Kenyatta follows a pattern of questionable decisions. Let’s not forget their 2018 “reluctant” endorsement of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, despite acknowledging that he had betrayed the public trust by accepting lavish gifts and performing government favors for a major donor. Even after his indictment and the Senate Ethics Committee’s scathing portrayal of his behavior, the paper chose to back Menendez over his Republican challenger, dismissing the opponent as “unproven” and lacking “government experience.” Menendez promised to be “more careful” in the future, and with that feeble assurance, the Inquirer editorial board declared him the better choice.

And how did that work out? Menendez was recently convicted on federal bribery charges and resigned from the U.S. Senate. So much for learning his lesson.

The Inquirer editorial board’s track record doesn’t stop there. In another endorsement, they backed Eugene DePasquale for Attorney General, even though DePasquale had never worked as a prosecutor. Meanwhile, his Republican opponent had extensive prosecutorial experience — yet the paper justified its decision by citing DePasquale’s two statewide wins and, you guessed it, his “broad vision.”

Out of the five political endorsements the Inquirer published on October 6 — four in Pennsylvania and one in New Jersey — all went to Democrats. This is no anomaly. It’s exceedingly rare to see the Inquirer endorse a Republican in a general election.

With this, a discernible pattern emerges in the current slate of statewide races.

For auditor general, Republicans have nominated a seasoned auditor with more than 20 years of relevant experience, while the Democrats are running a candidate with zero qualifications to speak of. The incumbent Republican is also the first African American ever to be elected to statewide office. 

In the Attorney General race, Republicans have put forward a skilled prosecutor currently serving as York County’s district attorney with a compelling track record in reducing recidivism and engagement with marginalized communities, while Democrats have put forth a candidate with no prosecutorial background whatsoever.

For Treasurer, the Republicans are running a candidate with a well-established bipartisan record, one who retained key, senior staffers from the prior Democratic administration due to her emphasis on selecting the most qualified candidates for the job and effective governance. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate not only lacks relevant experience but has also failed to even properly manage her own campaign finances.

Yesterday, Democrat Ashley Ehasz won the Inquirer’s endorsement over Brian Fitzpatrick, the incumbent Republican congressman from the 1st district. They endorsed Fitzpatrick in 2018 and 2020, back when the board wanted a fig leaf of bipartisanship to cover their naked promotion of far-left causes. In 2024, they are letting it all hang out: no Republican, no matter how moderate, sensible, qualified, or productive in office is good enough for them. Ehasz does not have the disqualifying flaws of Kenyatta or McClelland, it is true, but even if she did, she possesses the only qualification needed to gain their approval: being a progressive Democrat.

This disparity raises an important question: is it simply not possible for Republicans to secure these endorsements under the current standards? What might those standards be?

While Republicans are frequently reprimanded for placing Donald Trump at the top of the ticket, Democratic candidates — despite their evident lack of qualifications — appear to escape similar reproach. Let’s be clear: electing people with an unhealthy lust for higher office, who are so clearly unqualified for the offices they seek poses precisely the kind of threat to our democracy the editorial board bemoans is under attack. 

Poor leadership leads to ineffective governance and poor public policy decision making. Which, in turn, undermines Americans’ faith in our political institutions thereby exposing our democratic republic to those who seek to undermine it. Look no further than Philadelphia City Hall – dominated by a council that relishes being the first to implement every crazy, unproven progressive pipe dream there is, leaving the city poor, riddled with crime, low wage jobs, and lousy voter participation rates.  This is about as linear as things get in politics. Alas, the fish don’t know they’re wet. 

Look, the Inquirer editorial board is entitled to make endorsements, although we recently advised against it for all the reasons you can read here. However, it would serve them — and their readers — well to approach these decisions with caution. When a paper becomes so clearly biased, its role as an objective, trustworthy voice is diminished, and it risks becoming little more than propaganda for one political party. Independent journalism requires true independence. Constructive editorial commentary benefits from a clear-eyed, transparent worldview.

In this case, the Inquirer has once again failed in its duty to be objective, trustworthy, and transparent, choosing instead to prioritize ideology over functionality and civic integrity.

Terry Tracy is the CEO of Broad + Liberty.