Yesterday, the Inquirer endorsed Barack Obama. Not a shock, right? The endorsement was nice and well thought out. But then, there was something strange... The paper also published a 'dissenting opinion,' hid under anonymity. Seems pretty weird, and it is not something I have ever seen. But when you actually read it, the implications are pretty clear: Brian Tierney, the former communications guy for local Republicans, appears to be doing exactly what he said he would not do: using his newspaper to push his own agenda.

And why does Brian Tierney the dissenting opinion want McCain?

Perhaps, my friends, you have heard of Joe the Plumber?

There are other reasons Tierney the dissenter is for McCain too- and they are pretty standard. He was a POW, national security, he is a Mavericky Maverick who will get all Maverick-like when the times call for a Maverick of Maverickian proportions.

But then, Brian Tierney the dissenter had to mention why he was against Obama. And in doing so, he gave us the dumbest, stupidest recitation of right-wing talking points that you will find in a major newspaper. It could literally be pulled off of a far-right website:

Ask people to describe McCain and the first response often is, "He's honest." What you see is what you get. There are no mysterious associations to dance around. No 20-year attendance of a church whose pastor preached anti-American sermons. No serving on an education reform panel with a domestic terrorist. No financial support from a convicted felon. No ties to a group currently under investigation for possible voter-registration fraud.

Even for Tierney the dissenter, that is a stupid paragraph and shows that while he dutifully gets his right-wing talking points in the mail, he doesn't pay attention much beyond them. Lets take that felon line, for example. If Tierney the dissenter had watched as John McCain was interviewed by that hard hitting journalist David Letterman, he would have known that not only did McCain get financial support (including donations, a fundraiser, etc) from a convicted felon- the oh-so-wonderful G. Gordon Liddy- but that he was proud of it.

The whole thing seems like it is straight from an pitch man who got used to spouting off some unchallenged talking points on ABC's Inside Story. I wonder why?

And then to top it off, we get this:

And McCain didn't hire as a strategist David Axelrod, who helped lead Mayor John Street's race-baiting reelection campaign.

This is almost too bizarre to be true. For those that don't know, Brian Tierney did communications for Sam Katz on his Mayoral campaign. His counterpart in the Street campaign was David Axelrod. Tierney The dissenter is so small that he is using an op-ed to settle a score with the guy- David Axelrod- who beat him 5 years ago. And he is too cowardly to do it in the open.

Hell, the reporters from the Inquirer didn't even try to hide that it was Tierney who wrote the POS op-ed:

Editorial page editor Harold Jackson said that some newspapers, such as the USA Today, occasionally offered dissenting views on issues, but that he did not know of one being crafted for a presidential endorsement.

"I've been on three editorial boards, and I'm not aware of it being done," he said.

Editorial Board discussions usually remain private, Jackson said. He said that the goal was consensus, and that dissenting opinions were not necessarily expressed in board positions.

In this case, Jackson said, "we felt there are attributes about John McCain that members of the board wanted presented to the reader in a positive way."

All but one member of the board, which includes publisher Brian P. Tierney, took part in the endorsement discussions.

That got me to thinking... Didn't Brian Tierney promise that he wouldn't interfere with editorial decisions?

Tierney backed his bid with a brilliant PR blitz. The Inquirer's editorial staff viewed him as a Voldemort-like character. Over the years he had had some nasty battles with reporters on behalf of his clients.

What if he used the papers to advance his former clients' interests? Tierney shrewdly defused the issue by signing a pledge not to interfere with the editorial side. He charmed the paper's labor leaders by getting the local carpenters' union pension fund to join his investing group. He said he would revive the Inquirer by ramping up the marketing, not by laying people off.

It certainly would be good to clarify how Tierney went from not interfering with editorial decisions to taking up space for this.

Tierney's The dissenter's editorial was poorly researched, a regurgitation of right-wing talking points, and shockingly petty. Let's hope this is not a sign of what is generally going on inside the Inquirer editorial board.