OK, Jake and Tim, time to chill with the party stuff. It’s really wildly inappropriate in the present context.
Both of you started off great with the good wishes, and I’m sure Nina appreciates them. But things start to go awry with Jake’s words, "Since Ms. Brook was a Democrat working for Gov. Hodges…"
Was she? I don’t know. Maybe. I don’t recall asking her. I suppose, being partisans, the Hodges people wouldn’t have hired her unless they thought she was a Democrat. But then, I wouldn’t have hired her unless I knew that she was capable of thinking on a level above parties, looking at issues pragmatically and without the poisonous prejudices that distort the thinking of actual partisans.
And I knew something else that seems to have escaped a lot of people’s attention: She was voluntarily ditching her job with Mr. Hodges in favor of going to work for someone that the Hodges crowd considered to be archenemies (an exaggeration on their part — they just didn’t know how to take criticism — but there it is). That said to me pretty much everything I needed to know about her attachment to a particular party.
Then I get whiplash in a whole other direction at the words, "… is it possible any Republicans from Gov. Sanford’s office may be considered for her old post?"
Well, no. I have no interest in hiring any Republicans, or any Democrats, per se. I might hire them in spite of such an attribute, but I wouldn’t go looking for such "qualifications." Would I consider someone who had worked for a Republican or a Democrat, if that person were otherwise spectacularly qualified as a journalist (as Nina certainly was)? Absolutely, I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again. And I’ve had politicians hire them away from me, too. I still haven’t forgotten Republican former governor Don Sundquist of Tennessee for stealing away one of my best reporters back in Jackson, Tennessee, when he had just been elected to Congress in 1982.
But while Jake is a little off-base, Tim crosses a line with unnecessarily partisan invective. That’s really uncalled-for.
The bottom line is, we just don’t think that way — in party terms, that is — on The State‘s editorial board. And it’s a long-term goal of ours to persuade others to move beyond that, as well. A tall order? You bet. But we get paid to fill opinion pages 365 days a year, and we’re not going away on this seemingly impossible quest.
Related Posts
Your double standard is showing, Mr. Warthen.
My daddy has always told me that when you find yourself on the defensive, you’ve lost the argument. Mr. Warthen, I believe that in this post you’ve done just that. Were Tim and Jake’s comments on the Nina Brook post cheap shots at The State? Absolutely. (I don’t know Jake, but I do know Tim, and I have no doubt he’d agree with this assertion.) The comments didn’t warrant a response from you; standing alone, they couldn’t possibly be taken seriously. Your high profile rebuke, couched in its very on post, amounts to sour grapes and stooping to their level. If you were determined to address their silly remarks, the more appropriate place to have done so would have been in the string of comments. This post is a no-win move. It’s only going to point more readers to the comments you’d prefer them not to read.
Have more confidence in your readers. We can tell a cheap shot when we see one.
The Bradster seems to be trying to run a non-political blog. If you review his entries, as I just did, it’s apparent that he enjoys the pithy remark but would like to keep the snide political comments off the blog. Even when he compares the state’s chief executive to
Governor Moonbeam, it’s not as an insult, but by way of contrast.
I have the sense (I’m psycho and have papers to prove it) that he simply wants to avoid what happens to other blogs: the blogger turns off the comments when the partisan trolls invade. Not everyone has the patience, technical ability, capacity, and bandwidth of Charles Johnson. Even the Blogfather turned off comments long ago.
Besides, Brad’s got problems that transcend politics – look at his editorial board. Nina’s heading out the door soon to earn combat pay in the schools. With the legislature out of session, Cindi turns on the soaps every afternoon and the noise from her cubicle makes it really hard for those around to read the latest letter to the editor that came, attached to a rock, crashing though the window. Warren is preoccupied trying to get Mike out from under the car title loan he took out, but first has to get him to stop with the payday loans. When he’s not helping Mike, he lets off steam either by going with Bert to a local barbecue chain outlet to check on the status of their application — it’s been in the works for two years — or by putting another Confederate flag sticker on the Monkster’s car. And two or three times a week Lee sneaks up to Brad and gives him a blast with an air horn.
So who needs the politics?
Well, I’ve been called out. I had no choice but respond here:
http://www.crackthebell.com/cracked/2005/6/26/ouch.html
Mr. Warthen,
You are a bit too harsh in your assessment of Tim’s comments, and while I don’t agree with his statement, I will defend him. But you can read his response at his blog–so I’ll leave that at that.
Perhaps next time, you could express your dismay with his comments in the comments section of the corresponding post, rather than writing an entirely new post “calling him out”.
Just my two cents…
I’d like to point out that this string of comments serves as evidence of just what a close-knit, bi-partisan community we SC political bloggers are. Jeremy, an ardent Republican, jumped to the defense of Tim, an equally fervent Democrat. If you click around our blogs (also Jared Libet’s, quante.blogspot.com, Jeff Quinton’s BackCountry Conservative–jquinton.com, and others’) you’ll notice that we all link to one another, and, although we sometimes argue,
we, for the most part, respect each other’s opinions. I can’t speak for Jake, but Tim, Mr. “Unnecessarily Partisan Invective,” was definitely sized-up wrong. I daresay no member of our little community is totally self-serving/agenda-pushing. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be as close as we are.
Hmm. Was Mr. Warthen’s punitive post a small stroke of genius? Could it be that HE has effectively trolled US? See how many people jumped in to respond?
When I read Tim’s comments re Ms Brook they seemed relatively innocuous. I mean, really. You open up your blog for comments, Brad, be prepared to get a glimpse of your readers’ opinions.
Isn’t that the idea? Why else would anyone contribute? Or continue to visit the site, for that matter…
I’m posting only to say nice things about my friend, Nina Brook. For the most part, I’m out of the political back-and-forth in South Carolina, so I’m not really concerned with whether Brad hires liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats.
I do know that Nina and I aren’t always on the same page philosophically. In fact we’re often not. But that’s OK. I do consider her smart and talented. She certainly cares a lot about what happens in the schools, not just for the state but for her own children.
I think Brad is right that it speaks highly of her that she left Gov. Hodges to go work for The State. To be honest, I think that was a rather courageous decision on her part, and I’m sure she got a good bit of grief from former colleagues and mistrust from some folks in politics who read the editorial page. I’m sure the same thing would be true if I did it.
Nina was gracious to me when she came to work for Gov. Hodges after the voters decided they didn’t want me to be Gov. Beasley’s press secretary any more (I’m pretty sure that was the thinking, right?), and I hope I returned the favor.
Her departure is indeed a loss for the editorial page, but as her friend, I’m happy for her and I wish her well.
Gary Karr
I finally got around to reading what Tim had to say, and posted my own comment at his blog (and no, you don’t have to thank me for the free plug)…
http://www.crackthebell.com/cracked/2005/6/26/ouch.html#comment126673