An interested party with a certain other campaign pointed out to me the irony in Mitt Romney having duly sought the endorsement of a certain newspaper — the Concord Monitor — only to scorn that endorsement as something he wouldn’t have wanted, after he didn’t get it. Here’s what Mr. Romney’s campaign had to say about the Monitor‘s endorsement of John McCain (who so far has received about every endorsement a candidate would want):
GOV. MITT ROMNEY: THE CHOICE OF CONSERVATIVES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
Liberal Press Disagrees With Real Conservatives’ Choice For President…
And so forth, yadda-yadda, with various quotations in the same vein. In an odd wording, the release claims that the Monitor‘s "Editorial Board Personally Attacked Gov. Romney." Golly, I hope he’s gonna be OK, don’t you? Anyway, you can see the entire release here.
It’s really sort of disturbing that a supposedly serious candidate for POTUS would engage in such mindless, vapid name-calling — saying "liberal" over and over, as thought that constituted an argument. It’s the sort of thing I usually see in the less-worthy candidates for the state Legislature — the sorts of candidates who are not plugged into their communities and their real concerns, the sort who are recruited and backed by out-of-state money that knows nothing and cares nothing about our state’s concerns. It’s just plain cheesy.
But there’s nothing remarkable about Mr. Romney acting as though he didn’t want the endorsement, after he sincerely went after it. We see this sort of Aesop’s Fable phenomenon quite frequently. We have several candidates who do that right here in S.C. in every election cycle. Right up until the day the endorsement editorial runs, they are as cloyingly ingratiating as an insurance salesman, and then (after they don’t get the endorsement they had wanted so badly), they act as though they wouldn’t have accepted the newspaper’s support at gunpoint. All of a sudden, it was the last thing they ever would have wanted. That’s another sort of cheesy behavior.
But campaigns do a lot of cheesy things. Here’s hoping that Mr. Romney rises above that level as he comes to South Carolina. I look forward to interviewing him for our endorsement. Like Messrs. Giuliani, Obama, Edwards and Mrs. Clinton, he has yet to set an appointment for that. And we need to get them set soon. We’ll only have about two good days to devote to the Republicans between the time they’re done in New Hampshire and the time we have to get the endorsement written and ready for publication.
We’re aiming for Sunday the 13th on that, by the way.
Related Posts
> We’re aiming for Sunday the 13th on that, by > the way.
It’s already been written, hasn’t it? McCain and Biden. Unless Biden drops out after NH, which is very likely.
What would be the point of the other candidates even going through the interview process? The State editorial board has one focus: The “War” On “Terror”.
Not the economy. Not abortion. Not illegal immigration. Not taxes. Not government waste.
The continuation of sending our troops to occupy other countries will be the only factor taken into consideration for the endorsement. Pro War? You got a chance. Anti War? Peddle your peace plan somewhere else.
I wish (that the endorsements had been written , and were behind us). The reason I say “aiming for,” by the way, is because I have no idea at this point how difficult that conversation will be — that is to say, how hard it will be to emerge with the eventual consensus.
You’d have to work here to understand. You think that because we discuss these candidates’ merits with Y’ALL, I must be doing so with the folks I work with. But I’m not. It’s not a conscious rule or anything, but I sort of avoid it (and as busy as we are here, anything we don’t consciously TRY to do doesn’t get done). We prefer to have our first conversation about it AFTER we’ve talked to all the major candidates (that is, all the major candidates we can squeeze in in the infinitesimal time yet available).
Given that the others don’t make an effort to discuss it either, I’m guessing they feel about it the same way I do: Why start a big argument before we actually have to — more to the point, before all the evidence is in?
Anyway, believe it or not (and I find that few laymen ever believe the way things REALLY work at a newspaper), that’s the way things stand.
Y’all know what I think about McCain, but that’s all you know. I’m one of five board members.
As for Biden — I don’t even know yet whom I prefer on the Democratic side, but Biden is one of the possibles.
I know you’ve said before that the endorsements are about who SHOULD win, but I hope you will consider the relative probability of a candidate winning in the discussion. Endorsing a candidate who doesn’t have any chance of winning the nomination (like Biden) is simply a waste of newsprint and is more of a disservice to the readers than a benefit.
And who is the tiebreaker on the board? Especially this year when it would be very possible for your five board members to split the votes in a 2-2-1 vote… or theoretically 2-1-1-1 (McCain, Romney, Rudy, Huckabee) where the guy with the most votes wouldn’t even have the support of the majority.
I have an idea – why don’t you allow the readers of your blog to have a vote? Give the people a voice in the process.
If you want a candidate to get the country back on course then vote Ron Paul. However, since he is such a longshot that seems unlikely. If you just want to defeat the Hillary/Richardson ticket the best shot is Guliani/Huckabee.
Doug, thanks for the offer, but you get to pick on election day. The newspaper as an institution just gets to pick on endorsement day. We sort of have to do that ourselves, if it’s going to tell people anything true about the editorial board and its values.
As for who breaks the tie? Well, we work REALLY hard for a consensus, and some of us genuinely change our minds during the course of the discussion, while others just concede to a second-choice, seeing that their first isn’t going to carry the day. It’s complicated.
Only twice have we had a “tie” to break. Of course, since we don’t COUNT votes usually (why do that when you’re looking for a consensus rather than a majority?), maybe it’s happened more often and I don’t know it.
In 1980, there was a tie in the room after lengthy discussion: Half of the folks preferred McCain, and half were for Bush. (That’s misleading, since some of those I’m counting weren’t actually voting members of the board.) The difference was that I was the head of the McCain faction, and my publisher (this is two publishers ago, mind you) was for Bush. That one was actually an excellent example of minds changing. I had gone into the meeting with an informal majority for McCain (based on comments that had been volunteered to me), but during the meeting two of those shifted to Bush. The momentum was to the publisher’s side, and all other things being equal, the publisher’s the guy in charge.
One other case: Back when I first joined the board, in 1994, the room was tied between Dick Harpootlian and Charlie Condon for attorney general. Rather than keep going on about it, Tom McLean (my predecessor) turned to me and told me that since I was going to have to write the edit, and in preparation for that had done the most research, I should decide. So I did, later, after agonizing over it for awhile. I gave it to Dick, with reservations. I believe subsequent events bore me out on my choice (and on the reservations, as well).
Don’t you mean 1990 for the McCain/Bush matchup? (at least)? I look forward to seeing whom you pick. It doesn’t mean that I will agree with you.
Karen,
It will be McCain. You can take that one to the bank.
On the Democratic side, it will start with Biden and then come down to a “hold-the-nose” selection of Obama. No way would Brad allow Edwards to get it… and I think we’re all tired of the Bush-Clinton decades. Although, I suppose The State could endorse Joe Lieberman again…
Why would Romney waste his time coming to see you, Brad? You’ve already made it pretty obvious how you feel about him. Just the picture above is message enough.
As for the others, only Clinton and Obama would seem to have a chance with you, so why would you waste a candidate’s time?
You know who I like? McCain, Biden and Huckabee. You know who’s come to see us? McCain, Biden and Huckabee. And I had zero impression of Huckabee before I had the chance to sit and talk and listen to him.
Romney’s best chance to win over this board is to get in here and make his case. Ditto with Giuliani, Obama, Clinton… That’s how Bush got our endorsement in 2000. Before the interview, we had a pretty clear consensus for McCain.
It’s amazing what a good meeting can do for a candidate, or what a bad one can do TO a candidate. Bush had the most ON hour of his life. I have never seen the man, before or since, present himself so well. McCain was in a funk when he came in. I’ve never seen him so OFF.
Do I make my decision solely on the basis of a meeting? Of course not. But some of my colleagues don’t pay the kind of attention to these candidates that I do day after day; that’s not what they’re paid to do. They come in with relatively fresh perspectives. In 2000, two people in the room shifted from being sort of for McCain to being sort of for Bush. And that was it.
And while it doesn’t happen often, I have been known to change my mind in these meetings. I’m wary of it, and reluctant to give it too much weight. But if I don’t give it SOME weight, what indeed IS the point of coming in for an interview? And as I say, with some board members, the meeting has a great deal of weight.
Any candidate who passes up the chance to make his pitch to this editorial board is nuts — or his handlers are.
You make your point well, Brad. Here’s hoping they all come to see you so y’ all have a chance to make the most informed choices possible.
Thanks, man.
I’m a little worried, though. I’ve got this feeling it’s going to tough to get Giuliani in here, for the reason mentioned in this post. I hear he was in Florida today, not Des Moines.
…if only we had the type of immigration laws that mitt is championing now then his grandfather would not have been let back in the usa with his 14 wives…must have been one heluva mother’s day celebration around the romney household back in the day…the man who wants illegals out of the us but not until after they repair his lawn at his mansion…the man who says english only in the usa but runs a completely spanish speaking ad in florida…his magic underwear has lost it’s mojo…