Category Archives: Elections

Yo, Sun-Times: Why not just get rid of your whole editorial board while you’re at it?

37 Replies

Here I am hard at work -- taking notes, recording audio, and shooting video -- in an endorsement interview in January 2008. This is actually probably the only photo that exists of me doing this.

I’ve seen some mealy-mouthed excuses and lazy cowardice in my late lamented newspaper career, but I don’t recall when I’ve seen anything to match the Chicago Sun-Times’ decision to abandon political endorsements, which was announced in the paper today.

You can read the whole sorry mess at the paper’s website, but I’m going to copy some passages here in order to take issue with the painfully flawed logic in the tortured editorial.

But first, I want to place this within the context of the recent history of newspapers ceasing to be run by editors with both feet firmly planted in their communities, willing to engage those communities on every level, and being run instead by corporate bean-counters. Not to put too fine a point on it.

In the declining days of the Knight Ridder empire, after the emperor had capriciously moved the capital from Rome (Miami) to San Jose (Constantinople), I attended the last official meeting of KR editorial page editors. It was in San Jose.

EPE meetings were always odd affairs. When publishers met, they had common business to discuss, since money matters were run by corporate. Even the newsroom editors had things to discuss when they met, because of some shared resources, and the fact that they ran big, expensive departments that were intimately tied in with what was happening in the financial side. But since the KR value of not telling papers what to do editorially was absolute (one of the very good things about Knight Ridder, when it was good), there wasn’t much to talk about when we eccentrics from the editorial side were brought in. We got to meet, and talk shop, and hear about interesting things people with similar jobs to ours were doing, but there wasn’t really much point for KR to convene us, as there was nothing we did together, and that’s how we liked it — which was why we only had the meetings about every five year.

But at this last meeting, Tony Ridder had a suggestion. And I won’t call Tony “the emperor” in this context, because he in no way tried to make us do this. He was just making… a suggestion. And it was this: He didn’t think we should endorse in presidential elections. He had two reasons: One, we should be concerning ourselves with local issues, not getting distracted by Washington stuff. Second, from what he could tell, the only thing such endorsements did was make at least half of the readership mad at the paper, and newspapers could ill afford that.

A couple of more junior, less-secure editors made polite noises in response, but others among us explained in pretty strong terms why we had no interest in following that suggestion. I was one of the latter, partly because I never felt insecure in my job right up to the day I got canned, but mainly because we thought it was an awful idea. Especially from a South Carolina perspective. Yeah, maybe you should sit it out if you were in California, but in South Carolina, presidential politics — at least during the nominating process — is big local news. (Of course, I had no argument with the assertion that a newspaper’s main value is its local coverage, and its editorials on local subjects.)

Beyond that, I think there is nothing more lazy or cowardly for a newspaper to do than to fail to express its preference for a candidate — when it has a preference — for public office. If you don’t endorse, you might as well not express opinions about anything. We live in a republic, and our readers can’t act on most of the things we opine about. That power to act is delegated to elected representatives. So… we’re going to express opinions about why this should happen, and that shouldn’t happen, for four years, on subjects regarding which our readers are little more than spectators (sure, they can write letters and such, but it’s still an indirect involvement), but then, when readers actually have to make the critical decision of who will be making those decisions for the next four years (or two, or six), we’re going to clam up?

I say “cowardly,” because Tony was right about one thing: There is nothing a newspaper can do that will make people madder at it than to endorse a candidate. So the quickest way out for the timid is not to endorse. Not all editors have the gumption for it — not to mention the business-side types. (Why, back in MY day as an editor, we made people hate our guts, and we LIKED it, dagnabbit!)

Also, if you were to drop any sort of endorsement, it would be the presidential — because the paper’s franchise is local. But here’s the value of doing it anyway: Most of a newspaper’s endorsements — to state legislature, city council, clerk of court, etc. — involve people about whom the typical reader knows nothing. Not so with the presidential, the reader being bombarded with information about the candidates. Thus, the reader is more empowered to judge the quality of the board’s reasoning when it reads a presidential endorsement — and can use that perspective to judge the degree to which it trusts the paper’s reasoning on the more obscure offices. And that’s important.

But I’m getting ahead of myself in arguing the purposes of endorsements — indeed, of expressing opinions at all. I’ll make the rest of my argument in response to the specifics of the Sun-Times editorial itself.

I won’t attack each and every paragraph, just the ones that most betray a lack of understanding of what endorsements, or for that matter editorials in general, are all about. Let’s start with the fourth graf:

Those days are gone. Most good newspapers today attempt to appeal to the widest possible readership, including people of every political persuasion, by serving up the best and most unbiased news coverage possible. They want to inform you, not spin you.

“Not spin you.” Wow. A spin doctor is someone paid to present only information that favors his client, and to obscure information that does not. Is that really how you’ve been treating your readers during the 71 years you’ve been doing endorsements? Really? Well, shame on you. But that certainly isn’t my understanding of what an editorial board is for. You express opinions, as an institution, because you respect your readers. Your newsroom is dedicated to giving them all the objective information it is within the power of its resources to gather and present — pro, con, and every other point along the spectrum. The editorial page is where you acknowledge that “who, what, where, when” are not enough for the reader to have a full understanding of the issue. The editorial page is where you go into deeper dimensions; it’s where you treat the reader like an adult human being, not as some fainting violet that’s going to wilt in the face of an honest opinion. It’s where you provide your best take on the issue, as well as a variety of other opinions, giving particular precedence to the opinions that oppose your own. And by engaging with that, the reader is given grist for his own intellectual mill, so that when he makes up his own mind, whether he agrees with you or not, his opinion will be stronger and better-considered for having been tested against other carefully-considered ideas. If that’s what you call “spin,” I feel sorry for you, because whatever experience you’ve gained from running an editorial board in the past has been lost on you.

Oh, and finally, if you only want to inform in the narrowest sense, why not do away with the editorial pages? Entirely. Next graf:

With this in mind, the Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board will approach election coverage in a new way. We will provide clear and accurate information about who the candidates are and where they stand on the issues most important to our city, our state and our country. We will post candidate questionnaires online. We will interview candidates in person and post the videos online. We will present side-by-side comparisons of the candidates’ views on the key issues. We will post assessments made by respected civic and professional groups, such as the Chicago Bar Association’s guide to judicial candidates.

So… let me see if you have this right — you’re going to provide only uncontestable facts, plus ratings and opinions from OTHER people, but you’re not going to dare offer any interpretation of your own? This is worse than I thought. It’s one thing not to say, “We pick THIS guy,” but to refrain from saying, when warranted, “this guy’s position on this particular issue is awful, and here’s why,” you are once again abdicating everything that an editorial page is for.

I mean, if the above is what the editorial board is going to be doing, what the hell is your newsroom doing? Because all of the things you listed are completely within the newsroom’s purview, and require no editorial license. Next graf:

What we will not do is endorse candidates. We have come to doubt the value of candidate endorsements by this newspaper or any newspaper, especially in a day when a multitude of information sources allow even a casual voter to be better informed than ever before.

Yep, that’s right. Readers are drinking information from a firehose. Which is why it is more critical than ever for a serious medium to say, here, to the best of our ability to discern after many years of observing these things professionally, are some ways to make sense out of all this stuff being thrown at you. In addition — and this may be both the strongest reason to do endorsements, and the point that is most at odds with your newfound, excessive humility — you have access to the candidates that your readers don’t have, in spite of all that repetitive, superficial information flowing past their ears. You can, on behalf of your readers, sit down with candidates and question them extensively. It may be unfashionable to acknowledge than an experienced editor has expertise to share, but at least you can admit that you have access that gives you a basis for decision that the reader doesn’t have. You should express what you think, with ample information to back it up, and let the reader make up his mind whether he would reach the same conclusions. Which is a thousand times better than the kind of fodder for thought that he’ll get from a 30-second ad paid for by a superPAC.

As a professional, non-partisan (and I think you ARE saying here that you’re not partisan; in which case I’m proud of you there) observer with rare access, you have an obligation to share with your readers the kind of insight they won’t get from any other source — especially from the self-serving politicians, whose endorsements might easily be based in the desire to get a job in the administration of the successful candidate, or on something even more unsavory. The thing is, you HAVE an opinion regarding the suitability of a candidate, 99 percent of the time — if your brain is fully functioning. Not to share that opinion with your readers is inexcusable.

Now, the worst paragraph so far, which is so awful, I’m going to consider it in two parts. First, the less bad part:

Research on the matter suggests that editorial endorsements don’t change many votes, especially in higher-profile races.

Is that what you really think an endorsement is about? Yes, of course, it’s gratifying if a majority of voters agrees with you. But you are not a political consultant. Your job isn’t to get anyone elected. Your job is to share with readers the best you’ve got on every level — simple facts, analysis, perspective and yes, your informed opinion. Don’t hold anything back. What happens after you share it is up to the reader/voter.

Another school of thought, however — often expressed by readers — is that candidate endorsements, more so than all other views on an editorial page, promote the perception of a hidden bias by a newspaper, from Page One to the sports pages.

This is the biggest canard of all. Read your own words again. The only way you have a “hidden bias” IS IF YOU’RE HIDING IT!!!!! Everybody has a “bias.” Everybody has opinions, if they are human. Everybody has somebody they’d rather see elected than someone else. The editorial page is the one place where you level with the readers and tell them what that “bias” is. Then you have empowered them to judge everything else in the paper, and whether you’re being fair or not, by your honestly stated opinion. This is basic, people! This is Editorial 101! Do you even have any idea why you get up and come in to work every morning? Apparently not, because what you just said is the sort of thing I would expect to hear from someone who not only has never spent a day working at a newspaper (much less on an editorial board), but has never spent any time seriously thinking about it.

Perhaps you’ve noticed by now that I have strong opinions on this subject. And notice that I’m sharing them with you. That’s because I don’t have, and have never had, a “hidden bias.” I give it all to you straight.

A bit further down:

We pride ourselves in offering a smart editorial page that is deeply engaged in vital civic issues, and we will continue on that course. We have in the last year singled out for special attention a handful of issues on which we believe great progress must be made for the sake of Chicago’s future, beginning with the quality of our public schools, the health of our local economy, the city’s and state’s shaky finances, the crying need for alternatives to prison for low-level nonviolent offenders, and the integrity of our political system. We want a cleaner lake and a cleaner river. We want safer parks and streets. We want an end to daily traffic gridlock.

We’ll keep pushing.

You will? Because I couldn’t tell for sure that you were going to express actual opinions on those subjects, much less offer opinions that “push.” I was worried that you were going to write some “he said, she said” on those subjects the way you’re planning to do on endorsements. Singling out “for special attention” issues “on which we believe great progress must be made” doesn’t tell me that you’re going to describe what progress looks like. But I will remain hopeful, even though you give me a thin basis. (You’re against traffic gridlock? Well, aren’t you stepping out on a limb…)

Can it get worse? Yep:

But our goal, when we’re not too much on our high horse, is to inform and influence your thinking, not tell you what to do.

Oh, you’re just so humble it’s a wonder you don’t sink right through the floor. “Not tell you what to do.” Really? Really? Is that what you think it’s all about? Then, once again, why do you have an editorial page?

Any newspaper editor who thinks what he’s doing in expressing opinions is telling readers “what to do,” and actually expects them to DO it, is a candidate for protective restraint. He can’t be trusted crossing the street alone.

The editorial page is, once again, the place where you treat readers like grown-ups. You have enough respect for them to know they’re going to make up their own minds. But it takes even greater respect to understand that when you tell them how you’ve made up your minds, they are big enough to take it, and study on it, and pass judgment for themselves on what you have to say. The more arguments you are exposed to, the harder you have to think to make up your own mind, and the better your conclusions are in the end. It’s the same with readers. They aren’t idiots. Engage them. Respect them. Tell them what you think; don’t hold back.

Because if you don’t, you are insulting them by expecting them to believe that you have no opinions. And if you treat them like that, I don’t see why they should read your newspaper at all.

Take a look at that Gingrich upturn, will ya?

3 Replies

This image was Tweeted out today by PollingReport.com, and I was really struck at what support for Gingrich looks like when you represent it on a fever chart.

See the red line? That’s Gingrich. And it all happened in less than a week.

Just when we’d all been debated to death, all of a sudden a couple of them make all the difference.

OK, maybe it wasn’t entirely the debates — there had been movement along about Jan. 12-13. But most of this was last week.

I don’t know when I’ve seen a surge like that…

Were these signs at the polling place kosher?

22 Replies

I was taken aback when I saw this sign taped up inside my voting “booth” on Saturday.

Is this official? Did they have them at your polling place? And if so, doesn’t it bother you a little?

On the one hand it’s sort of thoughtful — yes, these people are still on the ballot but no, they’re not still running. Sort of as a guide to the voters.

But on the other — do election officials have any business at all giving voters guidance on whom they should or should not vote for? No, it doesn’t say, “don’t vote for these people,” but the implication is there.

Yeah, I realize this is kinda how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff, but still: Don’t I have a right to vote for anyone I want to, whether that person is a willing candidate or not? And should I be discouraged from doing so, however kindly or helpful the person who put up the sign meant to be?

My favorite part was Rick Perry being hastily added by hand. I mean, what was to stop the voter ahead of me from adding in red marker, “Mitt Romney?” (Hey, maybe somebody did. Maybe that explains the primary outcome.)

I’m curious what y’all think.

Purple states smarter than reds and blues

5 Replies

At least, that’s the uncomfortable conclusion of blue-state writer who wanted to prove that such folk were smarter than red-staters:

To get to the bottom of things, I had my assistant Una dump McDaniel’s state IQ numbers into a spreadsheet, weight them by population, and then divide them into three groups: red for states consistently choosing Republicans in the last three presidential elections; blue for always voting Democratic; and purple for swing states.

Result: average IQ for red states vs. blue states was essentially the same (red 99, blue 99.5). Conclusions: Are liberals smarter than conservatives? Some social scientists sure think so. Are blue states smarter than red states? Sadly for us cyanophiles, no.

But here’s the most significant data point, I think: in the purple states — the ones that swung back and forth — the average IQ according to Una’s spreadsheet was 100.9, appreciably above that for either the blue states or red states. In other words — and this has the shock of truth — the people in the purple states weren’t rigidly liberal or conservative, but rather had enough on the ball to consider the choices before them and occasionally change their minds.

So, it comes down to what I’ve been telling y’all over and over: We swing voters are the people who actually think about our votes. It stands to reason that places where we predominate would be smarter.

I’ll bet his assistant, Una, is one of us. Bet she’s good-looking, too.

This inspires a possible tagline for the UnParty: “We’re way smarter than the rest of y’all.”

OK, so it could use some work. For instance, the word “y’all” might be over the heads of folks in blue states.

But it’s a start…

Frum on why GOP leaders don’t trust Gingrich

14 Replies

This is from a piece that David Frum wrote for CNN:

“Why liberals oppose a strong American presence in space.”

That was the title of the very first speech by Newt Gingrich I ever attended, all the way back in the winter of 1983. The event was the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

The speech hit the two great themes that have characterized Gingrich’s career to this day: enthusiasm for grandiose ideas — wrapped in rancor, division and name-calling…

… to Gingrich, such substantive issues were not the stuff of campaign politics. Campaign politics was about finding ways to define your opponent as alien, hostile and dangerous. The definition need not correspond to any actual real-world problem…

Frum concluded by saying those who care about the party’s chances — and who know better — aren’t going to sit still and let Gingrich lead the party to ruin:

He is a candidate of talk-show hosts and local activists — and of course of Rick Perry and Sarah Palin — but not of those who know him best and have worked with him most closely. Gingrich may raise more money after his South Carolina win. But prediction: Romney will raise even more, among the great national network of Republicans who recognize that to nominate Gingrich is to commit party suicide.

Of course, Frum wrote that without  having seen the latest Rasmussen numbers out of Florida.

The people who are surging for Gingrich only want to know what the party establishment thinks for one purpose: So that they can do the opposite.

It’s not just SC; Gingrich surges ahead in Florida

9 Replies

This morning I was on Tom Finneran’s radio show in Boston for the third time in a week, and the subject turned to Florida, and I said something like it was unclear what would happen there — Romney was supposed to be strong. But then, he was supposed to be strong in South Carolina the week before last.

Well, it’s not unclear now. A Tweet from Rasmussen brought this to my attention exactly an hour later:

Less than two weeks ago, Mitt Romney had a 22-point lead in Florida, but that’s ancient history in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Following his big win in South Carolina on Saturday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now is on top in Florida by nine.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Republican Primary Voters, taken Sunday evening, finds Gingrich earning 41% of the vote with Romney in second at 32%. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum runs third with 11%, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul attracts support from eight percent (8%). Nine percent (9%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here).

So the trend Gallup was picking up on late last week has accelerated. As the country watched those two debates last week, something crystallized in the minds of angry Republicans and Tea Partiers all over the country: Their anger had found its voice, and it belonged to Newt Gingrich.

The ELITES are the ones who should be sorry! (And the crowd roars…)

32 Replies

E. J. Dionne sent me a note this morning (yep, I’m name-dropping; I value his friendship) in which he shared a link to his post-SC column, which you can read here. I was particularly struck by this passage:

Then came the rebuke to CNN’s John King, who asked about the claim from Gingrich’s second wife that her former husband had requested an “open marriage.” By exploding at King and the contemporary journalism, Gingrich turned a dangerous allegation into a rallying point. Past sexual conduct mattered far less to conservatives than a chance to admonish the supposedly liberal media. Gingrich won evangelicals by 2-1, suggesting, perhaps, a rather elastic definition of “family values” — or a touching faith in Gingrich’s repentance.

E.J. was very generous to admit even the possibility that the evangelicals’ choice reflected their simple belief that Newt is repentant.

I saw how the forgiven man behaved when reminded of his sin. And if there is anything we all know about Newt Gingrich, it is that he does not walk, talk or comport himself like a penitent. Sure, he’s new to being Catholic, but he forcefully projects the image of a man who is “hardly sorry” rather than “heartily.”

And that is what seems to appeal to his supporters. That he’s not sorry. For anything. That rather than donning sackcloth and ashes, he stands up, throws out his chest and demands that those people out there, those elites, and those worthless shufflers who want to live off his tax money, be sorry instead.

And the crowd roars, more like 1st century pagans in the Colosseum than like Christians.

No, I’m in no position to judge. I am certainly not Newt’s confessor, and I have no idea what’s in his heart. Nor do I know what’s in those hearts in the crowd. But I know how he chooses to act outwardly. And I know how the crowd reacts — outwardly.

And that’s probably all I can know. So I share it.

Basically, I think the evangelicals who voted for him didn’t have their evangelical hats on at the moment. People are complex, and have layers. And just because an individual answers to one sort of identification doesn’t mean he is expressing that in everything he does.

So E.J. made me think today. And he made me nod in the paragraph before that one:

There was also the matter of race. Gingrich is no racist, but neither is he naive about the meaning of words. When Fox News’ Juan Williams, an African-American journalist, directly challenged Gingrich about the racial overtones of Gingrich’s staple reference to Obama as “the food-stamp president,” the former House speaker verbally pummeled him, to raucous cheers. As if to remind everyone of the power of coded language, a supporter later praised Gingrich for putting Williams “in his place.”

Yep, that’s what was happening.

Democrats STILL beating up on Romney

5 Replies

This continues to be fascinating. As I’ve mentioned over the last couple of days, the Democrats have conducted an unprecedented campaign to discredit Mitt Romney in South Carolina, utterly ignoring Newt Gingrich as he caught  up and passed him.

Now this, shortly after Gingrich was declared the winner:

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Statement on Results of South Carolina GOP Primary

SOUTH CAROLINA – Tonight, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz released the following statement on the results of the Republican primary in South Carolina:

“If tonight proved one thing, it’s that the central rationale of Mitt Romney’s campaign is cratering.  He came into South Carolina  with a 20 point lead – a state where jobs and the economy is the number one issue – and the candidate who hung his entire candidacy on these issues, Mitt Romney, saw his support collapse.

“Why?  Because Mitt Romney’s been exposed as being out of touch with the middle class, and voters are seeing that he lives by another set of rules. He’s refused to level with voters, and now he’s in trouble.  Anyone who goes into a state with a significant double digit lead yet ends up losing that support in a week, is someone who is failing to connect.

“Voters in South Carolina saw that Mitt Romney has no core values, and that he will say anything to get elected.  He’s been exposed as having plans and policies that would keep his taxes low, and make them even lower, while doing nothing for the middle class.  The people of South Carolina also began to see what Romney’s brand of free enterprise really is: destroying companies and jobs to enrich himself while working families suffer.  Tonight, they rejected it.  At the end of the day, voters want someone they can trust, who shares their vision and who understands their plight.  And they are finding that Mitt Romney is not that person.

“Regardless of who becomes the Republican nominee, all of the candidates in the race support the failed policies of the past that drove us to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  That’s not what the American people want, and that’s why they know that the clear choice in this election is President Obama.”

###

Wow. Did the head of the DNC just call Newt Gingrich “someone they can trust, who shares their vision and who understands their plight.”

What’s up with these people?

Looks like Newt Gingrich is the winner

34 Replies

Looks like it’s all over, folks:

GREENVILLE, S.C. — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) won a stunning come-from-behind victory in the South Carolina presidential primary on Saturday, using hard-edged debate performances to vault over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Gingrich was actually trailing Romney, in very early returns, after polls closed at 7 p.m.. But exit polls made it clear that he had defeated Romney — a win that will profoundly re-shape a nominating contest that, a week ago, seemed to be almost over.

Suddenly, Romney’s claim to be the GOP’s inevitable nominee looked dubious. Romney had arrived in South Carolina as the apparent winner of the first two GOP contests and faced an electorate that seemed open to his message that only a Washington outsider could restore free markets and sensible spending.

And yet he was beaten by a man who had been the ultimate Washington insider.

At the same time, the victory in South Carolina seemed to validate Gingrich’s new model for a presidential campaign — which held that his own strong debate performances could overcome Romney’s edge in advertising and money.

Here, it finally worked…

Now a different candidate has won each contest. And for the first time since I’ve been covering SC politics, South Carolina didn’t give the nation a clear front-runner. And may not have picked the eventual winner.

What a long, strange trip this has been…

Note to WSJ: There’s no such state as ‘Carolina’

3 Replies

The Wall Street Journal thinks  there’s a vote today in someplace called “Carolina.” Good thing I know reporters have nothing to do with headlines. Because Valerie Bauerlein, who’s name is on this story, knows better.

As for the copy desk up there, lemme ‘splain: There’s no such place. Occasionally you’ll hear such a mythical land referred to, but only when you’re in that hermaphroditic city, Charlotte. It’s metropolitan area straddles two entirely different states, states that have little to do with each other politically — we’re no more alike that other state than we are Georgia, and no one accuses us of that.

So, rather than refer to both states, folks in that market say “Carolina.” But down here, it’s not a place we know.

Down here, we have a greater sense of place than that. We don’t want to be mistaken for North Carolina, and I’m quite confident they don’t want to be mistaken for us.

OK?

A final word, from Gingrich spokesman Daffy Duck

1 Reply

First, I must confess my deep embarrassment. In a comment yesterday, I mistakenly suggested that Newt Gingrich was channeling Sylvester, he of “Thuffering Thuccotash!” fame, when he said “despicable.”

Obviously, I meant Daffy Duck, who does a much better job of representing the former Speaker’s demeanor and attitude.

I hate it when I get pop culture references wrong.

Forgive me, Sylvester.

South Carolina: If you care about the country, it’s important that you vote for Mitt Romney today

24 Replies

And so in the end, it comes down to this: The only chance to prevent Newt Gingrich from going forward strengthened, with a chance of winning the GOP nomination, is to vote for the guy no one seems to actively like: Mitt Romney.

Staying home does no good. Voting for Ron Paul or Rick Santorum does no good, however much you may like them. They can’t deny this victory to Newt Gingrich, so a vote for them is a waste. (So is a vote for any of those who have dropped out, but are still on the ballot. I like Huntsman, too — but a vote for him doesn’t stop Newt Gingrich.)

Only Romney still has some slim chance of defeating Newt Gingrich today, so I’m urging everyone to get out and vote for him.

And don’t fool yourself into thinking it makes no difference. It makes a HUGE difference. Don’t fall for any of these rationalizations:

“It doesn’t matter; even if Newt wins South Carolina, Romney will win the nomination.” Don’t assume that. In fact, Gallup reported yesterday that what has happened in South Carolina over the past week-and-a-half has been happening, somewhat less dramatically, elsewhere in the country: Gingrich is catching Romney in national polls. The word Gallup used to describe what’s happening to Romney is “collapsing.”

“It doesn’t matter; Gingrich would never beat Obama, so the nation would be in no danger.” Don’t ever assume that — an infinite variety of things could happen to throw an election from the incumbent to the challenger. And by not voting to stop Gingrich today, you will have helped put him in the White House.

“OK, so maybe the Republican would win the election. In that case it still doesn’t matter, because I don’t like either Mitt or Newt.” This is the one on which you are most wrong.

Newt Gingrich would be a disaster for the United States of America. He would tear the country apart like nothing any of us have seen in our lifetimes. To say nothing of our relations with other countries.

Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? (How could you forget? Republicans are suffering from a related disease today.) That was nothing. George W. Bush was just this guy, you know? Pretty average. A conservative guy, somewhat given to Texan swagger. That was about it. But Democrats hated him, practically spitting at the mention of his name.

But Gingrich would be all of the things that Democrats imagine Bush was, and on steroids.

None of us, in our lifetimes, have seen a president of the United States who would do what Newt Gingrich would do every single day in office: Try to infuriate and insult half the country, and most of the world. He delights in insulting, demeaning and belittling anyone who disagrees with him. And you know that right from the start, half the country would fit into that category. And that category would grow, as everything he says is magnified by the curvature of the presidential bubble.

All politicians occasionally say things that alienate a lot of people. But with rare exceptions, they don’t do it on purpose. The utter contempt and hostility with which Newt Gingrich regards most of the human race is a palpable thing, and it is intentional. When other politicians say something that alienates or demoralizes the country or inflames other nations, the try to do damage control. Newt Gingrich would instead strut about the stage, immensely pleased with himself.

He would be a complete disaster for this country. You may think that could be said with justice of other politicians you don’t like, but they are nothing to Newt.

Now, as for Mitt Romney — well, I can’t give you a ringing endorsement. About the only thing I can say I like about him is that he is not an ideologue. That’s what the most partisan Republicans — the one’s flocking to Gingrich — don’t like about him. They call him a flip-flopper. That’s because he is a manager, a turn-around artist. His goal would be to run the country well and efficiently, not to enact grand ideological schemes. That’s not enough to make anyone’s heart go pitter-pat, but it’s something. And it beats tearing the country apart.

Read The State‘s endorsement. It gives good reasons why Romney is the best — or at least the least bad — option, now that Huntsman is out of it. Read Cindi Scoppe’s accompanying column, as well. The headline on the endorsement is, “Romney has capacity to build bridges.” I think he does.

But at this point, Mitt Romney is more than the “least-bad” option. He’s the one guy who can stop Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich not only has the power to blow bridges up; he can’t wait to plant the charges.

And that’s why any South Carolinian who cares about the country needs to vote for Mitt Romney today.

Democrats continue to ignore Newt, attack Mitt

19 Replies

Republicans are so busy jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon at the last minute that they aren’t taking time to notice what I pointed out earlier today: Apparently, Democrats are completely fine with having Newt as their opponent in the fall. It’s Mitt Romney they worry about, which is why they continue to engage in the rhetorical equivalent of carpet bombing of the former Massachusetts governor.

Take a moment to read these comments from former SC Gov. Jim Hodges at a press conference in Columbia this afternoon:

Thank you for joining us.

Last night we heard closing arguments from the remaining Republican Presidential candidates before South Carolinians head to the polls.

Sadly, with less than 24 hours to go before voting begins South Carolinians remain left in the dark about Mitt Romney’s real record.  Exactly when will we get to see his tax returns? He didn’t say.  Exactly how many jobs were created during his time as CEO of Bain Capital? Again more of the same evasive answers we’ve all heard before.

Since Mitt Romney wouldn’t come clean with South Carolinians about his real record as a corporate buyout specialist or about exactly how he made his millions or how much he’s invested in overseas tax havens while paying a lower tax rate than middleclass Americans – I’ll set the record straight today.

Last night Mitt Romney again staked his entire candidacy on his “real world experience” as CEO of Bain Capital, this time claiming to have created 110,000 jobs. He again struggled to provide any proof to back up his claims.

That’s because the truth is Mitt Romney spent more time bankrupting companies, outsourcing jobs and laying off workers than creating jobs-all while making millions for himself and wealthy investors.

If South Carolinians want to know the truth about Romney’s “real world experience,” look no further than his time as Governor of Massachusetts.  Ask yourself what the people of Massachusetts got for Mitt Romney’s service.  Mitt Romney didn’t say it last night but I’ll say it here.  During his time as governor Massachusetts was 47th out of 50th in job creation and manufacturing jobs were loss at twice the national rate.

He railed against government investments to help grow the economy and create jobs but didn’t mention that Bain Capital frequently received subsidies and tax breaks from state governments.  Let’s take Staples, a supposed success from Romney’s time at Bain.  In touting Staples, Romney never mentions that in 1996, Staples chose to move its distribution center to Maryland in exchange for a $4.2 million subsidy deal – the same type of subsidies Mitt Romney says he’s against.

He again dodged questions on when he would release his tax returns, again defying a standard practice that all previous presidential candidates have followed – including his own father when he ran for President in 1968.  When asked if he would follow his father’s example and release multiple years’ returns, Mitt Romney couldn’t shoot straight with South Carolinians – only offering an awkward “maybe.”

What’s he hiding?  Why does he feel South Carolinians can only know what’s in his tax returns after they have cast ballots?  Here’s what we know without seeing Mitt Romney’s taxes and there is a lot South Carolinians have questions about.

We know that Mitt Romney has invested millions of dollars in offshore tax havens that have cost the federal government about $100 billion every year.  We know that despite being a quarter-billionaire, he pays a lower tax rate than most middle class families.

What else will we find out when, and if, he finally releases his returns?

Mitt Romney has given voters plenty of reasons not to trust him while making plenty of far-right promises to the Tea Party.  A political stunt that will weigh him down in the general election where we see already he has begun hemorrhaging support from moderate and independent voters.

It’s time for Mitt Romney to level with South Carolinians and finally get the message that he can’t play by a different set of rules when it comes to his record or his taxes.

Now think about this: If you were commenting on the day after Newt Gingrich stole the show at the Charleston debate, and your comments purported to be a reaction to the performance of “the remaining Republican Presidential candidates” in that debate, don’t you think you’d at least mention Gingrich in your remarks? You would. Unless you had reasons not to.

The reason, I believe, is that Democrats are completely unworried about Gingrich being the GOP nominee. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they welcomed the prospect.

Bob McAlister on why he’s for Gingrich now

9 Replies

Now  it can be told: The source I spoke with a week ago tonight from Key West, who called Mitt Romney a “plastic banana rock ‘n’ roller,” was Bob McAlister — communications consultant, former chief of staff to Gov. Carroll Campbell, occasional op-ed writer par excellence, and former blogger.

I called him this evening because he appears to be part of an interesting trend. Rick Perry threw his support to Gingrich. Huntsman did not, yet several of his key supporters seem to be breaking for Gingrich, too. Bob is one of them.

One element in Bob’s decision is what he sees as Romney’s phoniness. “That Ken and Barbie exterior.” Which means roughly the same thing as the plastic banana description (which, although I thought he’d made it up himself, Bob acknowledges having lifted from Rush Limbaugh).

So, I asked, what decided him in favor of Gingrich?

“The debates made up my mind for me.”

“I have never seen a candidate for public office own a debate the way he did the last few.”

Bob views this with an expert eye, having “prepped a lot of candidates” for debates himself over the years. But no one he ever coached performed like this.

He repeated to me the observation he shared when I called him last week, before he had made up his mind — that the relationship between Gingrich and the other candidates on the stage is like that between a professor and his students. He says the former speaker displays “an uncanny knowledge of every issue thrown at him.”

There’s something else operating here, however, beyond professional appreciation. There’s a relish for Newt’s combativeness. Bob liked that “he didn’t take any crap from the liberal media. He threw it right back at them.” He would like to have a president who doesn’t take… grief… from either such domestic adversaries or “our international enemies.”

Realizing how he had juxtaposed the the media and, say, terrorist states, Bob laughed and said, “I’m not necessarily equating the two, by the way.”

But he remains enthusiastic about Gingrich: “He’s tough; he’s resolute; he is absolutely brilliant.”

Now, before my more liberal correspondents here decide that Bob is the sort they would never wish to meet, let me run counter to your expectations and assert that you are wrong. I think if you spent enough time talking with him to gain each others’ trust, you would get along fine. When I first worked with Bob when he was Campbell’s communications director, there was a distinct wariness on his part. But somehow I earned his trust, and I found him to be a guy who was straight with me, and we got on fine. We’ve had occasion to work together on community projects since those days — such as the local board of Habitat for Humanity — and have become friends.

Those who appreciate this blog have reason to thank him. When I was laid off from the paper, Bob took me to lunch. When I told him I’d bought this domain from GoDaddy, he volunteered to host me for a year. I’m quite grateful for that.

And while I was appalled at some of the very elements in last night’s debate that pleased Bob, I can see his way of looking at it. Leading off the debate — a debate, after all, for president of the United States, an office that actually deals with some pretty significant public policy issues — with that question was obnoxious, and unnecessary. Bob thought of the questioner, and the school of thought he represents, as deserving a comeuppance. Newt delivered. I don’t disagree. The difference is that in my view, Gingrich’s rebuke was entirely over the top, and revelatory of a temperament that is entirely inappropriate in one who would hold that office. And I found the self-serving nature of his whipping up the crowd’s resentment toward news media as, quite frankly, contemptible.

So we’re not going to agree there. But we can agree on something else, something that seems just as important to Bob as Gingrich’s poise, breadth of knowledge and combativeness: the fact that he doesn’t come across as a phony.

I see that as an element in why different people like Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. All have a naturalness, a humanity (often with all the weakness that humanity implies) that Romney fails to project.

Bob’s gotten to know Gingrich recently, and “from everything I can see, he’s the real deal.” And I think he’s right. I don’t think Newt Gingrich would exert an iota of energy in trying to pretend to be something he is not. Newt is too pleased with who he is to make the effort. But that’s the way I see him, which is not quite the same as my friend Bob McAlister does.

The down-home campaign of Rick Santorum

8 Replies

The only local campaign event in these parts today so far was held at Hudson’s Smokehouse out toward Lexington. It was for Rick Santorum, and it bore all the earmarks, mainly a crowd liberally (is it OK if I use that word?) sprinkled with small children, strollers, a grandma or grandpa here and there, with everyone looking like they’d probably brought a covered dish.

The place was packed — almost as tightly as when I went to hear Mike Huckabee there four years ago. But this crowd was calmer, less electric.

Earlier, I had received a memo from a Santorum campaign worker that stood in contrast to the slick, professional media releases I get from the other campaigns:

His message was also homey, being based in a bedtime story — specifically, Goldilocks and the three bears. It was a tale of three candidates:

  1. One who is too hot (I wonder who that might be?).
  2. One who is too cold (which reminds me of a story I recently heard, second-hand, of a Massachusetts lawmaker who greeted Gov. Romney with a big bearhug at a public event in Boston — asked what it was like, he said, “I got frostbite.”).
  3. One who is just right. That, of course, was the one talking to us.

It’s not clear who Ron Paul is in this fable. Maybe Goldilocks, I don’t know.

I came away from the event convinced of something I had been halfway thinking ever since I saw him the middle of last week. Of the remaining candidates in tomorrow’s primary, he is the one I like the best, as a person. I didn’t expect to. I remembered him as that unrelenting culture warrior who got crushed by Bob Casey in his own state. And I don’t set much store by culture warriors, even when I agree with them. Not as people to lead our federal government. (You know how Mike Huckabee describes himself as a conservative who, unlike others, isn’t mad at anybody over it? I had assumed Santorum was the other kind.)

Which is not the same as saying I’m going to vote for him, by the way. More about that later.

The REAL media plot regarding Newt Gingrich

15 Replies

Despite historic animosity toward the press in our state, I was still amazed that the audience in Charleston last night was simple enough to swallow Newt Gingrich’s claim that the ex-wife story was brought up by the media because, being the wicked liberals they are, they’re trying to hurt him because they want President Obama to be re-elected.

That was simple-minded on several levels. But let’s just consider one of them. Note my last post, which demonstrates conclusively that the Democratic Party has been and continues to devote all of its firepower attacking Mitt Romney, not Newt Gingrich. So if the media are in cahoots with the Dems, they must not have gotten the memo.

Here’s a modest proposal (meaning it the way Swift did, not the way Ron Paul does): Perhaps there is a deep, dark media plot regarding Gingrich. But if there is, there is only one credible motivation: The media would love, would absolutely adore, covering a campaign between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama. Whereas they want to bang their hard little heads against a wall at the thought of months more of covering the astronomically boring Mitt Romney.

So it is that the media are working in cahoots with the Democratic Party and Gingrich himself (who would seem to a casual observer to have stolen the Democrats’ playbook on these issues) in covering the heck out of the “vulture capitalist” angle and Mitt’s invisible tax returns.

Under this supposition, rather than being a plot to deny him the nomination, that ex-wife story was just a case of one of the networks jumping the gun. The prospect of reporting on Newt’s history, not to mention all the wonderfully careless, explosive, politically suicidal things he will say several times a week on the trail, has the media hugging themselves in delightful anticipation.

But some idiot at ABC just couldn’t wait. The media have never been strong on delaying gratification.

Hey, Gingrich supporters: Whom do you suppose the Democrats really, really want to run against?

9 Replies

In the past week alone, I have received 35 email releases from Democratic Party sources — the Obama re-election campaign, the DCCC, the state party — attacking Mitt Romney with everything the Dems can think of to throw at him. There have been videos, and ICYMI links to media stories, and — this is the biggest category — releases about press conferences being held by prominent Democrats to attack Romney. Some sample headlines from the releases:

  • ROMNEY’S RECORD IS HARMFUL TO THE MIDDLE CLASS
  • The Truth About Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
  • Mitt Romney no job creator, says a man who knows
  • Statement by South Carolina State Representative Bakari Sellers on Mitt Romney’s Vision of Free Enterprise
  • TODAY: Democratic National Committee Southern Caucus Chair Gilda Cobb-Hunter Holds a Media Availability on Mitt Romney’s campaign through South Carolina
  • TOMORROW: Maryland Governor and DGA Chairman Martin O’Malley and SC State Rep. Terry Alexander to Hold Press Conference on Mitt Romney’s Real Record in South Carolina
  • ICYMI: JON HUNTSMAN ON MITT ROMNEY
  • NYT Editorial: Taxes and Transparency
  • ROMNEY’S REASON FOR OPPOSING THE BUFFET RULE AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES IS FINALLY CLEAR – HE’S BENEFITING FROM THEM
  • WHAT TAX EXPERTS ARE SAYING ON ROMNEY’S CAYMAN ISLANDS INVESTMENTS
  • WaPo: Romney’s tax problems just won’t go away
  • TODAY: Former South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges and DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard to talk about Mitt Romney’s Real Record in South Carolina

And so forth and so on.

At the outset of all that, I received a release telling me it was coming:

DEMOCRATIC COUNTER-PROGRAMMING.  Democrats plan what they are calling a “full-time presence” in the Palmetto State this week, starting today. Democratic Governors Association Chairman Martin O’Malley and Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse will react to the GOP/FOX News Debate on Monday in Myrtle Beach with a 2:00 PM press conference at the Breakers, one on one interviews with national cable outlets and local and national newspapers before and after the debate.  DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Vice Chair and Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak and DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard will all be in the state later in the week to offer their perspective on the GOP race.
The DNC says it will be “using a new visual to tell the story of Mitt Romney as the incredible shrinking job creator.” View it here: http://bit.ly/x9nvFZ

That sort of made it sound like the Dems would be commenting on the whole GOP field. But it’s been pretty much all Mitt, all the time.

Occasionally, there’s a Democratic Party release about something else — maybe two or three in the whole week. But of those, only one is even indirectly about Newt Gingrich: A release from Dick Harpootlian demanding that Attorney General Alan Wilson investigate Lt. Gov. Ken Ard for writing an endorsement of Gingrich on official stationery (except that Dick spelled it “stationary”) “with his seal attached.”

And I think you can fairly say that that one was about Ard, not about Gingrich. There has not been a single Democratic press release, that I’ve seen, that directly attacks Gingrich the way all of those others attack Romney.

The unrelenting hammering on Romney has continued yesterday and today, even as it has become increasingly clear that Newt Gingrich has pulled ahead of him, and has the momentum going into Saturday.

A week ago, or a little earlier, this campaign made all the sense in the world. It seemed obvious that, having won in Iowa (as was then thought) and New Hampshire and comfortably leading in the polls in South Carolina, Mitt Romney was definitely going to be the guy that Barack Obama would face in the fall.

But the situation is very different today.

Now… I can think of four possible explanations for Democrats continuing to pursue this course:

  1. The Democrats are too stupid to figure out that not only did Romney not win Iowa, all the signs now point to Gingrich winning in South Carolina.
  2. They’ve figured it out, but they’re just not nimble enough to change directions on the fly, and don’t want to waste all those nonrefundable plane tickets or write new scripts for the press availabilities.
  3. They know Gingrich has the momentum in South Carolina now, but they are convinced that whatever happens here, Romney will still be the nominee.
  4. They really, really want Newt Gingrich to be the guy they face in the fall, so they’re continuing to hammer the only guy who can deny him the nomination.

What do you think it is?

SC and the media: They shoot editors, don’t they?

15 Replies

This morning I was on Tom Finneran’s Boston radio show for the second time this week (Tom is the former speaker of the Massachusetts House; I met him in Key West last week), and was asked what the nation should make of the roar of approval that Newt Gingrich got last night when he blamed the media for bringing to light his second ex-wife’s allegations.

I explained that historically, the media got off light on that one. Playing to resentment to those “nattering nabobs of negativism” in the media is of course an old Republican pasttime across the country. But in South Carolina, it can get you everywhere.

Getting away with asking for an open marriage is nothing. This is a ploy that will enable you to get away with murder.

Literally.

So I regaled the Boston audience with the tale of N.G. Gonzales and James H. Tillman. Most of you know the story, but for those who don’t…

N.G. and his brother founded The State in 1891 for a specific purpose: to oppose the Ben Tillman machine. N.G. wrote the editorials, which lambasted the Tillmanites with a vehemence that would shock most newspaper readers in my lifetime, but which was par for the course in those days.

One of the targets of editorial vitriol was James H. Tillman, Ben’s nephew. James was the lieutenant governor, and aspired to be governor. N.G. wasn’t having it, and criticized him heavily during the 1902 campaign. Tillman lost. Not long after that, on January 15, 1903, N.G. was walking home for lunch. The newspaper office then was on Main St., and Gonzales had to turn the corner of Main and Gervais to get home. As he approached the corner, Tillman headed his way, coming from the Senate side of the State House with a couple of senators.

Tillman went straight up to Gonzales, drew a gun, and shot him in cold blood. He did this in the presence of many witnesses, including a policeman.

As N.G. fell, he cried, “Shoot again, you coward!” As one who inherited his mission of writing editorials for The State, I’ve always been proud of him for that.

He died four days later.

Tillman was arrested and charged with the murder, of course, but the defense obtained a change of venue to the friendlier Lexington County. A strategy of self-defense was attempted, but didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Then,  the defense entered N.G.’s editorials into evidence.

The jury acquitted Tillman. The ostensible reason was self-defense, but since there was nothing to support that — Gonzales was unarmed and not threatening Tillman in any way — it has always been assumed that the jury let him off because the son-of-a-bitch editor had it comin’.

A postscript:

Early in 2003, a number of events were held to mark the centennial of Gonzales’ murder. At one point, Solicitor Donnie Myers, an avid student of the case, was asked to present his popular lecture on the subject to employees of The State. I introduced him, and stood to the side as he enthusiastically launched into it.

At the critical point in the narrative, channeling Tillman, Donnie reached dramatically into his briefcase and, pulling out a .45 automatic pistol, brandished it menacingly in my direction. Me being the editor.

I grinned at him, enjoying his act (I had seen it before). But our then-publisher, Ann Caulkins, who admitted to a greater-than-usual fear of firearms of all sorts, practically gasped aloud. She later admitted that for a split second there, she actually feared the solicitor was going to shoot me.

If that had happened, it wouldn’t have been the first time.

Well, there’s ONE Republican woman out there who’s crossed Newt off her list: Jenny Sanford

3 Replies

OK, I pretty much said my intro in the headline. Here’s an excerpt from the story:

Former S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford is not a Newt Gingrich fan…

(Mrs.) Sanford said voters need to consider at Gingrich’s personal history that includes three marriages with his last one ending after he was having an affair with his current wife, Callista. Gingrich’s poll numbers have spiked after a strong showing in Monday’s debate in Myrtle Beach.

“It does call into question his character on a personal side,” (Mrs.) Sanford said. “As a voter, I encourage people to look at both sides, the personal side, and if you’re going to overcome somebody’s moral failings or infidelities, you also have to see where they fit ideologically, and how much their rhetoric meets their reality and in my mind, Gingrich falls short on both fronts. So he wouldn’t get my vote.”

She said a candidates personal history has an impact on the job they can do in office.

“I think it comes down to the simple question of character,” she said.

And that’s something she knows about. Hear her.

How do you think the debate went?

17 Replies

I think that if people were waiting to make up their minds tonight, Newt just won the primary.

What do y’all think?

And why do you think Romney can’t just go ahead and release his stupid tax returns? All his responses on that are so lame.

Mind you, I don’t think Gingrich should win this. It’s just looking more like he might…