Hooray for journalimism! (0.00 / 0)

Click here to congratulate the Inqy on another fine job!

Yeah I blog.

---

by: JR @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 14:52:40 PM CDT

This isn't their best day (4.00 / 1)

Their supposed silent right wing owner forced in a stupid and ridiculous anti-endorsement for Obama.

---

by: Dan U-A @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 15:06:52 PM CDT

"Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?" (0.00 / 0)

This demands Brad DeLong's trademark rant!
 

No way, no how, no McCain!

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 15:09:34 PM CDT

Well, here I was settling in for a good diatribe against endorsements ... (4.00 / 1)

... but I don't get yours at all. Newspaper endorsements are silly because no one cares -- or should care -- what 6 or 7 random people who happen to serve on an editorial board think about a race. It would actually be more useful if editorials were written by beat reporters.

But they are not silly because they don't interview a long shot challenger to a long-time incumbent. Of course, to be fair they SHOULD, but it's not a big deal. If they had they would have endorsed Smith anyway. Who, by the way, IS a fairly (and unusually) principled Republican. I am disgusted by his stand on social issues (except for the environment) but he is undeniably principled. Newspaper endorsements are supposed to be a estimation of which candidate would be the best fit for a district, and Smith's is very conservative. Even the most liberal papers sell to conservatives, too.

The tendency of one issue groups to endorse some Republicans is annoying but absolutely unavoidable. If a group like LCV did not endorse a champion (for the Jersey shore) like Smith, they would never get any Republican votes and would be taken for granted by Democrats. The worst of both worlds. The Christian Coalition made that mistake on the other side, and they're as good as gone now. Even the NRA endorses (a lot of ) Democrats.

---

by: ColoradoDemocrat @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 15:46:23 PM CDT

Not really accurate (4.00 / 3)

Smith's district is definitely not very conservative.  Maybe slightly to the right by New Jersey standards, but only has a PVI of R+1.  By point of comparison, Stender is running a progressive campaign in the 7th (PVI also R+1) against a more moderate Republican than Smith (Leonard Lance) and looks like she is going to win.  Smith is way out of touch with the district, but survives because he has a reputation as a moderate and there are no ethnic or religious minorities in these exurbs, so there's less of a built in Democratic base.  It's only with the help of local media like the Inquirer that Smith can say "Hey, look at what they have to say, I'm a moderate" and get away with it.

On the LCV endorsement, the majority of Smith's district is inland, especially compared to Pallone, Saxton and LoBiondo, so this is just them  picking winners.  

And yes, Smith is principled.  Ron Paul is also principled.  It's nice to have principles, but when they're completely misguided and morally bankrupt principles (as they are in Smith's case), they're useless.  Smith is to the extreme right on reproductive justice issues and he doesn't even live in the district (his kids go to school in Northern Virginia).  There is no defense for Smith's continued presence in Congress, and if you think his occasional piping up about human rights or Darfur is anything more than convenient political posturing, you're dead wrong.  Maybe he does believe in those things, but he knows how much political value they carry, all while he would send ob/gyns to prison and hand a coat hanger to every woman.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 16:43:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

your point (0.00 / 0)

"Newspaper endorsements don't matter, so complaining about them is silly. Your reason is good, but silly, because it is a reason about something silly. Also, I don't mind this endorsement very much because I think the Republican they endorsed has principles, which may include homophobia and segregationism, but I mean the other principles which are great."

---

by: sdedeo @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 19:03:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just curious (0.00 / 0)

Do you actually know anything about Chris Smith?  Had you heard of him before today?  Can you name one thing you disagree with him on in relation to human rights issues that was not included in the post here?

You may rightly accuse him of holding some extreme social beliefs, but you should also recognize that he's not the typical gay/abortion-baiting Republican who fans the flames but fails to follow through on any of the supposed principles of his beliefs.  He has in fact gone to great extremes in the cause of human rights across the board, including a lot of things that progressives ought to care about (human trafficking, Chinese human rights abuses, Google caving on China internet blocking, the minimum wage, the death penalty, global warming).  In short, he is the classic example of a Catholic genuinely committed to the whole "pro-life" agenda.  

And while that causes some serious issues on abortion, you do have to feel some grudging respect for someone who doesn't just mouth those principles for show, but who actually puts some muscle behind the whole spectrum.

All of which means that while I don't like the guy, and would love it if he lost, I can still feel some grudging respect for the way he has represented himself and his district.  And in a country where there are 200 Republicans in the House, I have a really hard time going nuts about a paper endorsing him.

---

by: Baldrick @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:19:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, I have (4.00 / 1)

He's the congressman directly to my south, so I'm fairly familiar with his record on the issues, and it's not just about abortion, it's about contraception and other reproductive justice issues.  He regularly repeats inaccurate points on the medical nature of abortion, and he would have the federal government regulating every part of sex, heterosexual and homosexual, imposing an extreme Catholic morality on the entire country.  

You talk about human rights abroad? The right of a woman to safely care for her own body, including reproductive systems, is absolutely a human right, but Chris Smith would have the U.S. government cut every single dollar that goes to any agency advocating for women's sexual health.  He blocked passage of a bill that would have paid up all of our U.N. dues simply on the issue of abortion.  He voted for the Military Commissions Act.  He voted to prevent educational exchanges and agricultural trade with Cuba, and voted against a bill that would have prevented federal aid to Saudi Arabia.  Those are all human rights issues I disagree with him on.

He also has been a staunch defender of the war and the surge, which have results in the death, injury or displacement of millions of Iraqis, Americans and others - a total human rights catastrophe.  He's far from a perfect pro-life Catholic, and far from a genuine human rights advocate.  He's a very conservative Republican with some acceptable views on generally apolitical issues that progressives care about. That's it.  On the whole, he's not nearly as moderate as he seems.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:50:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course he's not moderate (0.00 / 0)

But all of your complaints are of the standard "he is conservative and I'm liberal" variety.  

I happen to agree with you on every one, of course.  But these are not examples of him being beyond the pale or outside the acceptability of mainstream opinion.  And most (not all, but most) are compatible with his stated philosophy on human rights.

I still believe that he is relatively pure in his positions - in the sense that I think he clearly has identified ideological principles and follows those regardless of what his party or current trends suggest.  Of course a lot of those are profoundly conservative principles, for which I do hope he loses.  

But we're talking about a newspaper endorsement.  And we're talking about a guy who's won, what, like 13 straight elections.  The endorsement says "this guy is exactly who you think he is.  He's not dissembling or trying to mislead you."  Endorsing the challenger in such a situation is not really an endorsement - it's an anti-endorsement of the incumbent.  And given these facts, I see no reason to expect them to do that.  He's the guy everyone knows and the paper is simply reflecting that.

I guess there's a criticism of the ingrained conservatism inherent in that notion, but as much as I love complaining about the media on some occasions, this seems like a perfectly reasonable attitude (that unfortunately redounds to the favor of a guy I don't happen to support).

---

by: Baldrick @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 02:43:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Newspaper Endorsements Can Matter (0.00 / 0)

No data and even I think it is more the exception not the rule, but a good example of a newspaper endorsements that mattered was the Washington Post with both Donna Edwards and Geri Connely in the 2008 primaries in MD & VA respectively.  In low information, downballot contests, I've seen newspaper endorsements really move the needle in local races but never a Presidential. Most newspapers respesent the local power structure and they deliver a validating message to candidates who are perceived as risky.  

My guess is that the Inquirer is just like the Washington Post -- they think they need to endorse Republicans about 20% of the time so they can portray themselves as "unbiased" -- they are soooo sensitive.  For example, in VA-11 I'll bet the Post endorses Frank Wolf over Judy Feder, again, so they can claim the "unbiased" mantle even though Feder is politically closer to most of the people on the Post Editorial Board.  Like the Inquirer with Smith, the Post will cite Wolf's record on human rights.  

---

by: howardpark @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 19:51:24 PM CDT

The Washington Post isn't liberal! (0.00 / 0)

Donald Graham is a conservative, and the editors he hired are conservative, too. So, when they endorse republicans, they likely do this because it's their honest conviction. Quite to the contrary, when they endorse Dems, it's a sign that the republican candidate must be really awful.

No way, no how, no McCain!

---

by: Gray @ Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 05:00:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He should be glad he didn't run for mayor of Atlanta (0.00 / 1)

Mayoral elections, as everybody knows, often take place in odd-numbered years, and get even less coverage.  The last one in Atlanta was in November of 2005.  Shirley Franklin got over 90% of the vote.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution not only didn't interview any of her several opponents (or school board or city council folks who also had to run at the same time), it did not even tell us there was an election at all, and the local TV and radio stations also blacked out all mention of the city election.

Cox media, owner of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, also owns a leading local TV station and four of the city's top seven radio stations, by the way.

At the same time, in the weeks leading up  to the election the mayor's face was in the press daily --- she was named one of the planet's ten best mayors, she got this award and that award, but no mention of the election.  Turnout was at an all time low, and she got a Saddam-like total, sweeping her whole slate into office on the school board and city council.  Most Atlantans didn't even know there was an election, and most of those who did thought she ran unopposed.  But if you don't cover an election at all, you don't have to interview opponents, or discuss issues at all either.

Makes me glad I live in the free-est country in the world, dammit.

---

by: bruce.dixon @ Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 20:01:30 PM CDT