The Washington Post's Bizarre Hodgepodge of Senate Endorsements

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/15/2007 6:29:43 AM

Can anyone identify what on earth the unifying theme in this bizarre hodgepodge?  I mean, a few of the Washington Post's state Senate endorsements make sense, but others are simply screwy.  Can anyone find a unifying theme here?

One common thread appears to be the Post's continued obedience to and infatuation with Tom Davis (R-11) and Frank Wolf (R-10).  Now, that love fest apparently extends to Davis' wife and to a candidate Wolf has endorsed (right-wing Republican, not even a "moderate" Republican -- Jill Holtzman Vogel).  Where Wolf and Davis have NOT been particularly involved, the Post either endorses the Democrat (George Barker, Albert Pollard, Chuck Colgan) or nobody at all (the Cuccinelli-Oleszek race).  What the hell?  Who knows, but as A Siegel's diary demonstrates once again, the Post continues its descent from the once-great newspaper that it was.  Very sad.

Anyway, the Post's endorsements probably don't matter much one way or the other given the newspaper's less-than-stellar track record in picking winners recently.  I particularly enjoyed the Post's endorsement of Harris Miller over Jim Webb last year, supposedly because Webb was anti-"free trade" or something.  What. Ever.

My suggestion: read the Post's editorials with extreme caution, throw out any that have even the remotest connection to Tom Davis or Frank Wolf, and then proceed accordingly. 

P.S. Another good one was the Post's endorsement last year of Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich (R) over Martin O'Malley (D).  Despite the Post endorsement, Ehrlich lost by 6.5 points.


Comments



COMMENT HIDDEN (changeagent - 10/15/2007 9:09:08 AM)


What does Gerry Connolly have to do with (Lowell - 10/15/2007 10:04:17 AM)
the Post's endorsements today?  You lost me.


You're exactly right (Chris Guy - 10/15/2007 9:56:11 AM)
it's one thing to disagree with their choices, but I don't understand what the common theme is.

And if you can't find a difference between Oleszek and Cuccinelli, I wonder about you.



Even Republicans Endorse Schultz (Evan M - 10/15/2007 11:55:26 AM)
The Post editorial page is off-kilter. Even Republicans in the 27th district are endorsing Schultz!

Still, it's not like the Editorial Page of the Washington Post gets paid to get it right, they get paid only to sell papers.



Sadly, the editorial page of the Washington Post (Lowell - 10/15/2007 12:00:36 PM)
has been awful for a long time now:

*Pro Iraq War
*Pro "Free Trade"
*Pro corporate
*Endorsed Harris Miller over Jim Webb
*Loves Tom Davis and Frank Wolf

Blech.



Endorsements are schizophrenic (Craig - 10/15/2007 12:11:04 PM)
I really don't understand how they can pick Barker over O'Brien or Pollard over Stewart and then pick Holtzman-Vogel over Schultz.  Seriously, what the hell?  Are they just trying to keep some right-wingers from defecting to the Moonie Times?  And then to claim not to have a dog in the Cuccinelli-Oleszek race?  Get real.

And the Post's reasons for its endorsements are a bit strange as well.  Their rationale for endorsing Erlich was that he basically wasn't pants-on-head crazy, but the Post seems to often quietly root for the Republicans to win in Maryland, I guess because covering that would be more interesting than "Dems winn yet again in Maryland."  They also endorsed Morella over Van Hollen for what little good it did her.

And I honestly can't say why they seem to like Wolf and Davis.  I guess their only category for supporting GOP candidates is that they have to not be Tom DeLay-insane, but then why endorse Holtzman-Vogel?  Makes no sense.



Confused ... (A Siegel - 10/15/2007 1:08:22 PM)
the utter lack of consistency, the mishmash in the piece had me scratching my head. 

And, there was zero reference in the piece about the relationship of individual to party control.

Considering where the Commonwealth is, they should have made some statement about focusing on the individual rather than which party controls in Richmond.



Well, Perhaps the Underlying Theme is to Endorse the Best... (HisRoc - 10/15/2007 1:07:44 PM)
candidate regardless of political affliation.  One blind spot that several contributers to this blog suffer from is an unshakable belief that all Democrats are right and all Republicans are wrong.  Therefore, any Democrat running against any Republican is the better candidate.  Sorry, but that just isn't the case, whether you like it or not.

Set aside the individual personalities at issue for a moment and consider the dangers of blind partisan loyalty.  This is the reason that George Washington warned his fellow countrymen against politcal parties in an elective democracy.  In his 1796 Farewell Address, he said,

"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Does that sound anything like what we have on our hands today with the incessant partisan bickering that muddles what we have come to accept as political discourse in our country?  Have we seen any instances of late when agents of foreign governments have attempted to gain influence with illegal campaign donations?

This whole "red state-blue state" stuff is such nonsense.  California is supposed to be one of the bluest states in the Union.  However, in the 2004 election 5.5 million people there voted for Bush compared with 6.7 million for Kerry.  If you look at the vote there county-by-county, Kerry's support was largely concentrated in the SF bay area and LA while Bush carried the remainder of the state.  And they have a Republican governor.  That's a blue state?  Or, consider Virginia which allegedly is becoming more blue and less red.  If that is the case then why did this red hot state elect Doug Wilder governor back in 1990?

Unless you can honestly say that you have supported and voted for candidates of both major parties because they were the best qualified, then you really don't have an unbiased, open mind towards elections.  And, if that is the case, then just how are you meeting your civic responsibilities?



Valid points, but they are non sequitur for this round of endorsements (snolan - 10/15/2007 1:50:40 PM)
You rais some very interesting and valid points, and I completely agree that partisan politics has run roughshod over decent public discourse on many issues in our county, state, and country of late.

Having said that - an endorsement for Vogel is clearly proof that something is very wrong.  She has power amongst her wing-nut oligarchy that has seized temporary control of the Republican Party - but she cannot be considered a decent candidate for public office by any same measurement, and certainly not when compared to Schultz.

Likewise, having no endorsement at all in the Cuccinelli vs Oleszek race is adding more humor on an already comic contest.  We have a solidly professional school-board member sincerely offering to bring that experience to the State Senate (yes, it does seem like over-reaching to many), but she is running against a parody of himself.  Cuccinelli is not viable under any measurement, and certainly does not represent his district.

Non sequitur descirbes a good argument that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.  The subject is that the Post's endorsements this year have little reason or common theme.  Your excellent arguments simply don't apply because so many candidate are clearly so much better this year.



But if it's a well-qualified Republican... (Craig - 10/15/2007 4:08:20 PM)
...they'll likely support policies I don't support.  Not saying all Republicans are bad, but generally speaking if you claim membership in that party you'll at the very least be aiding and abbeting a lot of policy decisions that I won't agree with.

Besides, what's wrong with a little partisan bickering?  That's what happens in actual democracies.  The only states I can think of where there isn't such bickering are places like China and East Germany, where bickering was prohibited by law.

And I'm not saying I'd NEVER vote for a Republican, but in order for me to do so, the Republican would have to be more liberal than the Democrat on most issues, and that hasn't happened in any elections in which I have been eligible to vote, and is certainly not happening this cycle.



I have supported candidates for both political parties (JPTERP - 10/15/2007 9:53:41 PM)
in the past.  Marshall Coleman who was an extremely middle of the road GOP candidate -- as well as Mark Warner.  I backed McCain in the Virginia primary in 2000 (and would have supported him in the general election).  George H.W. Bush in the past -- another example.

Back then I would have identified myself as more of a right leaning independent having grown up during the Reagan years; in the past few years I'd say that the hard-right tack of the GOP makes it very hard for me to support a GOP nominee with a clear conscience. 

In reference to the California comparison -- rather than "red state - blue state" it's probably more accurate to state "urban versus rural" with suburban areas frequently being the main sources of contention (although Bush Republicanism is losing that fight for the GOP).  Also, it's worth noting that Arnold would be tarred and feathered as a traitor in a lot of parts of Bushistan -- if the news about his history and positions became widely known.  He doesn't think that global warming is a "controversial theory"; he doesn't think that abortion trumps every other issue on the docket (he's strongly pro-life); pro-gay rights; and he's married to a Kennedy.  I don't think he makes any apologies for all of the fun that he had during his days as a movie actor or as a body builder. 

As far as the Post goes it's editorial board has been a joke since Katherine Graham turned over the reigns to Junior and Ben Bradlee left the paper.  The news reporting still is pretty good, but the editorial page sucks. 

Whichever candidate (usually incumbents) they think is most likely to win will get their support -- occasionally a candidate can lose support if they aren't sufficiently pro-global trade, or if they express reservations about the continuation of the Israeli land "reclamation" and settlement issue in Palestine. 

If the person makes a bad dinner party guest, or isn't sufficiently entertaining and gifted at Washington kiss-ass that could also get them a negative vote from the Post's editorial board. 

But no, they don't have a principled standard that is applied uniformly regardless of party.  They have an unprincipled standard that takes party affiliation into account and tries to split the difference.  Individual merits are a secondary consideration as are professional accomplishment.



My Point Exactly (HisRoc - 10/16/2007 12:44:44 AM)
"In reference to the California comparison -- rather than "red state - blue state" it's probably more accurate to state "urban versus rural" with suburban areas frequently being the main sources of contention (although Bush Republicanism is losing that fight for the GOP).  Also, it's worth noting that Arnold would be tarred and feathered as a traitor in a lot of parts of Bushistan -- if the news about his history and positions became widely known.  He doesn't think that global warming is a "controversial theory"; he doesn't think that abortion trumps every other issue on the docket (he's strongly pro-life); pro-gay rights; and he's married to a Kennedy.  I don't think he makes any apologies for all of the fun that he had during his days as a movie actor or as a body builder."

Urban vs. rural applies to almost any state, NYC vs. Upstate, northern NJ vs. "pinies," NoVa vs. RoVa--the list is endless.  The point is that no single state is blue or red.  In the case of Arnold, the voters of "Cullyfornia" elected him despite any party labels.  I have friends in both the bay area and in LA.  They voted for the best candidate for the position.



Pretty easy to explain... (Bwana - 10/15/2007 1:48:48 PM)
Once you get by Lowell's determination to tie Frank Wolf to all that is wrong in the world on behalf of Judy Feder, for whom Lowell is netroots coordinator (after all, there are many GOP state senate candidates Frank Wolf has endorsed that the WaPo did not endorse or chose against), his plea for a unifying theme is pretty clear...

The WaPo wants to be right.  That is it, they want to be right, and they want to do something that appears bi-partisan.

They picked a pack of democrats, all of whom are likely to win...in fact, when I made my picks at RR I picked all the same folks.

They picked Vogel over schultze because it is the smart pick...assuming that an area that has gone GOP in the past will continue to go GOP.

They picked JMDD over Chap! as their lone GOP pick to show how bi-partisan they are, and also as part of their pattern of not choosing against any incumbent.

As far as Va 37 goes, that pick may show they gave this some thought.  As I dodge the brickbats coming my way, their decision was logical...they disagree with Cuccinelli on abotu everything, so they could not endorse him. 

On the other hand, Oleszek has run a highly general campaign that seems to be based in "vote for me because I am not Ken Cuccinelli". 

To endorse in a race like that where Mrs. Oleszek has not staked out any real positions (as opposed to taking Cuccinelli to task over his)?  The WaPo would see that as being too overtly partisan...hence the non-endorsement.

At least that is how I see it...



I think you are on to something (snolan - 10/15/2007 1:53:23 PM)
picking likely winners, generally not picking challengers, that seems to me to be exactly what they are doing...

having said that - why isn't the Washington Post doing more to inform voters and actually doing investigative journalism on these races?



I'm Outraged About the Oleszek Slam (Doug in Mount Vernon - 10/15/2007 2:37:22 PM)
The Posts' editors should be ashamed of themselves.

I've listened to Janet Oleszek a lot in the last month.  I know, she's not always the slickest person when it comes to expressing herself and her ideas.

But for the Post to lay down the bitchslap they did on her was completely uncalled for and shameful.

Janet speaks with frequent pauses and often slowly, and frankly, that sometimes makes her difficult to follow, honestly.  However, and I've listened to her performances several times now both on the one TV debate and in the audio at her Equality Fairfax performance, where her opponent didn't even have the decency to show up or even provide a written statement to be read, and she DOES NOT lack in substance.

What she lacks is an inherent ability to slickly communicate.

I have listened to Janet advocate vociferously for schools, stress over and over that she thinks the legislature could have done better on transportation, and that were she the Senator, it would have.  I have listened to her articulate why she believes in fairness and opportunity for all, and advocate the repeal of the Marshall-Newman embarassment [amendment].  Anyone who has followed her career as a School Board member will know that her judgement and leadership are solid, even if her ability to articulate her positions is not always.

This is not a woman who is an "empty suit".  The Post may not think she is worthy of endorsement since she's not the best communicator.  But the Post owes Janet Oleszek an apology.

Those editors crass description of her is rooted in one of the oldest sexist stereotypes of woman in the book.

Shame on them!!



Entered this comment as a diary (Doug in Mount Vernon - 10/15/2007 2:43:25 PM)
I read the Post editorial on the Senate a little while ago.  The more I think about this, the angrier I am.  So, I just entered this comment as a diary.

They have crossed a line IMO.



Write to them (snolan - 10/15/2007 3:47:49 PM)
Seriously...

They need to know when they've crossed a line.

More letters will help.
I plan to.



I found the endorsements shocking (jiacinto - 10/15/2007 7:06:26 PM)
from the so-called "liberal" Washington Post. I am most disgusted by their endorsement of Jeanmarie Devolites-Davis and of Jill Holtzman Vogel.


The editorial selections methods are: (JPTERP - 10/15/2007 8:30:48 PM)
1. Endorse the candidate who is most likely to win without any regard to performance or principles.

2. Always split the difference when possible.  Acknowledge that there are always two sides to an issue, and always place equal weight on each end (unless the candidate's position on globalization violates WashingtonPost company policies regarding the indisputable beneficial impact of its most unfettered form of globalization).

3. Inoculate paper from charges of bias.  MUST pick Republicans as well as Democrats. 

4. Always find reasons and marshal arguments for justifying a candidate's selection AFTER making the choice.  NEVER let the selection choices flow naturally from the best available reasons and arguments.



The Post toadies up to the powerful (Kindler - 10/15/2007 9:21:08 PM)
Re: the JMDD endorsement, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Ken Longmyer when he was running against Tom Davis.  He said that when he interviewed with the Post editorial board, Fred Hiatt, the managing editor of the editorial page, came right out and said how much they like Davis.

The Post too often simply endorses incumbents to whom they want to kiss up -- hence in the last election, they endorsed Davis, Wolf and Moran.  Why piss off powerful people?  No reason other than journalistic ethics...



Be honest with yourselves (nova_middle_man - 10/16/2007 7:45:59 AM)
Many of you have would have been shouting from the rooftops if the Washington Post supported more of your candidates.

Its equal parts hilarious and sad that there is barely any mention of the Barker endorsement but that would be a positive point and its so much easier to complain

And now there are crusades against the post for daring to pick a Republicans or heaven forbid a no endorsement

Its really hard to take the hyperpartisans seriously you really do come across as children



I thought about your point, and no, you are wrong (snolan - 10/17/2007 6:16:19 AM)
This community is not hyper-partisan at all.

In fact, most are reluctant, and only recently come to the Democratic party as a compromise of their core values because they are driven out by the Republican party.  Most or them are far more conservative than me.

Likewise, I am rabidly liberal, but not hyper-partisan.  I only recently got involved in Democratic party itself, because I am far, far to the LEFT of the Democrats on most issues...  but frequently have no truely liberal choices on the ballot - so I make the best choice I can in those elections.

The current batch of freak running for office with Republican party support makes this an easy choice.  The Post "just doesn't get it" - to use their own phrase.. because they are trying to appear fair and balanced (must the same way Faux News does).