politics as usual
dcdaveThe St. Pete Times has endorsed candidates in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Unfortunately, this is a practice all too common among big newspapers. I believe it’s called fence sitting. Sh*t or get off the pot. Insert sardonic comment here. What are they going to do, support both candidates in the general election? Get real.
On top of that, they have endorsed Rod Smith as the Democratic candidate du jour because he’s “more electable.” That’s right, more electable. According to this poll, that’s not the case. Assuming that by “electable,” you mean capable of winning an election. Something which one must do in a primary in order to even compete in the general election.
Let’s not even talk about one of the reasons people are disgusted with the Democractic party, i.e. their collective lack of standing for anything except for “electability.” That’s the reason why, in 2004, they came up with John Kerry. What a winner. Instead of going with someone like Dean or Gephardt (I’m just spitballing here) that had solid views and opinions, they went with Mr. Electable. Turned out well, didn’t it?
I don’t have a problem with Rod Smith, just this lazy practice of endorsing candidates from both parties who might end up as rivals in the general election. If newspapers are going to make a mockery out of how they choose a candidate, they’d best do it without actually publishing it. The logic escapes me.
Tags: election '06, newspapers, tampa
Loading ...
August 17th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
I heard somebody close to the Collins campaign say they aren’t too happy with the times endorsement as the times is considered somewhat left wing in its politics.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
DC let me make this simple. Newspaper endorsements are guides for other voters to make up their minds in the next election, not iron-clad commitments to a candidate or party. So what if they endorse both Democrats and Republicans? They have readers from both parties. You usually write better entries than this but I gotta tell ya brother, this one’s pretty weak.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
David,
Don’t make me slap you in front of everyone. Newspapers may have faulty logic, but they aren’t fence sitting when endorsing candidates. And this is a time-honored tradition, not laziness.
Your logic escapes me.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:51 am
DCDave —
Dave, you might’ve struck out on this one. Newspapers everywhere tend to endorse candidates from both parties (or all parties, if applicable, which is rare) in a primary election, as they did, for example, with Crist and Smith. Then following the primary and closer to the general election, they will offer their endorsement again. At that time it will be between either Crist (who’s going to win the primary), OR Davis (who seems likely to win the primary). This just isn’t fence-sitting, this time around. Now, if they were to endorse both Crist and the winner of the primary on the Democratic side AFTER September 5 (don’t forget to vote, people!), then you’d have some awfully sore butts and really wobbly fences over at the Times.
Are you just angry they didn’t endorse Davis? Or only Crist?
As for the Kerry stuff, well — at the risk of infuriating my fellow SoF lurkers/occassional posters — I couldn’t agree more. I think that’s what will make Election 2008 one of the most interesting in our lifetime, though. An energized Democratic Party and an no clear heir apparent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on either the GOP side or the Dem side.
bjk
August 18th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Time honored traditions tend to be lazy, because you can just fall back on them without figuring out a better way to do things. You really don’t see the problem with endorsing two candidates who might eventually run against each other? I know that papers do it everywhere, that’s the problem, it doesn’t make it any more acceptable. If it’s such a fantastic voter guide, I wonder why America has such a great voter turnout on election day. Granted there are many other factors, but I think this “tradition” plays a role.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Dave, do you really think people who ARE NOT voting really care what candidates the Times or the Trib endorse?
August 18th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Dave, I still think you’re missing the larger point, here. The Times may actually be trying to *boost* turnout (amongst other things) by saying “If you’re a Democrat, vote for this guy on September 5, or, if you’re a Republican, vote for this guy on September 5.” Don’t you think that if they endorsed, say, *only* Crist in the primary that Democrats might say, “Well, crud, if they’re going for Crist, we may as well sit on our hands this time around.” Instead what they’re saying is that since the Florida election system is the way it is, they view primaries (at least in large races) as essentially two elections, and here are the endorsements for each.
Florida has what is called a “closed primary.” This means that you can only vote in the primary if you are registered with one of the parties that has qualified to be on the ballot in September. (There are several write-ins and no-party-affiliations) The http://election.dos.state.fl.us/index.html has a lot more than we could or should explain in Tommy’s comment box here.I can see how you think it seems hypocritical of The Times to endorse two candidates who may run against each other, because they’ll eventually have to endorse one over the other in the general. But if that is the case, if Crist and Smith do run against each other (and even if they don’t), the paper’s editorial board will get back together and decide who’s better of the two based on qualifications, etc.
Really, Dave, I am open to a better idea, but I’m not 100% sure you’ve proposed it yet.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:40 am
You can’t create a hubbub where there isn’t one, Dave.
Thanks for playing.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
If I’m the newspaper I’m theoretically interested in good government, regardless of where along the political spectrum its practitioners lie. I’m going to endorse the best person in the dem primary, and the best person in the rep primary, and I’m going to endorse in the general too–but just because I have preference in the general doesn’t mean I don’t have a preference in each primary.
As a citizen I can only vote in the dem primary, and I voted for Smith (absentee, and not just because he we share a name); I intend to vote for him in the general, too, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a preference in the GOP primary. I’m not certain Smith will win, and I would rather see a Governor Crist than a Governor Gallagher. So I have a preference. If I’m a newspaper, you bet I’m going to endorse in both primaries. May the best man win, but if not, what’s wrong with pushing for the second-best, rather than just whatever schlub comes out of the opposing primary?
August 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, ya Melwood.
(Just kidding — thought I’d make you smile.)