« Can't Win for Losing | Main | For Play »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

About time. These openly biased and intellectually deficient journalism majors remind me of an old Hollywood movie star who believes she is still entitled to free meals even though her looks are gone.

Maybe their left wing professors will take them to lunch in the cafeteria at Harvard, Yale, and Columbia. They are entitled to something to make-up for the money they spent on tuition taught by aging hippies stuck in 1968.

I agree that it's a good move. Why give your opponent (the paper) any more reason to hate you? JD learned that lesson the hard way.

The only time a paper's endorsement may matter is in the smaller races where people may not know much about the candidates. This is true of many legislative races.

Of course, the Republic's endorsement can work both ways. It will annoy some voters and reassure a few others. Give me direct mail any time.

Greg,

I don't know that the Republic's endorsement of Ogsbury was "irrational." I supported him and I don't consider myself irrational in the least.

But the rest of your post is spot on, especially about Hayworth. The Republic did help move numbers in that race because it gave the Mitchell camp what it wanted - a supposedly nonpartial third party cite saying awful things about their opponent, which they and the DCCC were able to use in their TV ads. To this day, the Republic editorial endorsing Harry Mitchell over Hayworth remains the single worst hatchet job I've ever seen done on any candidate anywhere. (A friend of mine says the worst ever was when Boh Enrlich was running for Governor of Maryland with running mate Michael Steele, who is black, and the Baltimore Sun stated: "By contrast, Mr. Ehrlich's running mate, state GOP chairman Michael S. Steele, brings little to the team but the color of his skin.")

My guess is that the Hayworth hit job played perhaps a decisive role in convincing conservative candidates, like Arpaio and Thomas, that there is no percentage in groveling before the Republic - the only silver lining in the entire sordid episode.

Mesa Joe

Right. Keep blowing off the Republic. Don't talk to anyone except the people who agree with you.

If someone doesn't adhere to 100 percent of your views, they're RINOS, and don't deserve to be a member of your party.

Yeah. That's how you win elections.

Keep up the good work.

Assuming The Republic had some small influence on J.D.'s departure, then they did us all a big favor. What an intellecutally challenged blowhard!

And the fact that the media really did not appreciate-right or wrong-the those two attacking the media with the arrest of the two New Times people has *nothing* to do with their decision I am sure.

Interesting comment, Sam. I thought ed boards were (at least ostensibly) a chance for candidates to appear before the journalists and convince the panel to endorse one or another. That would also pre-suppose the ed board is open to supporting the most worthy candidate; regardless of party. Your criticism (Don't talk to anyone except the people who agree with you) seems to support the idea that the Republic is already pre-disposed to oppose most Republicans in a general election. Therefore, appearing before their ed board is, in fact, a waste of time. A better use of time would be an open town hall or debate where a candidate will find both supporters and detractors and have a fighting chance at winning a few voters to his side.

"...it would seriously confuse our supporters were we to seek the Republic’s editorial endorsement."

And would only do them damage if they won it.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I may be -- but didn't the Republic endorse Hayworth on a number of occasions before the last election? What if -- and I'm just asking -- what if Hayworth actually did behave that way in front of the editorial board? Isn't that actually boorish behavior? Doesn't the description fit that behavior? Unhappy Republicans say the editorial was a hatchet job, but if it accurately describes what happened that day, he got what he deserved.

Maybe the Republic's endorsement of Mitchell back in '06 does represent what happened at that meeting on that day.

But there's a reason that conservatives like Greg take tape recorders to a meeting with reporters.

From the "Now it can be told" file...I was reading the comments with more than casual interest when I happened upon jdleslie's speculation and Joe G's subsequent comment concerning my alleged conduct on that day, and thought I would weigh in.
As the interview was proceeding, I caught myself not listening to Mr. Mitchell and thought it was impolite to just sit there staring at my hands, waiting for my next chance to answer, so I looked over at Harry and shifted in my seat to appear "engaged." That was what Nowicki and Maceachern evidently interpreted as an attempt at "intimidation," and it allowed them to utilize the sobriquet "bully," which I first saw in print about six months before courtesy of Mitchell spokesman Seth Scott, who established the template in an early interview that Harry was a "schoolteacher who had plenty of experience dealing with classroom bullies."
From my perspective, the most unpleasant aspect of that fateful meeting was the inclusion of reporter Jon Talton, who asked me several questions about an event that I did not attend, yet that the Republic wrote about at least four times--a Jewish community forum that was scheduled at the same time as the GOP LD 7 meeting.
I objected vociferously to Talton's line of questioning at the Editorial meeting, and thought that was the lowpoint of the entire exercise.
I recall trying to salvage the appearance with a historical anecdote about campaigning which drew a laugh from everyone around the table and served as the concluding comment at the gathering.
Perhaps it was a self-fufilling prophecy, but I remember expressing the opinion long before the Ed. Board meeting that the Republic would endorse Harry. After all, they had admonished him for the sign stealing episode while endorsing him for the State Senate in a remarkably "elastic" Editorial, and given the atmospherics of the 2006 Campaign, not to mention my opposition to Open Borders, I was correct.
Oh well...live and learn.
It appears the lesson is now being applied by the Sheriff and County Attorney, who have launched this remarkable "pre-emptive strike" against a once all-powerful newspaper.

The Rag assumes nothing is out rage us except Thomas and Arpaio.

One correction/clarification to my earlier post: the reporter who sat in on the Ed. Board meeting was Jon Kamman, not Jon Talton.
My apologies to Mr. Talton for the misidentification.

Now we just need an explanation of how Maceachern is a big fat liberal and we can all by into the idea the the Republic is a leftist bastion that has it out for conservatives, not that they might, oh, have some questions about how Joe and Andy arrested journalists and want on an illegal rampage through the 1st amendment. Or maybe they will need to answer questions about why they are working so hard (for publicity) to enforce laws they aren't even responsible for while failing in the very duties they were elected to perform? Nah, its not like Joe and Andy want to avoid those questions.

todd,

If you're looking for a solid, impartial investigation on these issues from the Republic, that horse is already done and gone.

But maybe Linda Valdez will weigh in on the matter.

Joe G. - So how come the crazy liberals at the Republic endorsed Thomas in 2004? Perhaps Joe and Andy are getting some bad press now (woefully late in my book since) because they actually are doing a bad job for the county. Just like maybe JD was in fact being a bully.

todd,

I read your post above as desiring an AZ Republic investigation, but see you weren't necessarily saying that.

And I'm certainly neither capable of nor patient enough to try and determine the Republic's intent over the years. Perhaps the "stopped clock" thesis applies.

But maybe politicians also get "bad press" for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with their fitness for office or their performance at a specific event. J.D. (above) disputes the Republic's version. And Greg feels the need to record a recorded conversation.

Perhaps the saddest thing here is that the state's largest daily has been ignored by candidates for two major offices, and the public couldn't care less.

The comments to this entry are closed.