Chronicle of an idiocy foresoldby: Paul Rosenberg
Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 12:00
<snip>
Last Sunday, Robert Cruickshank (aka "Robert In Monterrey") wrote a diary at Calitics about what might seem like a minor non-event, "The SF Chronicle's Absurd Senate Non-Endorsement". However, as he showed,
there was considerable significance to the Chronicle's refusal to endorse Barbara Boxer--and it's a significance that goes well beyond California: Newspaper endorsements are of limited value, especially in high-profile statewide campaigns for major elected offices like US Senate. And yet they can sometimes frame the way a campaign is discussed, and shape perspectives about a candidate, especially when the editorial board's assessment is very deeply flawed.
And that's why the San Francisco Chronicle's decision to not endorse anyone in the US Senate race is our attention. The rationale is contradictory and ignorant of key facts, producing an outcome that lacks basic intellectual credibility.
Their basic argument is that while Carly Fiorina is an extremist who doesn't share California's values, Barbara Boxer has spent too much time representing California's values. Because Boxer wouldn't sell out California's progressive values to implement a bipartisan set of corporate-friendly policies, the Chronicle views her as "ineffective" and therefore not worthy of support.
For some Californians, Boxer's reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.
In other words, because Boxer spent her time doing what her constituents asked and voting according to the values and views shared by a majority of Californians, she's not a good Senator? A "usually correct vote on issues they care about" is pretty damn important for most Californians, especially given the stakes in this election.
But it's not just that Boxer stands up for Californians that got the Chronicle mad - it's that she refuses to cut corporate-friendly deals.
The Chronicle rips her for not being "bipartisan" - without acknowledging what everyone who pays even a slight bit of attention to national politics understands, that Republicans are not in a mood to compromise on anything:
Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone's list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it - climate change - was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.
So it's Boxer's fault that the extremist Republican Party, which now systematically denies the existence of global warming, refused to support her bill that was shaped largely on the basis of California's AB 32?
This failure to admit the extremist nature of the Senate Republicans, their unwillingness to compromise, is a huge flaw in the Chronicle's assessment of Boxer's career. They claim she cannot "reach across party lines" - but have they been paying attention these last 15 years?
The Chronicle non-endorsement is perfectly in tune with the sort of reasoning that Barack Obama advises, with almost no exceptions: any compromise is better than any fight. So you can't get Republicans to agree to an actual solution to global warming? Fine, take whatever compromise they'll give you and call it a solution.
Boxer wouldn't play that game. She tried to hold out for an actual solution. And when the GOP decided it wouldn't play that game either--that it was better for them to blow everything up, then what exactly was Obama's "Plan B"? Oh, yeah! Cut off funding to Ecuador and Bolivia!
Now that's real leadership, let me tell ya!
Barbara Boxer, OTOH: Solutions that solve things. What a concept! How rad is that?
*************************************************************************************************
p.s. It should be noted that the Chronicle's coverage area is one of the most liberal in California, including Boxer's home Congressional District. When talking about their own audience, Boxer is far more in tune with the people than the Chronicle could ever dream of being, politically.
They do not represent San Francisco. They represent Versailles.
<snip>
Link:
http://openleft.com/diary/20333/chronicle-of-an-idiocy-foresold:shrug:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
