* The Chicago Tribune editorial page defended its endorsements today…
Answer our phones or read our inbound e-mails and you’ll learn from Democratic activists that the Tribune reflexively has endorsed Republicans for Tuesday’s election. That is, our endorsements are preordained, partisan, party-driven. And the party is Republican.
Trouble is, that allegation would anger hordes of Republican activists still steaming that, in 2008, this page endorsed Barack Obama for president and Dick Durbin for senator. This year we’ve reopened those GOP wounds because, in two tight U.S. House races, we endorsed Democrats Melissa Bean and Bill Foster. Plus four Democrats and an independent, Forrest Claypool, in Cook County’s five countywide races. Plus six Democrats and two Green Party candidates (as well as six Republicans) running for Cook County Board. And a Democrat on the Illinois Supreme Court who faces a tough retention race. And so on …
The paper then moves on to its legislative endorsements…
We also hear complaints that we’ve endorsed people who aren’t likely to win, as if electoral prospects have anything to do with who’s best for the job.
But their logic is flawed. Their legislative endorsements do, indeed, appear to be preordained and partisan, and they appear to have provided themselves some partisan cover by what could be called a strategic endorsement of no-chance Democrats.
If you look at the Trib’s endorsement list, you’ll see that the Tribune did, indeed, endorse several Democrats for the General Assembly. Trouble is only one of those Democrats is actually in any sort of race. The rest appear to be completely safe from defeat right now.
For instance, the Tribune endorsed Sen. Michael Frerichs (D-Champaign), a tireless advocate for a tax hike, who is up against a tea party-backed Republican who had to run a write-in campaign to get on the ballot because the local GOP didn’t want much of anything to do with him. That candidate was recently slammed for allegedly racist remarks during an NAACP-sponsored forum. No state Senate Democrats in tough races were endorsed. Zero.
In the House, the Tribune endorsed one Democratic incumbent who is now having real trouble: Rep. Kevin McCarthy. But at the time of the paper’s endorsement, in late September, the House Republicans weren’t really doing all that much for McCarthy’s opponent. There were lots of rumors at the time that they just couldn’t get along with the guy. They spent less than $7,000 on him between July 1 and October 3rd. That’s all changed since then, however.
The Senate Republicans told me a few weeks ago that a member of the Tribune’s editorial board traveled to Springfield to meet with their Downstate candidates. The Senate Democrats said no such offer was made to them.
* The Sun-Times editorial board obviously leans Democratic, but that paper has been far more willing this year to endorse Republicans in hotly contested races. They backed three such Republicans in the House and two in the Senate.
Look, it’s the Tribune’s shop. They get to do whatever they want. I respect that. But a little more honesty, please.
* Speaking of endorsements, the Peoria Journal Star went after JUSTPAC today for its ads against Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Kilbride…
The conduct of JUSTPAC, the political committee of the Illinois Civil Justice League and Kilbride’s primary nemesis, has been a big turnoff. The pro-business group’s leader channeled Malcolm X, of all people, in promising to use “whatever means necessary” to defeat Kilbride. The organization’s tactics prove that, not least of which was an ad using actors and graphic images to portray Kilbride as siding with violent felons. Some media outlets, including in Peoria, pulled the ad after its accuracy was questioned. Specifically there was an implication that Kilbride had voted to overturn the conviction of a serial rapist when in fact the case had been returned to the judge for resentencing because of procedural error. The ad did not provide that context.
JUSTPAC, which has raised nearly $650,000 in trying to end Kilbride’s Supreme Court career, has overreached here, has not played fair, especially for a group ostensibly representing the interests of healers. Arguably that has backfired, as it seems to have energized Kilbride’s supporters.
“Channeled Malcolm X”? Yikes. But I’m not sure they’re right about the JUSTPAC ads backfiring. Kilbride was in big trouble before those ads ever started.
* Roundup…
* Gauen: Long campaign pain turns to decision time
* Daily Herald: Dirt may deliver, but it’s not right
* Record Spending This Election Season
* Are Illinois voters too turned off by corruption to vote?
* Despite Visits by Barack, Michelle Obama, Likely Illinois Democratic Turnout Stagnates, Poll Data Says
* Mitchell: State Democrats lose group of black ministers
* Thomas: The morning after Nov. 2
* Chapman: Ending the incumbent protection racket
* Kilbride defends record before retention vote
* Doctors express dislike of Kilbride
* SJ-R: Elect Topinka, Rutherford to state offices
* News-Gazette: Support Topinka for comptroller
* News-Gazette: Keep White as secretary of state
- Moving to Oklahoma - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:05 pm:
I will try to say this in a way that does not get deleted or is over the top. It seems like this blog has a vendetta against the Tribune.
- shore - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:11 pm:
In some cycles papers have vendettas against parties. They say we like your service very much mr.publicservicecritter but we dont like what your party is doing and your vote for who will control your legislature is also a vote we have to consider and we will endorse your opponent.
this logic was used to cremate a generation of republicans during the down years for the gop. People that had served scandal free for a generation and done good but for whom the papers no longer thought their party was qualified to govern. It sucks, but it is part of life.
- Logical Thinker - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:12 pm:
This story is ridiculous. Is there equal reporting on the fact that the Sun-Times is even MORE partisan in their endorsements in the major races? I’d love conversation about their practices as well.
If anything, the Sun-Times is the one that reaches further to the extreme (that being the left) than the Tribune does to the Right.
As for Kilbride, I’m concerned that he has raised $3M with 60%+ coming from unions. How is a State Supreme Court justice supposed to remain neutral on any case that involves employment/business practices when that kind of money is involved?
- Tom Joad - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:14 pm:
Every election the Tribune has structured their endorsements to give a majority to the Republicans in the State Legislature. Endorsing Chicago Democrats as a balance to their solid Republican majority must make them think they have fooled everyone.
Can the Trib point to any year that they recommended enough Democrats to equal a Majority in either branch? No!
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
LT, this post is about legislative endorsements. Stick to the topic, please.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:18 pm:
The endorsements by editorial boards aren’t worth the paper they are being decreasingly printed on, and comments on their policies not worth the bytes we are spending on them.
- budget boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:19 pm:
All of the dems who are in tough races sided with the teachers union on the school choice bill because they wanted union money. The Trib viewed that bill as a defining vote this year and it influenced their endorsement decisions greatly (as it should have). It was a major vote on education policy (which most view as the most important policy area in Springfield).
Did any of the dems in tough races vote for school choice?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:26 pm:
Most interesting piece by Mary Mitchell in Sun times about African-Americans dems staying home or supporting Cohen b/c of way Art Turner was treated. Chickens coming home to roost, I reckon,
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:27 pm:
===Did any of the dems in tough races vote for school choice? ===
Yes. And your premise is absolutely false, by the way.
- dc - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:31 pm:
Honesty from the Tribune editorial board? I agree with you Rich but I’m laughing. I think what Cincinnatus says deserves more investigation. I’ve often wondered if lawmakers aren’t running scared of editorials or endorsements that really have no effect on the electorate.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:33 pm:
Well, the Trib edit board has felt a little bit under fire lately. That’ll happen when your company’s management is driven out for boorish behavior (first reported elsewhere), while your owner drives you into bankruptcy, wipes out your retirement plan and gets caught playing ball with Blago for financial gain.
Hard to maintain your perch on Mt. Olympus with all that going on.
You’ll recall how indignant they were when it was suggested that Zell, off all people, might try to influence their edits.
Of course, a former member of their edit board had been quoted in the NY Times as saying just that.
Somehow, they forgot their own history. Old Col. McCormick would have been very surprised to learn that he couldn’t use his news or edit pages to push his personal or business agendas.
In the late 80s, a lobbyist worked quite openly out of the paper’s news bureau under The Dome, with reporters taking his phone messages from lawmakers(no mixed signals there). The current head of the edit board was down there at times in those days — I doubt if he missed the lobbyist laying on his office couch, taking calls on the Trib’s office line, smoking cheap cigars and drinking Budweiser morning, noon and night.
It was widely believed that a GA candidate could secure the paper’s endorsement if the lobbyist was hired as a consultant. That went on for years.
The old-timers will tell you that George Tagge, the Trib’s political reporter, would come down to Springfield for session days and stand in the press boxes in the House and Senate and give a thumbs up/thumbs down as legislation was called. Obedient GA members would snap in line.
The Trib itself, in a historical review, bragged about the use of its edit, news pages and reporters to muscle the GA when the Colonel wanted McCormick Place built.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-mccormickplace-story,0,3818943.story
So spare us the high dudgeon.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:39 pm:
If the Tribune editorial board is going to hide behind their endorsements of Durbin & Obama, they should be intellectually honest enough to mention that:
1) Those endorsements made ABSOLUTELY no difference on the outcome — Durbin & Obama were always going to win IL big.
2) Obama was the first Democrat they endorsed for President in forever. And I’m wondering if they’ve ever endorsed a Democrat in an open seat race for U.S. Senate.
Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, its always a sad day when any paper becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of either party. That’s why I’ve always admired the ed board policy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and admittedly progressive paper whose ed board policy specifically warns against becoming a partisan tool.
Is the Tribune just another screwdriver in the GOP toolbox? Not >quite yet
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:49 pm:
BTW, Budget Boy:
If Education policy is such a defining issue, why doesn’t the Tribune give any Democratic target credit for:
1 - Reforming teacher pensions
2 - Expanding school choice through charter schools
3 - Voting against the Teacher’s unions
The Illinois Chamber of Commerce called this year’s pension reforms landmark. Do Dems get any credit? Nope.
Democrats had the fortitude to say No to one of their key constituency groups: teachers’ unions. Whether you agree with their votes or not, that’s the hallmark of independence from Special Interests that folks say is missing from bipartisan politics.
If the majority of Republicans ever broke from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, you’d expect them to get credit from a progressive editorial board. Right? But do Dems get even a modicum of credit from the Tribune? Fat chance.
Why does it matter? Look, frankly it probably doesn’t change the outcome of any of these legislative races, because the Tribune is the Tribune.
But what it does is send a clear message to Democrats: don’t bother trying to pass bipartisan legislation: the editorial boards will only throw you under the bus at election time.
- budget boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:58 pm:
Kevin McCarthy voted for School Choice and he is the lone democrat in a tough race who was endorsed by the Tribune.
What other Dem in a tough race voted for School Choice?
- budget boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:10 pm:
Ask the candidates who were in the endorsement sessions. They were all asked about the school choice. You can argue about the wisdom of using this issue as guiding vote, but it was defintely important to the board.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:17 pm:
budget boy, a sizable number of House Democratic incumbents were not endorsed by the IFT this year for various reasons, including that one.
- budget boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:21 pm:
I thought we were talking about the Trib endorsement.
- budget boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:27 pm:
And, I agree that the endorsements were largely partisan. But if you go back and read the legislative endorsements, they heaped great praise on the dems who voted for school choice. That vote provided an opportunity for dems to avoid Trib scorn and a chance at endorsement.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 2:55 pm:
–If anything, the Sun-Times is the one that reaches further to the extreme (that being the left) than the Tribune does to the Right.–
The Sun-Times has had so many owners over the years, they don’t have a coherent, long-term viewpoint.
They started out as a liberal counterpoint to the Colonel, who hated his old prep school classmate, FDR. (Actually, if you read anything on the Colonel, he pretty much hated everyone, especially his family).
They skated along in the middle of the road with the Fields (certainly no Bolsheviks), but were to the right of the Trib under Murdoch, Page, and Lord Black of Crossharbour, currently a guest of the federal government.
It’s not hard to discover that. They actually put it in writing, every day.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 4:31 pm:
budget boy:
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. The list of Republicans endorsed by the Tribune who oppose vouchers is almost longer than the list of those who do:
Adam Wojcik
John Millner
Chris Nybo
Ruth Munson
Sid Mathias
Lauren Turelli
Sandy Cole
Rosemary Mulligan
Don Moffitt
Renee Kosel
Maripat Oliver
Jim Sacia
Michael Unes
Rich Myers
Wayne Rosenthal
Adam Brown
John Cavaletto
Dave Luechtefeld, Dale Righter, Glenn Farley and Mike Bost were endorsed but didn’t even fill out a questionnaire — how do you explain that, other than to say that the Tribune is in the tank?
I’m all for a vigorous public debate about vouchers, but let’s have it over an honest voucher bill.
Not a flawed bill that buys off support from Mayor Daley by allowing CPS to keep a portion of the state tax dollars earmarked for kids leaving the system.
And not a limited bill that only impacts Chicago. Chicago isn’t the only failing school district in the state, nor even the worst.
And not a watered down bill that allows kids to leave one under-performing public school to attend an under-performing religious school that isn’t even required to file a school report card.
Nope, give me a REAL voucher bill that gives my son a chance to attend Latin School or Wheaton — then lets see how the GOP and Tribune editorial board feel about it.
- budget boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:10 pm:
None of the dems running against those republicans support vouchers. If they did perhaps they would have received the trib endorsement.
Kevin McCarthy supported vouchers and got the Trib endorsement.