 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Going on the record with presidential endorsements – Open Thread
Like a lot of newspapers, The Des Moines Register is preparing to endorse a presidential candidate this weekend. But the road to that announcement took an odd turn on Tuesday.
President Obama called to talk with Laura Hollingsworth, president and publisher, and Rick Green, editor/vice-president of news and make his pitch for the paper’s endorsement. Great. But he spoke with them under the condition that the talk be kept off the record. Not great.
So they took the call. It is the president, after all. Then Green wrote a blog post detailing what happened. It got a lot of attention.
This morning, the White House abruptly released a transcript of the call. You can read it here. I’m not sure, judging by the conversation, why the White House would make such a boneheaded set of conditions to a news organization. There’s hardly anything shocking in the interview. But transparency has not been this administration’s strong suit, contrary to big promises in 2008.
I understand the impulse to not make unplanned news at a critical moment when you’re trying to stay disciplined. But in this case you end up making news anyway, news that makes you look silly and secretive. Nice job.
Oh, if only we here at The Gazette had these high-profile problems. Our requests for interviews to both Obama and Republican Mitt Romney have not been granted. Our endorsement comes out Sunday, in case you’re interested.
And maybe you’re not interested in endorsements at all. I, honestly, don’t think they carry any weight on voter choices. But I also think if we’re going to have editorial views on all sorts of public policy issues, we ought to weigh in on who makes those policies.
Perhaps you have thoughts, endorsements, etc.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
It really makes no difference to me, they have no influence over my vote. Would it truely surprise anyone they would back Obama? If they feel they have an influence over peoples vote maybe they could publish a story on the virtues mass hypnosis.
It really makes no difference to me, they have no influence over my vote. Would it truely surprise anyone they would back Romney? If they feel they have an influence over peoples vote maybe they could publish a story on the virtues mass hypnosis.
Its pretty much a forgone conclusion that the DMR is going to endorse Obama. They’re the state’s leading liberal newspaper–the last time they endorsed a Republican was Richard Nixon in 1972.
So why the Obama campaign felt it so “critical” to pick up the DMR’s endorsement and be only willing to talk “off the record” with the DMR is utterly amazing.
The Obama campaign is running more and more off the rails by the day. Instead of talking about plans for a 2nd term…the Obama campaign has been reduced to talking about Big Bird, binders and bayonets in the past 2 1/2 weeks.
Absolutely no one cares what The Register “thinks”. The Register was at one time a respected regional newspaper with national readership (hard to believe if you are under age 40, but true). It has degenerated into a local rag like the one that you are currently perusing (which never had aspirations beyond being superior to the Waterloo Courier, a low bar indeed). How the mighty have fallen.
Lorenz,
The family that owned the Register, and had owned the Register for a long long time, sold it to Gannett twenty years ago. It went into an immediate downhill slide from which it has yet to recover.
As for its political leanings, maybe at one time it was a “liberal” paper, but once Gannett took over, a person would have to be many steps to the right of Rush Limbaugh to ever consider it “liberal”
They endorsed Nixon in ’72?
Roberta—the Register has endorsed EVERY single Democratic candidate for President since 1972.
That means they endorsed, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and of course Barack Obama. The DMR is a LIBERAL paper, no doubts about it. Roberta
Oh, Roberta–the DMR was sold to Gannett in 1985–nearly 30 years ago
Todd Johnson
I don’t understand how once every four years endorsing a Democrat makes the Register a “liberal” paper.
It’s like saying that because a majority of Iowans voted for Obama in 2008 that makes Iowans progressive, tolerant, accepting of people who are from somewhere other than Iowa.
It doesn’t.
Iowans, for the most part, are fairly conservative, fairly provincial. If the majority of Iowans vote for Obama this time around, it will be because the Republicans blew it by being so utterly weird.
As for the line-up of Democrats endorsed, every single one of them managed to successfully create an image of themselves such that whatever they had accomplished in life, they did it on their own by diligence, discipline, and hard work. In Iowa terms, that’s a plus.
McCain came off as old, sick, and tired. When he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, he just looked foolish. Bob Dole was an unfortunate joke. GHW and GW Bush both had the disadvantage of entitled old money, and Reagan was an actor which made him hard to figure. Too much Hollywood glitz. Ford, unfortunately, had the albatross of Nixon around his neck.
I would argue that the Register’s endorsements had less to do with politics, liberal or conservative, and more to do with who seemed to match with basic Iowa values better.
The usual concensous is… it makes no difference. But a more interesting question might be, “In the last 20 years, what newspapers endorsement has been the most accurate?” Any statistics on that front, Todd?
As a side note. I noticed the Gazette did there own little factoid check of Romneys speech tonight. Did I miss Obamas factoid checks after his visits? If so, will someone direct me to them? With the Gazettes recent gag order it’s frustrating that we no longer have a voice to correct stories that are woefully misleading.
A newspaperman once asked an incarcerated bank robber why he targeted banks. ‘Because that’s where the money is.” was the reply. Same deal with the GOP campaign- the fact checkers may appear biased but there is simply more raw material in the form of intentionally-misleading statements there for them to work with.
As a US Senator once observed, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”.
Except, Sue Kettleson, Romney has far more “factoids” that need to be checked. Starting with Iran is landlocked and shares a common border with Syria.
As far as the Gazette “factoid” check goes, what did you find in what the Gazette said that was inaccurate?
It’s not a matter of an excusable misspeak, Romney has made the inaccurate Iran-Syria border claim before. Iran is claimed to be a major threat in the Mid East and a major foreign policy concern for the next administration and Romney doesn’t even know a few basic facts of geography about the country.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/newsplus/worldnews-90970.html#.UIllva7rlos
Todd,
I keep reading your article and I have yet to figure out what the deal is.
What I’m getting is the impression that the Register is staffed not by journalists but by gossips. Green’s blog was incredibly petty. And besides that, there was nothing in the transcript released by the White House that isn’t public information.
If the Register’s editorial staff had been willing to sit on what is already public information for a few hours, they would have gotten their interview which doubtless would have been a repeat of the original call. They would have been happy. The White House would have been happy. The public would have been happy. So what is their problem?
I didn’t learn much in high school but one thing I did learn is that if you insist on blabbing everything you are told, you won’t have many friends left at the end of the day.
So if the Register endorses Romney, I’m going to conclude, based on this kerfluffle, that the Register did it out of spite
That’s funny…if they endorse Romney they did it out of spite…ya …ya…that’s it…I’m voting for Romney too…out of spite for Obama…inspite of his lies…in spite of his failed hope…in spite of his many executive orders for change…in spite of his many many failures…inspite of the cover ups of fast and furious and in spite of the latest…Lybia….the inspite of could go on….but in spite of all the inspires you get the picture…..in spite of being a lib …
Moser,
Yeah I get you. That you can’t tell the difference between “out of spite” and “in spite of”.
What you posted was that “in spite of” all the lies and failures and coverups you are still going to vote against the President. Which means you are disappoointed that there were’t more and better lies, failures, and coverups
By the way, I assume that you know about the fundraiser in Dallas last night (10/25) featuring Josh Romney, Paul Ryan (via video), Rance Preibus, Dick Cheney, and Glen Beck. You remember Glen Beck. He was the one so far out in outerspace land that FOX News finally had to can him.
Oh and Colin Powell endorsed Obama. It seems Powell neither likes nor trusts Romney’s Neo Con foreign policy advisors. You know. Da Guys who got us into a war with Iraq.
Now can you give me some specific reason to vote for Romney without resorting to attacking Obama for stuff—like Fast & Furious—that date back to the Bush Administration.
Oh and there is no such place as “Lybia”
Where’s the beef? Where the expose on why President Obama lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi? Where’s the discussion of the failed economic policies that have lead to unemployment above 8% for 3+ years, $16 trillion federal debt, increasing poverty and people on food stamps.
Where are the JOBS???????????????????????????
Where is the HOPE????????????????????????????
Ellis,
Where is the expose?
Refer: “Benghazi: The Real Libya Story Is No Story”
By Michael Hirsh | National Journal – Wed, Oct 24, 2012
concluding paragraph:
“even Romney seems to have grown a bit tired of the Benghazi story, as he indicated on Monday night when moderator Bob Schieffer made Libya question No. 1 in his final debate with President Obama and the GOP nominee basically ignored it”
Obama’s “failed [sic]” economic policies managed to drop the unemployment rate from over 10% in 2009 to its current rate of 7.8% with a net gain of over 5 million jobs in the last three and a half years. We’ve had consistent gains in job creation since 2009 as opposed to the steep drop off the cliff that marked the end of Bush’s term in office
The 16 trillion in federal debt has a lot more to do with 30 years of supply side than it does with Obama’s policies. Clinton handed Bush a balanced budget with a surplus in 2001. Bush immediately blew it with two expensive unnecessary wars and a massive tax cut.
Increasing poverty and food stamp use? And what do Republicans propose to do about that? other than cut the programs that keep people living in poverty and needing food stamps from starving to death?
Oh wait. i know. It’s the Ebenezer Scrooge approach. If the poor are going to die, then they best be about it and reduce the surplus population.
Enough with the complaints Ellis. Come up with a solution.