The JS editorial board whines:
The ad says the Journal Sentinel reports that Gov. Jim Doyle "secretly rigged a state Elections Board vote to try and steal the election."
Don't be fooled. The newspaper didn't write that. News stories reported on calls from a Doyle campaign attorney to Democratic members of the Elections Board before a key vote that was to determine if Green should return nearly $468,000 that went from his congressional campaign fund to his governor campaign. Another news report cited a call from the state Republican Party head to a board member on the same matter.
A Sept. 22 editorial mostly bemoaned the blatant partisanship of the Elections Board in that vote and urged reform that would remove partisanship from such decisions. Specifically, it urged passage of legislation that would have removed the partisanship.
Since the JS is parsing words, let's parse some more.
First, Green's ad doesn't quote the JS directly.
Moreover, the paper did cover the story that the Doyle campaign was in uncomfortably close contact with the Elections Board and strategizing. It cited damning e-mails.
The facts spoke for themselves.
In terms of partisanship, the reality is when Tom Barrett's case came before the board four years ago, Republicans did put partisanship aside.
But when the Dems on the board were to decide Mark Green's fate, they were given marching orders from Doyle's people and they went along in lockstep.
But the editorial also agreed with board counsel that there was likely nothing illegal about those calls, though it welcomed an investigation into whether open meeting laws were broken. So, "rigged?" "Steal?"
No controlling legal authority? That sort of thing? Give me a break!
"Steal" is a strong word. Agreed. But, it has shades of meaning. In the ad, I don't think "steal" is used to refer to broken laws. It's used to refer to dirty tactics and abuses that soil the electoral process; in effect, impacting the election in such a way that the people are robbed of a clean race.
The editorial goes on to pontificate about ethics, and how Green has ethical issues of his own.
Blah, blah, blah.
What bothers me about this editorial is that the JS is jumping down Green's throat for supposed inaccuracies in his ad.
Okay. So why doesn't the JS step all over itself to clarify Doyle's distortions of the paper's reporting?
Doyle can lie about Mark Green's position on stem cell research and the editorial board doesn't debunk how Doyle is trying to fool the public.
Throughout, the JS editorial board tries to appear above the partisan fray. Of course, the editorial itself proves otherwise.
Ethics is a worthy issue in this campaign. But misrepresenting what's reported won't help the cause.
How can the JS castigate Green for a debatable line in an ad when Doyle is the one who's clearly ethically-challenged?
No comments:
Post a Comment