BY MIKE CETERA
OneMan has dissected our endorsement of Bill Foster as no big surprise. To him, in races that involve a "real" Democrat, our editorial board almost without fail chooses the Democrat.
He cites several recent races as evidence.
Their attempt to act like that because they endorsed Hastert in the past that the fact that they endorsed a Democrat is a big deal. In virtually every contested local race (where there is a 'real' democrat running) they endorse the democrat. The first Holmes vs Wintermute race, they endorsed Linda Holmes with out even mentioning that she wrote for them. They endorsed Weisner over Irvin, Chapa LaVia over everyone, I don't think anyone would consider the Beacon a 'Republican' paper. Nice try framing it that way Beacon.
I can just as easily pick examples of when we've chosen a Republican over a "real" Democrat (although there aren't a lot of "real" Democrats who have run in these parts), which I suggest just proves the folly over trying to label the editorial board.
In 2006, we endorsed Jack Cunningham for Kane County clerk over Annie Collins.
In 2002, we endorsed Bob O'Connor for 83rd House District over Linda Chapa LaVia.
In 2002, we endorsed Ken Ramsey for Kane County sheriff over Pat Perez.
I'd also note, we endorsed Hastert in his first run for Congress over Mary Lou Kearns.
Taking a look at OneMan's examples (and, to be clear, he's been unambiguous in his support of Jim Oberweis), I'd argue the editorial board gave preference to Holmes over Wintermute not because of party affiliation but because of proximity. She's from Aurora, and is better equipped to understand the needs of this community. From the endorsement:
However, our endorsement goes to Holmes, as much because she is from Aurora as because of her background. Holmes has proven to be a dogged advocate for the little guy. She was, after all, the little guy herself a number of years ago when she participated in a charge against Aurora City Hall as a member of a group of neighborhood organizations. What began as a somewhat confrontational gathering of residents upset at what they saw as the city's neglect of older neighborhoods became a collaboration between the city and its residents on a blueprint for change.
Weisner vs. Irvin was a coin toss, with the edge going to Weisner based on experience. From the Weisner endorsement:
Irvin has made it clear he would set the agenda for city government and surround himself with quality professionals to carry out his vision, and he has been more specific about his plans for running the city than some have given him credit for.He has a tremendous passion for Aurora' future, and, with some experience and seasoning, we believe he can be a great public servant and would welcome his candidacy for political office.
And, as for Linda Chapa LaVia, I mentioned earlier that we endorsed O'Connor over her during her first run. From the O'Connor endorsement:
O'Connor, on the other hand, has a long and proven history of accomplishments and commitment to Aurora.For more than 17 years, he has served as an alderman at large, which means he understands a multi-million dollar budget and knows how to get things done in the political arena. In addition to his leadership capacities on the City Council, he sits on the board of directors of the Northeastern Illinois Area Agency on Aging and is chairman of the Illinois Council on Aging. He's also on the board of directors for the Aurora Police Foundation, Joseph Corporation, the Aurora Foundation Scholarship Committee, Visiting Nurses Association Scholarship Committee and has served on a variety of other boards, as well as president of the Aurora Exchange Club.
Bob O'Connor might be more low-key than his opponent. But he knows this community inside and out -- and he gets things done.
Annie Collins is a 'real' Democrat? Yikes.
If you want a more recent example, I'll add the Beacon editorial page's continuing love affair for State Sen. Chris Lauzen.
No one can possibly decipher what this endorsement ‘means’ since, as Mike so clearly pointed out in the link below, we (the readers) can't possibly know who among the editorial board agrees with this endorsement. It could be one of them; it could be all of them.
Since they don't sign the endorsement, we may never know who wanted to endorse whom…unless Dave or Mike would volunteer the outcome of their deliberations here.
http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconblog/2008/02/what_is_bill_foster_afraid_of.html#comment-33404
CETERA REPLIES:
Every endorsement and editorial is in effect "signed" by the members of the editorial board, whose names are posted every day in the masthead.
Since the endorsement is an institutional opinion, a vote tally is an unnecesary obfuscation of what an opinion of the editorial board is really all about.
For this and other edit board opinions, I'll let my earlier explanation stand.
But I'm curious, how does announcing who took what position make the voter any better informed?
Mr Cetera,
I would be interested, perhaps other readers of this Blog as well, of just how you or the Editorial Board define a 'real' Democrat or a 'real' Republican.
Thanks
CETERA REPLIES:
To be clear, I was reflecting on OneMan's critique in which he threw out the term "real" Democrat. Having said that, I think most people know what he's driving at.
A "real" candidate of any party is one that should have the expectation of being taken seriously by the voters, i.e. legitimate. Using that logic, most Democrats who ran against Dennis Hastert during his term in office would not be considered "real."
To borrow from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, I can't necessarily define a real candidate, but I know one when I see one.
Mike, first off, I'm happy to learn all I can about this process, and I appreciate your continuing dialogue.
If it is possible that the ‘big bosses (can) overrule the rest of the board’ in theory, than what does this editorial mean if we don’t know whether that occurred or not? For example, if Mr. Nagel simply imposed his will on the rest of you, than Dave Parro’s whole argument (editorial boards know the candidates better) goes out the window right? Now it's just Mr. Nagel's personal opinion. Even more troubling, your readers would never know if Mr. Nagel did this or not since you don’t disclose that fact because as you state, it’s an institutional decision.
The whole discussion of whether newspapers should be in the business of endorsing candidates is probably best left to the journalists themselves and professors of journalism. And in that spirit, I would point readers to this Philadelphia columnist who makes the case better than I ever could in two great posts.
http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/another_great_argument_for_new_1.html
http://www.attytood.com/2008/01/you_cant_support_obama_and_mcc.html
Just to be fair, I recognize that this discussion of endorsements in newspapers is not new or simple. It’s a widespread conversation and I found this little nugget from the Columbia School of Journalism highly enlightening.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/stengels_wrong_about_endorseme.php
There is no easy answer…but to me, an evolution in process is probably in order and this blog is a great start.
My observation is the Beacon supports the status-quo, tax increases, big government and wild spending. Most of them tend to be Democrats.
I don't think the Beacon supports fiscal responsibility based on their editorials over the last couple years with Weisner's actions.
Well I now know where my traffic spike came from, thanks :-)
Since you guys charge to search back in the archives I had to rely a bit on memory to see where the endorsements came from.
As for Cunningham in 2006 I had forgotten that. The point I had made in the first draft was it seemed you tended to go Democratic when the position was 'open'.
Obviously you didn't do that when the 83rd was a open seat and I didn't recall that.
However your repsonce in part on Linda Holmes does beg a bigger question, is your endorsement based on who would best serve the district or best serve Aurora?
CETERA REPLIES:
OneMan asks a great question: Is your endorsement based on who would best serve the district or best serve Aurora?
In the case of races with multiple jurisdictions, it's fair to say we have a better idea of the needs of Aurora than, say, Dixon or Joliet.
When it comes to the Holmes-Wintermute race, use of the word proximity probably wasn't quite right. Familiarity seems to be a better word.
The newspaper, and specifically the editorial board, knew what it was getting with Holmes because many of us had seen her in action. I was covering City Hall as a reporter back when she brought neighborhood groups to the City Council to protest the city's treatment of older neighborhoods.
It was clear with her work then that she epitomized grass roots, a term that unfortunately has become cliche. She caused change by force of will. Whether or not you agreed with the results, it was impressive to see her take on the establishment and win.
To me, no matter how strong her partisan or philisophical credentials were, Wintermute was something of an unknown quantity here. Not so to our sister paper in Joliet, which endorsed her. My guess (and it's only a guess) is Wintermute won their endorsement for many of the same reasons we endorsed Holmes.
On a side note, the Tribune's endorsement today of Foster noted the now-infamous Oberweis commercial quoting Foster as saying "There's nothing in life that you can't improve by pouring money at it. ..."
From the editorial:
"Foster did say that, at a League of Women Voters debate. But the transcript makes it clear he was talking about the federal government's 'poor efforts' to improve air-traffic-control safety. His conclusion: 'This is one example of a place I would look to save taxpayer dollars.'
"And Oberweis' immediate response at the debate? He said: 'I find myself in the almost embarrassing position of tending to agree with Bill on some of his comments there.'"
Oops. I should have recognized that that was part of a response to a question I asked at the debate. So, don't blame Oberweis or the National Republican Committee. Blame me. :)
Thought your endorsement was great-and to be honest, never thought Tribune would also endorse Foster. Both Editorials were well thought out- I just hope Oberweis doesn't win.
Even the Wall Street Journal referred to his nickname-The Milk Dud.
Guess both parties see this as a preview of November nationally.
Not doubt the Democrats will keep control in the Congress-so if Oberweis is in, we won't see anything in this district for a LONG time.
I refuse to vote for him because of the way he treated Sen. Lauzen
Anonymous,
So you are a big Oberweis fan... Anyway using your logic every district should strive to have a congressman from the majority party since that would be the only way to 'get things done'.
So using your logic we should have never elected Hastert in the first place since the first time he was elected to congress the Democrats controlled congress. Sticking with your thought process then we might as well have congress just be a national election and have everyone in congress be the same party because that is the only way things get done. We see how having one party rule has worked so well in Illinois over the last few years.
Using your logic we might as well not even bother having a Republican party right now in Illinois.
Finally 'I refuse to vote for him because of the way he treated Sen. Lauzen', so you would instead either not vote or vote for a candidate who has positions on most major issues (taxes, abortion, national defense, the war) that are significantly different than Senator Lauzen.
Did you not get the cow mailers from Lauzen or any of the other Lauzen mailers?