In Which I Question Whether Robert Novak Is Still A Serious Journalist
By Erick Posted in 2007 — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In Robert Novak's weekend column he writes:
The biggest political upset so far of this election cycle reflected rank-and-file Republican disgust with the party establishment when former State Sen. Jim Whitehead was defeated Tuesday as the anointed successor to the late Rep. Charles Norwood in a heavily Republican northeastern Georgia district that includes Athens and suburban Augusta.
Dr. Paul Broun, a little-known physician, outworked a complacent Whitehead to win the battle between two conservative Republicans. Broun's aggressive mail and telephone campaign attacked an overconfident Whitehead, who did not even respond. Whitehead had led Broun, 44 percent to 21 percent, in the first round of balloting.
Although the seat will remain in Republican hands, Whitehead's unexpected loss terrified those incumbent Republican House members who had thought themselves safe for re-election in 2008.
Never has so much been written so grounded in absurd fiction. Now, folks, I'm pretty sick right now and have a solid bit of codeine in my system about to send me off to sleep.
But I believe even under the influence of the good stuff and with half my brain tied behind my back, I can lay serious waste to this bit of journalism and must therefore call into question whether Robert Novak can still be considered a serious journalist based on this piece.
Let's read on, shall we . . .
The biggest political upset so far of this election cycle
Well, at least he started with a nugget of truth.
rank-and-file Republican disgust with the party establishment when former State Sen. Jim Whitehead was defeated Tuesday
There was no "rank-and-file Republican disgust" in this election. In fact, Broun and Whitehead are virtually identical on every issue.
as the anointed successor to the late Rep. Charles Norwood in a heavily Republican northeastern Georgia district that includes Athens and suburban Augusta.
Bookmarking bullsh*t on either end with truth, does not make the middle more than it actually is.
Dr. Paul Broun, a little-known physician, outworked a complacent Whitehead to win the battle between two conservative Republicans.
Actually, Paul Broun was quite well known in the western half of the district where he picked up about 90% of the vote. He's been campaigning for various offices for years and was stalking Charlie Norwood straight to Norwood's deathbed in an ambitious, and ultimately successful effort, to get elected.
Broun's aggressive mail and telephone campaign attacked an overconfident Whitehead, who did not even respond.
Had Novak just stopped here, he would have been good. To recap: Whitehead did no phones, no television, no mailings, and no polling during the runoff. Of course he got outworked by Broun. Duh.
Whitehead's unexpected loss terrified those incumbent Republican House members who had thought themselves safe for re-election in 2008.
If they are truly terrified, Bob, then they should lose. The only thing they should be terrified of is the thought that they might actually have to send out a mail piece or ask someone for their vote.
Frankly Bob, if you and the Hill had paid attention to this race, you'd . . . well, let me recap for you again:
Jim Whitehead did no mail, no television, no radio outside of two eastern counties, no phone, no polling, and no door to door.
I just don't see how "incumbent Republican House members" could really be "terrified" by this campaign because it was not a campaign. There was no campaign. Jim Whitehead did absolutely nothing and, consequently, lost.
Why does this pass as serious journalism? Please tell me.
« The OH-05 Special Election Matters — Comments (3) | Upset in GA-10? Broun ahead of Whitehead — Comments (11) »
In Which I Question Whether Robert Novak Is Still A Serious Journalist 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Erick
Were those the only issues at play, advertising?
Why did the guy who look to be the heir apparent go in in the tank? Were there other issues at play?
_______________________________
None of the Above !
is valid, even if Broun and Whitehead are ideologically identical, because Whitehead has been in state government for so long and campaigns like it's his entitlement. Whether real or simply perceived, Jim Whitehead's words and actions suggested detachment from his prospective constituents. The timing of the immigration reform bill saga was, of course, no help to Whitehead in the face of this voter perception.
I wasn't pleased with our runoff choices either way but there are lessons to be learned from this race, if not the exact ones Novak thinks he's deduced.
Whitehead's only been in state gov't for three years. He was first elected to the state Senate in 2004.
I don't like the naysaying and backbiting either, but Novak does have a legitimate (albeit overstated) point. Trying to read national trends into one congressional race is like trying to read tea leaves without the leaves. Nevertheless, Novack is correct that a very strong anti-incumbent and anti-establishment mood permeates the national political climate, nad Whitehead's defeat may in some small way be indicative of that.
On the other hand, it's also important to remember that:
1) Democrats are almost as unpopular as Republicans right now.
2) The Georgia race did not feature an incumbent, so it's not really a perfect weathercock for measuring voter discontent.
3) The Democratic leadership (especially Harry Reid) is taking a beating in the polls almost as severe as the one President Bush has endured for the last two years. That's a problem for them since, unlike the President, they will face re-election again.
4) Some conservatives are angry at their party's leadership over issues like immigration, the government's handling of the war, etc. Many of them are also angry simply because they don't like losing like they did in 2006. But that does not mean that they are ready to jump ship to the Democrats.
So are there problems with Novack's column? Yes, there are. But that does not mean, as Erick has argued, that "never has so much been written so grounded in absurd fiction." After all, Paul Krugman is still writing for the NYT, isn't he?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
You say that Broun can't be "little known" because he's known by 90% of a portion of the district... but that much alone can't get somebody elected. Where I grew up, our state House district was dominated by two cities, neither of which was particularly closely tied to the other (in fact, there's a bit of a rivalry between the two of them). Usually one party's candidate would come from one of the cities, and the other would come from the other, and it came down to whether or not demographic forces in play would push one or the other over the top, as a candidate would be well-known in his hometown but a literal unknown in the other.
In this case, when taking the district as a whole, Broun probably did have lesser name recognition than the "establishment" Whitehead (like Erick, I disagree with Novak here). That being said, it does have implications for a party that suffers from an unnatural level of complacency and malaise going into next year's election season... and hopefully the emergence of elected officials like Broun help to, at the very least, shake up the political landscape a bit.
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones
The Washington establishment should be worried. Not that good Republicans will start voting Democrat, but that good Republicans will throw the bad Republicans out of office in a primary. This district still voted overwhelmingly Republican in the initial election. What we don't want are people who go to Washington and behave like the Republicans behaved over the last 6 years or so.
A lack of campaigning probably did cost Whitehead the election. It was a close election after all so it wouldn't have taken much to put him over the top. But he also took a divide the district and conquer approach. He could just as easily have won if he would have given two shakes about Athens.
Another important lesson for all candidates. I did get a "get out the vote" call from Whitehead on election day. I think I received 3 from Broun in the week leading up to the election. Why is that important? Because we have early voting in Georgia. I'd already voted by the time I got the Whitehead call. I've noticed this in other elections where the calls come after I've voted. Republicans need to make sure they "get out the vote" on more than just election day.
The lesson here may be that, whether Whitehead was motivated or not, the Republican voters in this district became motivated. I don't live there so I'm not sure what motivated this significant shift (I can guess but it would only be a guess), but the people who run the Republican Party had better find out. Shifts like this in voting just don't happen without a strong underlying cause.
it is because they are thinking that they might actually need to wander back to their district and campaign. They might need to face the peasants that they rule. My House rep (term "my" used loosely) has a stated policy that he won't campaign unless there is a credible candidate running against him. Whatever that means is whatever he says it means.
Just because you disagree with Novak's analysis doesn't mean he is any less a journalist. He writes the only decent column in Washington - that actually includes some reporting and not just commentary. His analysis is not terrible - a Republican machine candidate loses to everyone's surprise. It makes no difference that he was beaten by someone who is just as conservative - it might very well signal disgust with the machine.
"But I believe even under the influence of the good stuff and with half my brain tied behind my back, I can lay serious waste to this bit of journalism and must therefore call into question whether Robert Novak can still be considered a serious journalist based on this piece."
Long answer, Novack is right.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
because they have taken the base for granted and their elite expectation of winning without effort has obviously shaken them to the core and I say good and a pox on those who feel that going out to get every vote is beneath them. I also really despise when other journalist's called Novak a conservative, he is no conservative and I personally take nothing he says to heart.