A Democrat reads a tough editorial against him in the New York Times and pulls his nomination to the Cabinet in response.
Almost any Republican in a similar circumstance - with the possible exception of John McCain - would laugh it off and wear it as a badge of honor. If it were campaign season, they might even mine the editorial for nuggets to send out to their email list.
Not to say a Republican with Daschle's recent problems wouldn't be facing some difficulty, but be influenced by the Gray Lady's opining against them? Not exactly.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 03, 2009 01:18 PM | Email ThisHow is it a badge of honor for a Republican when the NY Times editorializes against an obvious wrong choice? A Republican should stay the course in the same circumstance? Is that really what you're saying (it is what you're saying).
Republicans, for years now, have lived with the negative ads and use the negative ads (at least those purely ideological, which the NYT is) as a badge of courage.
As for a Republican staying on if they had tax issues, well, Republicans always drop out at the drop of any controversy- read Linda Chavez and others with nanny problems. If it were a tax issue, be assured the Republican wouldn't even have been nominated if they had anything like Daschles issues.
The thing to consider is why does the intelligent and super smart Obama nominate the guy when his vetters surely had seen the tax issues? Did he think he could get away with it?
Obama is reminding me of a high school kid winning the student body president election and is now filling slots. The problem is that he ain't student body president.
Posted by: swatter on February 3, 2009 01:52 PMSaying that Daschle would have stayed in if the NYTimes had not editorialized against him is speculation rather than fact (Has he said that's why he withdrew?)
When you say that Republicans live with negative ads, are you saying that there have been no negative ads targeting Democrats?
This seems to be a case of inventing a story line to fit what's already in one's head, as opposed to writing something factual - which is fine - no one's claiming accuracy here.
But then, isn't that what the NYTimes does too?
Posted by: BA on February 3, 2009 02:06 PMI provide links for a reason. One of those above specifically discusses (and shows tape of) media coverage where Daschle is reported to have decided to withdraw after reading the Times's editorial. That fact has been discussed on other news outlets today as well.
Furthermore, my last sentence in the original post made clear that a Republican with similar problems would also be facing difficulty (for good cause). The point is and was that people on the left seem to believe what the NY Times editorial page has to say is of some value. Republicans don't...and can at times relish in being attacked by the Gray Lady.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 3, 2009 02:18 PMHeck, I'm a Democrat and I wouldn't even say that SoundPolitics is of no value!
Posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2009 02:25 PMWell, not the value you think it is.
If I were an elected Republican getting blasted by the NYT, that would tell me I must be doing something right.
Posted by: jimg on February 3, 2009 03:01 PMAlso, it's a pretty safe bet if it were a Republican administration presiding over this mess, they wouldn't be blasting the nominee - they'd be killing the GOP prez for being so dense running this many crooks out there in the first place.
Posted by: jimg on February 3, 2009 03:06 PMGuys, you haven't seen nothing yet. I bet this is the first guy to quit as president. He doesn't have the guts to last.
Posted by: swatter on February 3, 2009 03:46 PMRepublicans believe that the NYT editorial page is of no value?
Depending on how you define it, yes. Obviously, the NYT matters, and influences people. In that sense it has value, unfortunately. Perhaps a better way to say it is that the NYT editorials have no SERIOUSNESS.
Really? Are you proud of that?
Eh. It is what it is.
You do make a good point about Miers though (even if you couldn't get her name right). She resigned primarily, IMO, because of heat from right-wing publications ... heat the left wing would have just laughed off.
NYT writes editorial for democrats when it is a major tax fraud issue while it does so when a republican simply breaks his fingernail.
That said, democrats quit after the editorial while republicans simply pay no attention to meaningless NYT editorial.
Posted by: DopioLover on February 3, 2009 04:01 PMSo then, what's the big deal? A left leaning publication has more influence on left leaning folks and less on right leaning folks.
Presumably right leaning publications have more influence on right leaning folks and less on left leaning folks. I'm thinking this all may well be a tautology. (Here's where Pudge will step in and comment I'd expect).
More interesting to me is a vetting process that is either sloppy or subject to candidates lying - either way it's the press, left of right, that continues to need to report this stuff.
That said,
Posted by: BA on February 3, 2009 05:52 PMAny recent examples of a president withdrawing a nomination when the candidate wanted to go forward?
Posted by: BA on February 3, 2009 06:01 PMIf his staff had done a proper vetting, Obama wouldn't have nominated him in the first place. I keep hearing after the election that the "adults are back in charge", but I and most other Americans are finding little evidence to substantiate that statement.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 3, 2009 06:59 PMFinally,
Here’s a question for Daschle (and for that matter, Timothy Geithner, who had tax and nanny problems of his own that didn’t stop him from being named Treasury secretary): When you amended your taxes and coughed up about $140,000 in back taxes plus interest, did you feel like you were stimulating the economy as much as you would have if you had spent that money yourself?
Posted by: chuck on February 4, 2009 07:37 AM