The newspapers are starting to pay more attention to the races – and that’s a good thing. Wider exposure for the candidates – especially for free – is important.
An article in Thursday’s The Progress Index provides a look at the Senate race in the 13th between incumbent Republican Fred Quayle and Democratic challenger Steve Heretick. It is a recitation of the facts (albeit with a lot of missing punctuation, which I have added for readibility):
But both agree that the big issue is the abusive driver fees wrapped into the 2007 transportation bill. Quayle was among the negotiators of the bill, which included major court penalties for reckless driving. “We can’t hope to build highways on speeding tickets,” Heretick said. It‘s hurting terribly the incumbents like Fred Quayle who designed that bill and brought it into law. Those who were proud of the bill are now running and hiding from it.
Saturday’s Virginian Pilot contains an editorial about incumbents, with most of the focus on the Nick Rerras/Ralph Northam race in the 6th Senate district. Even though this is basically an opinion piece, it represents the consensus of the editorial board, which contains members on both sides of the aisle.
Absent a scandal, that kind of homespun politicking is ordinarily enough to give an incumbent like Rerras comfortable job security. But not this year. Dissatisfaction with the new abusive driver fees and the regional transportation authority has created an anti-incumbent undertow that’s surfaced formidable challengers across South Hampton Roads, several with noteworthy accomplishments.
The opinion part here is about the anti-incumbent sentiment, not the candidates themselves or what they stand for. Instead, the editorial lays out the credentials of those running, giving information to the reader that they might otherwise not have.
This is the role that newspapers should play more often: providing an unvarnished look at the candidates. Don’t expect the blogs to provide an unbiased opinion – no matter how hard some of us try, our advocacy for candidates often comes through.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Meanwhile, Brian Kirwin thinks the fact that they didn’t mention Bobby Mathieson indicates that he isn’t among the anti-incumbent wave that the Pilot thinks is competitive. I disagree. I think Brian should be grateful that they didn’t mention anything about the 21st. We all know how the Pilot feels about his candidate and it ain’t pretty.
Eileen, thanks for helping me spread the word.
Hey, Bri! I’m coming to see you tonight. I have my mapquest directions all printed out. Is finding parking a difficulty? How much $ should I figure? thanks.
I loved that they spelled Hank Giffin, “Geffen” in the editorial. That was just as bad as the phone poll I received a month ago from the Republican Party of Virginia in which the girl kept on calling him “Hank Griffin”.
Good catch, orfdem. You’d think the proof readers would have seen that 😉
Almost as bad as getting something “for free,” instead of just “free.”
😉
Not sure why you would think that misspelling the name of a candidate is not a worse offense. Yours is a choice argument – misspelling a candidate’s name is not.
Let’s not miss the point here, it’s not whether it is just “free” or “for free” but that the voting public is able to get candidates opinions without the candidate spending 90% of their time raising money to overwhelm us with their mail and telephone calls. We have “truth in lending laws” and “truth in advertising laws” but there seems to be no “truth in political advertising laws”. Seems to me that we need, excuse me but, “for free” unbaised media coverage of our candidates.
So let’s review the chronology: The Pilot editorial board always endorses incumbents, no matter how bad they are (ahem, Thelma, Nick). The Pilot editorial board then complains about how bad these incumbents are after they are (surprise!) once again re-elected. The Pilot editorial board then attributes the “comfortable job security” of these incumbents to their “homespun politicking,” all without a trace of irony.
How about just endorsing the best candidate, guys? We don’t have to have good cause to fire these incumbents. They have to re-apply for their jobs, each and every time. If they’ve done a bad job (ahem, Thelma, Nick), they should have more to prove, not less, because they are a known quantity. At least with a qualified newcomer, we have a chance of improvement. With a bad incumbent, we know it will never, ever get better.
Vivian, when I buy something for a dollar, I give them a dollar. When you buy something “for free,” do you give them a free?
T-Shirt — it is too bad we do nat have an unbiased media. But the media are people, and people are biased.
AEM – both ridiculous comments. I guess you believe the mail you get.
spotter – the Pilot editorial board does lean toward incumbents. That is part of their stated policy, which I mentioned in this post.
As for not having good cause to fire incumbents – well, I think you made the case for that 🙂 If someone is doing a bad job, he/she deserves to be fired.
Thanks, Vivian. I had no idea that the Pilot had an explicit policy to endorse incumbents. That explains a lot. They really should reconsider that policy.
So you think the people in the media are NOT biased?
That’s hilarious!