Eric Zorn already covered this, but Rick Pearson suggest that the Senate Campaign suffers from candidates with low character. I couldn’t disagree more.
Oberweis’ character seems to be questionable. But let’s look at the others:
Obama. One of the finest public servants I’ve ever seen.
Hynes. Ditto
Hull. Perhaps a bit cocky to think he can jump into the Senate, but I don’t see any major character flaws. Some mistakes (as the two above have made), yes, but nothing other than human weaknesses.
Chico. Fine public servant.
Pappas. Again, a fantastic person.
Skinner. Nothing suggests she has low character.
Washington. Delusional perhaps, bad character no.
McKenna. Seems like a decent guy. Boring, but decent.
Rauschenberger–Pearson’s complaints appear to be that he said something stupid and he has ties to Chris Lauzen. Now, my feelings on Chris Lauzen are well known, but Rauschenberger is a decent guy.
Wright. Very decent. Perhaps too decent.
Kathuria. Self-promoter–does he go over the line? Maybe. I’m not sure it really matters at 1%.
Borling or Ryan. Well one of them has a problem and we don’t know which one it is. Borling is a special kind of bastard if he pushed this story and it isn’t true.
People’s warts should be shown in an election campaign, but putting them in perspective is critical. Few of us would want to be judged for our worst days in our lives. Most of these folks make up for it by being decent and honest most days. Playing politics within bounds isn’t some horrible character flaw. And this is a group that I have found to be especially inspiring with minor exceptions–and Jim Oberweis.
Yes, none of us would want to be judged based solely on our failings.
Yet that is exactly what Rick Pearson did in his March 14th article on the candidates in the Senate primary. He has done Tribune readers a great disservice by leaving them with the impression that, because the candidates in the Senate primary are such a sorry lot, it doesn’t matter who wins.
That is just wrong. There are several, good, moral candidates. It matters who wins.
Mr. Pearson could have focused on the substantive qualifications of each candidate — or even just the front-runners on each side ? and helped the voters make a thoughtful and intelligent choice. Instead, Mr. Pearson decided that “character” was going to be the main story of this election, even though character was/is an issue for only a tiny minority of the candidates.
Mr. Pearson’s own story is the best evidence that, although it is the theme of his story, a shortage “character” is not the issue of this campaign. Despite his best efforts to somehow tar each candidate with the “character” brush, Mr. Pearson was unable to identify ANY character issues for most of the candidates.
Just look at what Mr. Pearson attempts to pass off as “character issues” among the Democrats:
Mr. Hull is a neophyte loner.
Mr. Hynes lacks passion.
Mr. Obama missed a vote because he was with his sick daughter in Hawaii.
Mr. Chico pays some of his organizers.
Ms. Pappas’ ads are ineffective.
Ms. Skinner is just a talker.
Ms. Washington ran for a meaningless constitutional office.
These are barely issues, much less “character issues.” And most of the Republicans provide Mr. Pearson with no more potent ammunition.
But because Mr. Pearson’s campaign theme of failed character would not have worked had he merely limited himself to focusing on a couple of Republicans and single Democrat, he was forced to try to magnify the insignificant into the substantial. While he did not succeed in doing so, he did succeed in conveying his personal belief that the outcome of the race for Illinois junior Senate seat just doesn’t matter.
If the readers of Mr. Pearson’s article are left with the impression that there are no meritorious candidates in this Senate primary, it is due to a lack of character.
But not on the part of the candidates.
Readers Suffer from Poor Character of Reporters
When Rick Pearson formally launched his Senate campaign coverage, Trib readers must have rolled their eyes and thought ‘here we go again.’ Meanwhile, readers of the Sun-Times were struggling with more of the same. While Sun-Times coverage read like a “News of the Weird” column, the Trib relentlessly focused on just three issues that most voters find useless to their decision-making – polls, who raised the most money and divorce matters.
All this has left readers questioning the characters of Pearson and Sun-Times political writer Scott Fornek. “Are these men really that lazy?” one reader asked, noting that articles about, say, the effects of trade policy on jobs in Illinois, are only more interesting if you put in time, while a poll story can be knocked out in three hours before a long lunch.
Another reader, pressing home a theme that voter after voter raised, asked whether the superficiality of coverage reflects editorial direction from above, or whether it simply mirrors the shallow character of the two reporters …
Rick Pearson, the ethically-challenged political reported for the Tribune, is the last guy who should be questioning the character of candidates.
Let’s not forget about his cozy relationship with GOP consultant and George Ryan pal Paul Lis.
Pearson is thisclose to Lis. As was reported in the Sun-Times and Capitol Fax last year, Pearson testified as a character witness at a DUI trial for Lis while he was covering Lis’ biggest client, George Ryan. And, don’t forget, Lis got Pearson’s wife a job with the State Lottery during the Edgar adminstration (another Lis client,) and in the Sec. of State’s Office when Ryan was in charge. When Scott Fawell’s “political favors” list was made public last year, Pearson was confronted about this glaring conflict of interest (he was getting political favors from the politicians he was assigned to cover!) and he and the Tribune issued a series of Clintonesque deniles. The information about his wife’s employment history put his harsh coverage of Glenn Poshard during the ’98 campaign in a whole new light.
This guy is ethically unfit to be a political reporter in Illinois and he’s questioning other people’s character? How does the Tribune get away with this?