How has the local media covered Republican politicians' personal lives in the recent past? Consider Congressman Rick White, who unseated Maria Cantwell in 1994. White divorced in April 1998. The local media seems to have made White's personal life an issue in the 1998 election campaign, which White subsequently lost to Jay Inslee. It's been reported that White has subsequently explored running for statewide office, but hasn't proceeded. Would his divorce still be considered baggage?
The Seattle Times managed to cover White's divorce trial and the details of the dissolution settlement (here and here)
Then there was this May 4 article on White's Democrat challengers:
Both [Laura] Ruderman and Inslee - who in an interview today mentioned his wife and family six times - have dropped broad hints they will make White's recent divorce an issue.Was Ruderman's personal life an issue when she ran statewide? I don't think it was.
White's divorce was mentioned in this July 1998 candidate profile.
The Inslee campaign was using material from White's divorce file in his ads, according to this October 1998 article.
CNN's post-election wrap-up cited White's "very public, rather messy divorce" as a factor in his defeat. (read: the media chose to make the divorce an issue).
Could Rick White make a comeback in state politics? He has been mentioned as possible candidate for Senator or Governor in recent years, but here's one indication of how the media would treat him. Read the comments to this Feb. 2005 Sound Politics post, especially #23 by our good friend Sandeep Kaushik, at the time a reporter for The Stranger, referring to the "baggage" of White's divorce and a 1998 statement from White's ex-wife:
Ouch! That's the kind of thing that haunts a politician, the fury of a woman scorned and all that.I think it only haunts those politicians whom a critical mass of reporters choose to gang up on for other reasons. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 13, 2006 10:28 AM | Email This
You guys are dying to have the MSM cover this because you know Mike! and the NRSC would look like complete jerks if they brought it up. The blue noses already vote GOP, so the only thing it would do is disgust the rest of the public at such supermarket tabloid tactics. But its not news and its not relevant.
Posted by: wayne on October 13, 2006 10:45 AMThen why did the NY Times report it. Video Clip link and ALL.
It's a shame that a newspaper across the COUNTRY reports it, but our LOCAL fishwrappers can't.
The local's won't even report the slant of NY article, because it's topic was Civility and Mike.
Posted by: Chris on October 13, 2006 10:54 AMYou just can't see the point, can you? Your side are hypocrites. Plain and simple. You can rationalize all you want but the fact remains, your side are hypocrites. (Oops, I already said that)
Posted by: swatter on October 13, 2006 10:57 AMRepublicans in general at least have a pretense of having morals. Therefore, in the many cases when Republicans have moral issues the media makes a big deal about it. It's more making an issue of the perceived hypocricy of the Republican rather than of the moral failing itself.
Democrats on the other hand do not generally have even a pretense of having anything close to morals. Therefore, in the plethora of cases when Democrats have moral issues the media ignores it because it is not perceived as hypocricy.
Since Rick White is a member of the party that at least has a pretense of shunning immorality the media sees his divorce as hypocricy. If he were a member of the party that applauds immorality his divorce would be business as usual and, therefore, not newsworthy.
Posted by: Doug on October 13, 2006 11:35 AMThe GOP believes in right and wrong which includes a moral stand. This country has noble goals of freedom and human rights. Because this country and the GOP have lofty goals we are ridiculed when we are not perfect, and therefore called arrogant, hypocritical, etc.
I am proud of this country - it takes the stand, as do I, that it is better to aim for the stars and hit the moon, than to aim for the mud-puddle and getting a bulls-eye. Standing up in this country is the perfect target for the media and the mediocre. Bill Gates, Wal-Mart, etc. are criticized for what they do by people who sit around doing nothing instead of showing them how it should be done.
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 13, 2006 11:57 AMIt's an injustice, alright.
Posted by: Michele on October 13, 2006 12:37 PMI and other commenters have explained several times, in detail, that the Cantwell-Dotzauer relationship is about her glaringly bad judgment.
You have seen fit to ignore these explanations, and continue to claim that SP's exploration of this issue is about morality, or prudish attitudes about sex, or a shallow invasion of Cantwell's "personal life" just for kicks.
If you are able to explain why Cantwell's horrendous lack of judgement is an acceptable quality in a US senator, please do so. If you are unable to do so, would you please just admit it and move on?
In other words, please, put up or shut up.
Posted by: ewaggin on October 13, 2006 12:43 PMThe loan strikes me as much ado about nothing. And I would feel the same about both issues if they involved a Republican.
Posted by: Bruce on October 13, 2006 01:23 PMShe showed bad judgement in following her animal urges and slept with him. Ok, bad and if she said she made a mistake she'd be forgiven. But she doesn't and then she pays to keep it secret. She shows that she doesn't have ethics or morality in that case.
Posted by: Dengle on October 13, 2006 01:38 PMNice straw man Bruce, but it won't hold up. The real problem is her financial link to a lobbyist and the payola she returned to him in the form of $11.6 million in federal kickbacks. She brings new meaning to "being in bed" with a lobbyist.
Posted by: pbj on October 13, 2006 02:22 PMYes thor, but we still hold hope that one day you'll put down the crack pipe, dig your way out of that gutter, and join the rest of the human race...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 13, 2006 08:21 PM