An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« The New Strain Of H1N1 Flu May Have Century-Old Roots

Journalism And TV: An Oxymoron? »

The Geithner, Ensign & Sanford Effect on Local Politics

Posted by JILL MILLER ZIMON in Economy, Media, Miscellaneous, Politics, Society.
Jul 14th, 2009 | Comments

This morning’s Plain Dealer editorial page features a column by senior political reporter, Mark Naymik, titled, “Small tax issues still matter in a heated campaign, even among two Democrats.” (And hey, I read it in the printed version, not online first).

In it, Mark writes:

Taxes seem to matter to U.S. senators when people come before them seeking confirmation to administration positions. Senate candidates should be held to the same standard. This doesn’t rival a Nannygate or an extramarital affair, but small tax issues still matter in a heated campaign, even among two Democrats.

Okay, but…between U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Senator from Nevada, John Ensign (R) and and South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford (R), not even Nannygate-sized tax problems or high tabloid-drama extramarital affairs seem to matter – Geithner got confirmed and Ensign and Sanford continue to serve in their elected positions.

Given that big tax issues didn’t matter for Geithner – the man overseeing our country’s treasury, and absolutely kookie circumstances of admitted infedility don’t matter for Ensign or Sanford, how is it that “…small tax issues still matter in a heated campaign, even among two Democrats”?

Do they? Should they? What?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

D. E.Rodriguez

Wow, Jill. Talk about mixing apples and oranges, taxes and sex/infidelity.

Having said that....ahhhh...good question

Dorian

GeorgeSorwell

Didn't tax problems stop other Obama nominees, like Tom Daschle?

Jillmz

Yes, George - thank you - but my opinion is that with Daschle, it was just to get him out of there - the bearing on his being with HHS really was not nearly as connected as Geithner's IMF-related tax issues - seriously, that is just so relevant. I'm not saying Daschle's wasn't at all newsworthy etc, but I suspect we could both agree that the GOP was so dedicated to not let Daschle through, I suspect they had other stuff waiting to deploy.

In the meantime, the GOP's failure to get Sanford or Ensign to resign adds to the irony of asking this question - what on earth DOES matter anymore? Where's the compass?

Jillmz

Dorian - I agree re: mixing apples and oranges aka taxes and infidelity. I was just following Mark Naymik's lead in the column - not really sure why he brought the sex and infidelity stuff into the piece to be honest.

jchem

In the meantime, the GOP's failure to get Sanford or Ensign to resign adds to the irony of asking this question

You know Jill, this is something that I'm having a very hard time understanding, especially with Sanford, since he is the Gov of my state. All of the major papers have called for him to go and a sizable number of folks in his own party have even backed it. However, the Repubs in the statehouse could only muster to "censor" him. They have officially declared the matter resolved, regardless of what us "little folk" say.

And I ran across something this morning on Memeorandum concerning Ensign--he's actually going to run for reelection. I guess that will be the final decision with regard to him, but I share the same question with you regarding the compass.

Jillmz

Thanks, Jchem. Part of the story behind the story here has to do with accusations that the Plain Dealer and/or the reporters/editorial writers are less than neutral in the Fisher v. Brunner Democratic primary and therefore are trumping up the tax issues of a candidate's spouse and 22 yo son far more than they need to be or should be. Others look at this from the journalism only side and say, this is news? How? Why?

Frankly - neither of those questions even matter in the face of the incredibly serious malfeasance of Ensign and Sanford. How can we tell voters to take a candidate's spouses and 22yo son's tax issues as though she shouldn't even be running, when those two elected officials are, as you point out, staunchly staying in?

I do almost always default to the voters - if we don't dump them or force our party's or other powers that be to dump them (same goes re: Geithner), then we have no one to blame but ourself. But I just don't get how any journalist - traditional or new media - can make the case, in the face of what voters are clearly allowing to pass as ok, that the issues mentioned in the PD column today "still matter." I definitely need an explanation, because I just don't see it - for better or worse - as I say. Maybe they should matter - but I don't know how you raise them to the level of mattering in the current climate.

Here's a post from a partisan (left-leaning) Ohio blog about the PD's column that includes a lot more detail about the other accusations re: the PD's motives etc. I am NOT promoting or condemning that post or its positions - just providing link for more info.

http://buckeyestateblog.com/mark_naymik_defends...

TheLogistician

There is a very simple reason why disgraced politicians should immediately resign no matter what the offense, or the talent they may possess which could benefit society: in this partisan, acrimonious, political environment in which we currently live, and at this point in time in our nation’s evolution, any elected official needs as much support from his constituency which he or she can gather. After the offense, that support base will undoubtedly diminish, and render their service less effective.

As for resignation, you might check out http://www.tinyurl.com/n3vlg3

blog comments powered by Disqus