My hometown newspaper today reprinted Tom Campbell’s op-ed in the Washington Post, an op-ed where Campbell pleaded for a pardon for Tom DeLay.
I have already expressed my two-cents worth here and here.
However, I noticed that the Austin American-Statesman’s version was noticeably shorter than the Post’s op-ed—about 140 words shorter.
Now, I know from personal experience that the Statesman’s editorial page editors are sticklers for word count on columns: “650-700 words maximum,” and, yes, Campbell’s original op-ed was about 790 words long.
But, let’s look at what was taken out:
“Understandably, I am not on his Christmas card list.” (This is Campbell speaking) Hmmm, OK.
“Partisan foes on both sides have engaged in trench warfare, seeking to achieve their goals by any means necessary.” Well, OK.
But then, this entire paragraph:
Perhaps the tragedy of Tucson can be a landmark in the progress of our political process. The courage, hopes and ideals captured so eloquently in President Obama’s eulogy can set a tone for American politics for this decade or be forgotten as our actions belie our pleasant rhetoric.
And the following words were taken out from the follow-up paragraph: “…and take us one step closer to becoming the United States idealized by 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green.”
The original follow-up paragraph read:
We are at a crossroads where a grand gesture – an extraordinary olive branch extended over the partisan divide – could cement the gains we appear to have made and take us one step closer to becoming the United States idealized by 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green.
I have already commented on the inappropriateness and insensitivity of linking a plea for a DeLay pardon to the Tucson tragedy. Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post made an even stronger case.
Now, I am not alleging anything sinister or “conspiratory.”
If it was a matter of word count, I commend the Statesman for taking out the “right parts.”
If it was because the Statesman recognized such inappropriateness and insensitivity, even bigger kudos.
If it was at Mr. Campbell’s request, even better, and words of appreciation to him.
Issue closed.
But what did the Statesman readers think of Campbell’s plea?
I am only quoting some of the more “charitable” ones:
–DeLay damaged Democracy, he did much more harm to the nation than Rangle.
–NOT!!!!
–One of the more bizarre editorials I’ve seen in quite awhile. Pardon Delay? Yeah – how ’bout when my “Picasso Snake” District is returned to something other than a Republican, one-party dictatorship? Thank you Tom Delay for singlehandedly assuring that my Democratic vote in Texas will never have a fair chance of competing on a level playing field.
–Just like other white-collar crimes, you must set the precedent that this will not be tolerated. How will giving a pardon to DeLay keep others from doing the same thing? How do you argue that he shouldn’t go to jail because it his crimes were not for any personal financial? That’s like saying, let’s pardon the bank robber because he gave all the money to his church. Give me a break.
–Tom DeLay deserves more than the three years he was given. Just a little slap on the wrist. I think he suffered more pain and agony when he was on “Dancing with the Stars.” What was he thinking?!?!?!?!
–No thank you, Gerrymander Hammer boy deserves much much much more punishment for curtailing my rights in Texas.
In all fairness there were one or two supportive comments.
