Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Big bad Wolfe, little worse editorialist

While the "news" paper can't seem to find any room, or qualified reporter, to report on John Wolfe's views or positions on any campaign issues, it always finds room to mention some failing.
In the Saturday, 30 October, issue, is a big mention on his campaign's not having its filings up to date, and a mention that his 2010 campaign is running with money left over from a previous campaign.
Really important stuff.
But what does John Wolfe stand for?
For that matter, what does any candidate in this or, really, any other race stand for?
Even the allegedly endorsing editorial -- Times editorial endorsements are just knee-jerkily for Democrats -- takes time for a sneer:
"John Wolfe may be fighting a losing battle in carrying the Democratic banner -- again -- in the District 3 race, but he is easily the best informed candidate around." Which is sheer nonsense, of course.
However, in the "debate" mentioned previously, Mr. Wolfe did show more knowledge about foreign policy than the two others who showed up.
However, Mr. Wolfe is woefully lacking in knowledge about, for example, economics, about the Constitution (even though he is a lawyer), and about the nature of human rights.
Come to think of it, that also, and better, describes the editorial writers of the Times.
I guess, if I had to choose between the Times and Mr. Wolfe, I'd take the latter. He, as evidenced by his late radio talk show, is at least willing to listen to other opinions.

Editorial points out a shameful fact

Despite the millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours spent by candidates and campaigns, Tennessee again had a low voter turnout.
There are, of course, many reasons for that, including generally lousy, even terrible "news" reporting.
Another reason is the difficulties placed on ballot access by Tennessee election laws.
Still another is the lack of quality candidates and, in some races, the lack of any opposition to entrenched incumbents.
At least six legislative positions were not contested.
It is not possible to have good government -- if there even is such a thing -- without broader citizen participation.

Monday, November 01, 2010

No surprise: More bad reporting

In its continuing lousy coverage of the Third District race, this is a paragraph from a story on Sunday, 31 October: "Also running are tea party independents Savas Kyriakidis, co-owner of the Acropolis restaurant in Chattanooga, and businessman Mark DeVol, of Oak Ridge, along with several other independents."
Two gross errors: Mr. DeVol lives in Andersonville, not Oak Ridge, and three of the other independents have withdrawn and endorsed Mr. DeVol.
Only Don Barkman has not withdrawn, but he has campaigned almost not at all.
Normal people might think a "news" organization would know this.
And perhaps a genuine news organization would.

More TFP schizophrenia

Only slightly surprising, the Times has editorially endorsed John Wolfe for Congress.
We expect a knee-jerk endorsement for every Democrat, even Democrats who have not campaigned and who are almost totally unknown. (However, apparently strangely, the Free Press often endorses Democrats, at least locally, and it might prove some kind of open-mindedness missing from the Times editorialists but the Democrats so endorsed are nearly always terrible legislators.)
Here is the schizophrenic part: The "news" department continues its mistreatment of Mr. Wolfe (who is an elitist and fascist, but otherwise a nice guy).
In the Sunday, 31 October, edition is this "news" story: "David Wasserman, who follows U.S. House races nationally for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, ... said ... there's no contest in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District. He said Republican attorney Chuck Fleischmann, of Chattanooga, is the heavy favorite over Chattanooga attorney John Wolfe, a perennial Democratic candidate."
Harold Stassen was a perennial candidate. Nelson Rockefeller was a perennial candidate.
John Wolfe ran in 2002 and in 2004. He did not run in 2006 or 2008.
"Perennial candidate" is, of course, a pejorative term, a sneer.
And about what we expect from this rag of a paper.