For what it’s worth, I decided last night that as of noon today
(central time), I will no longer write any formal columns about the
GOP intra-party presidential contest, nor will I blog about it
except to report breaking news developments in a sort of FYI format
without my own comments — with the exception of doing straight
news-type reports if any candidate comes through my neck of the
woods on the Gulf Coast, as several are expected to do before the
March 13 primaries in Alabama and Mississippi. (If I make any other
exceptions, I will explain WHY I am making such an exception.)
Why this new rule? Because the latest Romney low blow, the
swiping of the extra delegate in Michigan in clear contradiction of
the rules, made me so angry that, combined with my obvious
preference for Santorum over Romney, I feel I have become too
clearly a partisan in the battle to maintain enough analytical
distance to overcome what is now a “rooting interest” for Santorum.
By analytical distance, I mean exactly the sort of ability to try
to set aside biases to figure out where the race goes from here, as
I did in
my column yesterday in which I wrote both that Santorum still
has a real shot at this thing but also that Romney clearly is the
favorite — and explained why, apart from what I
hope happens, the race is likely to play out in a
certain way. Agree or disagree with my conclusions there, one would
probably need to acknowledge that I made a strong attempt to use my
political-scientist-analyst hat (not that I am officially a
political scientist, with only an undergrad degree, not a post-grad
degree, in poli sci/government) and show all candidates’ strengths
and weaknesses completely apart from how much I like the candidate
or not.
It is incumbent upon an opinion journalist to be transparent for
his readers about his biases. When the biases get in the way of
some of the standards of journalism, one should withdraw from the
field where the biases apply. I have now reached that
point.
To be clear, an opinion journalist of course has opinions and
can express them forcefully. I clearly did not approve of Newt
Gingrich’s quest for the White House. But in numerous debates I
still was able to give him credit for good performances, and I
immediately jumped in to write that John King’s question about his
marital history was out of bounds, and I forcefully defended him
against charges of racism and brought up his little-credited work
on behalf of revitalizing the city of Washington DC as one good
reason to praise him. In other words, I still felt, and showed,
that I could give credit where I thought it was due even while not
liking his overall candidacy. I therefore did not withdraw from the
field then.
But now I must. When I see Romney, I see red. So I am
withdrawing — again, only from the intra-party contest, not from
any other commentary.
It is the only fair and honorable thing to do.
Too bad Saul Anuzis in Michigan, and the Romney team everywhere
which has made a fetish of vicious negative campaigning, aren’t
anywhere near as honorable…..
