Premature evaluation
Weeks before the candidates are selected, months before the general election, a newspaper gives an editorial nod to, admittedly, the likely winner. Why?
NEW ORLEANS — I understand that, practically speaking, we are under one-party rule here in Louisiana these days. Trump-backing Republicans run the state now and appear likely to for a while. I don’t like it but I understand.
What I don’t understand and don’t like at all is the apparent acceptance of this state of affairs by the editorial board of my city’s daily newspaper.
Flipping through Thursday’s edition of The Times-Picayune-The New Orleans Advocate, I was stunned to see this headline on the editorial page:
“Julia Letlow for U.S. Senate.”
Not, for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. For the U.S. Senate. (The online version of the editorial, with a somewhat different headline is here.)
Never mind that Letlow, currently a House member from northeast Louisiana, hasn’t yet secured her party’s nomination. Never mind that she still has to defeat state Treasurer John Fleming.
Never mind that her Democratic opponent hasn’t been determined yet.
Never mind that Thursday was May 28 and that the general election takes place Nov. 3.
Yes, Letlow, appears likely to win the June 27 Republican primary runoff against John Fleming, based on the strength of her showing in the May 16 primary and her endorsement from Donald Trump.
And, yes, it appears unlikely that either of the Democrats running in their party’s runoff — northeast Louisiana farmer Jamie Davis or New Orleans business owner Gary Crockett — will reverse the party’s fortunes. They are, after all, largely unknowns.
But it’s the job of news outlets, like, say, The Times-Picayune, to at least help us get a chance to know them.
A major newspaper should let the primary process play out, let the candidates debate, provide in-depth coverage of the candidates and let the electorate at large make some assessments before its editorial board endorses a candidate. Particularly, a candidate who has yet to win the nomination. A candidate whose chief political strengths so far seem to be political malleability (witness her abrupt and unconvincing turnaround on the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education) and cabinet-level obsequiousness toward Trump.
Yet, five months before the general election, the T-P knows what it wants. And that, apparently, is to prematurely endorse the likely winner.
“Looking at the entire field, Democrat and Republican, we believe that U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow makes the best case that she is prepared to make an immediate impact in the Senate, as she has throughout her career.”
For the record, Letlow’s story of personal resilience should be acknowledged. Her late husband, Luke Letlow, won the north Louisiana congressional seat she now holds but died of COVID-19 before taking office. She ran for the seat soon after and won it, representing her district since 2021.
She is the mother of two small children and her example of personal courage in the face of tragedy should be admired.
But her public embrace of Trumpism bespeaks political opportunism and cynicism.
Is she better than Fleming? Worse?
Hard to tell. When it comes to competing for support of Trump voters the two are in a fast race to the bottom. Both, for example, fully embrace the the “anti-weaponization fund,” that $1.8 billion pot of taxpayer money established to “settle” a frivolous lawsuit Trump filed against his own administration. It’s obvious purpose is to reward political cronies who have run afoul of the law. It may be the most nakedly venal scheme a nakedly venal president has yet done.
Surely, the editorial board of the T-P would want to at least listen a little harder to what the Democratic candidate, whoever he turns out to be, has to say on that or other issues before making an endorsement this far ahead of November. Perhaps, the board should at least consider not endorsing a candidate so apparently enamored of Trump’s self-dealing and failed policies.
“There are a few chapters yet to be written before Louisiana voters make their final decision known,” Thursday’s editorial stated. “The move to party primaries this election cycle means that the electorate has multiple chances to weigh in. We are hopeful that voters will see the process through to the end.”
That sounds nice but it rings hollow when the endorsement comes before the final slate of candidates is set and when that endorsement is so easily and glibly given to the candidate of the party in power.
The editorial board should have taken its own advice.
STICKING WITH THE PAPER
I often get upset with people who threaten to cancel their subscription to this or that news outlet over a headline, or editorial or even a story they didn’t like. I usually think that’s counterproductive.
When I saw Thursday’s editorial I almost reversed that position. It’s not that they endorsed a MAGA candidate. Although that’s bad. It’s that they made the decision so early and, apparently, easily.
I am sticking with the paper, however. I still have friends there. I admire the work they do. And I take to heart the note at the end of Thursday’s editorial: “No reporters or editors in The Times-Picayune newsroom or its Washington Bureau participated in any way in the endorsement.”