Print This Post Print This Post

Jul

14

Not even Nannygate or infidelity are Nannygate or infidelity anymore, so why do “small tax issues still matter”?


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 a Nannygate-sized tax problem 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”?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:27 am July 14th, 2009 in Campaigning, Ethics, Government, Jennifer Brunner, lee fisher, Media, Ohio, Politics, Primary, senate, Taxes 

Comments

5 Responses to “Not even Nannygate or infidelity are Nannygate or infidelity anymore, so why do “small tax issues still matter”?”

  1. 1 Jason on July 14th, 2009 9:10 am

    That sounded more like a campaign endorsement rather than a news story.

  2. 2 John Ettorre on July 14th, 2009 10:37 am

    Good point, Jill. You’ve persuaded me that this really shouldn’t have been worth mentioning. But all the silly sound and fury about who supplied the tip, if that’s indeed how it came to MN’s attention, is just a distraction from the core issue, which you’ve nicely addressed in an adult manner.

  3. 3 Jill Miller Zimon on July 14th, 2009 11:00 am

    Thanks, John and Jason. As usual, I am serious. What does it mean to say/suggest/want the tax issues of relatives who aren’t running and which even the journalist calls small in a world where voters let go of far worse behavior of elected people in much bigger roles?

    What’s the compass now?

  4. 4 Anastasia P on July 14th, 2009 3:26 pm

    Also, BIG tax issues didn’t matter, apparently, for Lee Fisher, who knew about his successor’s issues at the department of development but didn’t share. I’m concerned about a standard Naymik (and possibly Fisher) is setting up here: If issues this trivial and secondhand “matter,” then no one is going to pass muster. It’s a standard Fisher won’t be able to meet once Portman gets his hands on the oppo research (and who are we kidding — he’s probably already got it). At that point, Fisher won’t be able to count on friendly interpretation from the dailies, who will support any Republican before any Democrat as long as the Republican isn’t a total mess. And complaints from Fisher about attacks on his family from the Republicans would have no credibility.

  5. 5 Jill Miller Zimon on July 14th, 2009 3:34 pm

    Interesting point, Anastasia. Hadn’t gotten that the first several times reading it. Gawd. Lowering the bar so low that anything and everything “matters”? I just don’t think voters buy that, I really don’t. In fact, I think that’s pretty much what I’m making the case for above – voters aren’t finding much of ANYTHING to really matter – I mean, not with any consistency. And the papers (and bloggers) can’t MAKE voters care.

    I’m not sure where the voters are getting their sense of what does in fact matter to them in terms of politicians and political candidates, but I would guess that sticking to reviewing what someone says they are going to do and whether or not they do that is still of prime importance. How else can we explain the existence of so many politicians who truly HAVE abused power and continue to be in office? Dems and Republicans a-plenty.

    Just because a blogger says it doesn’t make it so – just because someone writing in the city’s paper of record says it also doesn’t make it so – esp. without an explanation as to why something “still matters.”

    It matters because…why?

Leave a Reply




"));