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

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:34:21 +0000

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?

By: Anastasia P

Anastasia P — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:26:05 +0000

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.

By: Jill Miller Zimon

Jill Miller Zimon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:00:02 +0000

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?

By: John Ettorre

John Ettorre — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:37:01 +0000

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.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:10:01 +0000

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