AR-02: Greenberg Hearts Timmy!

70

Considering that Paul Greenberg has been Timmy! Griffin’s most consistent fluffer for months now, it was not the least bit surprising to see that the Democrat-Gazette endorsed Timmy! yesterday. Nearly twice the length of most of the D-G’s endorsements 1, Greenberg’s paean to Timmy! provides a case study in how to abandon journalistic integrity in favor of rooting for a candidate (and it’s a nice example of how to disguise a love letter as an editorial, too!)

Does it say anything about her own qualifications, or her lack of same, that [Joyce Elliott] seems to spend most of her time talking about her opponent?

I know I’ve previously suggested that experiences gained being a state legislator do not translate perfectly into being a federal legislator, but can anyone — even a sycophant like Greenberg — really suggest that Elliott is not qualified to be a U.S. Representative? More importantly, if Elliott, who has served in both the Arkansas House and Arkansas Senate, is not qualified, then how is Timmy! qualified in the least? His resume for this job consists basically of (1) JAG attorney, (2) former Karl Rove disciple, (3) disgraced former interim U.S. Attorney who bailed on the job when it was clear that he was going to have to go through Senate confirmation, and (4) small business owner. So, again, I ask how this would make him more qualified to be a lawmaker at the federal level than someone who has years of experience of lawmaking at the state level?

Just to be responsible ourselves, let’s note that Tim Griffin has denied doing anything illegal in this matter he “may have spearheaded”—but that didn’t stop CREW from naming him one of the most crooked candidates of the year, or keep Joyce Elliott from blithely repeating the charge.

Oh, he denied it?!? Well that changes EVERYTHING!

No. Wait. I’m being told by people who do not have a crush on the idea of Timmy! as a U.S. Representative that this doesn’t change anything. So scratch that.

Regardless of whether Timmy! denied any wrongdoing, the facts are these: he sent out an email, complete with an attached Excel spreadsheet, with the subject “caging,” and some number of voters on that list were denied the opportunity to vote because of the actions taken by Timmy! and others. Greenberg sounds like a high school girl telling her parents about a new boyfriend while glossing over his flaws. “No, dad, he’s not a convicted felon; he was never charged with that crime!”

(Also, I would argue that you are not “being responsible” by mentioning that Griffin denied the allegations and then suggesting that Elliott is making stuff up, but, then, maybe your definition of “responsible” differs from mine.)

[In Elliott’s] ethically confused world, a politician running for an office … is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. […] So it’s up to Tim Griffin to prove that he did not spearhead a campaign to disenfranchise voters.

Yes, it is up to Timmy! to prove that the charges against him, which came to light only when HE mis-addressed an email with a spreadsheet called “caging.exl” attached and which have been verified by several different people, are baseless. This is not a court of law, Paul, so innocent-until-proven-guilty might be a nice rhetorical device, but it is not the relevant standard. Even if it were, however, once the evidence against Griffin were presented (as has been done here and elsewhere), it would be up to him to rebut that evidence. Greenberg makes it sound like people have just started making things up about Griffin without any basis in fact; Paul even goes so far as to mock the fact that Elliott said Griffin “may have” engaged in voter caging, writing, “We especially love that ‘may,’ as in may have beat his wife or may have two heads.”

Except, you know, there is actual evidence of the voter caging.

So, unless Greenberg knows something we don’t — which is entirely possible, as he may have been peeking in Griffin’s windows at night, such is the depth of his fandom — there is no evidence of wife beating or multiple heads.

As for the issues, or maybe The Issue, Tim Griffin knows that tax relief—for all—would spur the economy. So folks can safely assume his would be one more vote to extend the Bush tax cuts that are to expire[.]

This isn’t really the proper post to get into another diatribe about the fallacies surrounding the Bush tax cuts, the fact that the proposed Obama tax plan would be drastically better for most people, or the ridiculousness of the idea that tax breaks for the over $250k set will spur the economy and create new jobs. Rather, I’ll just point out that, to the extent Greenberg believes what he’s written here, his knowledge of economics is even more lacking than his sense of journalistic integrity.

We need you, Tim Griffin. Hell, I need you. I’m a mess without ya. I miss you so damn much. I miss being with you. I miss being near you! I miss your laugh! I miss … I miss your scent. I miss your musk.
When this all gets sorted out, I think you and me should get an apartment together.

OK, that’s not really in the editorial (it’s a quote from Anchorman), but you have to admit that you wondered for just a second.

1 For example, the October 21 endorsement of L.J. Bryant.