* Since the SouthtownStar has published my syndicated newspaper column since 1996, I’m often asked about the paper’s editorial positions and about its columnists.
One question I often hear from Democrats is whether political columnist Kristen McQueary is a Republican.
While we don’t always agree (which is the point, after all, of a columnist) she’s almost always pretty darned fair to both sides. They get whacked when they deserve it.
Her last piece on the Debbie Halvorson vs. Marty Ozinga congressional race was even-handed and soberly reasoned. I may have disagreed a bit with the conclusion, but that’s life, man.
* Now, however, Republican Marty Ozinga’s campaign wants McQueary removed as the moderator of an upcoming debate. From a press release…
It would be hard to imagine a presidential debate moderated by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. Similarly, we cannot imagine a congressional debate moderated by Kristen McQueary.
Oh, please. Spare me the hyperbole.
* The Ozinga campaign proposes these alternatives…
We propose one of two options to rectify this problem: 1) for balance, have fellow Southtown Star opinion columnist Fran Eaton to serve as the comoderator with Mrs. McQueary; OR 2) have an objective news reporter familiar with the race, such as the Joliet Herald News’ Patrick Ferrell, to serve as the sole moderator.
No offense, but Fran Eaton is such a partisan Republican and so far to the right that adding her to the program would not be “balance” in any imaginable way. You don’t balance “fair” with “unfair.” Ferrell is a darned good reporter, but I can’t possibly imagine why anyone would say Ferrell is far and away a much better choice than McQueary.
* Here is one of the campaign’s reasons for opposing McQueary’s choice…
McQueary’s second column about Ozinga ran the day after his official nomination. We granted her a 40-minute in-person interview, and she chose to focus the article solely on negative questions about Ozinga (rather than write a nice profile piece, like she did on Halvorson the day after she announced). McQueary questioned his integrity and his ability to “stay clean.” Of course, she has never asked that question of Halvorson, even though she’s in the leadership of that famously pure body known as the Illinois General Assembly.
And here are the cherry-picked excerpts…
–“Can a person with those ties, landing those deals, floating in that stratosphere, stay clean?”
–“In the meantime, Ozinga is sticking to a script when asked about the minority program involvement, which the Chicago Tribune detailed in an unflattering 2005 expose. He didn’t break any rules, operate under the table or spur investigations. It was all done aboveboard with good intentions, he says.
–“After 40 minutes, I wasn’t entirely convinced. For railing against the system, Ozinga is doing pretty well within it, running a multimillion-dollar company and befriending politicians on the charity and fundraising circuit.”
I remember that piece and Ozinga got the coverage he deserved.
What a buncha whiners.
*** UPDATE 1 - 12:30 pm *** I just spoke with the person at the Southland Chamber in charge of the debates. They have denied Ozinga’s request, citing McQueary’s fairness and even-handedness and her expertise on Southland politics.
McQueary, apparently, offered to step aside last night, but was asked to stick to her guns.
Good for the Chamber, and good for Kristen.
And, once again, this was a supremely dumb idea by the Ozinga campaign.
*** UPDATE 2 - 2:30 pm *** The debate’s rules have McQueary reading questions submitted by the Southland Chamber and making sure no candidate exceeds their allotted time.
So, Ozinga made a big stink about absolutely nothing.
Ridiculous.