Ellington

In an extremely odd column this week, Sid Salter sets up a false strawman (broom?) and then knocks it down himself, kind of. He starts by asking: "The broom: Can state GOP sweep election?" He then tells us that the GOP isn't saying they are going to, but they must be hoping to. Then he tells us why/how it's not going to happen. Then he ends with:

At the end of the day, look for Republicans to win six, perhaps seven of the eight statewide races. For Barbour, the question of his political "coattails" won't be as relevant as the fact of the continued growth of GOP grass roots strength.

That said, it's also likely that the Democrats will control both houses of the Legislature when the election is over. A sweep? Close. But with strong Democrats in the Legislature, he'll need that broom for the inevitable cleanups on both sides of the aisle.

Huh? This column doesn't make a lick o' sense.

A little friendly editor's advice: Lose the sweep/broom frame and just make your predictions.

Previous Comments

ID

115365

Comment

It's clear to me that Sid Salter's referring primarily to the statewide offices. First paragraph: While nobody in the governor's re-election campaign is talking about it for public consumption, there's no question that the topic of a possible historic Republican sweep of all eight statewide offices in the 2007 general election is on their minds. I think the last two paragraphs of the column (the first of which you include) are just a reminder that even a sweep of statewide offices doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans will dominate the governing of Mississippi.

Author

Ex

Date

2007-11-01T12:18:42-06:00

ID

115366

Comment

He is referring to the statewide offices, Ex. But the problem is that he is setting up a premise that he himself is saying is false (a "sweep"), and it isn't even attributed to anyone. It'd be one then if he was quoting, say, Barbour saying there would be a GOP sweep, and then answer the question. His frame, though, is bogus. Do you see my point? This column would get you an F (or a big red "REWRITE!" across the top) in opinion writing 101 in even a mediocre J-school.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-01T12:22:14-06:00

ID

115367

Comment

But isn't this just more of the same for Salter? At best, he gets on my last nerve! Just say it: Stop those stupid games.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-11-01T12:42:43-06:00

ID

115368

Comment

I don't see your point. Salter's got a decent speculative premise regarding Barbour establishing a legacy building upon what Fordice started when he was elected in 1991. I don't think that Salter is saying that the premise is false-- just that the likelihood of such an occurrence happening is low. He wrote: Can Barbour and the Republicans sweep all eight statewide offices in the Nov. 6 general election? Possibly. But it's not likely. At any rate, Barbour has already established a legacy of sorts. Half of the statewide offices are Republican-held, two more than was held during Fordice's governorship. Will Barbour add to that total, and if so, by how much?

Author

Ex

Date

2007-11-01T12:56:37-06:00

ID

115369

Comment

It's the journalistic framing I'm talking about, Ex—how the column is written in a bait-and-switch fashion. He presents it as if a bunch of people are saying that the Republicans will sweep (that's the implication of the headline), but then quickly dispels that notion himself (it's not a "sweep" if Hood wins, and he's likely a shoe-in; thus call it something else honest and get on with it). It's a very National Enquirer-esque trick, but it doesn't belong in serious journalism. I guess that's why it's in The Clarion-Ledger. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-01T13:16:14-06:00