Hard to please with endorsements
In many ways, it's a lose-lose.
Endorse the incumbents and take a pass on the rabble-rousing dissonants. Or, suggest voters give the voices of change a chance to shake things up a bit.
Recently, we've done both, and the reaction in either situation was boy, are we a bunch of incompetents who have no business making endorsements.
In Winfield, we acknowledged a town divided, but gave the nod to the three candidates backed by the local Winfield United group. They're challenged by two strongly outspoken opponents. That set off a firestorm on a local blog and the online comments. The first poster's comment was representative.
“The Herald's endorsement of Winfield United's Rudy Czech (we all saw how well that worked out for us) is why the Herald should not be making political endorsements. The DH freely admits the town is divided and has been for years but continues to endorse the same people supported by the group Winfield United that has caused the divide in Winfield.”
The following opinions mostly echoed that sentiment, save for one poster who defended the incumbents, used his own name, and challenged the critics to do the same. Assuming the online “sromanelli” and Steve Romanelli are one and the same, he also wrote a letter to the editor, linked to in this column, which I have selected for today's Fence Post for your reading pleasure.
A few days earlier, we seem to have ruffled many a feather with the decision to endorse two incumbents and one of the rabble-rousers for the Lisle village board.
I use the term “rabble-rouser” somewhat glibly, but there's no doubt in my mind first-time office-seeker Richard Wilkie is viewed as a troublemaker by the Lisle administration for his in-your-face campaign to keep Navistar from testing its diesel engines at its future corporate headquarters in Lisle.
As the person who conducted the endorsement interview with the Lisle candidates, I can tell you I was prepared to hear from a guy who might still be harping on Navistar. Yes, he felt compelled to point out that it took the governor and attorney general to mediate the compromise that resulted in scrapping of plans for on-site engine testing. But Wilkie also asked some good questions about village finance and downtown redevelopment. In short, he didn't seem to be a one-trick pony, and it really didn't seem to be a bad idea to have someone on the village board who will ask the tough questions in a time that is a challenge to all municipalities.
But that endorsement set off more than some irate online comments. A blog called Jobs for Lisle offered a form letter for citizens unhappy with our endorsement to e-mail to Jim Slusher, our assistant managing editor/opinion. Slusher started forwarding them to me until he realized virtually all them were simply cutting and pasting the form letter and attaching their names.
At least the form letters didn't accuse us of incompetence. They did, however, say that our endorsement of Wilkie would “send the message to the business world that the citizens of Lisle want to obstruct investment in our community.”
So let me say this about all that:
Yes, this is an inexact science, and no, we might not know every last shred of pertinent info about every last candidate. But, remember, we don't have ponies in these races; we really have nothing to gain or lose by whom we endorse. We're also trying harder. I know of no other media outlet that meets in person with more than a thousand local candidates to see how they think on their feet, their command of the issues, and, frankly, how they interact with people not necessarily on the same page.
But if you want some real perspective on this election and all the nastiness it sometimes brings, take a look at the letter linked to this column. It's from Glendale Heights Trustee Scott Kibort, who's too sick to run for another term.
The decision, obviously, broke his heart.