Bacon's Rebellion

Don’t Blame Schapiro

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

I got an email this afternoon from the Chesterfield County Republican Committee. The lead was “The Deception of Jeff Schapiro …” and below it, in slighty less bold type, was “Jeff Schapiro Should Stop With His Opinions.”

Schapiro, of course, is being attacked for his Richmond Times-Dispatch news story on the Brad Marrs fundraising letter. The attack is wrong-headed and could likely make things worse.

Attacking Schapiro for “liberal bias” might be a good fundraising tactic, but Mr. Schapiro’s hands are clean on this one. He reported the news–and the news he had was hot. During a campaign, everything is scrutinized more closely. Partisans are ready to strike out at any opportunity. What might have been an unnoticed line in an off-year fundraising letter gets fine-tooth comb attention in a contested race. The Marrs campaign should have been more careful, especially knowing the atmosphere in which they were working.

Wow–defending Jeff Schapiro. Am I still an “Ass of Evil?” My diabolical backside buddy Norm Leahy has a slightly less charitable take on Schapiro and further thoughts on the controversy here.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I couldn’t find Marr’s letter to the editor on the Times Dispatch online page, but I did read the entire fundraising letter.

    I think he should not have mentioned the sexual orientation of the donor — although if there ever was a place where that would be appropriate, it would be when discussing a person’s support for an organization.

    IN other words, if Marrs was discussing why we shouldn’t put much weight in the fact that the donor supported a homosexual organization, it would be relevant to point out that, being a homosexual, the donor had a personal reason for supporting the organization which may cloud his judgement.

    But that is not the reason the word was used here, it just looks like he wanted to use the word twice in one sentence. The 2nd would have been quite sufficient.

    Having said all that, this is not the terrible gay-baiting it was made out to be in comments over the past few days.

    And I always find it amusing that people are quick to castigate others for labelling people homosexual, especially when those people keep telling us that being a homosexual is a natural and healthy thing that should be celebrated.

    Is being a homosexual an accepted and honorable thing, or is it something that, when identified, is a low-down dirty thing to say about a person?

    I guess in the end it would hinge upon whether the donor in question has previously referred to himself as a homosexual. If so, then it doesn’t seem too out of line to apply the same label.

    If I say I am a presbyterian, I’m not going to get upset if you, hating presbyterians, call me “that presbyterian that gives money to the presbyterian church”. You mean it for evil, but for me it is what I am.

    So for me Marrs gets an “F” in political savvy, having overplayed his hand, but to treat this like a hate crime is to cheapen the charge when it is used against serious misconduct.

  2. Kurt Avatar
    Kurt

    Ahh, the red-hot topic of Virginia politics. At least the star of “Junior” and “Jingle All the Way” doesn’t run your state as he does mine.

    And when I say “run your state” I mean “show up places with his She-Skeletor wife and pretend to speak English.”

    This random comment has been brought to you by me.

  3. Not Larry Sabato Avatar
    Not Larry Sabato

    This pattern from both parties of “no main stream media story can be correct if it doesn’t fit what we already believe” is really scary. Without a media all we would have is empty rhetoric.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jeff Schapiro, liberal bias? Now there is a bit of news. He is so blatant about it that is really isn’t dangerous to a reader with a lick of sense (admittedly that’s less than all readers.) And I agree with Will, this was a real story worth writing. Having read the full letter, it was one adjective — a word that was expendable — that started this whole thing. Now the TD editorial page today has smacked Marrs, who make a huge tactical error trying to defend himself yesterday and just stirred the pot.

    The real test of all this will be to see how Waddell exploits this, if she can, to turn the race around. It’s tricky because she doesn’t want to be guilty of the same rude behavior tha Marrs displayed (at the end of the day that is the word – rude), and somehow she has to paint this as a legitimate reason to oust an incumbent delegate. What she needs is a pattern of similar behavior (coupled with a hard push on the trial lawyer angle, since guilt by association is something Marrs clearly can’t complain about.)

  5. Norman Avatar
    Norman

    You can keep the t-shirt for now, Vehrs.

    But I’m watching you…

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT