Hank Kalet

I was a newspaper editorial writer for 15 years and, during that time, I probably endorsed more than 100 candidates.

I took the job seriously and I justified my decision to make endorsements by saying that newspapers had historically made them, that we were in a unique position to judge candidates and pass on our wisdom, and that we were using our platform and institutional power to generate conversation.

I endorsed candidates from both major parties, as well as independent candidates. And there were times when I refused to endorse and said why, and other times when I played the mea culpa card, when a previous endorsement turned out to have been off base.

For a long time, I was a zealot in favor of the endorsement. But that started to change as the endorsements piled up and the inconsistencies started to present themselves. I would endorse a candidate one year and might have to endorse their opponent the next time around. I tried to balance a number of factors in my decisions: political philosophy, what they said they planned to do in office, what they may have done in office, community involvement, experience.

The first major crack for me came when I had to decide whether to endorse in primaries. I refused and my rationale was simple – the primary is a party consideration and decisions on who each party should run are best left to voters of those parties. I also was concerned that endorsements made in the primary for candidates who obviously had no shot at a general election endorsement would force me to jump through intellectual hoops and contort my thinking. To understand what I am talking about, you just need to look at The Record of North Jersey’s August endorsement of Steve Lonegan for the Republican nomination and The New York Times’ primary endorsement of John McCain. In both cases, the editorial writer had to perform amazing acts of intellectual contortion to defend the indefensible – no one in their right minds expected a full endorsement of Lonegan or McCain by the papers, but the papers had to find a way to say nice things about both candidates.

But these were primary endorsements. They had no bearing on whether papers should be endorsing in general elections, I would say. I was wrong and I now understand why.

The Star-Ledger endorsement of Chris Christie last week, as former Ledger columnist Bob Braun wrote, was intellectually dishonest. It made the case that Christie’s been overrated at best and a failure at worst. In the Ledger’s own words, “Christie is overrated” and the governor’s “spin is way ahead of his substance.”

Its endorsement boiled down to three things: It finds Democrat Barbara Buono a weak opponent and their difference on pension and tenure changes, and the Ledger’s long-standing desire for school choice and charter school expansion, dovetails with the governor’s positions on the same. Is that enough for an endorsement? Probably. But then why spend nearly half of the endorsement tearing down Christie’s record? Why essentially make the case against him in language the Buono campaign would find appropriate when you plan, in the end, to tell voters he deserves another four years?

The endorsement, the Ledger writes, despite the editorial boad’s “deep reservations.” The governor “refused to speak with The Star-Ledger editorial board for four years” – a move that would have disqualified him from an endorsement at The Princeton Packet, where I wrote endorsements, because of our longstanding policy of requiring face-to-face interviews before we would issue an endorsement.

My issue with the editorial can be summed up by these two paragraphs:

The endorsement of Christie comes with the hope that Democrats hold control of the Legislature to contain his conservative instincts. It is especially important that Democrats hold the Senate to block him from remaking the Supreme Court in his image, a move that would doom urban schools and affordable housing efforts.

Christie has said little about his plans for a second term. Our fear is that he could veer rightward to impress Republican base voters in the 2016 primaries, by reviving his plan to cut income taxes for the rich, by escalating his campaign to strong-arm the Supreme Court, or by picking a fresh fight with the unions. Our hope is that he sticks to a bipartisan agenda, and we’d suggest he start by addressing his biggest failure: the rising burden of property taxes.

Essentially, the Ledger writes, Christie is the best choice, but he is a dangerous choice, one that may just be outside the mainstream. So, vote for him, but also make sure you send the Democrats back the Legislature because we fear the governor might run amok without the Democratic check on his power.

Wow.

Braun says the editorial “invites readers to follow an immoral—or, at least, amoral—path.”

The worst of this editorial is the smarmy line about “our duty is to the readers, and our goal is to help them decide which button to push.’’

No thanks, Mr. Editorial Writer. The ethical, the moral, thing to have done, given the arguments you yourself used, was to say we endorse no one. Otherwise what you are doing is urging a vote for someone you have proven beyond doubt is, in your words, a fraud and a catastrophe–and unworthy of high office.

While I agree with Braun’s characterization of the specific endorsement, the issue is much greater than this endorsement, as I said. This endorsement’s intellectual and moral incongruities made clear for me, finally, why newspapers should not be in the endorsement business.

And this doesn’t even take into account the effect that making the endorsement can have on our editorial positions moving forward. Having endorsed a candidate, will the endorsing newspaper feel the need to prove themselves right, to defend a previously endorsed candidate so that the paper does not look bad? I’m not saying papers do this – I don’t think I did in my 15 years – but you can see how some editorial board might. Ending the practice of endorsing candidates would eliminate that potential urge.

What we should be doing, instead of endorsing candidates, is identifying the issues that are of most importance in our communities (in our states, the nation as a whole), explaining those issues and the stakes involved and explaining the candidates positions on those issues. That would get us out of the business of picking and choosing from a bunch of badly flawed politicians and, instead, allow us to fulfill newspapers’ – and now local websites’ – responsibility to help voters figure out which candidates deserve our votes.

Send me an e-mail.

There are a lot of things you can say about Gov. Chris Christie, but calling him a Republican-in-Name-Only probably isn’t one. You might refer to him as a rhino — for his propensity to bully forward — but RINO, that seems absurd.

Of course, I live in New Jersey and have watched Christie govern. He has reached across the aisle on some issues, but he remains the most conservative governor in the state’s recent memory.

That has not stopped the national press, which only knows Christie through his television appearances and his willingness to work with President Barack Obama in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, from calling him a moderate.

Consider yesterday’s visit to the state Chamber of Commerce by Mika Brezinski, from MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Brezinski, who like nearly every national cable host sees things through the skewed lens of Washington and presidential politics, praised the governor for working with Democrats to get things done in Trenton.

Brzezinski said that Scarborough, who served three terms as a Republican congressman from Florida, is a RINO — and so are many others who have been among the most vocal in attacking the “shutdown politics” going on in Washington. The nation’s capital, where Republicans and Democrats don’t like to talk, should take a lesson from the Garden State, she said.

Christie and “Democratic leaders of this state figure out how to work together,” Brzezinski told the audience of about 300, most of whom raised their hands to say they were Republicans.

“And New Jersey, I think, is better off for it. In my opinion, if Washington ran it’s business they way Chris ran Trenton, they’d be in a lot better place. And right now we’re in dire straights.”

It is a nice story, but only partially true. Yes, Democrats and Republicans managed to come together on pension and health benefits reforms and changes to tenure, but these were negotiations that had essentially taken place well before Christie came to office. Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) had called or changes in pensions early in the Corzine administration, so when Christie came to office and Sweeney ascended to the presidency that was a done deal.

It is on other issues where you can see the partisan and ideological fault lines  — on affordable housing and the state’s fair housing laws which Christie has attempted to rewrite by fiat; on the minimum wage, which is on the ballot because the two sides could not come together; on same-sex marriage, which had to be decided by a court because of a Christie veto; on the state Supreme Court, which is now down two members because of a dispute between Christie and the Democrats over his appointments.

I believe Christie is on the wrong side of all of these issues, and I am assuming he has national ambitions. But it is foolish to allow the national narrative or the view from the Potomac to color how we view what Christie has done or not done here. Shaking Obama’s hand and touring storm-devastated areas  with the president might qualify as RINO-ism in some parts, but only if you ignore the full breadth of the Christie record.

Send me an e-mail.

It was over on Friday, as my story today on NJ Spotlight makes clear. But the governor has underlined and added an exclamation point to it: New Jersey has joined 13 other states in allowing same-sex marriages. There will be no appeal.

From the governor’s press office, via email a few minutes ago:

This morning Governor Christie advised Acting Attorney General John Hoffman to withdraw the State’s appeal in the matter of Garden State Equality vs. Paula Dow. The State submitted a formal letter of withdrawal (attached) to the Supreme Court this morning.

Chief Justice Rabner left no ambiguity about the unanimous court’s view on the ultimate decision in this matter when he wrote, “same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today.”

Although the Governor strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the Court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law. The Governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his Administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The response from Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, who sponsored the Assembly same-sex marriage bill:

“I applaud the governor’s decision to drop the appeal, especially in light of Friday’s unanimous court ruling.

“I am glad he has embraced the concept of equality.

“This is truly a monumental day for not only the couples who are getting married across the state, but for the whole state itself. Equality has come to New Jersey.”

Send me an e-mail.

Well, Jack Ballo’s film, Destiny’s Bridge, has been subpoenaed in a case against Minister Steve Brigham in the ongoing battle over Tent City in Lakewood. Check out the latest here.