Yesterday, Tribune readers didn’t have to pay a red cent to read the reappointed “local columnist” Jeff Roudenbush’s somewhat agitated thoughts on Randy Stumler, chairman of the Democratic Party in Floyd County.And they got far less than their money’s worth as part of the bargain, as Jeff packed 1,000 provocative words of outright character assassination into a selective interpretation of a mere two clauses of a solitary sentence -- approaching, but not topping, Karl Rove's all-time record.
Jeff’s “argument,” such as it poses, goes something like this.
Because Floyd County’s two Democratic commissioners voted for a moratorium on a private hospital – a moratorium that subsequently was disallowed by a federal court – and because Randy is running for one of the seats about to be vacated by Commissioner John Reisert, there was far more than meets the eye when Randy recently noted in a letter that the commissioners’ vote was “well intentioned” and that they were trying to “protect the citizens of our county.”
Insidious conspiracy, screams the Rush-like pundit:
Randy Stumler stands behind the law breakers and tries to whitewash the use of government power to enforce a monopoly.
Strong stuff, but what’s more, concludes the fair and balanced columnist, it’s all about politics, anyway, as Randy’s true aim is positioning for his next political race:
Maybe that provides a greater explanation for Stumler’s statement – indeed, for his entire letter – than any moral claim that he can make.
“Maybe” it does … but “maybe” it doesn’t, Jeff, and such ambuiguity provides a curiously flaccid ending to a remarkably disproportionate mugging of a public figure.
But it was a nicely built straw man, Jeff.
Consider that the weight of Jeff’s pathologically vituperative rhetoric rests on two clauses of a single sentence that Randy wrote in a letter that itself was a rumination about conscience and empathy in the political arena.
Whoa! Neither conscience nor empathy is anywhere to be found in Jeff’s column, and if anyone is surprised at these crucial absences, you’ve not been paying attention to the longtime grinding of the postman's axe.
It’s rhetorical red meat for the “mad as hell” lynch mob -- nothing more, nothing less. Ground flutter to accompany Trogaoke. TP for the potty police. Best read as dyspeptic comic relief.
And ... turgid, overly dramatic prose to boot.
Nice work, Mr. Tucker (wink wink, nod nod). Just give Jeff enough rope, and he’ll hang himself.
Again.
Who said there were no second acts in New Albanian agitprop?
5 comments:
I spoke to Randy on the phone last night. He really has no definitive stand on this particular issue at the present time. He is willing to listen to the information on both sides before making a conclusion.
I believe the article was hurtful and biased. Jeff should have at least called Randy and asked if he had a particular viewpoint.
Randy is doing his job as party chairman by not being publicly critical of his democratic members.
But I do believe that some of his democratic party members need to be held accountable in private and encouraged to make some better decisions for our community.
Exactly.
Jeff raised two perfectly discussion worthy points about public policy (eminent domain and private hospitals), linked the latter to two Democratic commissioners, and then didn't bother speaking with either one, nor with Randy Stumler, who Jeff proceeded to tar with the brush that might have been more appropriately applied to Charles Freiberger and John Reisert but wasn't -- and casting doubt on Randy's morals based on an argument riddled with fallacies, and one that was advanced in the first place owing to Jeff's plainly partisan political agenda.
It's the "I disagree with him, therefore his morals are faulty" fallacy that is most reprehensible in all this. But that's Jeff's traditional tactic. Birds gotta swim, etc.
How the Tribune purports to serve the community by enabling character assassination is as yet unclear. I persist in thinking that Mr. Tucker has something up his sleeve.
BYW, with respect to eminent domain and private hospitals, Jeff and I are substantially in agreement. Where we differ is in his muddying these waters with fallacious arguments and charges of moral depravity that are based on nothing more than the shadows in the mind of the congenitally paranoid.
I've not made a great study of the hospital moratorium issue, but I do not buy into the premise that a pure market can exist in health care and hospitals while still protecting the public interest.
Historically, regulators have prevented a dog-eat-dog environment for hospitals, requiring a showing that there is a need for more beds before allowing new hospitals.
The 2 counties judged that the need for more beds had not been proven. Because investors want to build a hospital doesn't make it in the public interest.
Competition is not a panacea. Roudenbush is parroting talking points, not offering reasoning. I'm rather comfortable knowing that the local hospital can be improved or reined in, over the long term, by publicly elected officials. "Ownership" by the county is another word for accountablity to the citizens of the county.
To whom would a private hospital be accountable? Its investors, and its investors only.
And the belief that the exercise of eminent domain for public purposes is unconstitutional is clearly wrong. It is communitarianism at it apogee.
If the people, through their elected representatives, determine that the public good is better served by a public use, or benefited by a different use, they should not be handcuffed in expressing that will. Takings are compensated. Property rights can be limited and alienated, so long as just compensation is given.
Sen. Sipes bill dealt with utilities to define limits on their rights to condemn. But it was not an effort to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court holding.
Roudenbush's attack on Stumler was so self-evidently partisan, biased, and mean-spirited that I don't worry about its impact on fair-minded folks. But then, we all know some who don't meet that description, don't we?
If Mark Seabrook is ANY kind of man, I expect to see him disavowing this type of campaigning. And if John Tucker is any kind of journalist, he'll start applying a health warning - I suggest "This opinion piece is filled with venom. Please read it accordingly. The Tribune disavows its content and regrets having invested ink and newsprint to publish it."
Randy Stumler's recent letter was one of the finest, most inspirational pieces of writing I've seen from a public official in decades. Roudenbush's contribution makes the contrapunction the perfect example of going from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Tuesday, March 7, 2006, was a black day for The Tribune.
All4word
I agree with most of your remarks, but what happens in reality is not as simple.
Your comment:
"Ownership" by the county is another word for accountablity to the citizens of the county.
This is the way it should be, but after serving 4 years on the Board, there is no real accountability because there are no significant consequences for ongoing poor performance. Look at the employee surveys, the patient satisfaction surveys and phsyician surveys and the trend of the financials.
There are no qualifications required to be on the Board, no ongoing evaluations of Board members required, no continuing education required etc. You get appointed many times because of being a friend or political ally.
Investors hold their administration much more accountable because it affects them personally. Citizens of Floyd County have no direct input and failure of the hospital would be bad, but it financially wouldn't hurt them.
Therefore, complacency continues to rule.
And Randy is a good guy and a good neighbor.
HB,
I agree with most of what you said but I don't think your corporate analogy accurately reflects reality anymore than the county example. Most investors in large, publicly held corporations don't really have a say in administrative decisions. Their boards often tend to function in much the same way as you describe the hospital board-- no qualifications for membership, no performance reviews, etc.
I'd also argue that hospital failure would hurt citizens both financially and in terms of healthcare accessiblity.
BTW, I think it very decent and fair of you to defend Randy Stumler. I consider what Roudenbush wrote to be embarrassing to him, the paper, and Republicans in general.
Post a Comment