It’s starting to look like animal week here at The Bob & Steve Show, first Cowboy Cal, for his connection to Murray Sabrin, and now Pete the Parrot, because the Editorial Board at the South Jersey Times used a disgraced school board candidate as a way to attack Seth Grossman, get mentions in the blog this week. All I have to do is find a way to work my dog into a post for a hat trick.
Yesterday, the South Jersey Times ran an editorial titled “Candidates go rogue for South Jersey’s racists.”
In the editorial the Times states:
"Suffice it to say that Grossman's self-assessment, in an op-ed published in our print edition Monday, may vary greatly from the assessment of outsiders -- notably, the GOP's own national congressional committee. The committee cut ties with the 2nd District nominee, passing up an opportunity to back a campaign that could keep an 'open' seat in Republican hands."
The key in all of that is the word “outsiders.” Outsiders, like this Editorial Board do not know Grossman and have no intention of getting to know him. Seth Grossman has been traveling within Republican circles for decades. I ran into him many times over the years. Never once did I walk away from an encounter with Grossman believing he was a racist. I found him to be a smart, honest man who says things to get a conversation going. Sure, I might phrase some of those things differently, but doing so would not get people talking.
The Times editorial goes on:
Grossman's inelegant posts, tweets, and interviews, in one of which he called diversity "a bunch of crap," do not use the typical racial, ethnic, homophobic or misogynistic slurs that the worst of our political candidates now feel the freedom to utter. For that, we have a Monroe Township (Gloucester County) school board candidate who just called it quits over the weekend.
In that paragraph the Times hit the nail on the head with the word “inelegant.” Inelegant is code for “not politically correct” and that is what Grossman is guilty of – not being politically correct.
Political correctness can be a good thing, but it can also be bad, especially when it robs us of honest, open conversation. And, that’s what Grossman has been trying to do since the 1980s, have open, honest conversation. He may say things in ways no political consultant would advise, but he does get conversations going. Unfortunately, folks like those at the Editorial Board of the South Jersey Times don’t seem to care much about the honesty part.
The Times continues its BS attack on Grossman:
Grossman used his op-ed to point out that he is Jewish, that he went to a minority-heavy Atlantic City high school and that, as an attorney, he has represented many African Americans in legal matters. Maybe, but his highly provocative views were well known before he entered the GOP House primary. Republican political organizations in some 2nd District counties are still backing him, if not financially, by refusing to ask him to stand down.
So, now having “provocative” views is a disqualifies one from holding elective office?
And, then the Times Editorial Board shows a little honesty, they, like some party power brokers, wanted Hirsh Singh:
Although the GOP party machinery backed another candidate in the House primary, Hirsch Singh, it failed to get the job done by coalescing effectively around Singh, and failed to limit the number of candidates splitting the non-Grossman vote.
"Open" primaries are usually good things, but not when party leaders fail to prevent the likely outcome from being a fall nominee who's a known embarrassment.
Notice they didn’t even spell Singh’s first name correctly? Maybe folks should accuse the Times Editorial Board of being closet racists over their misspelling of Singh’s first name the same way the Editorial Board falsely and openly accuses Grossman of bigotry.
The Times ends their editorial asking a question:
Can South Jersey's Republican hierarchy say they're equally blameless for what their rogue congressional candidate says or does?
First, the Editorial Board advocates for rigging primaries by saying the party “failed to limit the number of candidates splitting the non-Grossman vote” and then ask this stupid question.
The answer to their question is yes. The voters in the primary chose Grossman. This is partisan politics, the way it works is you hold a primary, the candidates beat the crap out of each other in that primary and then get behind the candidate the voters chose at the end.
So, the Times makes it to the bottom of Pete the Parrot’s cage again for (a) advocating the GOP rigs its primaries for the candidate their Editorial Board prefers and (b) for falsely accusing Grossman of being a racist.