Making Choices Making Editorial Board Endorsements Means Asking - And Answering - Many Questions About More Than Just The Candidates Follow The News And Then Make Important Choices

George Nethercutt’s dog is one reason this newspaper will continue to endure the pain and criticism of endorsing political candidates on the editorial pages.

Politics, in the end, doesn’t have much to do with a candidate’s relationship to his dog. It is about real issues, real people, tough decisions and compromises.

A tragedy of American politics today is that voters are being dangerously misguided and confused by paid advertising on TV that substitutes cheap tricks and half-truths for reasonable consideration of ideas and individuals.

The twisted outgrowth of this confusion between genuine issues and made-for-TV images was evident in the George Nethercutt-Judy Olson race where the congressman and his dog, Chestnut, appeared on TV more often than “Seinfeld” reruns.

First, paid ads showed George and Chestnut walking city streets with the Nethercutt family - a picture perfect image of family values. Then, George and Chestnut were seen sitting in the living room where George announced he still wasn’t kicking his dog and wasn’t kicking old people off Medicare.

Finally, incredibly, the congressman’s last ad of the 1996 campaign simply showed George and Chestnut wrestling in a chair.

No mention of an issue. Just man with a dog, an image that seemed idiotically simple - nice doggie, nice congressman.

The reason Nethercutt trotted out his dog was clear enough. He had been attacked by horribly misleading TV ads paid for by the AFL-CIO. A vicious, absurd cycle set in. More attack ads about cutting Medicare, more cuddly dogs. More ads, more dogs. Ads, dogs, until there was no issue left.

An alternative to this model is still available. It’s called following the news before making a judgment.

The news comes first in politics. Over the last two years this paper has written more than 200 news stories about George Nethercutt and hundreds more on the Medicare debate. Other media did as much.

Then, away from the news pages, this paper vigorously debated which candidates to endorse on the editorial pages.

The editorial board reviewed the records of achievement, tried to weigh the ability of each candidate to effectively work in the Republican Congress, looked at the whole picture, then endorsed George Nethercutt.

People may disagree with that endorsement. That’s great.

In the end, that’s why we endorse. We want to help jump-start the conversation about candidates and issues. Our endorsements are part of a disciplined effort to follow the news, meet the candidates, then make a judgment. That’s why - even though some papers are doing away with endorsements - we plan to keep them.

By the way, we didn’t even think of interviewing Chestnut.

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Cartoon by Milt Priggee

MEMO: Chris Peck is the Editor of The Spokesman-Review. His column appears each Sunday on Perspective.

See 3 related stories under the headlines: 1. People who run are more than names on a ballot; they can be friends 2. Candidates are the ones who make the process worthwhile 3. There are easier jobs, but none that offers a better sense of purpose

This sidebar appeared with the story: The Spokesman-Review editorial board members interviewed 108 people during the primary and general elections. Most were candidates for office, but this figure also includes those who lobbied for or against the various initiatives. Most interviews were done in person and lasted at least 30 minutes. The board made endorsements in 66 races.