Ranting On...Annette Bosworth

Dr. Annette Bosworth

One of my favorite people is both from South Dakota and reads this blog on a regular basis.  As a result, I occasionally like to discuss when his state is in the press, but as the state is decidedly one-party-dominated and its last remaining Democrat is about to be replaced in a landslide by a member of the GOP, it's not a particularly compelling state to discuss politically.

This week, though, much has been made about Dr. Annette Bosworth's arrest for perjury and falsifying election documents.  The media has been all over it, and it's admittedly quite fascinating-a mildly public figure gets involved in a major criminal case and is widely discussed on FOX News in particular.  This follows a series of erratic behaviors where she held a "mature audiences only" press conference where she alleged that she had been viciously attacked on online chats and chastised the media and Democrats for not calling out the online commentators.

I could spend this article talking about the validity of Bosworth's court case, but that is ongoing and likely to be a source of news for several months, so instead I decided to write about something else that has popped up in the wake of this scandal.  I find it a bit ironic that I'm going to source online commentary regarding Bosworth after the silliness of her initial press conference (I'm sure it's very hurtful to be a public figure and read things people say about you online, but you chose to be a public figure with the full knowledge of what would happen when you did-you're an adult, and unless the comments are being directed by the larger media or by specific opponents, it's not really the responsibility of either party to comment on online trolls), but I'm going there.  I've heard a number of commenters and read some commentary about Bosworth and how she represents exactly what is wrong with Republicans.  Frequently she's chosen as a gadfly who is "what the Republican Party is really about" and I don't think that's fair.  Buckle in folks-I'm about to defend the Republican Party.

The problem with today's level of instant access to all information is that it makes people who on paper seem like legitimately famous or important people look like they might actually be.  On paper, Bosworth, a doctor and Senate candidate, seems like she's an important public figure.  She's running for the United States Senate in a race the Republican Party is nearly assured to win.  She's been on major news networks discussing her campaign, and has been interviewed by true national figures like Megyn Kelly.  On paper, she seems like someone who is both a representative of her actual party and someone we should pay attention toward.

And yet, she's not.  She is not an important person.  Just look at her primary results-she got less than 6% of the vote and fourth place in a lopsided primary election.  She's never held major political office.  She's not a major policy contributor nor a former top staffer of a major politician.  She's someone, an average citizen, who has decided to make a run for office.

Meanwhile, though, Bosworth is treated as a major political entity on stations like FOX News (as I mentioned above she has appeared on Megyn Kelly's show) and this begs the question of why.  There's the obvious (she's an attractive woman who knows how to hit certain buttons with the press with ostentatious antics, all of which is something the media devours), but I think it's time we say enough is enough with these sorts of people.  This person is not worth our time and not worthy of our news.

Bosworth isn't the only candidate this cycle who has been given WAY too much press by the legitimate media.  Matt Bevin, Joe Carr, and Milton Wolf have all gotten far more press than any polling in their respective Republican primaries would suggest.  These people are running for office, but have no chance of victory.  Everyone always cites Christine O'Donnell in these articles, but Christine O'Donnell was a blue moon, a once-in-a-lifetime sort of situation (which is why that race is so fascinating).  Covering everyone because he or she could be the next Christine O'Donnell is a stupid, unfair, and dangerous practice.

It's unfair because no party should be identified with every person who runs for political office under their banner.  The actual political party doesn't get much say in who is going to run under their banner-that's the fun side effect of democracy.  They do get a choice in who represents them in Congress, statewide, and as their candidates for the White House, however, but not who is in fourth or fifth place.  You may feel that there is no shade between Annette Bosworth and the national Republican Party's views, and that's your right, but don't pretend like she's an ambassador of the party because she's not.  The Republican Party should not be saddled with Annette Bosworth, because their primary voters didn't give her the time of day.

This is something that has driven me to distraction lately.  I know that it's occasionally a fine line between when a person is "important" politically (Christine O'Donnell once again springs to mind), but Annette Bosworth is not important politically at all and I am sick to death of hearing about the people at the edges of politics because it takes away from a real discussion about politics at its heart, and this is where the dangerous comes in to play.  

Gov. Mike Rounds (R-SD)

The only person that truly matters in that Senate primary is former Governor Mike Rounds.  Rounds, for the record, is someone whom you can easily tie to the national and state Republican Party.  A two-term governor, former state Senate majority leader, and near certain to be a senator next January, he is a very important person.  He's also the person whose views should be parceled through in this race because they are what is going to be driving our laws once he's elected.  I'm not going to talk about his views today (though his position on abortion is worth investigating), but his views are the ones that matter.  

And that's the rub here-Rounds' views are the only ones that matter from a pragmatic standpoint, so his are the ones that should be looked at and, if necessary, scrutinized, and yet everything is focused on Bosworth.  Presenting Bosworth as a serious alternative to him is dangerous because it makes Rounds seem moderate by comparison when his views may in fact be conservative amongst actual members of Congress.  You can always find someone more extreme, but you cannot always find someone more extreme that matters.  And that's what the media seems intent on doing, giving people like Chris Christie and Shelley Moore Capito the titles of "moderate" when little in their voting records in comparison to other nationally important Republicans would indicate otherwise.

Before I leave this subject, I want to broach three other points quickly.  The first is the question of what constitutes a legitimate candidate because like I said with O'Donnell (and perhaps a more famous example, someone like Sarah Palin), it gets tricky.  I think anyone who does currently hold a major federal or statewide office, is a leading candidate in a competitive race, or is polling strongly in a race for one of these offices is someone that should be considered important.  Someone like O'Donnell or Herman Cain, therefore, were once worth the media's time, but no longer.  However, I do feel that the way the national media seems to just roll their eyes every time that Michele Bachmann or Louie Gohmert speak is foolhardy; these are two of only 535 people who vote on every law in our nation, and represent hundreds of thousands of people in Washington-they're important politicians, even if they don't behave that way.

The second point I want to make is in regard to Bosworth's claims about sexism and countering that Democrats are truly the ones waging the war on women.  Sexism is a serious issue, and I don't like it being used in such a cavalier way, and if Bosworth thinks that the media treated her unfairly I cry baloney.  The media focused on the aspects of her campaign that she wanted them to (comments about people on food stamps, in particular, as well as her press conference) and tried to gain fame the lowest and easiest way.  Bosworth might have a legitimate claim that the media ignored her if she had run a strong campaign and the powers that be weren't interested in someone who wasn't a former governor, but that's the way that politics works.  Plenty of people have made it from nowhere to national office (Mike Lee, Elizabeth Warren, and Ted Cruz spring to mind), and Bosworth's gender had nothing to do with her missing the boat; her terrible campaign skills and lack of political experience did.

Finally, I want to point out that while I think that the national media should focus more on the views of actual policy makers and legitimate policy makers, I do have deep respect for people who run respectable races that no one thinks they can win.  This doesn't include Bosworth, but does include say, Corinna Robinson, who is the Democrat running for the House in South Dakota or the other candidates who ran against Rounds in the primary.  It's very admirable to give voice to those who dissent, even in a race that doesn't seem to matter in terms of winning.  Building up your party, having a candidate in case of a scandal on the part of the incumbent, and most importantly, giving the minority a worthwhile candidate to cast their ballot for is something that we should all respect.

Those are my (extremely long) thoughts on Dr. Bosworth and her run for Congress-what are yours?  Have you been following this kerfuffle?  Are you in agreement that we need to put a moratorium on discussing candidates who add nothing to the national conversation?  Share in the comments!