The Post And Mr. Brown

Surprise. The Post & Courier has endorsed Henry Brown for Congress. The rationale seems to be something along the lines of "his seat is already contoured and warm."

To begin with, the newspaper writes about Mr. Brown's "...good work [that] goes beyond helping constituents." And what is their evidence for this baseline level of constituent service that Mr. Brown seemingly goes beyond? Why, Henry Brown himself! "...Brown Jr. emphasizes his strong record of constituent service during four terms representing the 1st District in the U.S. House." My goodness. That is quite a complimentary self-assessment. But I must admit, every time I administer an introspective test of my abilities and worth, I too come out super-awesome. I'm sure Linda Ketner is just kicking herself for not telling the paper how amazing she is. "I am better than Henry Brown" may have been all the editorial board needed to write that Linda Ketner is better than Henry Brown. If only...

The paper goes on to write that Brown believes in the "...need for a new national energy policy — one that seeks greater production from a variety of sources." And yet, within the last 15 months Brown:

• Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
• Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)

So while Brown may, according to the paper, "believe" in all of those things, he certainly votes the opposite. But then again, perhaps he just doesn't have the courage of his erroneously attributed convictions.

The newspaper enthusiastically supports the banal platitude of Brown's that "[w]e've got to reach a compromise with what's good for the environment and what's good for our quality of life." The ambivalence of that statement is only outdone by the absurdity of its premise: that somehow or another a clean environment is detrimental to our quality of life, hence the need for a compromise.

The Post continues by pointing out that Brown is as clear on energy as every single incumbent and challenger in this election cycle. "He correctly views the absence of a substantive energy policy as a national security issue, as dollars are transferred from the U.S. to oil-rich nations that don't necessarily share our interests." Yes, Post & Courier, truly that is what sets Brown apart from Ketner, the novel idea that energy is tied to national security. Quite the rogue the Henry Brown, or day I say it, "Maverick?"

Finally, the Post & Courier's most disappointing and upsetting rationale for their support of Henry Brown stems from a befuddling conflation of The War on Terror with the War in Iraq. "Rep. Brown has supported the administration's war on terror, including the surge in Iraq." All sarcasm aside, it pains me to think that there are still people, educated and influential individuals, who continue to link the War on Terror with the War in Iraq, as if one has anything to do with the other. Regardless of his support for the Surge, to suggest that its success (if we define success as not having prompted the Iraqi government to defend itself), has anything to do with the War on Terror does a grave disservice to readers. While Brown's support of the Surge is more than likely only evidence of an unwavering support for any policy put forward by President Bush, it says nothing about his understanding of the War on Terror or how to properly fight it.

Every reason given is based on a cliche. Void of evidence and indicative of little more than frantic last-minute googling of "Henry Brown + quotes," the Post & Courier's endorsement of Henry Brown will, hopefully, sway few minds.