From: ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis)
Subject: Re: Looking for info on Carol Moseley Braun
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:26:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.165643.22810@lds.loral.com> mcgill@lds.loral.com (Chris McGill 5471) writes:
>
>I was wondering how many others saw that broadcast of the SEN-elect Braun's news
>conference? Once again the press rears its ugly head. I was so angry after 
>watching that! I must agree, though, that Ms Braun demonstrated excellent poise and
>character. She never let them get the best of her, and she hammered them with the
>facts. I think once the press gets off her back and lets her do her job,
>she will prove to be one of the best senators out there.
>
i thought most of the reporters looked pretty stupid asking what for the most part
were really dumb questions [e.g. "how did you pay for your vacation?"].  i am
willing to allow that the press should be contentious at times as part of the
"freedom of the press" bit, but to date the press has made much ado and don't have
anything newsworthy to show for it.  furthermore, it doesn't appear that much of
an attempt is really being made at background investigation.  instead the tendency
is toward asking the kind of inane questions that you would expect from a sports
reporter.  for instance, the questions about her personal finances were clearly
inapropriate lacking any evidence of finicial imprpriety in her campaign; which
would have be the job of an investigative background report.

i guess the thing that seemed most silly about the reporters questioning was that
it was based on some *presumption* of improper behavior by sen. braun and/or her
campaign without any real evidence to justify those suspicions.  the sexual
harassment charges were likewise feeble since they are based upon anonymous and
third party rumors [at least as i undstand it and nobody has produced any info
to the contrary] and i find those kinds of claims to be *highly* unreliable since
you don't really know what the motives are of the people making the charges.

finally, there is the big deal being made [primarily in the press for all i can
tell] about how she should seek a position on the senate judiciary committee.
personally i think this is a waste of time since the other senator from illinois
[paul simon] is already on that committee.  generally senators try to avoid being
on the same committee if they are on the same state to maximize representation of
their state's interests on as many panels as possible.  besides, aren't there 5 other
senators [2 at the time of the clarence "uncle" thomas hearings]?  seems it would
make more sense for the press to ask them about this one.  imho, i think that the
female members of the senate [and congress in general] would do well to avoid getting
pigeon-holed as "single issue" senators.

in the final analysis, i think that carol braun did well to ignore the press before
her swearing in since they are (currently) shooting full of blanks.  if she focuses
on what she has to do to represent the state of illinois nobody is going to remember
any of this stuff 6 years from now.

>And for those in the Chicago area? Who was that one reporter, Lynn something, who was
>such a jerk? asking questions just because *SHE* "wanted to know". Please!
>
i think you are referring to lynn sweet, a political reporter from the chicago sun times.
she appears fairly often on political roundtable discussion shows in this area.  from
her often off-the-wall comments she has generally impressed me as being an idiot.

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald@iexist.att.com / att!iexist!ronald
"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes" -- edmund wilson