Political Animal


June 24, 2012 1:56 PM Concern troll of the day: Campbell Brown

By Kathleen Geier

Question: does the New York Times op ed page have any quality control mechanisms? At all?

Okay, we all know that there are major problems with some of their op ed columnists. First off, there’s David Brooks, that shallow, insufferably smug propagandist for the 1 percenters whose only interesting moments occur when he drops the genial nice-guy pose and shows us his snarling, viciously punitive, anti-working people side. Then there’s Maureen Dowd who, half the time, reads like she has the emotional maturity of Paris Hilton (though I will say that Modo’s recent columns about Jerry Sandusky and the Catholic Church have been spot-on). Finally, there’s Ross Douthat, a know-nothing hack with serial killer eyes whose creepy, misogynist sexual politics are positively medieval, and whose column has become one of my favorite hate-reads ever.

But their op-eds also frequently have that same head-shaking, did-I-actually-read-that? quality to them as well. Case in point: today’s op-ed by former CNN anchor Campbell Brown. A couple of things to note about Brown. First of all, she just had an op-ed in the Times last month — the previous one was a piece of garbage about how President Obama is allegedly condescending to women. I can’t remember, in all my years of Times-reading, another person getting two op-eds in the Times within a 5-week period. And it’s not like Brown is displaying brilliant wit or erudition or or irrefutable logic or sparkling prose style or any other outstanding quality.

Secondly, Brown is married to Dan Senor, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers. This is not mentioned anywhere in the op ed. It damn well out to be.

About the op-ed itself: it is one of those sleazy, totally disingenuous “I’m a pro-choicer but” arguments by someone who is trying to concern troll Planned Parenthood out of existence. Brown, never one to back down from a clichĂ©, claims she wants abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.” She also claims to be a Planned Parenthood supporter, but attacks the organization for very sensibly refusing to support certain so-called moderate Republican politicians who do not support their goals. One such politician is Senator Susan Collins, who Planned Parenthood declined to endorse because, among other things, she made the indefensible decision to support the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Another of the allegedly moderate Republicans that Campbell Brown wants to force Planned Parenthood to support instead of a far more ideologically friendly Democrat is Rep. Robert Dold of Illinois. To give you an idea of what a lying piece of crap this op-ed is, Brown refers to Dold as “pro-choice.” Well, it’s true that he calls himself pro-choice, but that label is completely misleading. In 2010, Dold was back by the anti-choice Right to Life PAC; among other things, Dold

opposes government assistance for women who cannot afford abortions, he supports the ban on late-term abortions, he supports parental involvement laws, and he supports the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (which requires that a script be read to women before an abortion). Dold also supported the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which would have resulted in women losing health benefits related to abortions that they have today.

In fact, Dold is so anti-choice that in 2010 he actually won the endorsement of Phyllis Schlafly’s far-right Eagle Forum. At Dold’s request, however, they rescinded the endorsement.

Sounding like an uptight schoolmarm, Campbell Brown also says she has a problem with Planned Parenthood’s “attitude”:

an attitude that doesn’t ever seem to take into account that abortion is a morally complicated matter or that those on the anti-abortion side are often decent and well-intentioned people.

Unsurprisingly, this is a straw man. First of all, there is absolutely no contradiction between acknowledging that, for individuals, abortion can be an extremely morally complex matter, while at the same time insisting politically that safe, legal, affordable, readily accessible abortions must be available to all women who seek them for any reason. The moral issues are strictly between the woman, her own conscience, and her God (if she has one) to sort out, and are no one else’s business whatsoever — least of all wingnut politicians, religious zealots, or fading former television personalities of no particular field of expertise.

Secondly, I haven’t heard anyone from Planned Parenthood ever say that the anti-choicers were not decent or well-intentioned. Now, I don’t think the Right to Life organizations (as opposed to individuals who have right to life views) are especially decent or well intentioned when it comes to abortion rights. In fact, I think they are a menace to women’s freedom who want to deprive us of control over our sexual and reproductive lives, and in fact, to rob us of our basic humanity. But I’m just a blogger who tends to mouth off and say stuff like that. I have never heard Planned Parenthood spokespeople say anything like that.

The rest of the op ed goes on in this vein. It paints a picture of Planned Parenthood that in no way resembles reality. This is not an organization “driven by blind partisanship, electing to burn bridges instead of building them” or one that “sees ideological purity as so paramount that it permeates every aspect of its strategic planning.” It is, rather, an organization that does vitally important work in serving women’s health needs, that is being smeared with vicious lies, that has been under brutal assault for years now, and that is fighting for its life. It makes total sense for them to not support Republicans, because to the extent that the Republican Party, particularly in its current lunatic incarnation, is empowered, Planned Parenthood’s existential survival is threatened.

Campbell Brown’s op-ed is such a shameless piece of hackwork that I have to wonder what the Times was thinking when they decided to publish it. Especially because, as I mentioned, they published another op-ed by her only a month ago! It’s a piece that would make a lot more sense at a place like Townhall.com than the New York Times.

Kathleen Geier is a writer and public policy researcher who lives in Chicago. She blogs at Inequality Matters. Find her on Twitter: @Kathy_Gee


  • Francis Volpe on June 24, 2012 4:43 PM:

    This is the kind of on-the-one-hand-ism that newspaper op-ed editors get a woody for whenever they encounter it. Because it pleases the publisher, who is almost never wedded to the liberal side of things, and it pleases the executive editor, who constantly is going out to chamber of commerce meetings, if not showing up on TV and radio chat shows, telling people "we cover both sides, and this is proof."

    I speak from experience as an opinion editor who had to wave far worse into print; indeed, I was once forced by the executive editor to run, without any editing on my part, a piece by a local wingnut nurse that was full of made-up anti-Planned Parenthood vitriol. (Had I ediited it, its total content would have been "I hate Planned Parenthood because of all these crazy things I believe that aren't actually true, but I'm a good Catholic and that's all that matters.") When the local Planned Parenthood called me to complain, I spelled out for them that this was their big chance to debunk that crap and spelled out the requirements, word length, etc. Their response was incredibly mild, by the way, but I gave it good placement and made sure people knew this was a rebuttal to the previous crime against morality committed by my boss.

  • Jan on June 24, 2012 4:47 PM:

    Thank you!!

  • gus on June 24, 2012 5:08 PM:

    "It damn well out to be.”

    I think you meant to write “aught” not “out”.

    no biggie because you are making a point which should be made.

    It amazes me that blogging has long been ridiculed when for Op-Ed pieces have been run mainly because the person who wrote them was famous or well-connected and therefore extremely qualified to get what you would presume would be a rarified space on the editorial pages. But, too often it just seems to be used cheaply. Sometimes news is made within them. I guess Fmr. Ambassador Joe Wilson did right by having one printed. But, too often it may as well be an email sent to a mailing list.

    Oh well.

  • Southern Beale on June 24, 2012 5:53 PM:

    I also thought Brown's holdind up the New York State's gay marriage vote as model for Planned Parenthood to follow completely delusional. New York Republicans are in no way analogous to the pro-life cultists who have taken over the Republican Party in states NOT New York -- the same people who want to throw up so many roadblocks to women seeking a legal procedure that they have, by default, removed it as a family planning option. But Brown wonders why, oh why, Planned Parenthood can't make nicey with these people?

    And the New York Times editors should definitely have mentioned that Brown's husband is a Romney advisor.

  • Cambridge Chuck on June 24, 2012 6:04 PM:

    I read NYT online, saw the link to Brown's op-ed, could not bring myself to read it. You took one for the team today.

  • Rabbler on June 24, 2012 6:10 PM:

    Everything you said could be true(probably is) and yet the pre-Campbell part of the post could be characterized as juvenile, hateful, a jealous rant.

  • Kathryn on June 24, 2012 6:17 PM:

    Over the past few years, The Washington Post has also been inundated with opinion pieces by various luminaries, often senators like Lieberman, Ron Johnson and others with unedited columns that are full of flat out lies. It's bad enough we regularly have columns by the constipated Obama hater Krauthammer, George Will, Kathleen Parker, blogger Jennifer Rubin and probably others I 'm forgetting without these guest liars. I don 't think it should be too much to ask that published opinions by these people be fact checked for obvious lies but apparently that's not how it works as explained by Mr. Volpe. I don't read right wing papers, do they ever publish opeds by progressives unedited?

    I have never seen Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood conduct herself in anything but an exemplary manner in the face of unrelenting attacks on P.P. by right wing ideologues. Campbell Brown is a pampered white woman with questionable taste in men who has never in her life been without preventative health care.

  • R on June 24, 2012 6:31 PM:

    The one argument I have with this entry is that it should read "ought" rather than "out" or "aught."

    Otherwise, nail well hit on head. Unwritten but clear assumptions by Brown: (1) one can draw sweeping conclusions about Planned Parenthood, including "every aspect of its strategic planning" on the basis of two non-endorsements; (2) if the organization tried a little harder, it could get "truly bipartisan support," even as Republicans relentlessly put forward the kinds of proposals mentioned above, and worse ones in state legislatures (vaginal ultrasounds, e.g.). Has Brown been in a bunker since she left CNN? The Republican attack on reproductive rights extends beyond abortion to the morning-after pill and birth control prescriptions. Yet somehow it's Planned Parenthood's fault that it can't make reproductive rights a bipartisan issue just like same-sex marriage in New York. Huh?

    Brilliant description of Brooks, Dowd, and Douthat. Reading the Op-Ed page of the Times these days makes me weep for Anthony Lewis and Frank Rich.

  • zandru on June 24, 2012 6:35 PM:

    "doesn’t ever seem to take into account that abortion is a morally complicated matter"

    It's obvious that Campie has never been inside a Planned Parenthood clinic in her life. This is just more GOP projection, like the idea of not believing the opposition can possibly be "good people."

  • sue on June 24, 2012 6:58 PM:

    have you noticed that this piece has no comments and no way to reach Mrs. Senor!!!Seems like the NYT is not interested in feedback on this, and many other stupid columns lately.

  • Joe Friday on June 24, 2012 7:01 PM:

    If you want to laugh your ass off, watch Romney's 'Senior Campaign Advisor' Eric Fehrnstrom dance in place on FACE THE NATION, as he attempts to claim the "offshoring" of jobs to other countries that Bain with Willard at the helm practiced is DIFFERENT than the outsourcing of jobs to other countries.

  • elisabeth on June 24, 2012 7:21 PM:

    Yes, my thought when I read the Campbell piece was that this is the kind of piece I never see a left wing/progressive writer writing. Where are the Op-Eds scolding Republicans for not supporting Planned Parenthood? Or asking why various right wing groups are so extreme and won't acknowledge that most feminists are "decent and well-intended"? I get it that no one would bother to write such a piece, because it wouldn't be published in the main stream press and because the idea is to too outlandish -- the Republicans are not going to make any concessions and why should they? Their tactic of holding the most extreme positions and calling on everyone else to accept them has been working, slowly but surely. Op-Eds like Campbell's just make it more and more clear that no matter what concessions the left makes, it will never be enough, and what is really being asked for is complete surrender.

  • Aaron Baker on June 24, 2012 7:44 PM:

    Don't sugar-coat it; tell us how you really feel!

    I pretty much agree with everything here--and the well-deserved hating on Ross Douthat is an added delight.

  • Aaron Baker on June 24, 2012 7:47 PM:

    I quibble, however, with the pleonasm of "existential survival."

  • bluestatedon on June 24, 2012 7:53 PM:

    The NYT permanently lost any automatic claim to journalistic integrity with their cheerleading for and enabling of G.W. Bush's Iraq war, led by Judith Miller. For every article an individual NYT writer pens that's laudable, there's an execrable op-ed like Brown's.

    And let there be no doubt, after Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Roberts/Romney Court, if Campbell Brown becomes pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy for any reason, she will have ready, private access to very well-paid and very discreet doctors who will take care of her "problem." That's always been the case, and will be again. Middle-class and poor women without influential connections will die, as they died before.

  • Milt on June 24, 2012 7:54 PM:

    So you are saying that Brown, who is the wife of a high-ranking Romney adviser, supports abortion. Using Republican logic, if she does so does her husband and if Romney keeps Senor on his staff, Romney must also support abortion. Very interesting.

  • tomcj on June 24, 2012 8:09 PM:


    I noted Campbell Brown's allegiance in the comment section after her silly and disgraceful anti-Obama screed. But the Times is a deeply dissatisfying paper.

    We, those of you with a platform and those of us who write and read and speak, need to do whatever we can to stop the Times from turning into the now unreadable Washington Post (::spit on the ground, curse Fred Hiatt::).

    The Post slowly and completely became a right wing ditto machine by loading the offices with professional Republicans who had served in Republican administrations and are deeply active political partisans.

    The Post started with "Think" pieces with obvious push poll type Republican advertisements in them.

    The collapse was like a little snowball that turns into an avalanche. I went from constantly reading the Post to never reading it and feeling tricked when a link goes to that once great paper.

    The Times is not perfect, but it is all we have.

    The Campbell Brown-like propagandists must not be allowed to turn the Times into another worthless right wing rag like The Washington Post.

    Thank you for hitting the lies and propaganda. Brava!!!

    I noted Campbell Brown's allegiance in the comment section after her silly and disgraceful anti-Obama screed. But the Times is a deeply dissatisfying paper.

    We, those of you with a platform and those of us who write and read and speak, need to do whatever we can to stop the Times from turning into the now unreadable Washington Post (::spit on the ground, curse Fred Hiatt::).

    The Post slowly and completely became a right wing ditto machine by loading the offices with professional Republicans who had served in Republican administrations and are deeply active political partisans.

    The Post started with "Think" pieces with obvious push poll type Republican advertisements in them.

    The collapse was like a little snowball that turns into an avalanche. I went from constantly reading the Post to never reading it and feeling tricked when a link goes to that once great paper.

    The Times is not perfect, but it is all we have.

    The Campbell Brown-like propagandists must not be allowed to turn the Times into another worthless right wing rag like the Washington Post.

    Thank you for hitting the lies and propaganda.

  • gus on June 24, 2012 8:10 PM:

    The one argument I have with this entry ....

    You’re right....
    It should be spelled as “ought”.

    “Aught” would be like:

    Back, in aught-four, that election was a tinker and a squeaker!

    mumblegrumble.....stinking aught-four!

  • gus on June 24, 2012 8:12 PM:

    isn’t there some unwritten or written rule that if you go to correct someones spelling or grammar you will make an additional mistake of your own?

    I meant to write “stinker” not “thinker” and I meant to address “R” not just bring that up out of thin air.

  • Texas Aggie on June 24, 2012 8:19 PM:

    Senor isn't just a Romney advisor. He is one of the small group of neocons who deliberately got us into the Iraq War for whatever reason. The man is now trying to do the same thing with Iran that we did in Iraq.

    To complain that the grey lady doesn't mention that this Brown person is married to a Romney advisor is like complaining that no one told us that Jaime Dimon stiffs his lunch waiter.

  • emjayay on June 24, 2012 8:27 PM:

    First: A couple of typos or misused words are mentioned in the comments above. There are more. Obviously, this sort of thing is not good for a writer's credibility. How about printing out what you write, rereading it, and maybe giving it to someone else to proof if you are short on written English expertise. But then, if you're a writer.....I'd at least preview comments I write here, if the Preview function still made sense and worked properly like it used to. But unfortunately it doesn't. It's a mess.

    Second: What is the NYT's policy on having Comments or not anyway? The comments on this piece would have been no doubt pretty interesting - the remaining readers of the NYT generally contribute pretty intelligent comments. Kind of like here at WM.

    And of course, isn't there something in the codebook of journalistic integrity about mentioning who someone is married to if it's obviously relevant?

  • rick on June 24, 2012 9:07 PM:

    Let he who is without typo cast the first comment

  • Cha on June 24, 2012 9:12 PM:

    Thanks for this deconstruction of the disingenuous campbell brown, Kathleen.

    Here's a couple of ways I found to contact nyt and give them some Feedback on one whiny, sneaky, campbell brown. Like she can just put propaganda out there and no one with a brain is going to notice what's going on?



  • Kathryn on June 24, 2012 9:18 PM:

    I pulled up Brown Planned Parenthood article online solely to read comments of which there were none, as noted. Is the NYT concerned that Mrs. Senor's pap would not be well received? Occasionally run across other opinion pieces in Times that have no way to comment however.

    Dan Senor is a dangerous guy as are all of Romney foreign policy team. Assume at some point Obama campaign will point out reckless statements by this crowd, with Mitt the clueless in the lead, we'll be in a war with Iran in no time and Netanyahu and Adelson will be calling the shots. Wish that was a joke.

  • Steve M. on June 24, 2012 9:31 PM:

  • Lucy on June 24, 2012 9:39 PM:

    Thank you! I had exactly this reaction to Brown's latest shallow screed. I note that there was nowhere to respond to her on the Times website, so she goes unchallenged there. Talk about blaming the victim--she points out that Planned Parenthood has a big target on its back, and fails to note who put it there--the Republican Party!

  • Bruce S on June 24, 2012 10:28 PM:

    Thanks for saying what had to be said about this dishonest shill. Brown is pimping for Senor's boss Romney. The New York Times should be ashamed of itself for printing this bogus screed. Campbell Brown belongs on Morning Joe - she's that bad.

  • Amy on June 24, 2012 10:47 PM:

    In that last op-ed of Campbell Brown, the comments were left on. From her point of view, it was not a pretty sight. People railed on her for not disclosing her husband's job with Romney until far into the piece. There many other criticisms.

    My only question is if Brown asked to have no way to leave comments or if the editors decided to do that on their own. Perhaps some of could ask the Public Editor: E-mail: public@nytimes.com Phone: (212) 556-7652

  • EndTheEcho on June 24, 2012 11:18 PM:

    You missed the underlying issue for her whole op-ed: MONEY! (all emphasis added)

    In the 4th paragraph regarding the bipartisan gay marriage vote in NY state legislature we have this, "They did it in part because they had true bipartisan financial support."

    In the 7th paragraph regarding Senator Collins 2008 re-election post Alito confirmation, "In 2008 it withdrew its support and endorsed and provided money for her opponent."

    In the 11th paragraph regarding Representative Dold's current re-election campaign, "He would love to have Planned Parenthood's help with his re-election campaign, but so far the organization has opted to stayed out of the race." And note while not supporting Dold, not supporting his opponent like it did Collin's in 2008 re-election.

    In the 12th paragraph regarding Planned Parenthood's campaign support in the 2012 congressional elections, "It's gotten to the point where, in this election cycle, the group's political arm (while proudly claiming to be nonpartisan) has not endorsed or directly given money to a single Republican."

    So the author of the op-ed, Campbell Brown, is married to Dan Senor who is an adviser to a presidential campaign. Political campaigns need financial support to pay their advisers and "get their word out". The op-ed returns to the issue of money (or help) four times. Maybe Campbell Brown is just trying to drum up some money that might flow her families way via her husband's job as a political adviser. A little dishonest, but not the most scandalous thing I have ever heard of.

    To the crux of the issue here are my other two points:

    1. They didn't back Collins but she still voted to support them, so that didn't really bite them too bad did it.

    2. Do we really think that the current crop of Republicans are going to listen to the advocacy of moderate colleagues in Congress, especially as we have seen these moderates shift dramatically right to avoid a primary challenge.

  • Patrick Star on June 24, 2012 11:47 PM:

    I've got a little CNN box on my Google homepage that displays 3 headlines automatically; the past couple of weeks the top headline says something to the effect that Obama is an idiot/dangerous/clueless, etc. After muttering "wtf", I clicked it; turns out to be an editorial by a.Bobby Jindal, or b. John Thune; not exactly neutral observers. I realize CNN is a joke, but it ticks me off when an editorial is used as a headline, making it appear as a news story when it's not. I doubt if Joe Sixpack is going to make the distinction.

    Didn't I hear somewhere that Campbell Brown at one time was "dating" Rush Limbaugh? The mind reels!

  • DJ on June 25, 2012 1:15 AM:

    Didn't I hear somewhere that Campbell Brown at one time was "dating" Rush Limbaugh? The mind reels!

    Perhaps you're confusing Campbell Brown with Daryn Kagan.

  • JR in W Va on June 25, 2012 2:16 AM:

    I find that I mostly read the NY Times now for travel suggestions for millionaires.

    Their actual news is stories about irrelevant details.

    Their commentary, with the notable exception of Dr. Krugman, is feeble-minded evil drivel in support of Republican policy, chock full of lies about Democratic policy and those working for Progressive causes.

    Far too late to keep it from becoming like the Washington Post, which is now competing with the Washington (Mooney) Times for the bottom of the Salton Sea.

    So sad.

  • Bart on June 25, 2012 3:45 AM:

    "It damn well out to be." Seriously? The word you're looking for is "ought".

    FYI: English is the third language I acquired, and errors like the above (and things like "they're/their") just annoy me to no end. You're a writer, you get PAID for this.

  • An Outhouse on June 25, 2012 7:34 AM:

    "abortion is a morally complicated matter or that those on the anti-abortion side are often decent and well-intentioned people."

    Yes, it is, and no, they're not.

  • c u n d gulag on June 25, 2012 7:46 AM:

    I saw this in yesterday’s NY Times.

    I went past it, knowing that I wouldn’t read any original take on this matter from this hack and twit.

    Ms. Brown is just a better-looking K-Lo - my apologies if that seems sexist.

    I’m starting to understand that the first cuts in newspapers must have been Editors.

  • Sara B on June 25, 2012 10:31 AM:

    Let's see if I have this right: The only opinions that should appear on the NYT op-ed page are those of doctrinaire liberals. Conservatives need not apply.

    Yessir, gotta love that diversity!

  • Kerry Reid on June 25, 2012 12:44 PM:

    Sara B., you don't have it right -- you just have it right-wing.

    Let me explain it to you again: Ms. Brown is of course entitled to write whatever claptrap she wants. But when she blatantly misrepresents facts (i.e., claiming that Dold is "pro-choice," when he really isn't), creates strawmen unsupported by factual data (i.e., Planned Parenthood is attacking allies), and -- with the shameful collusion of the New York Times editorial page staff -- fails to reveal her own financial interest in the anti-Planned Parenthood campaign of Mitt Romney (her husband's income is currently derived from said campaign), then she's a classless lying hack and deserves to be called out as such.

    Now, if you have facts to offer that contradict what has been written on this blog, please feel free to share. You could have probably left a comment on Brown's editorial, too -- but apparently she is being "protected" there because no comments are being accepted. Gosh, it's almost as if the NY Times is being "condescending" to the Po Widdle Romney Adviser-Wife by sparing her the blowback she's earned through her idiocy and lies.

  • exlibra on June 25, 2012 1:36 PM:

    Only the regular columnists have comments as par for the course. Most of the guest columnists' columns do not have comments, so that's nothing unusual. What is unusual about Senora Brown's column is that it's a second one published by the NYTimes in the space of 5 weeks -- unprecedented for a column by anyone other than a regular columnist (like Krugman, Brooks, Kristoff, etc). What's also unusual is that the bio-blurb at the end of this particular load of crap mentions her being a past CNN reporter but not the fact that she's *currently* married to the Romney campaign and, therefore, necessarily prejudiced and biased in her views. Readers should have been allowed to know that, to help them evaluate the piece, but weren't.

    So I wrote a "very disappointed in you" Letter to the Editor. Doubt it will be published, doubt it will make any difference, but it let me blow of some steam :)

  • H-Bob on June 25, 2012 4:14 PM:

    Maybe her husband's name was omitted so that he wouldn't get fired when the wingnuts discovered he was married to an alleged "pro-choicer".

    "[A]bortion is a morally complicated matter" for the pregnant woman alone to make !

  • Fran on June 25, 2012 4:47 PM:

    I can't believe you left Thomas Friedman out of the roll call. You were spot on about the rest of the NYT characters. Also, Dan Senor's early career involved cheerleading (er, presenting) the daily press calls in the Green Zone during the glorious "shock and awe" period. I suspect Campbell has grown tired of sitting at home and is seeking reinvention through moral equivalency. Sounds like back alley bipartisanship to me.

  • millekat on June 25, 2012 7:32 PM:

    Oh My. Kathleen Geier is a Moore Award Nominee!

    This would be at Andrew Sullivan's site, which i don't link, because...

    I am so jealous :~)

  • Jado on June 26, 2012 10:52 AM:

    " I was once forced by the executive editor to run, without any editing on my part..."

    NO WAY!!!

    I am shocked - *SHOCKED* I say - to find out that publishers and executive editors have agendas that they push through their op-ed pages. Also, that there is gambling on these premises.

  • Jason story on April 04, 2013 10:16 PM:

    would in truth and some well needed laughter to say that I so enjoyed the beginning of your well written piece that I now have someone else to follow. Great writing. However I am an independent/former hard line democrat that in all truthfulness have followed Campbell the past few days because I enjoyed her on television before and wish she would return. Your column simply put points out that a center mid stream critical republican thinker is exactly what we are all discussing how this occurred in the republican party. Simple, they got ride of her. She is not brass, is not streamlined, she is open to thought, change, thinking of all sides and if any exist, their agendas, that can exist but have to be recognized in order for journalism to return to proper reporting on fact and the beginning of no matter what party you or the listener has chosen to affiliate with, the journalist must recognize that their view is important only in the context of it not being relevant, in strict alliance with what today we would call, old school journalism, the days before John chancellor became NBC commentator. I celebrate her openness, even when juxstiposition to her or the listeners on opinions or beliefs. Congratulations on winning me over to your much needed skill in writing. I truly enjoyed it. Jason story, destin, FL. .".