This morning’s Boston Globe features an above-the-fold front-page story entitled Additional cost of Romney gala questioned. "Oooh – this sounds good," I muttered into my Froot Loops! Maybe intrepid reporter Frank Phillips has nailed Romney on this – a campaign finance scandal is just what we need to really spice things up!
The shocking exposé reveals that more people than anticipated showed up at a party thrown by Romney’s operation at the Republican convention in New York last summer. As a result, the event cost more than the original estimates, since caterers generally charge on a per-person basis regardless of how much food is actually consumed. Wow! Even more amazing, the corporations that underwrote the event have indicated that they are not particularly concerned – in an especially revealing comment, a Fidelity spokesman said that they "always anticipated that there could be additional costs for the event." Additional costs, eh? </Mr. Burns> Highly suspicious, if you ask me!
The real stunner of the article, though, is buried toward the back. It reads – and I quote:
There is no evidence that Romney was involved in or aware of the details surrounding financing of the event.
OK, enough. Suffice it to say that I don’t see much of a story here. Phillips’ point, if he has one, seems to be that the additional money appears to have remained in the hands of Romney’s political consultants and hasn’t yet been distributed to the caterers. Well, maybe, maybe not (that was neither confirmed nor denied by the article, since neither the consultants nor the caterers would go into that level of detail). But I cannot for the life of me see how that justifies a front-page, above-the-fold article. Page 1 of the Metro section? Maybe – but maybe page B4 would do just fine.
Look, I want to get rid of Mitt Romney as much as the next lefty blogger. But the star treatment given to this silly story is just a cheap shot by the Globe, and it makes the Globe, not Mitt Romney, look bad. They should know better.
You do have a point. I’m wondering why the Herald’s coverage of state politics is so much better than the Globe’s, and it’s article like this that remind me why: the Globe is happy to dig into the particulars, including catering bills, if some identifiable progressive, abstract issue like campaign finance is at stake. That Romney is involved only makes it much more welcome a target for them. But they assume the day-to-day stories on Beacon Hill won’t interest their readership.
I have a question, How many points on the globe where, by walking one mile south, one mile east, and one mile north, you reach the place where you started?