​In Virginia, politics is a funny business.
 
That was the sum takeaway of my two-and-a-half years as a newspaper editor in Virginia. In my time I have lived in Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia and West Virginia. But there is nothing like Virginia.
 
Case in point: Saturday’s Republican “drive-thru” convention in Virginia’s 5th District.
 
The current office holder is the first-term businessman from Manassas, Denver Riggleman. Outsiders may not have heard of him unless reminded he made a brief national cameo that made its way all the way onto Saturday Night Live after an odd story surfaced about his authoring Bigfoot erotica. He insisted it was a long running jest.
 
Locals know him best as the owner of a local distillery.
 
Two years ago, when incumbent Tom Garrett stepped aside citing a need to treat his alcoholism, Riggleman won the nomination. That fall, while others rode the blue wave to Congress, Riggleman pulled off a surprise win over the better-known and well-funded journalist — and mother of the actress Olivia Wilde — Leslie Cockburn. This despite being on the same ticket as the controversial right-wing dead weight that was Corey Stewart.
 
If all of that sounds like some sort of soap opera, welcome to Virginia politics.
 
And now, as Paul Harvey might say… the rest of the story.
 
At the time of that election, I was the editor of a small newspaper in the 5th District and had an opportunity to meet with both candidates as part of an editorial board. While it was my policy at the time not to express opinions or endorsements on the candidates, I am under no obligation now. Cockburn struck me as well prepared and would have represented the district well.
 
Denver Riggleman? It seemed easy to write off his candidacy. He was drafted in to replace an incumbent, he was a political neophyte, and he was by nature of his party bound to that bombastic personality that was Stewart. Also, he was not the preferred choice of many of the well-heeled residents in our coverage area.
 
To boot, shortly before we met, the “Bigfoot” story had broken, making enough waves that the national press was reporting spikes in Bigfoot-related searches on Pornhub.com. If you can bring those statistics into local campaign coverage, that’s saying something. I’m not sure what, but definitely something.
 
Yet, Denver Riggleman did something that day. He impressed me. He acknowledged the controversy. He deftly fielded questions about Stewart and his rumored ties to the far-right fringes of the party. He spoke about freedom and liberty, personal choice, his 15 years in the military (both enlisted and commissioned) as an intelligence officer and his background in business. He was an open-minded breath of fresh air that wasn’t confined by talking points. We used to celebrate that.
 
As a freshman, Riggleman joined the House Freedom Caucus and his voting record found him in line with President Trump 94.5 percent of the time according to FiveThirtyEight. Still, there was that independent streak, one he would not apologize for, and that did not sit well with the faithful.
 
Then, Denver Riggleman committed a cardinal sin: He officiated the same-sex wedding of two former campaign volunteers last summer. Some members of the 5th District Republican committee tried to censure him for not passing their litmus tests on that and several other issues. Two county GOP committees did censure him, and one passed a motion of no confidence. Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry. Constitution be damned.
 
He was then challenged for his seat by the far more conservative Bob Good, a former Campbell County supervisor and former employee of Liberty University’s athletics department who calls himself a “bright red Biblical and constitutional conservative,” according to the Roanoke Times.
 
All of which is well and good, that’s how the system should work. If the party wants to replace its candidate, that’s an internal matter. This why I feel nominating processes should be on the company’s dime, not mine.
 
Yet, something doesn’t sit right about the way Riggleman’s exit was engineered by his party.
 
Riggleman had pushed for a primary to nominate the candidate, where, conducted like primaries you are likely familiar with, a wide range of voters would be heard. The district has a history of using a convention process. Using the pandemic as the backdrop, however, the party opted for a “drive-thru” convention as opposed to an indoor convention. 
 
The 5th District that stretches from northern Virginia to the North Carolina border. Held in Lynchburg, voters were expected to travel hours and miles to cast their vote from their cars in a church parking lot. That’s almost three hours from Manassas, while only an hour from Danville near the border. You couldn’t say it was a central location. The kicker? Mr. Good’s home base is right next door.
 
According to reports, some waited in line for hours. Others went home without voting. Some were told to get in one line, then subsequently sent to the back of another. And so, with a wink and a nod, Denver Riggleman was ousted Wendy’s-style. Endorsements from Trump and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. — as well as plenty of cash — notwithstanding. The incumbent managed the backing of just 42 percent of the some 2,500 party activists. Riggleman claims voting irregularities. The party says everything was on the up and up, but make no mistake, it shut out a large group of its voters to jettisoned him.
 
So much for coat tails, seems the president has none. The conservative Christian wing can be relied on to vote for a man who may not embody its values but will vote to its advantage for president. It will not make that same allowance in Congress.
 
And that’s how a district that was “likely Republican” moves to “lean Republican” in the Cook Political Report’s “Crystal Ball.” It’s a rural district and will be a tall order for whomever the Democrats nominate in its June 23 primary. But the Dems hold one more ace.
 
Mr. Good failed to file his candidate qualification paperwork to the Virginia Department of Elections by the June 9 deadline. They are confident they will be given an extension. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Just ask Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, who made that same mistake last year and had to run as a write-in candidate. The party was so gung-ho to line things up right for its preferred candidate, you think that was one mistake it would be determined not to repeat.
 
Meanwhile, we have the answer to the question of whether libertarianism has any place in today’s Republican party. It does not. In Ronald Reagan’s day, the Republican Party was all about a “big tent.” Calling today’s Virginia GOP a pup tent would be generous by comparison. If you don’t pass the cultural conservative litmus test, hasta la vista, baby.
 
Mr. Good brags they will make the 5th “bright red again.” He may have just increased the chances it will turn blue.
 
Virginia politics is a funny business, indeed.

 “I honestly feel that it would be best for the country to keep baseball going. Baseball provides a recreation which does not last over two hours or two hours and a half, and which can be got for very little cost. And, incidentally, I hope that night games can be extended because it gives an opportunity to the day shift to see a game occasionally.” — President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
 
“Ray, people will come Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.” — “Terence Mann,” Field of Dreams
 
These are just a couple of famous quotes about baseball, the “National Pastime.” The game so lyrically described by the fictional Terence Mann in the classic “Field of Dreams.” The sport so important to the fabric of the nation, FDR asked it to play on despite a world conflagration.
 
No one can deny that COVID-19 has provided us with a unique moment in history, and many of the nation’s sports leagues have risen to the challenge.
 
"I think, you know, right now our job is to be prepared for the season. That means keeping our football schedule as best we can — obviously with modifications to make sure we're doing it safely but we're going to be prepared and ready, and we're planning on playing this fall even though it may be different." — NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
 
“A lot of people have pointed to the financial component of this. The incremental difference at this point between playing and not playing isn’t nearly as great as people think, especially given the enormous expense of putting this on. It’s more a sense from the entire NBA community that we have an obligation to try this. Because the alternative is to stay on the sideline. And the alternative is to, in essence, give in to this virus.” — NBA Commissioner Adam Silver.
 
“We think sports does brings people together and it helps them heal from difficult times. Yes, the economic consequences of this are terrible, but finishing the season is more about finishing the season than it is about the economics, by a longshot.” — NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman.
“When we first put together the tournament concept at Disney, we just were very uncertain about when we’d be able to return to our stadiums in our own markets. We thought why don’t we get them all together, get 26 teams together in one neutral site, play games every day and get our players back on the field for our fans. But very importantly doing it with games of consequence – a total prize pool of a million dollars and the winner getting a spot in the CONCACAF Champions League. All of this is our best foot forward to do what we can in an exciting, compelling and meaningful way to return to play for 2020. — MLS Commissioner Don Garber.
 
Heck, even the NCAA is trying to figure out football in the fall, and those kids technically don’t get paid. The so-called “national pastime,” by comparison?
 
“It unfortunately appears that further dialogue with the league would be futile. It’s time to get back to work. Tell us when and where.” — MLBPA executive director Tony Clark.
 
“I’m not confident. I think there’s real risk; and as long as there’s no dialogue, that real risk is going to continue. The owners are 100% committed to getting baseball back on the field. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you that I’m 100% certain that’s going to happen.” — Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred.
 
Yes, that’s right. At precisely the moment the nation needs it the most, baseball once again is telling the nation “meh.” 
 
I love baseball. This sport truly has been the fabric of my life. Yet, it repeatedly tells me I’m a fool.
 
In 1981, I was too young to truly understand the absurdity of its months-long strike and Micky Mouse A-ball split season, but the 1994 debacle managed to drive me away from the for the better part of a decade.
 
Now, when a nation is crying for some level of normalcy after having its life ripped apart for months on end, baseball can’t put aside its toxic owner/player relationship for a couple of months for the benefit of the greater good.
 
Imagine, in the wake of 9/11, arguably baseball’s greatest moment, it instead decided to take the opportunity to quibble about the next round of bargaining?
 
For the last few years, this sport has cried about losing fans. It has crapped on all of its tradition in its misguided attempt to update the game. Maybe, just maybe, a better tack might be to improve treatment of its fans.
 
At this point, it doesn’t matter who is “in the right” in this argument. What will matter, when all is said and done, is if baseball showed up. Stop angling for a leg up for the next round of negotiation and do what is right by the fans?
 
The national pastime? Well, it’s two polarized factions unable to reach an agreement if their lives depended on it, so maybe there is no better representation of the American condition than the state of this game.
 
Disgusting.

Like many inside and outside the business, I watched the fumbling of the New York Times/Tom Cotton op-ed from afar with interest, and while what was happening elicited some knee-jerk reactions, I have learned over time to let things play out rather than try to get something out quickly.

I have my doubts that the affair is over, but I have had the chance to chew on some fine opinions by others and feel somewhat more qualified to weigh in.

Two quick caveats: I have served on several occasions as a de facto opinion editor, and these are unprecedent times that find many of us reevaluating our stance on issues we thought we had a fairly decent grasp of.

To me, the NYT situation breaks down to two specific questions:

1. Should the opinion have been published?
2. Should people have lost their jobs over it?

To the first question: At face value, an op-ed written by an elected member of the house or senate certainly demands attention. We expect our elected officials to hold themselves to a standard, even if we know in the backs of our minds we are asking a lot. Having read the piece, however, there were some serious red flags that required follow up — accusations that needed founding.

In a situation such as the one that prompted the op-ed, any call to bring active troops to bear against the citizenry that are now being labeled “insurrectionists” should damn well require some vetting. If the goal is to allow inflammatory words by a sitting senator to be in the public square, it should be imperative upon the staff to make it clear in the same kind of lead text that is now used to clarify the published piece on the website.

My gut reaction remains what it was last week: If an elected official is saying something beyond the pale, print it, publish it, run it. The public is far better served knowing this than it is by brushing it under the carpet. But, qualify it. We know now that it was a solicited piece. Seems pretty easy to clarify, then, and let the words speak for themselves.

That leads to the second question: Should people have lost their jobs over it?

Yes.

Perhaps, due to the piece having been solicited, less attention was paid to it. I couldn’t say. But, the revelation that the head of the opinion section had not read it speaks to me as a serious breakdown in process.

1. First, if I am the Opinion Page Editor of any newspaper, I’m damn well reading everything that goes in the section. Letters, columns, editorials. Everything.
2. If, for some reason I screwed up that day or it wasn’t possible for me to read everything, my staff better damn well know they read something in there that should have been brought to my attention. Failure to do so means either the staff does not realize that, doesn’t care, or wants to see me get mine. Any way you slice it, it is a failure in leadership.

I don’t make that second point lightly, James Bennet has brought a lot of good thought to the opinion page and was in line for the big chair at the paper currently occupied by Executive Editor Dean Banquet. I believe the wide range of thought he brought to the page was a good thing. It didn’t make him popular, but we aren’t in this to be loved.

Should the opinion page be held accountable to the newsroom? I don’t think so. At large news organizations, opinion lives separate from the newsroom, as it should. Most layman do not understand this, but it is an extremely important element of journalism. Do I agree with reaction from the news department that printing the column put lives in danger? I don’t see that correlation, but as I said in the beginning, we are all reevaluating what we thought we knew just a short time ago.

What I do know is it certainly doesn’t make their jobs any easier, the way that it was presented, and we should be in it to support each other in our work. Journalism is a dangerous business, and I have no trouble believing it is difficult being a black journalist right now, Tom Cotton or no.

But what I cannot excuse, as an editor, as head of section, is not to have read the piece. Not to have a staff that knows the head of section should read it. Have faith in your deputies, sure, but the buck stops at the top. Inexcusable. And not who you want in the big chair.

That said… I’ll return to the first question.

Would the readership be better served by spiking the piece and never publishing the opinion?

Or by publishing the piece, with an explainer at the head, such as the one that exists now, qualifying that the paper solicited an opinion from a sitting senator, and this was the response?

I’d argue the public is better served being exposed to that point of view.