I can’t stop puzzling over Chris Collins’ recent column, comparing recently resigned former state Senate President Stan Rosenberg to the late former U.S. President Richard Nixon. The comparison, even for the limited purpose of suggesting that Rosenberg’s legacy might recover from his recent political downfall, seems deeply incongruous.
So why does he make it? I have a few speculative reasons.
1. He doesn’t understand the difference in political valence between Rosenberg and Nixon. Collins is a reasonably smart guy — he’s been covering politics long enough to know better. I’m going to give him a pass on this one.
2. He’s trying to troll liberals by trivializing Nixon’s misdeeds. A “third-rate burglary?” Nixon used CIA methods on his political opponents, which caused deep harm to our faith in democracy.
3. He tried really hard to figure out a way to be nice to a recently powerful local politician and this is the best he could come up with. Really? That’s it? Nixon? That’s a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one.
4. He envisions that there are people in his core readership for whom the comparison to Nixon would seem favorable for Rosenberg, and to whom he’s trying to convince Rosenberg is not as bad of a guy as the political press (especially back East) is making him out to be. If so, I’d like to ask those people, “is this working for you?” A politician you don’t like is somehow improved if you can read him as a victim of the mainstream press?
C’mon, Chris. Either this is beneath you or I have seriously misjudged you.
Andrew Varnon
Greenfield