Charlie Savage to NYT

Published May 08 2008, 06:53 PM by Adam Reilly

Big loss for the Boston Globe: Charlie Savage, who won a 2007 Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Bush Administration's sweeping expansion of executive power, is headed to the New York Times. He'll start there later this month.

"I'm very sorry to lose Charlie," says Peter Canellos, the Globe's D.C.-bureau chief. "There's nothing more to say about that. But we will be replacing Charlie in the bureau, which is good--and we're going to take a look at internal candidates first."

"Charlie's been terrific for us," adds Globe editor Marty Baron. "He did great work in Washington--he won a Pulitzer, as you know--and it's no wonder that the New York Times is interested in him. But he's not the first talented person from the Globe that's been hired elsewhere. And in the same way that we found the talent of Charlie Savage, I trust that we'll have another talented person in Washington."

The impending end of the Bush presidency may make it a little easier for the paper to cope with Savage's departure; even if John McCain wins in November, he probably won't push the Unitary Executive the way Bush has. Still, an unfortunate development.

Take it easy on Tomase

New in the Phoenix: can sports save the Herald?

8 Comments

Richard Pachter said:

Why assume that McCain isn't a likely proponent of the crackpot "Unitary Executive" theory? The overwhelming evidence, in fact, is that he is. See this piece. for more info.

May 8, 2008 8:08 PM
Adam said:

Richard, it looks to me like McCain's speech was more a standard-issue rant against "activist judges" than it was an endorsement of unlimited presidential power. Parsing McCain's remarks, Greenwald says he lamented the judiciary "show[ing] little regard for the authority of the president." But the full quote laments the judiciary "show[ing] little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states." The anti-judge shtick should remind us that McCain's a conservative. But the speech in question doesn't make me think he'd assert the president's right to ignore congressionally established constraints on his/her power.

May 8, 2008 8:41 PM
Richard Pachter said:

That may indeed be the case, Adam, but pardon me for not being clearer. My main point is that I wouldn't make any assumptions. Prior to becoming president, the current White House occupant was considered relatively moderate and was said to prefer bipartisan consensus-building... and we know how that worked out.

May 8, 2008 10:44 PM
Adam said:

Point taken, Richard. The best reason to hope that McCain WON'T follow Bush's lead on this, I think, is that he's been a member of Congress. But you're right--"hope" is the operative word. We shouldn't assume.

May 9, 2008 12:27 AM
Andrew Langmead said:

There is at least one way that McCain has stated a disagreement with the Unitary Executive theory that the current administration operates under. In Charlie Savage's own article Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum he surveyed all of the Presidential candidates at the time. McCain said "As President, I won’t have signing statements. I will either sign or veto any legislation that comes across my desk." Neither Clinton nor Obama would count them out. It sort of makes sense in a way. Someone with such a long career in Congress would have some appreciation of its power, over either the executive or judiciary branch.

May 9, 2008 1:25 AM
Doug Spear said:

Adam, this is old news, the Savage deal.

May 9, 2008 3:18 PM
Adam said:

Maybe internally, Doug, but it was news to me and a lot of other Globe readers. If it was previously reported, let me know and I'll add a link.

May 9, 2008 3:29 PM