When it comes to covering presidential campaigns, I’m a distinct amateur (just some guy in “pajamas”, as they say), but having just interviewed Fred Thompson, I can’t resist putting in my one and a half cents on this morning’s dustup between Fox’s Chris Wallace and Thompson.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson’s campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.
Thompson said, “This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth.”
Etc. … Well, Thompson has a point. Not just Fox but all the networks have a pretty set way of covering the campaign that is based on fairly shallow conventional wisdom. The coverage of the candidates’ views on the issues is similarly shallow – and not just on Fox, obviously. This is a universal problem. No wonder Thompson was grateful for the opportunity to explain his view on the War on Terror, at least, in our interview linked above.
Of course, the networks’ methods are just a product of a presidential election system, which is itself decades out of date. The kind of retail politics being practiced in Iowa and New Hampshire is almost comically out of step with needs of the modern presidency. We act as it we want to elect someone who is good at hanging out in coffee shops and schmoozing, when nothing could be further from the President’s actual job when in office. A business would find this method of choosing its employees – or executives – ridiculous.
I know I’m tooting my own company’s horn here, but I think if people watched the PJM interview with Thompson they would learn more about the candidate than a month of state fair photo ops. We’re in the 21st Century, folks. Enough of that cutesy nonsense – it’s wasting our time.
And I will say one thing more about Messrs. Krauthammer and Barnes, referred to above. As I noted, I have little personal experience of political campaigns, but I have worked in Hollywood for thirty years, a very similar town to Washington, as I am far from the first to say. (”Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, etc.”) Both towns run on that most deadly of sins – envy. The common scuttlebutt about Thompson (or anybody) is often motivated and distorted by that envy. Let’s try to find out what the people (candidates) really think.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
7 Comments
1. vnjagvet:I thought Fred did a pretty good job with Chris Wallace this morning. He was assertive without being nasty, and got a few good licks in, arguing that his solutions to some of the nation’s knotty problems had gotten good reviews from those caring to listen.
Nov 25, 2007 - 2:41 pm 2. Buddy Larsen:Right, anyone caring to listen to old Fred will be pretty impressed with his common-sense handle on things. I know I have been, recently.
Nov 25, 2007 - 7:39 pm 3. Wellspring:I have worked in Washington, and I think that retail politics is direly important– maybe not telegenic, but very important.
From a policy standpoint, the world is bigger than Washington DC. We’ve got a country of 300 million people, and appeal on TV + appeal among the talking heads in DC accounts for maybe a million of them, tops. The rest of us may have our opinions influenced by TV, but our day to day lives have nothing to do with what the talking heads say in Washington. More to the point, work in any political office (governor, state or federal legislator, whatever) and you’ll realize that what they say on TV has little or nothing to do with the reality of policymaking. An ability to press the flesh doesn’t cover much ground– you need an established organization to keep you connected to the people.
OK more practical reason why we use primaries: each party is trying to select a candidate who is both electable and acceptable ideologically. The single biggest factor in winning is getting your base out– and that is entirely decided by your ground troops. Howard Dean won on TV and the internet, but lost because he didn’t have a strong organization on the ground.
As for Fred, I think he did a good job on Fox, now that I’ve seen the video. I’m really wondering if Rudy can win the nomination, and I’m shocked he’s made it this far. If he fizzles, Fred is well-positioned to sweep in and be a great consensus candidate who is still pretty electable in the general. Much of what I’m saying applies to John McCain also, of course. Scooping up the nomination late is useful if you can pull it off. You don’t get excoriated by the other candidates, many of whom have dropped out already anyway. You don’t have to tack as far to the (right/left) to win so your move to the middle for the general election is more plausible. When/if Mitt and Rudy go really negative on one another, will the loser’s supporters really support the winner? Or stay home on election day?
So I think Fred is doing just fine. He’s pecking at Mitt Romney a bit, but otherwise he’s staying positive, policy-oriented, and mostly off the MSM radar. If Rudy melts down in the second wave of primaries, he might be able to pull this off. I think his chances are far better than the conventional wisdom says.
Nov 26, 2007 - 7:45 am 4. AlanC:Wellspring has it right in the main. Politics has little to do with policy per se and politics determing who’s elected.
The main flaws, IMHO, with our system can be traced back to the debacle of ‘68 and the Dems in Chi town. This led directly to the McGovern “opening up” of the party processes and turned the process over to the crazies.
Harken back to those thrilling days of yesteryear like 1960. Kennedy only had to run in a few primaries to prove his electability and then the other processes took over an decided on a candidate and platform.
There IS more to a good president than the retail politics of the primaries, but, they were a positive feature of a more complex system.
The current system with everything vested in primaries everywhere, closer and closer together is more like wholesaling politics or Walmart driving out the Mom & Pop store of the local process.
Taking the smoke filled room from the process has been far more hurtful than helpful. The old process gave the Dems JFK, Truman, FDR, Humphrey, etc. The new process? McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry & Gore. The ‘pubs have not been as badly effected, but, it has gotten to them too.
No contest to me.
The Primaries need to be made LESS important not more.
Oh, can someone please explain to me cross-voting in primaries? Why should Dems vote in Pubs and vice versa, or independents in either?
Nov 26, 2007 - 11:52 am 5. Doug S.:This draws just a bit on what the other commenters so far have said, but I like Fred because his strategy seems to be fighting against the whole expansion of the electoral process that we’re seeing this cycle (and I suppose it’s been building over previous cycles, as AlanC suggests in talking about the importance of the primaries). Fred jumped in as late as he felt he could afford to, and seems to be hoping that he’ll peak late. I think that’s good for him and good for the country.
As a citizen, I am heartily sick of the perpetual campaign. I am already weary of the ‘08 campaign, and it still has almost a year to go. Soon, those who are elected will have no time in which to govern. That can’t be good, especially in a time of war.
Nov 26, 2007 - 12:31 pm 6. AlanC:Doug S, I’m with you on the sick and tired scale. Hillary has been campaigning since Kerry lost.
Unfortunately I think that there is a larger social phenomenon in play here. This morning in USA Today there is an article touting Kevin Garnett’s MVP chances. Now, I’m a Celtics fan (sorry Roger) BUT GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!! IT’S ONLY 11 GAMES INTO THE SEASON!!!!!!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!
Is this the other side of the attention deficit syndrome we suffer? We can’t wait for a game or season to play out over time, but, have to get to the end point immediately?
Nov 27, 2007 - 6:03 am 7. Ripper:Man that Thompson campaign has really taken off hasn’t it?
Nov 28, 2007 - 11:42 am