UPDATE: Thanks to afertig — MoveOn has put up a truly nauseating compilation of the “When did you stop beating your wife”-type questions:
—-
So, it seems nearly unanimous: Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos absolutely coughed up a hairball* in last night's debate on ABC. Stephanopoulos has responded to the criticism, but it just goes to show how little responsiblity he takes as a journalist.
“Our job is to ask the questions,” he said. “His job is to go out and win votes.”
(This reminds me of someone local of whom it is said far and wide — yea verily — “asks the tough questions.” And is gorgeous and brilliant — no extra charge! But I digress.)
“The questions”? Well, it depends on how you define the word “the”, huh? As if there is a canonical set of questions, and shucky gee whiz, we're just up here askin' these folks these here questions! George and Charlie, they were your questions. And your questions sucked.
Stephanopoulos then absolutely ensconces himself in airtight cocoon of tautological campaign meta:
“We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme — which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in November.”
“This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That's why we decided to lead with it.”
…”People also take into account…how candidates handle controversy,” he said. “That's what campaigns are about, as well.”
Because — says the former campaign guy — the campaign is really about … the campaign. And who's got a good campaign. And how that campaign matches up against the other campaign. Because if you don't know how that campaign is likely to campaign against the other campaign … well, gosh … what exactly do you know?
(If this were a Star Trek episode, this is where the computer starts shooting off sparks, self-destructing, defeated by logic.)
This, sadly, is pretty typical of a certain 1990s-style Democratic Party hack mindset, exemplified by the then-execrable New Republic: Politics is not a means for a people to govern itself; it is an end in and of itself. And you know, if you live in DC and you see people moving in and out of town with changing administrations, and you see some folks getting sweet jobs and gigantic contracts, while others are frozen out … hey, it's understandable to think that The Game is the game.
But for those of us timid prairie folk, out here in the wilds … we're actually wondering about our jobs, our mortgages, our kids' schools, our drives, and the weather. And mostly very little about The Game. Not our problem, you know?
And sometimes we get … well … bitter when we realize that the folks who have influence don't seem to care much about those things.
*(great expression, thanks sco)
david says
on David Brooks’ unintentionally hilarious blog post praising ABC’s wretched work. A couple of my faves:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>There are tons more over there.
peter-porcupine says
Politics and government are not the same, and are often antithetical to one another.
<
p>Case in point – our Governor’s race.
<
p>Deval Patrick is a brilliant politician – wholesale and retail. He can sway an entire crowd, but is equally good at the small conversation, the empathetic moment. He is NOT as adept at governing.
<
p>Kerry Healey is excellent at governing. She served as municipal liason as Lt. Governor, going to every town hall and mayor, when local aid was being cut to learn and facilitate state/municipal relations, and did distinguished work on violence against woman and children. She is a TERRIBLE politician.
<
p>We have been gradually led to look at the sizzle instead of the steak, and it’s reflected in increasing disappointment with government.
charley-on-the-mta says
The press is interested in November 2008. That’s its Super Bowl. The rest of us are worried about January 2009 – forward.
afertig says
bob-neer says
I mean, who on earth wouldn’t? If David Brooks is the only one on your side you know you have a problem. Henry Kissinger may also have approved, I suppose, and perhaps Bill O’Reilly. This is the bottom of the barrel.
peabody says
Can a candidate get away with using this strategy of dismissing any criticism as a distraction?
<
p>Note to File: If it works use it.
<
p>
joeltpatterson says
and George and Charlie G. should be criticized for wasting Democratic voters’ time and Democratic candidates’ time.
joes says
There are just too many issues that need to be discussed openly, and these two so-called “moderators” wasted our time and their opportunity to engage such a discussion.
<
p>They both have ruined their credibility, and should be relegated to the trash heap of failed American journalists.
<
p>If they needed something new to discuss, what about John McCain’s proposal to have a 3-month “holiday” from the federal gasoline tax? Is that good policy, or merely pandering in an election year? Would the lack of this tax let the market provide even more profits for the oil companies? Would the additional deficit of the US Treasury further weaken the dollar? Would the disincentive for wasteful consumption be lessened?
<
p>Or maybe they should have been asked about the GAO report that decries the lack of a coherent policy of the US Government in dealing with Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do they agree with that assessment, and if so what would they do differently?
<
p>Or maybe they could have been asked about the projected deficit for this year, and how each of their spending proposals could be reconciled with their desire to strengthen our economic position. And in this regard, what about the US Trade Deficit? Are the US flag lapel pins made in the USA, or are they another trinket from China?
lanugo says
and thought it sucked.
<
p>Like you said, as a former campaign flak, all he thinks about is the spin-cycle and who’s up and down on a day-to-day basis. All horse race no policy case. All handling and one-liners – no thought and wisdom or tact.
<
p>This dish also comes from Steph’s interview with Josh Marshall on TPM:
<
p>
<
p>It is that crap in bold that I find most mind-numbingly wrong. The vast majority of voters aren’t just siting there with a crib sheet of pros and cons thinking about who can win and lose this thing.
<
p>Well she did lie about that sniper stuff.
But he has a crazy anti-American pastor and he also hangs out with hippie bombers and doesn’t like the flag.
<
p>People don’t want to vote on that crap. Most voters want to vote for the person they would like to see as president, the person who they think will address the issues they care about. They want to vote for someone and not just the least offensive or slimed candidate. Electability matters to some degree but if it mattered that much, would Democrats have decided to make their two frontrunners a disliked women and an untested black guy? Hell no – we rolled the dice on these two cause we wanted to make a real change and a real difference.
<
p>Mr. Stephanopoulos obviously can’t fathom the reality that what concerns the media 100 is not necessarily the thing that keeps Joe Public up at night. He worked in Clinton’s war room the 1992 race and that is how he thinks politics has to be waged. Obama doesn’t play that game (and if he tried he could never out do the Clintons at it) and the Clintons and their former aide can’t seem to get with the program. The time for that type of politics as verbal assasination and inuendo has had its day.
<
p>Another thing that sucks – and Steph and the Clinton folks both eluded to this argument – is the justification that because we all expect the good ole’ GOP to drudge up all the slime they can against Obama, that in some way it justifies Clinton attacking him with it all now. Like in some way she is doing us all a service for sliming him and that she is only raising these issues because she cares that the party know what it is getting itself into in choosing Obama. Gimme a break.
<
p>The Clintons basically see politics as bloodsport and that because they have no faith it can ever change they just play within the anything-goes rules they’ve helped set. They see the world as it is and say that is what we are stuck with. Obama does want something better and he is ahead in all the ways that matter in this race now because the people want something better too.
joeltpatterson says
Obama doesn’t play that game (and if he tried he could never out do the Clintons at it) and the Clintons and their former aide can’t seem to get with the program. The time for that type of politics as verbal assasination and innuendo has had its day.
<
p>This kind of rough politics has not “had its day.” If you subscribe to the belief that Obama’s politics in particular are on a higher moral plane, and the other kind of politics is on its way down, you’d be making a big assumption that virtue translates into more votes.
<
p>Obama, if the DNC picks him, is going to have a rough ride in August, September and October. In 1992, the GOP let Clinton-Gore campaign through August with no hard attacks, and they lost. In 2004, they hit John Kerry with the Swift Boat ads on August 5th, to bust up any good coverage from the convention. They’ve already been hitting him with madrassa smears and flag lapel crap. They’ve got lots more things they could try.
<
p>The RNC & McCain want to win this one just as badly as the DNC & Obama do… and the referees in this match, the National Media, are giving McCain donuts.
<
p>It’ll be ugly.