Virginia is for retreads
By Norman Leahy | Sunday, December 11th, 2011 | Catch-AllToward the end of a rather jaded Sunday sermon in which he recounts the debate between George Allen and Tim Kaine, the RTD’s Jeff Schapiro blunders across a larger truth:
At the back of the room, the candidates’ cameras — lost among those of television stations and newspaper websites — recorded the 90-minute exchange, harvesting grist for commercials with two objectives: to tar-brush the other guy and to get under his skin.
Consider that scene again…a room featuring the remnants of Virginia’s press corps and a gaggle of campaign staffers.
Dante could have had a lot of fun with that set-up.
But beyond the terrifying aspects is the deeper, sadder truth that Jeff sketches, but does not see: Virginia politics is for retreads. And that should be cause for unease.
It goes beyond the George Allen and Tim Kaine, who are as familiar as Coke and Pepsi. It extends to the people in the room during the debate, too. Virginia’s political press corps was, not long ago, still formidable. But no longer. In a bid to re-assert its role as political gatekeeper, the press hosted a general election debate well in advance of either party’s primary. It established entry barriers that, if they had been applied, say, to the GOP presidential field, would have kept various frontrunners out of the room entirely — right as they were catching fire with the wider electorate.
This event was a gasp. Not the last, desperate gasp of a dying man, but awfully close.
That the two frontrunners should indulge the fading patient’s demands does not surprise. Each man came of political age when Virginia’s press was still a powerful presence. They play by the rules they know…including rolling the cameras in the debate’s background to provide ad writers with hooks and taglines that will consume the airwaves next year.
It’s all familiar — the pressies, the staffers, the candidates and their messages. It’s a showroom full of retreaded tires the salesmen tell us will work just like new, but at half the cost.
And they may be right. Up until the time those recaps fail spectacularly…
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
12 Responses to "Virginia is for retreads"
Even sadder was the attempt by panelist Bob Lewis from AP trying to make the event about himself and his inane line of questioning.
I dunno, Norm. I agree, in principle, that this closed-press set-up was disappointing. And, I think both Allen and Kaine should have not taken up the request (in principle)…while at the same time, if they were invited as guests to talk U.S. offshore energy policy on “Meet the Press” mano a mano, I doubt we’d be having the same reaction.
That said, until any of the other candidates can register any degree of viability, there’s no sense paying any attention to any of them. They’ve all had nearly a year to make their case, they’ve all had press, they’ve all had an opportunity to raise money and buy ads, they’ve all had opportunities to speak in front of conventions and gatherings. If someone, anyone, not named Allen or Kaine had any sort of momentum, things might change.
But they don’t.
So, I don’t fault the press for not having them participate in the debate.
So JR, if the “other” lesser candidates are a waste of time, why do they run? Should the state ban them from running due to lack of money and fame?
1) Same reason all pols do; ego.
2) No. But that doesn’t mean the press should be forced to give them the same amount of coverage, either. Free markets, my man, free markets.
Fat Dave, nice name.
Fraudulent and false adevertising Fat Dave. Fraudulent and False adverstisement. Are you reporting the REAL news or the news you want to put up? The FACT is there is still a primary. The FACT is there are more contenders involved than offered by the AP. The FACT is the primary IS the contest to determine who is worthy. NOT loyalty to some banner or person that shafted you in office previously. NOT the candidate with so much baggage that Kaine will shred him in a general that a Democrat shouldn’t be able to win.
What causes a man to out right bully a tracker like George Allen did to Sidarth or whatever his name was. The macaca slur was only part of it. Watch the video. it is deplorable. What is responsible for that Fat Dave? Ego!!!….and an internal self-loathing.
I understand where you’re coming from, Jim. But I think if we applied the standard you set to the GOP presidential field, we would not have paid attention to Newt Gingrich. Before his recent surge, he was an afterthought with little money, no organization and his poll numbers flirted with the margin of error. And did so for months.
That’s not to say any of the Republican Senate candidates not named George Allen will enjoy a Newt-like burst of popularity. As you rightly say, they’ve had substantial time to make a move and haven’t. Ascribe that failure to whatever you will, but it’s unavoidably true.
Their fortunes could still change with the RPV debates in the spring. Maybe those events are the spark they’ve been looking for.
“If” and “maybe” are mighty thin reeds upon which to hang a candidacy.
But as to the notion that Virginia needs to shake its lazy acceptance of political retreads…I’ll stand by that no matter what.
I’m not a journalist, Britt. I report nothing. If Radtke et al. engender enough interest to sell papers, they’ll get covered. Like Norm says, maybe the debates in the Spring will help one of them break out. Besides, you don’t want to peak too early in this game, anyhow.
Norman answers the question of viability and who gets to determine who is viable and who isn’t. Norman mentions in his article how AP constraints if applied to the presidential field, would keep out upstarts from threatening the empires of entrenched and established faces. It would have prevented Herman Kaine. It would have prevented Newt Gingrich (who leads now). It would have kept out John McCain, who went on to win the last nomination. Evidently, Romney couldn’t hold position, then. True enough, Ron Paul easily qualifies now to the chagrin of many of you, but it would have deleted him years ago as a voice. Of course many of you would want it that way. Never mind that Ron Paul and his movement is a result of our country taking the wrong path for far too long. A path to bankruptcy and shame for the finest nation on Earth. Nevermind that! As long as “our guy” wins, right? No need to address the real problems. I for one am glad Ron Paul is around even if I disagree with him on a few things. He might be a little naive on how ruthlessly human other countries are, but not starting a new war in every administration would be very refreshing!
It is the PRIMARY that determines who is worthy. Not Fat Dave, not the AP,not the RTD, and not BD. Although, all are free to support their choice and play a part, that is the only way the help make a determination as to who wins the right to represent the individual parties. When the AP has their own party, they can choose their own path of nomination. Or maybe they have their own party and the Dems and Repubs don’t realize who their leaders really are.
Both Kaine and Allen are retreads as mentioned in the article. That won’t go unnoticed inside or outside of Virginia. I have already heard it from Tony Macrini on WNIS’s morning talk radio. Of course, he also says quite often that “the surest sign of insanity is to repeat the same actions and expect a different result.”
So if you agree that the economy and the nation are in a bad position, why rehire the people that brought you there. Why contrive barriers that Norman mentions to prevent new people with differing ideas on how to fix what these other guys put into place? Why block those that the press and the rest of the “machine” doesn’t have a deep relationship with? Maybe you don’t want change? Maybe you want to protect the established empires? Maybe it is your team that matters to you and not Virginia, not your country?
Fat Dave, I wasn’t saying that you report. I was responding to what I saw as your apologizing for the AP ignoring the primary process and determining for themselves who the participants in the general election were. THEY do report. In this case, not the whole truth, but one they seek to construct.
There is a difference between fair markets/honest representation of facts and pretending the primary doesn’t exist. In this case the primary is that fair and free market, not the AP.
“Retreads”? Allen and Kaine are old Virginia fossils and their campaigns are archeological digs which attempt to rewrite each other’s history to portray one as being worse than the other. Their campaigns are degenerating into predictable and boring which doesn’t bode well for keeping the race interesting through next year.
Britt,
I struggle with the issue of the debate. There has to be limits on who can be a participant, or else you’ll be swamped by cranks, and the debate will be useless. However, I was not happy that Allen and Kaine were debating before the primary, either. That was an arrogant and stupid move by Allen, Kaine, and the AP.
On the other hand, it is not the role of the press to drum up support for a candidate. That is the job of the candidate. And that is where the market comes in. The individual candidate has to gain a critical amount of support to be of interest to the general public. The media has to sell content folks want to read. And yes, it is sad that folks would rather read about Kim Kardashian’s latest failed marriage over Jamie Radtke’s latest visit to a pancake breakfast, but it is what folks want.
My argument with Cohen was that he was escalating, albeit sarcastically, a lack of media interest into a governmental ban on campaigning by minor candidates. I disagreed, and I am just as opposed to government mandating the amount of coverage each candidate receives in the press.
Well, in that case Fat Dave we pretty much agree. The way I read Turbo was he was complaining about the media as far as the debate goes only.
Jamie Radtke gets media coverage. Plenty of videos of her being interviewed. Even the debate got her interviewed. I don’t think there are complaints about general media coverage. I’ve been happy with the amount of coverage personally.
Leave your response