So let’s say you’re running for federal office and your policy platform is way, way, way to the left of where the average constituent is in the district you want to represent. What do you do?
Give ‘em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle ‘em
Give ‘em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give ‘em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather ‘em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
Ed Kemmick is normally a fair reporter and I think he really tries to give an honest impression of the issues he covers. But this piece sheds a rather unflattering light into how the media works. Covering the unique results of Montana’s primary election, he explains how excited he is - as a reporter - about the unconventional nature of Montana’s black horse candidates. Fair enough… we’re all rather amused. But mixed in there we get this gem:
A Driscoll win could be the start of a fundamental change in the country’s whole disreputable electoral process. A Kelleher win would be … well, it would be a lot of fun.
Look, I understand that Driscoll’s run has a gimmicky attraction to it. But beyond that gimmick is some pretty scary policy, and hopefully the Montana press will be able to see past the razzle dazzle - the “fun” aspect of Driscoll’s campaign - to cover some of the hard-and-true facts about what he stands for and what he believes. Driscoll’s candidacy represents a lot more than a referendum on the electoral system. It’s about higher taxes, national security, amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialized health care, and a bloated federal government. It’s about empowering leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It’s about making Montana an attractive retirement haven for Californians looking for a little slice of heaven that they can turn into a California away from California. It’s about a lot.
Posted in John Driscoll, media bias | | Write a Letter to the Editor
Okay, I’m convinced…I’m not gonna vote for driscoll
And I’m not votin for Kelleher either.
Has Denny been using Razzle Dazzle, along with a few mirrors and some smoke to get reelected for quite some time now? I mean, don’t you guys even get a little embarrassed when you look at his Congressional CV? And now that he’s in the minority for the foreseeable future, I can’t imagine he’s going to suddenly start getting things done.
On the list of reasons why people vote, issues come second to last, right before coin toss. And the media like it that way. They are much more adept at covering horse races, and less exposed.
The whole column was more or less tongue in cheek, and if that didn’t come through I suppose the fault is mine. But to call Driscoll’s rather standard liberal views “scary” is pretty laughable, too.
My point was that if somebody, anybody, was elected without spending a dime, that would be a huge message to the political class, regardless of what that person stood for.
In regard to Mark T’s condescending take on the subject, he is, of course, wrong. But it’s hard to see things on the ground from up on a high horse.
Ed, thanks for stopping by. I understood the tongue-in-cheek aspect of your column, by as a conservative (who really does think that his liberal views are “scary”) the biggest concern that I have is that Driscoll manages to pull a ton of favorable press on his gimmicky run for office and no one looks at the substance behind his run. Every article I’ve read about - so far - has been about his campaign. Sure, I understand that’s newsworthy, but there’s more to it.
Why not write a story about Project Vote Smart. Why, for example, won’t Baucus and Schwietzer tell Montanans where they stand? Why won’t the Montana media write that story? Or, if fundraising is exicting as a subject, why not contrast Driscoll’s zeros with Baucus’ millions of out-of-state dollars (I’ve only seen one article even mention where Max has raised his money in the Missoulian way back in 2007).
Surely, there’s a story in there somewhere…
I’m sure you will see the kind of stories you’re talking about. Until the primary, no one was taking Driscoll’s campaign seriously, probably not even Driscoll. And I’m not sure his method of campaigning was a gimmick. He just decided to run and see what happened … and look what happened.
After the normal, and needed, break from electioneering reporting, I’m certain we’ll read plenty of stories about where Driscoll stands on the issues, and maybe we’ll even learn more about Rehberg’s “scary” conservative views. As for Vote Smart, I have to agree that we should make better use of what that organization gathers.
