> Regarding the Bushies, I think it's time we take the
> 'man behind the curtain' view we're getting seriously,
> the broken down drunk pulling rusty levers, and stop
> trying to see amazing plans within plans in every
> obvious stumble.
>
===================
Speaking of the 'ignore the man behind the curtain' some are getting upset that there's too much attention being paid the investor theory of political parties:
Dollar-Sign Journalism By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 18, 2003; 8:52 AM
Okay, we're going to harp on it again.
Because it's getting out of control.
It now seems as though the only qualification for being president of the United States is getting people to write checks. Preferably large ones. And to get them to get their friends to write checks.
According to that standard, George Bush is the most qualified, since he just raised more money than all the '04 Dems combined. In which case maybe we should just declare the presidential race over.
Quick: Whose health plan is better, Gephardt's, Kerry's or Dean's?
Who knows? And from the point of view of the press, who cares? Much more fascinating to write about which candidate exceeded expectations and which one fell short. (And who sets these expectations? Ink-stained wretches, of course.)
This whole expectations thing reminds us of Wall Street, where a stock goes up even if the company loses money, as long as it loses less money than the consensus estimate of those brilliant brokerage analysts.
There is something ridiculously short-sighted in grading candidates on their fundraising skills months before a single vote has been cast. Sure, it's an important measure of a candidate's appeal and organizational prowess, but these days it seems like the only measure.
Why do reporters do it? It's easy and fun and involves real numbers and real deadlines. You can smell it and taste it. So it becomes a mock election before the real election. Meanwhile, analyzing the contenders' positions on health, affirmative action, gay rights, pension reform, Iraq, homeland security and so on is difficult. It involves the sort of value judgments that journalists are reluctant to make. So they fall back on the money primary to assess who's surging and who's sinking.
Slate's William Saletan cuts to the chase:
"Dick Gephardt is sinking. 'Gephardt Is Lagging Behind In Democrats' Fund-Raising,' says the New York Times. 'Gephardt fundraising comes in light,' agrees USA Today. 'Weak Performance of Gephardt Is a Surprise,' frets the front page of the Washington Post. 'Gephardt Cash Shortfall Raises Questions,' warns the Associated Press. . . .
"Why the fuss? On Tuesday, the Federal Election Commission released the candidates' official financial reports showing how much money they had raised in the second quarter of 2003. Gephardt raised $3.8 million. That's $3.8 million more than I raised. It's nearly twice what two-term governor and three-term senator Bob Graham raised. Of the nine established Democratic candidates, it puts Gephardt fifth in second-quarter fund raising and fourth in cash on hand.
"Not good enough, says the press. Gephardt 'fell short of his fund-raising goal by more than $1 million, raising questions Tuesday about his ability to excite Democratic donors and remain a top-tier candidate,' the AP declares. The Post pronounces his tally 'poor' and 'unexpectedly weak.' USA Today says it puts him 'well below his $5 million goal and the top tier.'
"But exactly who, other than John Kerry, is in this top tier? John Edwards, whose second-quarter receipts exceeded Gephardt's by just $600,000? Howard Dean, whose cash on hand exceeds Gephardt's by just $100,000? Joe Lieberman, who has raised just $700,000 more than Gephardt this year -- and trails him in cash on hand by three times that figure?
"This muddle-headed talk about tiers would be funny if it weren't so consequential. One day the press says you're out of the top tier because you didn't raise enough money, and the next day people stop giving you money because they've heard you're out of the top tier. All the while, the press pretends not to be driving this cycle."
[snip]