Coverage of national political campaigns is generally pretty bad–a parade of polls, horesrace analysis and fundraising tallies, with pundits doing their best at pretending they’re campaign strategists.
Can it actually get worse than that? Maybe. NBC reporter Chuck Todd made that case with a full page article in the Washington Post on August 5 that compared the Obama/Romney contest to Olympic gymnastics.
The concept behind it is corny, but even Todd seems to think so. Apparently this is supposed to be, well, kind of fun: “At NBC, to say we have Olympics fever is an understatement,” he writes at the top.
Let’s use a sport that’s popular and one that, if President Obama and Mitt Romney actually tried it, would surely entertain audiences more than your typical stump speech: women’s gymnastics. Let the games begin!
Women’s gymnastics. Oh, now I get it.
The problem isn’t just the concept, though. The political analysis is just as banal as any other campaign punditry. Take the first example, the balance beam:
As you might expect, in years past Democratic candidates have struggled on the balance beam by consistently falling to the left; Republican contenders, particularly during the preliminary rounds (in politics, we call them the primaries), have a tendency to lose their equilibrium and fall to the right. Obama won the gold medal in the 2008 all-around competition partly because of his prowess on the beam: He promised to bring American politics back into balance by ushering in an era of post-partisanship, which the judges went gaga over. But he’s been shakier on the beam since then.
Democrats fall to the left, Republicans to the right–smart politicians stay in the middle. This is routine advice Beltway reporters could probably offer in their sleep; most of time they’re far more troubled by leftward-leaning Democrats than right-leaning Republicans.
With Obama, the usual analysis makes even less sense than usual, since it’s based on the unfounded assumption that voters (or “judges”) voted for him because he promised to stay in the middle.
Todd goes on to make a more fundamental point:
While Obama’s base has given him more leeway to lean away from the left side when he has needed to in the past four years (see the debt-ceiling fight), he almost lost his balance over a same-sex marriage spin that was added late to his routine. Obama was a bit wobbly on that move, but after teammate Vice President Biden added it to his repertoire, the president had to learn it as well to stay competitive. He ultimately kept his balance and doesn’t seem to have lost too many deductions from the judges.
It’s hard to know what Todd means. The left was supportive of Obama during the debt ceiling fight…how, exactly? Was Obama really drifting off to the left with his (arguably less than categorical) endorsement of same-sex marriage? His position would seem to put it in line with majority sentiment in the country.
Todd doesn’t have much to go on here–but that’s what makes the piece so telling. Reporters like Todd think Obama’s problem is that he’s gone too far to the left (mostly, it would seem, because he’s encountered so much Republican hostility). But they don’t have many examples of this leftward drift they can point to, given his major escalation of the Afghan War, a health care plan that pleases private insurance companies, and so on. But the prevailing Beltway wisdom is that Clinton slammed the party’s liberal base, so it’s a smart move for any Democrat.
The rest of the piece is just as tedious: The floor routine is like a candidate’s stump speech, the vault is where candidates show their “ability to spring ahead of their political opponents.” Todd can’t even stick with the metaphor; they add pommel horse, which isn’t part of women’s gymnastics, “because the word ‘pommel’ and the phrase ‘pummeling your opponent’ are just too close to ignore.”
In the end, I suppose the point of the article is to show that tedious campaign journalism can be adapted for the sake of promoting the Olympics–which, naturally, air on Chuck Todd’s network.
I guess it depends on what’s meant by “Obama’s base”.
If the reference is to all the good liberal apologists for his sins, I think Todd’s spot on.
Speaking of, anyone else notice the change in tone in missives from MoveOn from a few months back?
Then, you had this cooption of the Occupy vibe, and at least some minor criticism of Dear Misleader, didn’t you?
That’s all ancient history now, isn’t it, aside from references to “the 99 and the 1 percent”. “Hope and Change 2.0” is the meme, and any misgivings about the last four years have been shredded and dutifully dumped in the recycling bin.
Why can’t I get this tune out of head?
http://www.metrolyrics.com/love-me-im-a-liberal-lyrics-ochs-phil.html
If the US were still enforcing the prohibitions against torture, Chuck Todd might have to get himself a lawyer after this tortured metaphor… That would be cringingly embarrassing if a 9th grader did it, but a national weekly writer??
And he couldn’t even use Male Gymnastics? I mean is he fixated by the Female Gymnasts or something?
I am sorry but the mental picture of Romney in a female gymnasts suit makes me want to wash my brain with mind bleach…..
Well now we can add the “Jumping, leaping and twisting 180 degrees in one move” event to Romney Gold; his now embracing of the RomneyCare that he took such pains to distance himself from in the beginning shows the man has all the sincerity of crocodile shedding tears for it’s victim. Guess it was a case of him needing to back up to get a running start to leap that hurdle.
It just goes to shows that the Ridiculous Right will make sure there is more hurdles hoops than common sense, and in trying to pander to them you make yourself into nothing less than a idiot with no integrity.
Hello there, I do think your blog might be having internet browser compatibility problems.
Whenever I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine however,
if opening in IE, it has some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to give you a quick
heads up! Apart from that, great blog!
Hey Doug Latimer: Get a grip
I’ve thought for a long time that Chuck Todd is a very poor commentator, sloppy in his analysis and taking a critical stance where there is little basis in facts.
Maybe he was being ironic. I’ve never seen a man as stiff as Romney. His body just has no joints that I can see. He has no grace. His is a straight ahead direction. Fine if you really want to “stay the course,” and, so far, we have no idea what the course is. Obama is very flexible and willing to move. If Todd had emphasized these difference he might have had an article connected with the real essence of the Olympics. Keep in mind that nobody wins the Olympics unless they can move, be flexible and work together with their countrymen. Falling right or left has little to do with it.
I guess we could not talk about policy or substance or fact check or anything trivial like that…
I supppose that an Olympic metaphor could work, but in this case, it’s the political performers who are doping the public.
Empilou, after more years than I care to count
I believe I have a fairly secure one.
Doug Latimer, you’re just like the Corporate Conservative Media; viewing everything from a diseased right-wing perspective. You’ve bought into the false caricature that the right-wing pundits have painted of Obama and never bothered to actually take an honest, objective look at the man. Obama promised a lot of this to his base, but then immediately THREW HIS BASE UNDER THE BUS!. Everything he has done has been blatantly right-wing, with some centrist flavouring. He has not leaned Left on ANYTHING in the past 4 years. What he’s done is kowtowed to the Conservative Status Quo in Washington. At first we were willing to accept that he was being kept from his promises by the massive power of Washington’s Conservative Master-Class, but as his presidency went on, it became more and more clear that Obama was in bed with the conservatives.
The only possible reason for the Left to vote for Obama now is because he’s only a moderate conservative, instead of a completely mental right-wing extremist nutbar like Romney and Ryan. Is it any wonder that Americas liberals are pissing mad right now? They haven’t had any power at all in over 60 years — it’s been stolen away by with weak-willed and predominantly conservative Democratic Party. Every time you accuse Obama of being a liberal, the real liberals in America laugh bitterly at the irony of calling a staunch conservative a liberal. America needs a big booster shot of liberalism before conservatism finishes its job and destroys the middle class and the poor.
McBob, I wish to hell you and others would take a minute to think about what I’m saying before firing off a utterly off target screed.
The point I was trying to make is that MoveOn and their ilk ignore – or more accurately, cover for – Dear Misleader’s warmongering and destruction of what’s left of what was never much of a safety net.
Are you on their mailing list? Do you see one criticism of those acts?
And no, I was never willing to accept the excuses, because I knew who the bastard was from the git go, which is why I didn’t vote for him.
(That I’m likely to this time is a sad irony, but since electoral politics is almost wholly about damage control, I may deem it the least harmful choice.)
And I knew not because I’m some gifted political analyst, but because it was pretty goddamn easy to put two and two together, and know this joker was blowing smoke.
First off, he was a major party nominee, and that speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
But we’re always implored to “follow the money”, aren’t we, and the fact that the banksters were pouring their ill gotten gains into his campaign fund make it clear where his loyalties lay.
It’s true I don’t have any time for “liberals”, because most are hypocrites, and the rest are dangerously naive. Listen to the Ochs’ song – nearly a half century later, what’s changed?
Liberals champion reform.
And you can’t reform rot.
You can only replace it.
I’d appreciate a thoughtful reply. If form holds, it’s a fool’s wish, but I’d love to be surprised.
One other thing.
Look at the Blog Roll in the right margin.
See “Questionable Content”?
That’s my dinky little page.
Why would FAIR list it if I’m this Limbaugh clone you’ve got me pegged for?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph …
McBob, Latimer’s right–I’m not sure how you managed to mis-read what he wrote–and has written(!)–here.
Much obliged, Tim.
The only thing that comes to mind is to liken Obama to that gymnast who landed on her ass off the vault.You sucked ,and now you don’t get the gold.Beyond that can we PALEASE get back to serious issues?
Right on, FAIR. And you, too, Doug. I enjoy reading your spot-on analyses on nearly every topic on here. And now that you have “revealed” your blog, I might take a trip over there sometime…
The only thing that bugs the @#%&ing crap out of me is this use of the word “liberal.” Remember, on the other side of the pond, “liberal” means free-market, economic thinker. On this side of the pond, it tends to mean social liberal. I kind of wish we on the Left would get into the healthy habit of qualifying which kind we are referring to. That’s all.
The reason I bring this up is because the Libertarians (note big “L”) tend to sharpen or blur this distinction as needs arise. They are socially liberal (so they say) when it comes to pot and sex, but they are economic liberal when it comes to monetary and fiscal policy. The fact that their hardnose, give-a-rats-a$$ approach to economics defies any “socially liberal” agenda doesn’t seem to bother them a bit, nor their pundits representing them in the MSM. The real-world connection between economic equality and social equality does not figure into their calculations.
That’s why I nearly puke every time some self-proclaimed “social liberal” (using the qualification here) pronounces that not everything is bad about Ron Paul or his even more insidious offspring. They have lost all hope elsewhere, so they dive into the political trash bin looking for something that looks like what they want without inspecting it thoroughly before consumption.
Much obliged, No Difference … and please pass along your thoughts on the blog, if you’re so inclined. My email add’s in the intro.
I don’t recall the last time I left quotes off of the term “liberal”, as the contradictions for most anyone claiming the label in these here United States pretty much make that de rigueur, don’t they?
As for libertarianism, you might check what Jamie H and I opined about the subject here:
https://fair.org/blog/2012/08/20/what-if-paul-ryan-isnt-really-a-wonk-krugman-vs-campaign-reporters/
And toss in your two cents if the spirit so moves.
Hiya, I’m really glad I’ve found this information. Nowadays bloggers publish only about gossips and internet and this is actually irritating. A good site with exciting content, that’s what I need. Thanks for keeping this website, I will be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can not find it.