Twenty months out from the national conventions, candidates are already jockeying for position, and the press is full of speculation mode. This winnowing process—with all its donor influence and special interest pressure—is still one that can work in our democracy, This medium can be vital in ensuring that a single candidate can’t exert inordinate influence on the press so early that no one else can catch up. To a great extent, it’s our responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen.
In the past elections, we saw the negative side of early press influence. Special interests within the press destroyed Al Gore with quotes taken out of context and unsupported by any honest discussion. (Yes, he did invent the funding for an early version of the Internet, and expose through hearings the "Love Canal" issues.)
It didn’t even take that much to destroy Howard Dean—just a directional microphone sound bite snatched from the air and played 22 times in a single day on CNN headline news. Many people didn't realize how far the CNN management had swung right three years ago--and how much an unpredictable candidate like Dean scared the back room power brokers in both parties.
Prospective candidates with the right connections often use the same press to put themselves on the fast track to nomination, long before there is any public demand for "fair and balanced" treatment. Savvy candidates know that a year from now everything they say will be weighed by the standards of "electioneering," but now they can imbed ideas into the subconscious of the American public with the help of the press. The impressions that these drive by interviews imbed in the public consciousness may be impossible to erase a year from now.
A link that’s been featured in several diaries in the past week sums it up nicely, albeit from the negative side:
If a campaign doesn't engage the New Media early on, there will be... major problems: 1) Unfavorable frames and narratives will be free to develop in the media seed-bed of the blogosphere. Once developed, they become conventional wisdom and are very difficult to rebut.
Consider John McCain. He’s the darling of the media, often introduced as "straight talking" by many supposedly neutral talk show moderators. In fact, he’s anything but. Of all the wanabees out there, he has probably postured the most. Now is the time to force the press to ask him the hard questions. Consider some of these McCain positions:
(From the Republican National Coalition for Life, August 26, 1999)
"I'd love to see a point where (Roe vs. Wade) is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." John McCain thinks legal abortion is "necessary."
McCain has flipped on this issue so many times that the website On the Issues cites 18 separate positions that McCain has taken since that point—everything from mandating a family conference for a minor who wanted an abortion to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Sometimes McCain’s position depends not on when he’s speaking but where:
(From The Carpetbagger Report, June 4, 2005)
During the 2000 race, McCain at first criticized the use of the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina, pointing out that many people consider it a symbol of racism. When good old boys down South protested, McCain switched sides, saying that the stars and bars are merely meant to honor Southern heritage. After he left the race, McCain switched again, going back to his original position.
McCain’s positions on Civil Rights can only be described as eclectic. He would give ADA violators 90 days for compliance to help disabled persons (presumably hoping they’d heal?), prohibit protection of rights for gay and lesbian employees, and wouldn’t classify the persecution of gays or lesbians a hate crime. Of course, he says a ban on same sex marriage is "un-Republican" but won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole ("Leave it to the States.")
Some of McCain’s positions aren’t contradictory, just bizarre. He wants to defund research on solar and alternative energies, says ethanol isn’t worth developing, and is passionately opposed to trains. (But he likes hydrogen powered vehicles.)
He voted to kill restrictions on violent videos, but blames the media for the Littleton shootings!
His personal life gets even more bizarre. He divorced the wife that stuck with him through the Viet Nam years and found a trophy wife 19 years his junior, is incredibly superstitious and vain. One day he’s bucking the president, the next he’s his new best friend...but he’s willing to accuse his "best friend" John Kerry of some stupid remark against the troops when he clearly knew what Kerry meant.
So where are the hardball questions for McCain? Watch for his appearances. Nag the hosts to hit him—and all the other "talking heads" again and again. When you can, sit in the audience and ask the questions yourself, or follow a local appearance with a letter to the editor.
Not just McCain, of course. This same "against the wall" truthfulness should be demanded of every candidate. That doesn’t mean a candidate can’t change a position. Only a dead person stops thinking! (Well, there is that guy in the White House...) But they should admit it is a change, based on new information and changing events, not say: "I never said that."
The next few months will be crucial in preventing the sort of subversive psychological campaign that can skew an election before it even gets started.