Today's piece in TNR by Ryan Lizza "Animal House" (
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=lizza010504) is a perfect example of what he, and by extension much of the TNR staff (and the SCLM in general) really want to get out of the debates. They don't want a substantive debate, nor an open forum on the issues that confront our nations.
They want, as Lizza so succinctly puts it, "blood":
One reason for Dean's Teflon performance is moderator Paul Anger, who seems committed to cutting off any interactions that might actually create news or conflict. Again and again he stifles exchanges that are on the cusp of turning interesting with a sharp "thank you." When John Kerry finally seems to be breaking through with an attack on Dean's flip-flops, Anger shuts it down. "Senator, we're going to have to move on," he says, before admonishing the candidates to "play nice" in the next round. The animals in the press room seethe. "What a turkey," says one. "What an asshole," grouses another.
Now, personally I'd put Dean's "teflon performance" more down to Dean rather than anyone else, but that's beside the point. The point is that these SCLM journalists don't want to look at where the candidates stand on the issues: they want blood, and they're willing to turn a debate about choosing our next President into a brawl in order to justify their lust.
But these sharks, of course, only have teeth when it's convinient: we didn't see this kind of hunting on the part of so-called "reporters" back during the six-candidate Republican primary. I don't know about you, but I didn't see dozens of headlines such as 'Republicans gang-up on front-runner Bush with accurate attacks on his flip-flopping' or crap like that (of course, it would probably be justified back then).
Why are these reporters so fixated on wanting a mudfight instead of a well-moderated debate, such as existed in Iowa? Who knows. Maybe they're jealous that they couldn't pull off a good debate, having failed with CNN, CNBC, and FAUX.
Discuss, if you will.