|
|
 |
|
|
|
EXPLANATORY JOURNALISM: The TerryReport
|
|
|
News, commentary, opinion on politics, government, books, social trends, American life, travel, cycling, books, other stuff
|
|
|
|
One of the odd lessons of American politics is this: find something good to run against. Don’t make it into “Joe versus Bob”, make it into Joe versus evil, whatever you can find that makes some sense and resonates with voters. Dan Bratt, the giant killer who defeated Eric Cantor in Virginia, ran against big business and big government, the twin forces that decide almost everything in America. He said, to much applause, that the bankers and Wall Streeters who brought on the financial crisis of 2008 should have gone to jail. The New Yorker reports the following:
|
|
|
|
In his campaign against Cantor, Brat turned every issue into a morality tale about big business cheating ordinary Americans. He attacked Cantor for supporting the farm bill (“Do those billions of dollars go to the small American farmer? No, they go to huge agribusiness, right? Big business again.”€ť), the flood-insurance bill (“Who does that go to? A lot of the money goes to gazillionaires on both coasts who have homes in nice real-estate locations.”€ť), and the STOCK Act, an effort to stop insider trading by congressmen, which Cantor gutted by including an exception for spouses. In his Stephenson-inspired stump speech, Brat was more worked up about the STOCK Act than anything else. He promised, “If you tell your friends or neighbors about this issue, I will be your next congressman!”€ť
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thrust is not so much tea party as it is re-fried populism, repackaged for current times, the little guy against the big guy. It taps into the feeling of betrayal and isolation that many felt as the country spun toward financial collapse at the end of the Bush presidency.
Another quote from The New Yorker:
|
|
|
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the kind of rhetoric that Ralph Nader, and even Noam Chomsky, have used for many years to pillory the government for protecting the rich and the well connected from the vagaries of the free market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The TerryReport: True, but the lines echo, rather than repeat, the sentiments of people like Nader. Bratt combined his criticism of big business with an equal dolop for big government, giving the voters the impression that he would be a “take no prisoners” congressman willing to shutdown the government and risk default to get his, and their, way.
|
|
|
|
One of the old rules of politics is that the leading candidate, or even any candidate, should not say his or her opponent’s name. Don’t give the opponent attention, other than an attack that doesn’t mention the name. You win by getting people to remember your name, not the guy running against you. Apparently vastly over confident of winning, but still concerned enough to mount an expensive paid media campaign, Cantor broke that informal rule, big time.
From the Washington Post:
|
|
|
|
Cantor spent at least $400,000 producing and airing television ads, according to federal filing reports. He began with a small buy in late April, then dramatically expanded the TV campaign in mid-May.
But the ads repeated Brat’s name again and again, alerting many voters to the fact that he existed at all, and that he seemed to threaten Cantor.
|
|
|
|
The Post also reported the rather starling fact that Cantor spent the morning of the election at a Starbucks in Washington raising campaign funds for other Republicans. Here’s the link to the full article.
|
|
|
|
|
CLICK HERE to go to recent posts, nearly 300 pages of news and comments filed during the first nine months of 2013 and during the critical election year of 2012.
|
|
CLICK HERE to go back to previous year’s (500+ pages) of The TerryReport
|
|
|
|
|
to go to recent posts, nearly 300 pages of news and comments filed during the first nine months of 2013 and during the critical election year of 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
to go back to prior years (500+ pages) of The TerryReport
|
|
|
