BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Veep-off

7 comments on Veep-off

Veep-off

: I just sent this to the producer at the CNBC show where I’ll be gabbing about the Veep-off as an email preinterview:

I’d say that no one will decide to vote FOR one side vs. the other based on the debate and the vice-presidential candidates. But this could make some decide to vote AGAINST.

And that is the problem with this entire election: It’s mostly about ‘against’ rather than ‘for.’

There will be the Cheney conspiracy theorists who hate or fear him and hold him against Bush.

There will be the Edwards dismissers who think he’s inexperienced and slick and will hold that against Kerry.

Each group will see each man’s ills as symptomatic of what’s wrong with the ticket and presidential candidate they don’t like.

Will that affect the vote? I doubt it. The folks who already hate Cheney hate him; the folks who don’t know but mahy get to like Edwards won’t come to like Kerry as a result.

What I’d rather see is a debate of each side’s secretaries of defense and state and treasury and such.

That would be not only entertaining, it might actually be informative and meaningful.

: The more I think about it, the more I’m guessing that Edwards will try to spend the debate calling Iraq “your war, Dick.”

: I’ll be on with John Hinderaker of PowerLineBlog and Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette. It’s on CNBC at 7p ET, I believe.

7 responses to “Veep-off”

  1. Brian Jones Avatar
    Brian Jones

    I thought there was some kind of legal problem with naming a cabinet prior to being elected?

  2. William Avatar
    William

    Not sure about legal issues (though nothing is official till the Congress signs off)- more like liability issues. Figure 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 cabinet secretaries get blocked by the Congress (usually on gotcha politics like Jocelyn Elders or Lani Gunier). No reason to give the opponent something besides the candidate to focus on.
    Also, if (for example) Joe Biden is appointed Sec. of State – you can bet the Wesley Clark’s campaigning might tail off. They’re all jockeying for a seat right now.
    That said – the British Method (with a shadow cabinet constantly challenging the governing coalition) creates a lot more accountability. Does anyone know a US politician that wants to be held to be accountable?

  3. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Jeff,
    You’re right – debates are only ground for more animosity because you can’t lay out a positive plan in a mere two minutes per topic/question. I think the debate format is a bit ridiculous for today’s needs.
    I’d rather see each side create a video presentation of their pitch for their plans. Then have the campaigns divide up the video into streamable chunks, make it available on their web site, and buy TV time to air the video.
    I’d suggest a few rules:
    – The video can only elaborate on the plan, its feasibility, and the candidate/team that will execute the plan. No discussion of the opponent! The goal is to sell the candidate and the plan on their strengths and vision. (For, not against!)
    – Both campaigns agree to air the video on TV once per major network (CBS/ABC/NBC/Fox).
    – No commercials, but it would be great if there could be pauses/breaks that simply give the web site where the video can be accessed.
    – The candidate and their surrogates (as you say, potential secretaries or whomever), must present the segments of the video – no actor/actress substitutions.
    – The video must be completed for presentation no later than 120 days prior to the election.
    This is a positive approach. Because it does not focus on the opponent, each candidate must focus on the specifics of the plan and the qualifications of their team.
    It’s also not a sound-bite driven – the candidates can speak at length about the plan, without the hindrance of commercial or interviewer interruption. And it fits into your podcast idea.
    Further, the blogosphere/media can “fact-check” the video and its assertions in plenty of time for the election.

  4. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Interestingly, Jeff, I heard a member of the president’s 2000 campaign commenting on the fact that wherever they had sent Cheney, their favorable figures had gone down.
    I assume he (a UT faculty member) meant among Republicans, as there is a decided tendency including arrest, to keep out of the audience anyone disagreeing with these candidates. In any case, the VP’s charms are definitely not of the visible variety.

  5. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Come on, Edwards is just going to keep saying Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton, and relate that to everything.

  6. RobertL Avatar
    RobertL

    The polls after the first Bush-Kerry debate showed that people believed Kerry had “won” the debate, but that they continued to give Bush higher marks for leadership. In fact there wasn’t much change in that, and similar, categories. The public seems to be pretty judicious. They know the difference between debate skills and substantive leadership skills. Do the media have the same understanding?

  7. pele Avatar
    pele

    Iraqi Survey Group: There were no WMD.
    Sorry to put it here but you seem to have forgoten to mention it on your war blog.