« Bribery by any other name | Main | Correction: WA Governor Analysis »

February 16, 2005

Bubba the Straw Man

Dead Armadillos has an interesting post on a recent WSJ piece rhetorically asking if Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen is The Next Bubba? The WSJ commentary is by Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and publisher of one of the Big Boys in the Conservative side of the blogosphere, Instapundit.

I knew next to nothing about Bredesen prior to reading the WSJ piece. He sounds like a definite rising star in the Democratic Party, and certainly sounds like he's got the chops to pull off a Presidential bid.

What stuck in my craw was this paragraph from Reynolds' WSJ piece:

One of the things that's struck me most is how well Gov. Bredesen does on conservative talk radio. He answers questions rather than ducking them or retreating into slogans and sound bites, and as a result the hosts (and listeners) respect him even when they disagree. That's an important skill: If you can imagine a Democratic presidential nominee who will hold his own on Rush Limbaugh or Hugh Hewitt's shows, you're imagining a Democrat who could win the general election. (emphasis supplied)

Why?

Why do the Democrats have to field a candidate who "answers questions rather than ducking them or retreating into slogans and sound bites"? Haven't Republicans won two consecutive Presidential elections with a guy who retreats into trite slogans and soundbites rather than answer questions honestly?

Undoubtedly Reynolds and his fans see his commentary as some sort of evidence that he's objective because he wrote some nice things about a Democrat. And he did write some nice things about a Democrat. No doubt about it! But, in the process he followed what I've come to recognize as a trademark tactic by Conservatives when he created a Democratic Straw Man with the very attributes of his own party's President.

This is supposed to be an example of "fair and balanced" journalism as opposed to the "Liberal Mainstream Media" boogeyman the Right has been beating on for years?

Does anyone seriously believe that George W. Bush, far and away the most gaffe-prone President in my 40 years, could hold his own in an open, unrehearsed and unscripted interview with Randi Rhodes or Ed Schultz?

Doesn't Occam's Razor dictate that the extraordinary vetting and loyalty-oath signing that was required to even get into a Bush 2004 campaign rally is indicative of a politician whose own handlers worry about what he'll say if surprised or challenged?

Apparently, Glenn Reynolds, the "Instapundit," would have us believe that the American people are incapable of holding a Democratic presidential hopeful to the same standard as a Republican presidential hopeful.

Posted by Kevin at February 16, 2005 08:58 AM