The Press's Process Predilection
In today's Sub-Standard, there was an excellent example of not just why it's going to be difficult to beat Jim Walsh, why it's difficult to beat any incumbent. The press doesn't bother to cover policy, as in what the policy is, what are the policy differences, and what would be the outcome of these policies. Instead they focus on process, how does this policy position help the challenge, is this just grandstanding, whose ahead in the polls, whose raised the most money, etc. No one opens the paper and says, "Oh! Candidate A is beating Candidate B in the latest poll so I'm voting for A." No, instead it's the policy side that matters to the voters, they need to hear about the policy differences and they need to know what the policies will do, in order to decide who the support or if they support an incumbent's record. This is not just a symptom of the Sub-Standard and my occasional punching bag, Frederic Pierce, but he did it today:
Capanna dismissed the idea Wednesday that the activities were gimmicks designed to boost her name recognition against either designated Democratic candidate Dan Maffei or longtime Republican incumbent Walsh.
Gee, "is this just a gimmick to boost name recognition" is a good question, but why not try something like, "what are the ramifications of the lack of a balanced budget," or "why should we donate charitable items for poor children"? Not to mention the mere statement "the activities were gimmicks" whether dismissed or not, still gives the implication they were gimmicks.
DONATE TO DAN or CONTRIBUTE TO CAPANNA!!