Jennifer Rubin makes sense of that headline at the AmSpec blog:
With the exception of the omnipresent John McCain and Mike Huckabee (who never met a talk show host he didn’t like), the presidential contenders do not frequent the Sunday talk shows, go on network news or subject themselves to interrogation by CNN or MSNBC reporters outside the few debates they have done.
This is a mistake. Simply put, GOP candidates are ignoring Willie Sutton’s advice. Sutton of course was the prolific bank robber who was said to have replied “that’s where the money is” when asked why he robbed banks. Likewise, the GOP contenders would be wise to go where the voters are, especially voters they are losing.
…..
It is perhaps natural in such times to go into a defensive crouch and stick to the safe confines of Fox News and friendly talk radio hosts. Particularly in a heated primary it makes perfect sense to seek out venues which have large numbers of politically active conservative listeners and viewers. But over time it is limiting and self-defeating for several reasons.
First, GOP candidates need to recapture independents and convince moderate Democrats they offer an attractive platform, not the cartoon positions attributed to them by their Democratic opponents. Explaining why the Bush tax cuts are worth keeping whether you are “rich” or not is a worthwhile and essential exercise not only to getting elected but building support for the policies they advocate.
Second, it is good practice. Debate moderators in the general election and the Washington press corps are not renowned for their sympathetic take on Republicans and conservative policies. It is helpful to practice answering the loaded question and disarming the questioner — as Rudy Giuliani did in the Iowa debate when he questioned the reporter’s premise that higher taxes would bring in more revenue. If you don’t practice in the primary. it makes the general election that much tougher.
Finally, Hillary Clinton this past weekend showed that it is not so difficult for a prepared and polished candidate to survive even the toughest inquisitor on Sunday morning, Tim Russert. Having done so she can claim that “they threw everything at me” but didn’t draw blood. She reached a huge audience and showed she is calm and collected under fire.
Now, it is not a good idea to go into the lion’s den unarmed or unprepared, but for candidates with solid debate skills, defined policies, and a decent sense of humor it doesn’t pay to hide in the safe confines of the conservative media. For individual candidates, the benefits of venturing out into the MSM world can be considerable. And if the GOP is going to start gaining back ground, showing their faces is one way they’ll begin to convince the American people that they do not deserve to be banished to the political wilderness.
Read the rest here.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I’m not sure about the numbers for CNN or MSNBC but I’m pretty sure the numbers for the PBS debate were terrible. Now, you might argue that the if R, R, M, and T had shown up the numbers would be there. Not likely, if the Weds. Dem debate was any indication (second lowest watched debate this year).
More than a question of who they should subject themselves to is the question of biggest bang for the buck. Most of the people who watch the Sunday shows have pretty strong allegiances already… and the audiences for all of those shows have been dropping over the years… mostly because there are other things to watch. As one pundit put it earlier in the year: “there is no more mass media.”
So, take Mitt for example, he had the choice of going on PBS for a debate where the goal of the host is to find some way to embarrass you or rallying 8,000 people at 60 events across the nation to raise money and win supporters to his cause. The choice was easy.
Those 8,000 people phoned up 50+ people each which adds up to 400,000 voters getting a personal contact from a supporter. You can’t win those type of votes by bending over to Tavis, George, Tim, or Wolf. It’s all about voter ID in my book.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:03 am
While the endless succession of debates has long since worn out its welcome (except that I want to see how Fred does when he finally participates in one), I agree with Jennifer Rubin that the Republican candidates ought to go on the Sunday morning talk shows more often. Yes, personal contact with supporters is valuable too, but even the lowest rated Sunday morning talk show (CNN’s Late Edition) gets half a million viewers a week, while NBC’s Meet the Press gets 3 million viewers a week. Even our best known candidates could use more television exposure to the voters.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:23 am
“…if the GOP is going to start gaining back ground, showing their faces is one way they’ll begin to convince the American people that they do not deserve to be banished to the political wilderness.”
Sound nice, but it seems to be the opposite of the truth.
Truth is that the GOP is heading for that wilderness precisely because all of America has seen their faces, in power, for a long time now. Maybe lying low is not such a bad idea!
September 29th, 2007 at 7:24 am
The reason that the Republican candidates have to avoid so much of the media is that President Bush, former Speaker Hastert, and former Senator Frist destroyed the Republican brand.
The Republicans have problems answering questions on the issues because the Bush Administration has destroyed any credibility that the Republican could have had on most of the issues.
An example would be fiscal restriant. Any Repubican who talks about being a fiscal conservative will be laughed at because the Bush Administration has destroyed any crediblity that Republicans could have had on cutting budgets.
The real quesiton is how man routs in the general elections will have to occur before the Republican Party becomes irrelevant to politics in America and the U.S. becomes a one party state