A New Feature: If You Don't Cut It, I'll Cut Myself
Posted by J.P. Freire October 26 at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (116)
You read and write enough articles that you get to a point where you can totally tell someone's trying to fill space. No one's perfect, but there's certainly a trend among journalists to write ledes that have nothing to do with the content -- that is, a journalist will tell you about the article he wishes he wrote, and then give you the article he had to settle for. All of this is fine if we had all the time in the world to read the news, but a tight piece is easier to read, let alone remember. So, with that in mind, let's look at something sent my way by Wonkette's briefing.
The piece has insight into the Romney campaign, sure, but it looks like someone was trying to write something that went three pages long. It was actually about how Romney has a lot of money and is using it in his campaign. But for some reason, Politico reporter Jeanne Cummings describes it as the extension of a clever business-minded strategy. It reeks of spin to me.
[His campaign headquarters has] an interior design reflecting the private-public partnership that runs through the Romney operation: the investors and businessmen who know Romney from his Bain Capital days who today are teamed up with the professional political strategists from Washington.
What on earth does the "private-public" partnership mean here? And how is that any different from any politician that has business connections (i.e. most of them)? And if the decor of Romney's office is important, why not describe what other campaign headquarters look like? Without that information, what does the reader gain from knowing this?
More nit-picking after the jump.
As in the private sector, the key to success is spotting opportunity early, sharply analyzing strengths and weaknesses, developing a blueprint for success, and having enough money to get the job done. Romney brought all those skills to the table.
Analyzing strengths and weaknesses, eh? Good thing we know that. If it weren't for this line, I would have assumed that business largely hinges on strong handshakes and good opening lines in speeches. But in what ways have his strengths as a businessman allowed him to differentiate himself from everyone else? Sure, he's running a solid campaign, but nothing about it seems to be particularly different from the other candidates.
The most important one now is the built-in financial advantage that comes from his willingness to dip into his personal wealth, valued at $190 million to $250 million. To date, 27 percent of Romney’s receipts have come from his own pocket. ... Romney’s willingness to spend his own cash has made the normally significant cash-on-hand advantage of his rivals meaningless.
This is relevant, but John Kerry did the same thing. Does that make him a good businessman? Any rich idiot idiot can do this -- in fact, idiots do this all the time. Ross Perot, for instance.
Romney’s financial advantage alone won’t win him the nomination. The campaign is bracing for flip-flopper attacks on television and in bold-printed direct mail flyers on his changing positions on abortion and other issues. How well Romney defends himself during that phase will determine his fate far more than his creative finances.
If anything, this shows how being a businessman could hurt his campaign. A businessman looks for safe positions where a politician would look for consistent positions. A businessman can change his mind any number of times because profits, not image, counts, when doing so would be suicide for a politician. The flip-flops aren't a "by-the-way" problem. They're his greatest obstacle.
Even as he sought to build a broad donor base, Romney privately concluded that his lack of national name recognition would require him to invest his own money to compete with his widely recognized rivals.
So Romney's business mojo is to credit for what any candidate in his right mind should do?
In the third quarter, Romney spent more money, $21 million, than he collected from outside donors — $10 million. An $8.5 million personal loan kept the campaign from ending the quarter virtually broke.
Sure, I'm complaining about a bad lede, but I'm also complaining about susceptibility to spin. Surely, the article would have been viewed differently if it were entirely about how a rich guy is holding his position at the top of the field because of self-financing. It's fine that he's doing it. But how is one supposed to interpret the non-sequiturs about his business-oriented approach aside from an effective PR job?
|
