Slate's Bizbox
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

Chatterbox Debates Ballot Box

Timothy Noah
Posted Sunday, Dec. 19, 1999, at 8:01 PM ET

Chatterbox, who rarely disagrees with his Slate colleague Jacob Weisberg, a k a "Ballot Box," must dissent from Weisberg's view that Bill Bradley made Al Gore look like a jerk today on Meet the Press. As Weisberg rightly points out, the key moment was when Gore proposed to Bradley that they both agree to stop all television and radio advertising until the nomination is decided, and instead debate twice a week for the duration of the campaign. "That can get a lot of the money out of the presidential campaign and accomplish one of the best reforms," Gore said. "What about it?" Bradley's contemptuous response was to tell Gore, "Sounds to me like you're having trouble raising money," and to call Gore's proposal a "ploy." In Weisberg's view, Bradley succeeded in making Gore "look like a complete ass."

But to Chatterbox's mind, it was Bradley who looked like the ass--or, to be more specific, the hypocrite. As Weisberg has rightly pointed out, Bradley's grandiose plan for campaign reform, which requires a constitutional amendment, and which he trumpeted this week at a joint appearance with John McCain, is far less practical than McCain's campaign-reform plan. It is also less practical than Gore's. Bradley portrays himself as a candidate who sees campaign reform as a far more urgent issue than Gore does. But when Gore proposes doing something about the problem right now, Bradley mocks it as a stunt. Bradley can't have it both ways. If the political process is as corrupted by cash as he says, then he can't refuse an offer like Gore's out of hand without looking like a phony. The fact that Gore's motive was to make Bradley look like a phony didn't make it any less wrong for Bradley to mock and reject Gore's offer. Even if it was a bluff, Bradley ought to have called it.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Highlights from the Fray:


Both of these takes miss the point of the vice president's outstretched hand--though I sort of liked one fellow's portrayal of Gore as a huckster who might have been scripted by David Mamet. Contrary to the original script of the Media Conspiracy (Ballot Box obviously missed the Spring and Summer meetings at the Wayfarer and the Palm), it is the insider, establishment-anointed candidate who is strapped for money.

Both men face a legal spending cap of roughly 40 million dollars--an amount that both are sure to raise. Gore's trouble is not, as Bradley ineptly put it, in raising money. It's that he spent it like a drunken sailor earlier this year and was six million dollars closer to the cap at the last filing three months ago. Even with Tony and Donna operating out of Nashville, there is no way the vice president's top-dollar consultants (who still have daily access to the Palm) are going to narrow that money gap with the Bradley operation in West Orange. By the end of February there is no reason to suppose that gap will not have grown to, say, ten million.

At that point both men are a week away from same day primaries in California, New York, Ohio and nine other states. One of the vice president's shops, last year, spent close to the national cap for President on a California primary for Governor! That, and not any input from the Alliance for Better Campaigns, is the driving force behind Gore's lip-smacking proffer of a "Meet the Press Compact"--that would even-handedly release both candidates of a cost that Bradley is much better equipped to bear.

Needless to say, nothing in such a compact would stop John Sweeney's legions at COPE from performing their wonders at the polls for Gore--the same thought underlying GW's reluctance to grab McCain's outstretched hand at the Phoenix debate. Sadly enough, the wrong David (Broder not Mamet) may be presiding over the chronicling of this shell game.

--martin plissner

(To reply, click here.)


You are too quick to brush off the dubious motive behind Al Gore's offer to forgo radio and TV ads in the Democratic primary. Gore had everything to gain and nothing to lose by the offer.

Gore went on the air with both TV and radio commercials almost two months before Bradley did. Bradley saved his money and went on the air just before Thanksgiving. Bradley has already bought up airtime to use during the last several weeks of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. To pull TV ads now only helps Gore--he's already been on the air a lot longer than Bradley. Gore has outspent Bradley by a wide margin and is close to hitting the spending caps.

In terms of Gore's offer for debates twice weekly, where was the offer back in April, May, June, and July? There was no offer because Gore ignored him. Now that Bradley has made it a race, Gore wants to dictate the pace of the campaign. Bradley and Gore have now met three times and will meet four more times in January.

Bradley is not a hypocrite on campaign finance reform for refusing Gore's grandstanding offer. TV and radio are a reality in modern campaigns. Bradley has to build up his name recognition to beat a sitting vice-president. Bradley's ads, which are paid for by "hard" dollars, help get his name and message across to people who are not familiar with him. If you noticed, Gore didn't offer not to spend the money that would be saved by not purchasing TV or radio ads. His campaign is in danger of running out of money early in the primary season. By not paying for ads in the Democratic primary, that would allow Gore to pay for ads in the period between the primaries and the convention. Again, the offer benefits Gore because his earlier spending spree has backfired on him.

Gore has grandstanded in the past and he will in the future. If he was serious about the offer he wouldn't have sprung it on Meet the Press--he would have talked to Bradley about it behind the scenes first. To offer deals that only benefit you isn't campaign finance reform--it's cynical politics.

--Pat Johnson

(To reply, click here.)


(12/21)

Washington Post