Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Marjorie Garber and Erik Tarloff

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Erik Tarloff

Bumbledom

Posted Thursday, Sept. 14, 2000, at 1:56 PM ET

Marge,

I experienced the same technological bumbledom out here on my coast. And this despite the fact that Michael Beschloss was kind enough to send me e-mail about how to catch the debate on streaming video. No dice. So, although I did see some of the show on C-SPAN later in the evening and did read the Times report this morning, I missed the real, existential theatrical experience, which depends on one's knowledge that absolutely anything can still happen, from a shocking gaffe to an on-stage coronary to a Martian invasion.

Based on what I did see, I'm as puzzled as you about how the whole thing played. The "piece of paper" business--shades of Neville Chamberlain as well as Joseph McCarthy--looked contrived, rehearsed, and bullying to me, but on the other hand, Hillary's response seemed less than deft. Russert's introduction of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" video clip, coupled with his demand for an apology to the American people, seemed almost sadistic, and may have gained her some sympathy. (Her response to that, whether authentic or feigned, struck me as just right.) And to me, Lazio alternated between sounding like a hyperactive school kid who forgot to take his Ritalin and the kind of almost-dumb student you'd find in every seminar you took in college, the one who had sort of mastered the material but had nothing interesting to say about it and whose air of confidence was, under the circumstances, baffling.

But was either candidate helped or hurt by the encounter? I don't have a clue. And based on the commentary I've seen, neither does anyone else. We're all waiting for John Zogby to tell us.

But having subjected myself to many of the cable TV post-mortems, I was reminded again--not that I needed reminding this political season--of the fatuousness of most of the punditry to which we're subjected. The same cast of characters is trotted out, like a commedia dell'arte troupe, and they all know the roles they're supposed to play, and they all zestfully play them, without originality, freshness, or surprise. Just once, I'd like to see Laura Ingraham concede that her chosen candidate had screwed up, I'd like to see Eleanor Clift acknowledge that the Republican got the better of the debate. Or at least see these sorts of people plead their cases in a way that goes off-script. Instead, it's less like a real discussion or analysis than some sort of choreographed, predetermined ritual, which illuminates nothing and serves no purpose except to occupy air time and reassure us that the world hasn't turned.

Or, to put it another way, three cheers for Jim Lehrer.

I'm a great admirer of William Safire--unlike the ubiquitous cable commentators alluded to above, he's someone who, despite a clear ideological bias, is nevertheless full of surprises and unexpected insights--but like you, I think today he was more wrong than right. The "snickery" he describes is not, at bottom, about Bush's tendency to stumble over the occasional word. It isn't equivalent to, say, cruelly finding humor in someone's stammer or lisp. It's based, rather, on the growing conviction that the Texas governor isn't very smart. Almost any goof on his part, any error, any mishap, is now viewed, fairly or unfairly, as evidence of this disquieting perception. And it's the sort of notion that's difficult to reverse and may well be fatal.

Here's an odd story for you, a little mystery solved this morning courtesy of the New York Times. Two days ago, my friend Tom Downey phoned me from Washington. He was scheduled to be Bush's surrogate in a practice debate with Gore this week, and he asked if I could supply some anti-Gore zingers for him to spring on the vice president. He told me he'd be faxing me some material upon which I could base them. And then, yesterday, I failed to hear from him all day. I wasn't miffed--campaigns are so frenzied and chaotic, it's quite normal to fall between the cracks on occasion, and no one takes it personally--but I was a little puzzled. And then today, buried on some page deep in the front section of the Times, was a little item about Tom's having been anonymously sent a packet of secret Bush debate briefing materials. As soon as he figured out what it was, he turned all of it over to the FBI and recused himself from further debate participation.

So another conundrum now replaces the earlier one, to wit, what am I supposed to do with all my devastating anti-Gore zingers?

Take it away,
Erik

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Erik Tarloff

Bumbledom

Posted Thursday, Sept. 14, 2000, at 1:56 PM ET
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
Marjorie Garber is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of English at Harvard. Her most recent book is Sex and Real Estate: Why We Love Houses (click here to buy it). Erik Tarloff is the author of Face-Time (click here to buy it) and the newly published The Man Who Wrote the Book (click here to buy it). Click here to read this discussion from the beginning.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From the Fray:


As for why women like Gore and men Bush? Simple: Romance and Presents. A big kiss for the wife, free pre-school for the kids and free medicine for Gramps. Gore's the national dream husband. Meanwhile, the men of America put their hands on their wallets which have just become perceptibly lighter, and furrow their collective brow as they tot up the trillions in taxes for the aforementioned goodies. Pikers! Don't they love their wives? How can they begrudge them the important things in life, paramount among them the free time to sit on the couch and watch Gore on Oprah? Gore's next initiative: a national program of heart-shaped chocolate boxes.

--Josh May

(To reply, click here.)

[Note from the Fray Editor: Hmm. That should go down well in The Fray. So, we are sure, will Tek's view that gravitas, like penetration, is male. Other ideas:]


Thanks Marge. You didn't mention reparations [see last week's Breakfast Table] and you got in the obligatory digs at George W. Bush. You have gravitas. Big time.

--WillV

(To reply, click here.)


The last female politician to have "gravitas" was Margaret Thatcher. She didn't care whether or not she was part of the old boy network. She did not sit around and whine about the glass ceiling. She did not toe the liberal/socialist line or care whether or not people loved her. She ignored all the experts, and just went with what she believed in and to hell with the polls.

--Dean W.

(To reply, click here.)


The gender gap is due to gun control.

I can't tell you how many working/middle class white men I've heard that say something like "I'm pissed with the Democrats that they keep making me vote Republican, but I strongly believe in the second amendment." For women (and men) who support or don't mind gun control, it's not a voting issue, because no one believes gun control will substantially reduce violence. And what's most irritating to this yellow-dog Dem is that actual steps Dems take are not that threatening, even if you are strongly against gun control. It's merely the rhetoric about "taking on the NRA" etc etc which is driving away working class white men in droves.
What's annoying to me is how the media is ignoring the issue. Media people will talk about the kiss, empathy, social programs (men don't want health care and education?), the Mommy vs. Daddy party, blah blah, but are completely oblivious to this particular 900 pound gorilla. And the polls don't ask questions on gun control either, so no-one sees how big (or small) its effect is. I find the combination of media obtuseness on gun control combined with endless (uninsightful) analysis on the gender gap really pretty irritating.

And Ms Williams, if you believe Wen Ho Lee was being railroaded, how come you haven't written any columns on it? Or on the fraudulent Cox report?

--Roublen Vessau

(To reply, click here.)
[Note from the Fray Editor: probably because she's actually Marjorie Garber. Marjorie Williams is over at Slate's Book Club.]


Erik, your story about Washington's steely (not wooden) character is true in essence, except it was Mad Anthony Wayne boasting after a cavalry skirmish that he was afraid of nothing in this world. Hamilton then gestured to Washington, who had just entered the room and was warming himself at the fireplace. "Go, then, and clap our general on his back, and hail him as a good fellow," said Hamilton. "No, I think I will decline the honor," replied Wayne.

Many share your outrage about Wen Ho Lee. Can you see why we reprehensible unreconstructed conservatives are always in such an uproar about the left's perpetual ambition to increase the power and reach of the Federal government? And I agree that the ACLU is a useful organization, though they should be admonished to change their name to the American Civil Liberties- Except-for-a-Phrase-in-Amendment-One-a-Clause-in-Amendment-Two-and-All-of-Amendment-Ten Union. Truth in advertising, you know.

--Aristophanes

(To reply, click here.)
[This is the post mentioned by Erik Tarloff in Monday's entry.]

(9/11)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap