An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Harold Ford and Excellent Answers
RCP’s Tom Bevan recaps an exchange he had with Harold Ford, former Congressman and current DLC chair, who moonlights as an MSNBC political analyst. (I’ll never forget the first time I saw Ford sitting cozily next to Pat Buchanan on MSNBC’s Morning Joe; the double-take nearly ripped the eyes from my head.)
What Ford clearly demonstrates in his exchange with Bevan — regarding Obama: centrist or lefty? — is the fine art of responding to a question with the answer you want to give, regardless of how many times (or ways) a reporter might frame the question.
Spin? Yep. Necessary? In today’s soundbite-world, abso-freakin-lutely. And yet, somehow, Ford pulls it off without being offensive. Kudos.
5 Responses to “Harold Ford and Excellent Answers”
[...] Harold Ford simultaneously frustrates and impresses the RCP’s Tom Bevan … and me, too. This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 and is filed under News. You can follow any [...]
I understand why politicians are so wiggly. Seeking simple labels are a deceptive trap that serve mainly to end discussion rather than promote and understanding of nuance and subtlety. For example, What does it say about Obama that he supports some faith based initiatives? Does it mean he will promote religion and abandon Secularism? Or does it mean that he is pragmatically open to the optimal combination of methods for reaching those in need. If the media and its audience were in pursuit of truth then such distinctions are possible. But if the purpose is simplistic categorization then politicians will blow smoke.
I love Ford's answer.
I've been fuming for years by the addiciton to tagging and labeling.
Ordinary commenters about a specific topic often start wih “As a conservative/libertarian/liberal, I think …….
It's as if people can't be people anymomre, thinking about a topic as individuals.
The labeling limits and distorts perceptions of others and constrains our own judgement, if we feeel the need to stay within party or ideological limits.
The labeling is a curse on our political and philosophical thinking.
Exactly, runasim, but even if we were to be generous–if we admit that as human beings we find such labels useful to organizing our worldviews–why on earth does it matter what Krugman or Ford or Bevan or CNN or MSNBC or whomever thinks? Let the pundits opine away, but to complain when others don't agree to the diminishment of any candidate into one of a handful of labels is simply infantile.
After reading Bevan's column, it reminds me that there are straight answers and there are straight answers. What I mean by that is that it is indeed frustrating when someone refuses to answer a question that has a rather direct answer — did you get FISA approval for all wiretaps, did you vote for legislation X, do you think that lowering capital gains will stimulate the economy? Those are all relatively well defined questions and if someone doesn't answer them, they are just avoiding things. But Bevan's progressive-leaning centrist or centrist-leaning progressive question is not well-defined at all. Let's say Ford had simply answered “centrist-leaning progressive,” as Bevan wanted. Do we now know anything more about Obama than we did before? Not so much.