News Media Commentary: Warner/Gilmore Debate- one blog, three articles

1. Local state Senator Chap Petersen blogged about the Mark Warner/Jim Gilmore debate yesterday- how very cool to have a politician's views on this. I've spoken with Petersen via e-mail before for a story- he's incredibly nice.

A few interesting thing from Chap's blog-

• He observes that each of the candidates were "on their game" and calls Gilmore "the underdog" that's not going down easily.
• Petersen notes that "the ongoing Wall Street meltdown plays to Mark Warner's strengths." He thinks Warner's knowledge of business, capital markets, and the uses and abuses of the U.S. banking system will help him here. He says Gilmore's mainly copying Warner's answers.
• The best back and forth, in Petersen's opinion, was on energy issues. When he mentions Virginia's "domestic assets" I get a little lost, as I wasn't aware Virginia actually had any domestic energy assets. Shows what I know. Maybe offshore oil? I'm a Texas girl- I'm used to seeing actual oil rigs when there's energy assets about. Hm. Anyways, apparently both Warner and Gilmore also talked on the need to "declare independence from foreign oil."
• Petersen also includes an excellent anecdotal story on his time in the House of Delegates in 2001 when Gilmore submitted his final budget.

Of course, I have to keep in mind that this is a biased Democrat view of the debate. That's why I now turn to the media, which though many accuse of being liberal, is probably a bit more objective than Petersen's blog.

2. Marc Fisher at the Washington Post had a list of questions for Warner and Gilmore. He was planning on asking them these questions in person, but was disinvited from the panel at the request of one of the candidates.

Fisher seems a little ticked about this, but manages it calmly enough. He mentions especially that he was disinvited at the request of one of the candidates, later confirmed as Gilmore. He does say he thought originally it was Warner who "bounced" him from the panel, since he's cautious about his contact with reporters.

Topics he hopes the candidates address during the debate-

• What the current Wall Street crisis is and how it started. Fisher claims this isn't a "gotcha" question, but a way to look at how they think about the economy.
• He talks about asking the candidate's questions that "push [them] away from the easy sloganeering of the campaign trail." It looks like Fisher's interested in asking both candidates about their views on the Iraq War.
• "Virginia's demographic shift toward more Democratic voting and what it means for the state's politics"
• He also asks whether Warner is moderating his positions in this campaign to appeal to Republicans and independents.
• "What does Gilmore really think of McCain?" Apparently Gilmore called McCain "angry and divisive" back in 2000. Interesting.

Fisher also asks for questions from his commenters- here are some of my favorite suggestions.

"If a hypothetical bill came up for a vote, and the best interest of the country as a whole would be a Yea vote, and the best interest of Virginia would be Nay, which way would you vote?"

"What is your position on the Alternative Minimum Tax?"

Then there's other blather in the comments on the one sided liberal media and slurs about Sarah Palin maybe being pregnant again. One really weird one accuses Fisher of "whining like your favorite drag queen who just put a run in his $50 panthouse!" [sic]

Huh. That was weird. I do really love how Fisher invites participation from his readers- way to bring them into the story. An innovative Internet format that clearly wouldn't work in print. (Well okay, you could ask for people to send in letters, but you probably wouldn't get the sheer variety of responses.)

3. Anyways, on to Fisher's real column on the debate.

He points out that there is a "remarkable and almost discomfiting degree of agreement" between Gilmore and Warner. The candidates apparently agreed in the debate on what to do about the economy (more oversight, more regulation), on gun rights (supported them), and on offshore oil drilling (both called for it, an interesting turn from Warner's skeptical stance back in the summer).

Apparently all they agree on however, still doesn't make Gilmore or Warner like each other. Rawwrrr. Fisher observes, "stylistic differences aside, you could just feel the hatred permeating the room from both sides" Very funny.

Gilmore talked about Obama negatively a lot. What a suprise.

Fisher brings up the question- Is Gilmore's "insistent linking of Obama and Warner" meant to tap into racial animosity? He says he doesn't think Gilmore's said anything to support that notion, but thinks the fact that readers from both parties have written in to say that was the message to took from Gilmore's debate tactic "suggests that someone has race on the brain--was it the candidate or the voters?"

Fisher calls it a "fairly useless debate" in which neither candidate landed any hard punches. An interesting analysis contrasting with Petersen's assertion in his blog that they both had. Hmm. I wish I had a transcript of this debate so I could see it for myself. I guess a news article on the debate could work better for my analysis on this- I'lll look at that next. Man, this blog is long.

I do think it's interesting- though Fisher writes from a very distinctive voice, I have not yet been able to tell if he leans politically one way or the other. Admittedly, I do not read his columns regularly. I know his name very well, as when I was working daily at WashingtonPost.NewsweekInteractive this summer, an e-mail would get sent out to everyone whenever he updated his blog. (I suppose the Raw Fisher name is in reference to sushi?) I do admire his ability to write on politics in an opinion column without his slant being extremely obvious.

4. The official article on the debate, written by Tim Craig and Anita Kumar says that the candidates were forced to depart from simply discussing their records as governor and address other issues such as "their views on the economy and the hunt for terrorists around the globe."

This article contrasts Gilmore and Warner as having two distinct personalities and leadership styles.

• Gilmore says he would be a conservative voice in Congress and would support drilling for oil and retaining Bush's tax cuts.
  Quick Quote of the Debate:
  "There are serious challenges out there, and people want to see quick action. The people of Virginia want to know they will have a senator who will keep [his] word."
  
• Warner says he has the experience to end partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill. He's "embracing the center" of the political spectrum by seeking common ground on issues such as energy and taxes.
  Quick Quote of the Debate:
  "At the end of the day, Virginians do have a choice. A senator who's produced results, or one who's about more partisanship."

Are these quotes really fair to put next to each other? (I took these out of the article straight) One of them is a statement of action and one of them is an offensive attack. I really don't know how even-handed a comparison it is to label the candidates in such a way.

The article notes a substantive discussion of foreign policy that arose during the debate- a discussion of Pakistan.

Warner said he believes Pakistan would someday emerge as "the most dangerous nation" in the world. Gilmore agreed with Warner that U.S. troops should have the right to enter Pakistan in search of terrorists, but stressed that the country remains a U.S. ally.

"I think I would not sit here in an open forum today and say and describe the country of Pakistan as one of the great potential threats," Gilmore said.


It's fascinating to see what each article and blog I've looked at her has picked to talk about. None of the other articles talked about the Pakistan discussion at all but the main debate article put it on the first page of the story. The article also observed that both men appeared to be on "equal footing" during much of the debate.


This has been really interesting just looking at the differences in the articles on WashingtonPost.com. Just think about what it would be like if I looked at another news site!