Vote Early, And Often!!
The biggest debate in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Debate series appears to be about who was the winner of each session. After the one debate between Vice-President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards, it appears that someone may have been trying to prematurely influence the outcome.
In yesterday's Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section they printed three letters to the editor on the debate, from Andy Taylor, Peter Blue and Shay Enan. All three, along with several dozen others among the more than 1,500 emails the Times received on the debate made it clear that they felt Edwards had won the debate. Nothing unusual there. But all three, along with the aforementioned several dozen others were all sent to the Times BEFORE the debate actually began.
The Times made it clear that all of the "early" emails favored Edwards. Interesting that none of the Bush/Cheney fans felt it necessary to send in their emails until after they'd actually viewed the debate. Now, if the emails had all originated from Chicago, the origin of the mantra "Vote Early and Often" as witnessed during the presidential election of 1960, one could just easily dismiss it as some political machinery at work. I doubt it is anything as sinister. It was probably nothing more than some fans of the Kerry ticket who had already decided in their minds that their candidate for Vice-President was going to win the debate no matter what happened. So they chose to weigh in with their opinions without actually viewing the debate. Maybe there was a movie on cable they wanted to see and they do not yet have Tivo at their disposal. Maybe they were going out to dine and felt they would not return home in time for their email to the Times to have any influence in deciding who the debate winner would be.
Whatever the reason, they gave their opinion about an event before seeing the event. Kind of like an umpire calling the runner safe at first before either the ball or the runner arrives at the base. A very bad call. Should you offer an opinion about a specific performance in a specific event before the event takes place? I think not.
History offers a great, now mostly forgotten example of why you don't do this. The late Ralph Pearl, author of "Las Vegas is My Beat" was a show business columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. He went to the New Frontier Hotel to cover a concert by famed singer Mario Lanza. The beginning of the show was delayed several times and finally, with a promise from management that Lanza would be on stage in fifteen minutes and a hard, fast deadline due before those fifteen minutes would tick off of the clock, Pearl dictated a glowing review of Lanza's performance to his editor for printing in the following morning's edition. Problem was, Lanza was too drunk to go on and didn't show up fifteen minutes later, or ever.
Let's hope, as we wait for President Bush and Senator Kerry to take to the debate podiums again tonight, that those on both sides of the political aisle can wait until after the debate before they start their email campaigns on behalf of their candidates.
In yesterday's Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section they printed three letters to the editor on the debate, from Andy Taylor, Peter Blue and Shay Enan. All three, along with several dozen others among the more than 1,500 emails the Times received on the debate made it clear that they felt Edwards had won the debate. Nothing unusual there. But all three, along with the aforementioned several dozen others were all sent to the Times BEFORE the debate actually began.
The Times made it clear that all of the "early" emails favored Edwards. Interesting that none of the Bush/Cheney fans felt it necessary to send in their emails until after they'd actually viewed the debate. Now, if the emails had all originated from Chicago, the origin of the mantra "Vote Early and Often" as witnessed during the presidential election of 1960, one could just easily dismiss it as some political machinery at work. I doubt it is anything as sinister. It was probably nothing more than some fans of the Kerry ticket who had already decided in their minds that their candidate for Vice-President was going to win the debate no matter what happened. So they chose to weigh in with their opinions without actually viewing the debate. Maybe there was a movie on cable they wanted to see and they do not yet have Tivo at their disposal. Maybe they were going out to dine and felt they would not return home in time for their email to the Times to have any influence in deciding who the debate winner would be.
Whatever the reason, they gave their opinion about an event before seeing the event. Kind of like an umpire calling the runner safe at first before either the ball or the runner arrives at the base. A very bad call. Should you offer an opinion about a specific performance in a specific event before the event takes place? I think not.
History offers a great, now mostly forgotten example of why you don't do this. The late Ralph Pearl, author of "Las Vegas is My Beat" was a show business columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. He went to the New Frontier Hotel to cover a concert by famed singer Mario Lanza. The beginning of the show was delayed several times and finally, with a promise from management that Lanza would be on stage in fifteen minutes and a hard, fast deadline due before those fifteen minutes would tick off of the clock, Pearl dictated a glowing review of Lanza's performance to his editor for printing in the following morning's edition. Problem was, Lanza was too drunk to go on and didn't show up fifteen minutes later, or ever.
Let's hope, as we wait for President Bush and Senator Kerry to take to the debate podiums again tonight, that those on both sides of the political aisle can wait until after the debate before they start their email campaigns on behalf of their candidates.
posted by me at 1:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home