VIRGINIA — If you’ve heard one thing about Thursday’s hour-long debate in McLean between Senate candidates George Allen and Tim Kaine, it’s this: in an exchange about Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” video, Kaine, the Democrat, said he “would be open to a proposal that has some minimum tax level for everyone.” It was a head-scratching line that one reporter following the exchange called “one of the most obvious unforced errors I’ve ever seen.”
Kaine’s apparent gaffe—which cuts against Democrats’ attack on Romney and his own oft-stated position on taxes, and which his campaign was promptly spinning away after the debate—did show up in all the debate coverage (and, since the debate was held during a workday and only televised in the D.C. suburbs, coverage and campaign ads are how most voters will hear about anything the two men said). Even so, there were two very different frames for the coverage. The Washington Post’s debate recap was devoted almost entirely to Kaine’s ear-catcher and the resulting spin, while other outlets here—like the Richmond Times-Dispatch The Virginian-Pilot in Hampton Roads, and The Roanoke Times—managed to work the candidates’ positions on tax cuts, fiscal policy, potential defense cuts and other issues into their coverage.
The Post’s article opted to offer a lesson in campaign strategy, a look at how an unexpected remark can be turned against a candidate. Reporter Laura Vozzella seemed almost bored by the rest of the debate itself and the campaign to date. The lede:
Republicans attacked Timothy M. Kaine on Thursday after he said during a much-anticipated Senate debate that he would consider a minimum income tax for every American, opening a fresh line of attack in a nationally watched race that until now has turned on mostly predictable and well-worn accusations.
Kaine, a Democrat, made the comment as he squared off against Republican George Allen, a fellow former governor and his opponent in the Virginia race, in their first televised debate. The hour-long program, hosted by “Meet the Press” host David Gregory at the Capital One Conference Center in McLean, was mostly devoid of fireworks.
The remainder of the article is mostly devoted to the spin war that broke out over Kaine’s comments, and the way in which Kaine ceded an advantage on an issue that might have been challenging for Allen. Along the way Vozzella offers fuller context for Kaine’s remark, and she notes that a minimum tax isn’t part of Kaine’s overall fiscal plan, which he discussed “several times during the debate.” She also has a sharp section on how the post-debate discussion featured some “strange role reversals,” with Allen declaring, “I don’t think everyone ought to be paying income taxes”—a position that apparently puts him at odds with his party’s standard-bearer—and Kaine, who’s been fending off charges that he’s a liberal, boasting of how many low-income Virginians he took off the tax rolls as governor.
It amounted to some decent political analysis. But with so much space devoted to a line that doesn’t even reflect Kaine’s policy views, the article had little to say on what the candidates do believe. Kaine may have discussed his fiscal plan several times, but it’s not described in the Post piece. This is about the extent of the coverage of what Kaine and Allen said on other issues:
The debate was mostly civil, touching on issues such as jobs and the economy, women’s issues and gay rights, looming defense cuts and the federal health-care overhaul. Each man seemed to take pains to compliment the other on something; Allen praised Kaine’s response to the Virginia Tech shootings, and Kaine gave Allen kudos for his vigor on the campaign trail.
Fortunately, coverage elsewhere took a different approach. In defense industry-dependent Hampton Roads, The Virginian-Pilot led with the debate over the looming federal sequester—automatic federal budget cuts, including deep reductions in defense spending, that will go into effect if Democrats and Republicans fail to iron out budget differences. And while reporter Julian Walker devoted a few paragraphs to the sparring over Kaine’s “minimum tax” line, he did find space to described Kaine’s fiscal plan and Allen’s alternative.
- 1
- 2
I didn't hear the debate, but couldn't Kaine have been talking about the proposal floated by Democratic leaders to establish a minimum federal income tax level for higher-income earners, say around a 30% marginal rate for higher incomes, so we don't have the phenomenon of extremely wealthy people paying very low rates or nothing at all? Maybe that's what he was referring to but did not express it clearly.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 21 Sep 2012 at 10:20 PM
Gaffe = when a politician inadvertently tells the truth.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 21 Sep 2012 at 11:16 PM
Can CJR please revisit the trite, overused "gaffe" thing? Every single event outside a very narrow frame is all of a sudden a "gaffe." Every single day some journo gets to thoughtlessly typing up yet another "gaffe" story. Can we please have some writers with an original thought, please? Framing everything as a "gaffe" is boring and nothing but click bait. It adds nothing -- nothing whatever -- to the campaign reporting. You should be writing about what Kaine said and what it would mean to the people whose taxes he proposes to raise, not just mindlessly calling it a gaffe and letting it go at that.
All this sneering and snickering and mindlessly calling statements "gaffes" by cynical political journos just proves that we could fire about three quarters of them and not miss a step. Fifteen thousand journos mindlessly tweeting and writing about "gaffes" and people still don't get the difference between the two Medicare proposals. They don't get either side's plans for Social Security. They don't understand Romney's foreign policy proposals and how they differ from Obama's. They don't understand why Romney's neocon advisors are itching to bombombbomb Iran and what role Netanyahu is playing in ginning up another boots-on-the-ground war in the Middle East.
Just useless, useless reporting. Who friggin' cares?
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 22 Sep 2012 at 12:30 AM
Virginians should think with their heads. The Federal Government has spent itself into a deep hole and more taxes only does one thing give a government more money to spend without reigning in their spending. The Feds idea of spuring the economy by printing more money, only hurts everyone who has to pay for staplesw to live because the cost of the dollar is cheaper and the cost of products are higher to make up for a weaker dollar. $250,000 is considered middle class? In what world does Washinton live in? Most Virginian middle class which is about 3/4 make an avewrage of 25,000- 36,000 and married couples both working average 50,000-70,000 which is a far cry from 250,000. Back in the middle of the 1900's States paid their U.S. Senators and Representatives which they got paid by what was considered a fair pay by the economy of their state. Also, The governor could call them to his office if it was decided that they may not be voting in the best intrest of their state. It would be a wise move to go back to this model since when they become a part of a Party,they rarely use good judgement. Be3ing a politician means gaining power and generally at a cost to his constituents.
#4 Posted by Brad, CJR on Tue 2 Oct 2012 at 06:00 AM