Today I watched this great program on C-SPAN. Now, stop laughing. It was really good. It was so good that when they showed it again tonight, I watched it again. The program was a discussion panel consisting of a Newsweek reporter, a Washington Post reporter, a Republican pollster, and a Democratic pollster. (The above link has the right names, but the titles don't match what was broadcast.) They did this at Georgetown University for a bunch of law students and it was excellent. The topic was, of course, the recent election. What made it so good is that nobody fought about anything. In fact, everybody agreed on just about everything that was said. They talked about the tactics that the Democrats and Republicans used, and the pollsters had some amazing things to say. They really knew their business and were very honest and upfront about the way things worked. These guys are basically the backbone of American politics, and their poll results go a long way in shaping the course of our history.

I really wish I had access to a transcript of the show, but it looks like C-SPAN only sells videos, and this one is $60. Still, I'm thinking about getting it. It was that good. To give you some examples of what they talked about, before I forget:

• The fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment (banning gay marriage) was a red herring and no one, especially President Bush, expected it to pass. The only reason he brought it up in the first place is because he knew it would mobilize people. The Republican pollster explained that if you asked people "Should marriage be between a man and a woman?", an overwhelming majority would say yes. On the other hand, asking if homosexuals should be able to have civil unions got mixed results. So the Republicans chose to discuss the issue in terms of marriage rather than civil unions. A very crafty strategy if you ask me.
  
  
• Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - I think everybody can agree that these guys were wackos, no doubt about that - but what they did worked. They set up a 527 - one of those non-profit political advocacy groups - and ran a spot questioning Kerry's actions in Vietnam. The media jumped all over it, mainly because it became such a huge thing to talk about for the Democrats - how these ads were just so incredibly wrong, and Kerry was a war hero, etc. Meanwhile, all President Bush had to do was say, "I don't support this group, and I don't question Kerry's war record at all," which had the dual advantage of distancing himself from the controversy while at the same time letting it continue! And since President Bush avoided talking about Vietnam, I'm inclined to believe that he did respect Kerry's time in active duty. Of course, the fact that some guys were in the media openly casting doubt on Kerry could only have helped Bush's campaign. Another smart move by the Republicans with virtually no effort required on their part.
  
  
• Kerry's war policy. It's not that he "flip-flopped", but that his position was so complex that it was almost impossible to explain consistently. It's also interesting to note that this policy was at least partly shaped in the Democratic primary, when Kerry was competing against Howard Dean. When Dean's popularity skyrocketed on an anti-war platform, Kerry realized he would not be able to win the primary from his current standpoint (which was basically agreeing with the President's decision to invade Iraq). So he developed a new position whereby he agreed with the actual war itself, but he disagreed with the President's handling of the situation - keep in mind the vote on the $87 billion to fund the troops came up during the Democratic primary. This was probably why Kerry voted against it, because if he had voted for it, he never could have come from behind to beat Dean.
  
  
• The reason that the Republicans won was because they successfully baited the Democrats by taunting them until they exploded with rage. That's all they did, really. The Federal Marriage Amendment was part of this. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was part of this. It's just like when you were little, riding in the backseat of the family car with your brother, and you just kept sticking your tongue out at them until they shouted, or tried to slap you, or whatever. And what happened? They got in trouble for lashing out. It's the oldest trick in the book. The Republicans were Walter to the Democrats' Dude, sitting there saying "I'm calmer than you are" until the Dems just snapped and started turning people off left and right by being so condescending and bitter. I was directly affected by this. I'm not happy with the current smug attitude of the hardline conservatives, and I was really interested in looking to the Democrats for an alternative this election. But when it came down to it, I couldn't support them because they were just so insulting to a lot of the things I stand for. I'm a Christian - therefore, according to the Democrats, I am a radical theocrat with no capacity for rational thought. I'm not really crazy about abortion, but since I'm not 100% pro-choice, I'm a fascist who enjoys depriving women of their fundamental rights. Anyone who didn't fit the Democrat secular humanitarian mold was cast off and derided. Not surprisingly, most of us went and voted Republican, and the rest is history. The lesson here is the Democrats need to practice the tolerance and acceptance they preach. If they did that, they could very easily become the dominant party again.
  
  
• Another thing to keep in mind was how each party appealed to their extreme constituency. It's important to note that the President never reached out to hardline conservatives in public. He has never publicly stated his position on Roe v. Wade. Not even once - his wife has even said she supports the decision in that case. The things that the President has actually said have been appeals to the moderates, with the notable exception of the gay marriage situation - but you see, he knew that was never going to pass anyway. And who's talking about it now? Nobody. I wouldn't be surprised if the President never mentions it again, especially now that individual states are taking things into their own hands with propositions banning gay marriage. The reason the President didn't have to court the extreme right is because people were already doing it for him. Pat Robertson, James Dobson, all of those religious guys were openly advocating Bush's re-election and putting it in terms that reactionaries could understand and relate to. All those Christian TV and radio shows? They were pushing some serious agendas. It really made me sick to watch it - you had preachers telling their congregations that not voting was a terrible sin, that this was the most important election ever, that the fate of the world hung in the balance, and if you voted against God you were gonna be in big trouble. That, more than anything, made me want to vote Democrat just to prove them wrong. Meanwhile, the appeal to the hardline liberals was done entirely through the media. The only reason for this was because Michael Moore thought it was a great idea to make a political movie that pandered to the extreme left, and publicize the crap out of it. So all of a sudden you have this extremely liberal agenda being pushed through the national media, and because there was no equivalent extreme conservative agenda being broadcast in the mainstream, it made the Republicans look very reasonable and moderate. When, in fact, they're just as kooky, but the only people who watch Christian TV are the ones that already agree with that agenda. So it was unbalanced, and it had the opposite effect that Moore intended it to have - it drove people over to the Republicans. Again, his condescending, smarmy attitude didn't help any. But we'll say that he and Bill O'Reilly cancelled each other out.
  

So, anyway, this discussion panel was just about the best thing I've ever seen on TV. To have the Republican pollster sit there and say, "Yes, I work for the Republicans - I think they're stupid for these reasons," and then have the Democratic pollster say the same thing about his party - it was just great. Nobody attacked each other, everyone had a great time discussing issues and policies (you know, the things that are actually important to our political process), and even the students asked very good questions without any of that ridiculous loaded sentiment you normally get from students who are trying to jockey their way into favor with someone.

I'm still wondering how I can get a transcript or a recording of this show. I guess I could always put it on my Christmas list ...