Yesterday, Politico’s Manu Raju filed a report on the independent candidacy of Greg Orman, who is challenging Kansas Republican Pat Roberts for a Senate seat. If you follow the race closely, it does not provide much new information: Orman is cagey about where he stands but clearly goes left; he has some politically troublesome business associations; meanwhile, Roberts is unpopular and is definitely trailing.
These were the paragraphs that struck me:
“You know, I haven’t thought of it,” he told reporters.
First, why not talk to Politico? It is not like it was a particularly hard-hitting story. Anyway, Orman could use the kind of national exposure that Politico brings — at least if he hopes to raise the scratch necessary to withstand the impending Republican ad barrage.
But this is of a piece with the second item — his refusal to answer a pretty simple, straightforward question about his wealth. “You know, I haven’t thought of it.”
From what I have read, that line could be Orman’s campaign slogan. He does not have a lot to say about specific issues, nor has he ostensibly given much thought to … very much anything at all. This tweet from NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, who did somehow manage to interview Orman, was positively gobstopping:
.@OrmanForSenate told me he could pick 1 party to caucus with & switch after “4 or 5 months”..”we’ll be able to change our allegiances”
— Kelly O’Donnell (@KellyO) October 6, 2014
This is nonsense on stilts. Shifting loyalties in the Senate in the middle of a Congress would require a massive reorganization of staff, money, and infrastructure. The idea of switching back and forth every couple months is absurdly impractical. Anybody who is in serious contention for a Senate seat a month out should know better.
At this point, this race is reminding me of Saturday Night Live’s parody of the 1988 presidential debate — with Orman as the Vice President Bush character and Roberts as Michael Dukakis:
Dana Carvey (as George Bush): Well, that is a big problem, Sam, and unfortunately the format of these debates makes it hard to give you a complete answer. If I had more time, I could spell out the program in greater detail, but I’m afraid, in a short answer like this, all I can say is we’re on track – we can do more – but we’re getting the job done, so let’s stay on course, a thousand points of light. Well, unfortunately, I guess my time is up.
Jan Hooks (as Diane Sawyer): Mr. Vice-President, you still have a minute-twenty.
Carvey/Bush: What? That can’t be right. I must have spoken for at least two minutes.
Hooks/Sawyer: No, just forty seconds, Mr. Vice-President.
Carvey/Bush: Really? Well, if I didn’t use the time then, I must have just used the time now, talking about it.
Hooks/Sawyer: No, no, Mr. Vice-President, it’s not being counted against you.
Carvey/Bush: Well, I just don’t want it to count against Governor Dukakis’ time.
Hooks/Sawyer: It won’t. It will come out of the post-debate commentary.
Carvey/Bush: Do you think that’s a good idea?
Hooks/Sawyer: You still have a minute-twenty, Mr. Vice-President.
Carvey/Bush: Well, more has to be done, sure. But the programs we have in place are doing the job, so let’s keep on track and stay the course.
Hooks/Sawyer: You have fifty seconds left, Mr. Vice-President.
Carvey/Bush: Let me sum up. On track, stay the course. Thousand points of light.
Hooks/Sawyer: Governor Dukakis. Rebuttal?
Jon Lovitz (as Michael Dukakis): I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy!
Indeed. Orman’s game plan here seems to be to run out the clock over the next month by talking up bland, poll-tested banalities about his pragmatism and independence, avoid taking tough stands, and hope that voters still see him as better than Roberts.
Republicans had better get on their game. Orman may be all hat and no cattle, but so far his strategy is working.
