Daniel Schorr: Wanker?

There I was, in my car, heading to the hardware store for a length of hose Saturday morning, listening to NPR on the radio. It was the Week in Review segment on Weekend Edition, where there is a bit of back and forth between host Scott Simon and “NPR senior news analyst” Daniel Schorr.

The fellows discussed presidential primary season. You might have heard of it. It’s coming right up in a couple hundred days, you know. They spoke about how whole thing seems like a competition between states to see who can have their primary first— (like comment posters on the ‘A-list’ blogs: “First!”) —and how it seems to be a competition between candidates over who can raise the most money.

What a great conversation to have! I think everybody agrees that money buys influence in politics. I think many will agree with Your Humble Montag that money is actually a corrupting influence in politics. In fact, Your Humble Montag doesn’t hesitate to say we should strive to find a way to remove as much of the monetary influence from the process as possible in order to empower the people, and provide for more meaningful representation of the populous within the halls of power.

Would the great “NPR senior news analyst” Daniel Schorr have words of wisdom for the disenfranchised?

Well… He would offer a kernel of cynicism about faulty voting machines… but it would be embedded deep within the odoriferous piece of excrement he put forth as if offering to share his bag of potato chips:

…apparently, raising money seems to be the most important part of a primary election over campaigns so far.

So I was – make so bold as to say, why don’t we get rid of the primaries with ballot boxes, half of which don’t work anyway, and simply take a date and decide who has the most money and that person wins. [Emphasis added.]

Fucking wanker.

This cannot possibly be a serious proposal, though Schorr either has the most arid wit imaginable, or he spoke it in all seriousness. Furthermore, the banter that followed his remark seemed a happy effort to “normalize,” or to resign folks to, the triumph of financial power over human dignity.

Continuing from above with host Simon’s response to Schorr’s modest proposal:

SIMON: Well, it would save a lot of expense.

SCHORR: Wouldn’t it?

SIMON: Yeah. And they could do something with the money afterwards.

SCHORR: Exactly.

SIMON: Yeah. Let’s [sounds more like “Not” on the audio] spend it on campaign stuff.

“Hey, let’s take those pesky, unpredictable ‘people’ out of the electoral process, and let the money decide.”

“LOL. Right on! And all the losers can give their money to charity or something!”

“Word.”

“ROFLMAO!!!! Campaigning for votes! HA!!!!!”

Come to think about it, I take back what I said about Daniel Schorr being a wanker. This has to be a joke. It’s a joke from deep seeded cynicism, wrapped up in sarcasm, and concealed by an unwinking dryness of humor — (most arid wit imaginable) — the kind we like to indulge in, right here in this space…

It’s a joke, right?

RIGHT?

Listen: NPR : Week in Review: Iraq Veto, First Republican Debate [3:40 to 5:07.]

[Below the fold is a transcript of a larger portion of the conversation.]

SIMON: The Florida legislature gave final approval this week to move Florida’s primary election for March to January.

SCHORR: Yes.

SIMON: Now this follows New York and California that also moved up their primaries. And now the secretary of state of New Hampshire didn’t rule out putting the New Hampshire primary, actually, in this calendar year.

SCHORR: Right.

SIMON: He said, we’ll move it to before January 1st if we have to. What do you make of the increased velocity of the season and all the big states going first?

SCHORR: Well, and all of a sudden they find(ph), why just New Hampshire? Why Iowa? Then (unintelligible) scenes and we have a lot of reporters coming here. We have attention to us, state and all, and so one after another and they are now beginning to make their primaries earlier and earlier.

I suspect that it’s probably going to go on until we will have the aversion, perhaps, of a national primary is, what it would be like. I don’t know what that would then lead to but it strikes me that during all of this time, they all – announcing how much money they have raised. And apparently, raising money seems to be the most important part of a primary election over campaigns so far.

So I was – make so bold as to say, why don’t we get rid of the primaries with ballot boxes, half of which don’t work anyway, and simply take a date and decide who has the most money and that person wins.

SIMON: Well, it would save a lot of expense.

SCHORR: Wouldn’t it?

SIMON: Yeah. And they could do something with the money afterwards.

SCHORR: Exactly.

SIMON: Yeah. Let’s [sounds more like “Not” on the audio] spend it on campaign stuff.