Brett Favre, the John Kerry of the NFL

Football season is right around the corner, and two big stories have dominated the run-up to it: The return of Brett Favre and Michael Vick.

Vick, of course, is returning to football after serving a prison sentence for a dog-fighting conviction. Favre is an aging legend destined for the Hall of Fame, so his coming out of retirement (again) would be notable under any circumstances. But his return this year is especially noteworthy because of the team he has chosen to play for. The Minnesota Vikings, of course, are the dreaded and hated arch-enemies of his old team, the Green Bay Packers.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Non-aficionados of football may not fully appreciate the significance of Favre's act of betrayal, and the drama it has produced. To put it in political terms, Favre's going to the Vikings is worse than, say, Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat. Specter was never a favorite of Republicans, so his switch was less stinging. But Favre was beloved by Green Bay fans. As such, his betrayal is more akin to, say, Bill Clinton having endorsed John McCain for president. Talk about a dramatic narrative -- Favre's transition from a "face" to a "heel" is something Vince McMahon might have dreamt up for WWE -- but this is real!

There's another element to this as well. Favre has come out of retirement twice, and this is seen as waffling. As John Kerry learned in 2004, the public will tolerate many things, but indecisiveness really irks them. I suppose it's the same whether you are a "field general," as quarterbacks are sometimes called -- or seeking to be commander in chief.

While Favre's story has all the elements needed for a classical allegory (or a daytime soap opera), Vick's story is especially interesting to political folks partly because he is now public enemy number one of the liberal PETA crowd.

His infamous history conducting dog fights made national news, with even political pundits adding their two cents about whether the former star quarterback should be allowed back in the NFL. To be sure, every dog owner (I have two pugs) took special umbrage to his cruelty, which I'm sure Vick found utterly surprising. (He could have backed his SUV over a family of four and not sparked as much attention or outrage.) All of this, of course, was ultimately good for the folks who talk and write about sports for a living.

In any event, the Favre and Vick stories have combined to lend special excitement to the upcoming season. And the fact that these stories transcend sports news probably explains why your grandmother -- who watches only Fox News Channel -- now hates Michael Vick.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before our sports and politics, like chocolate and peanut butter, came together. For a long time now, there has been a thinning line between political news and tabloid news. Now, the same holds true for sports.

Here is just one example: Recent speculation on ESPN about dissension brewing among Favre's new Viking teammates (some of whom are loyal to the Vikings' former quarterback) reminded me of the never-ending leaks that flowed out of the McCain campaign and onto the pages of Politico -- usually in regard to Sarah Palin. Be it a campaign or a football team, one disgruntled "unnamed source" can provide a days' worth of material for cable networks -- all of which need to feed a 24-hour news cycle.

Do Favre's new teammates in Minnesota resent him for skipping training camp? Will Eagles' Quarterback Donovan McNabb grow jealous and skeptical of Vick? And, by the way, did Palin ever donate those clothes purchased for the campaign? Tune in at 5!

One has only to watch a few minutes of ESPN to note there is very little difference between sports punditry and political punditry. (Having worked at Townhall.com, I can tell you the site was specifically designed to replicate sports Web sites.)

Both cater to predominantly male audiences, both play up adversarial positions (if Cris Carter says Favre will help the Vikings, the producers must find another analyst to disagree) and both over-play the significance of a few stories of the day while under-playing most others.

And both employ attractive commentators and feed off the "horse-race" stories -- versus the nuts-and-bolts details of the games themselves. In short, both political news and sports news are now essentially the male version of celebrity "gossip" news.

The obvious problem with this, of course, is that the game of politics has much higher stakes than whether Brett Favre will be good for the Vikings. (He will, by the way.)


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!