LizF
06-25-2007, 06:50 AM
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/06/25/Opinions/Minor.Candidates.Debate.Unfortunately.Irrelevant-2917954.shtml
Minor candidates' debate unfortunately irrelevant
Editorial
By: DI Editorial Board
Posted: 6/25/07
Six Republican presidential-nomination candidates - none of whom supported by more than 12 percent of GOP voters - are set to spar in a Saturday debate in Des Moines sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance. Meanwhile, Iowans couldn't care less - or, at least, they shouldn't.
To the delight of many Republicans, the names of debating "candidates" - Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson - read like the roster of the National Rifle Association's board of directors. Realistically, though, the likelihood of any of them becoming the next president is, at best, miniscule. Romney, the debate's "front-runner," has the support of a whopping 12 percent of GOP voters, according to a June 20 poll conducted by Newsweek. Huckabee, Thompson, Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter and are polling at an abysmal 4, 2, 2, 1, and 0 percent respectively.
What about Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson? Apparently, they are far too popular - Newsweek has them at 27, 15, and 19 percent respectively among Republican voters. That's right: The top three candidates for the GOP nomination won't appear at a Republican debate, if it can still honestly be called such. Forum attendees in Des Moines, then, will be treated to an awe-inspiring political bout between six candidates who share the same positions on nearly every issue and who, if victorious, may be able to move up from fourth to third among Republicans (i.e., have no chance at the nomination). Far from compelling, the debate is doomed to irrelevancy.
But it gets worse, in the form of another grievous oversight. It is understandable that the religious right might view the politics and lifestyle of Giuliani - pro-choice, pro-gay civil unions, and a serial divorcee - as antithetical to its message. But why stiff Ron Paul, the pro-life Texas congressman whom the National Taxpayers Union ranks No. 2 of the 435 U.S. Representatives as a "Friend of the Taxpayer"?
Good question. Nicknamed "Dr. No" for his dissent on nearly every tax bill in Congress and for his ultimate aim of abolishing the federal income tax and the IRS, Paul is an obstetrician/gynecologist who delivers babies and spends his spare time rallying against abortion. In other words, he represents the debate sponsors' ideals perfectly.
Which makes the excuse of Edward Failor Jr., the executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, all the more absurd. Implying that Paul's candidacy is less viable than those chosen for the forum, Failor told critics of Paul's exclusion - including the National Taxpayers Union - that the board had to have a cutoff point, and as a fringe candidate, Paul simply didn't make the cut. Paul, though, is supported by 2 percent of Republicans, the same proportion as Tommy Thompson and Brownback and greater than that of both Tancredo and Hunter. So, even if the Christian Alliance and tax-relief group were trying to remain true to their ideals - ostensibly excluding Republican front-runners because they are big spenders and "sinners" -they nonetheless failed miserably.
As far as Saturday in Des Moines is concerned, if only Pat Robertson, Steve Forbes, and a posthumous Richard Nixon show up, don't blame Rudy. He'll be busy elsewhere, securing the Republican nomination by a landslide. And Paul, again left out in the cold, may fade into obscurity, the latest victim of American machine politics.
Minor candidates' debate unfortunately irrelevant
Editorial
By: DI Editorial Board
Posted: 6/25/07
Six Republican presidential-nomination candidates - none of whom supported by more than 12 percent of GOP voters - are set to spar in a Saturday debate in Des Moines sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance. Meanwhile, Iowans couldn't care less - or, at least, they shouldn't.
To the delight of many Republicans, the names of debating "candidates" - Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson - read like the roster of the National Rifle Association's board of directors. Realistically, though, the likelihood of any of them becoming the next president is, at best, miniscule. Romney, the debate's "front-runner," has the support of a whopping 12 percent of GOP voters, according to a June 20 poll conducted by Newsweek. Huckabee, Thompson, Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter and are polling at an abysmal 4, 2, 2, 1, and 0 percent respectively.
What about Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson? Apparently, they are far too popular - Newsweek has them at 27, 15, and 19 percent respectively among Republican voters. That's right: The top three candidates for the GOP nomination won't appear at a Republican debate, if it can still honestly be called such. Forum attendees in Des Moines, then, will be treated to an awe-inspiring political bout between six candidates who share the same positions on nearly every issue and who, if victorious, may be able to move up from fourth to third among Republicans (i.e., have no chance at the nomination). Far from compelling, the debate is doomed to irrelevancy.
But it gets worse, in the form of another grievous oversight. It is understandable that the religious right might view the politics and lifestyle of Giuliani - pro-choice, pro-gay civil unions, and a serial divorcee - as antithetical to its message. But why stiff Ron Paul, the pro-life Texas congressman whom the National Taxpayers Union ranks No. 2 of the 435 U.S. Representatives as a "Friend of the Taxpayer"?
Good question. Nicknamed "Dr. No" for his dissent on nearly every tax bill in Congress and for his ultimate aim of abolishing the federal income tax and the IRS, Paul is an obstetrician/gynecologist who delivers babies and spends his spare time rallying against abortion. In other words, he represents the debate sponsors' ideals perfectly.
Which makes the excuse of Edward Failor Jr., the executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, all the more absurd. Implying that Paul's candidacy is less viable than those chosen for the forum, Failor told critics of Paul's exclusion - including the National Taxpayers Union - that the board had to have a cutoff point, and as a fringe candidate, Paul simply didn't make the cut. Paul, though, is supported by 2 percent of Republicans, the same proportion as Tommy Thompson and Brownback and greater than that of both Tancredo and Hunter. So, even if the Christian Alliance and tax-relief group were trying to remain true to their ideals - ostensibly excluding Republican front-runners because they are big spenders and "sinners" -they nonetheless failed miserably.
As far as Saturday in Des Moines is concerned, if only Pat Robertson, Steve Forbes, and a posthumous Richard Nixon show up, don't blame Rudy. He'll be busy elsewhere, securing the Republican nomination by a landslide. And Paul, again left out in the cold, may fade into obscurity, the latest victim of American machine politics.