PDA

View Full Version : "Minor candidates' debate unfortunately irrelevant" -- Editorial in Daily Iowan




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.

Zydeco
06-25-2007, 06:54 AM
Slavishness to polls this early in the game is grating, acting like Romney is a long-shot but McCain isn't is bizarre. I like the busts on Ed Failor Jr., of course, but the rest of the piece is unimpressive.

Sez Zydeco.

dspectre
06-25-2007, 07:00 AM
Reading this reminds me why I don't really read or watch MSM all that much.

SeanEdwards
06-25-2007, 07:01 AM
Remember the look on Romney's face when Sean Hannity told him he came in second to Paul? I bet Romney's camp had something to do with the attempted shutout of Paul at the ITR forum. I wish I could have seen the look on Mitt's face when he found out about the Paul camp's aikido move on the attempted shutout.

"Paul's coming ANYWAY?" :eek: :eek: :eek:

Tim724
06-25-2007, 07:51 AM
I think the article did a good job pointing out how screwed up the Iowa forum is - which was the main point of the article.

angelatc
06-25-2007, 08:06 AM
Yes, and I certainly do not think Julie Annie is going to win.

Spirit of '76
06-25-2007, 08:14 AM
Reading this reminds me why I don't really read or watch MSM all that much.

This is a college paper. I have a feeling that they're more concerned with taking pot-shots at "conservatives" than they are with presenting the news for the sake of news.

Bradley in DC
06-25-2007, 08:48 AM
EXCELLENT!

Nice words about Dr. Paul while lowering expectations. Doesn't get any better.

emilysdad
06-25-2007, 09:00 AM
I like the part about RP's exclusion, but I am tired of reading about these so called national polls. I find it ironic that in one so called national poll 76% are against the war and want our troops home, yet another so called national poll has the so called three front running "war mongers" with 61% of the vote. I'm sorry but this makes little sense to me. Maybe the national poll folks should cold call a different group of 1000 people, heh. Of course, I'm sure most folks realize these joke polls are nothing more than MSM propaganda pushing the desired neocon candidate down our throats.

Then again, I read message board posts where people say stuff like, "I really like Ron Paul, but I won't vote for him because he can't win." Huh? I guess these people will vote for somebody they don't like because they can win?

We went to a barbeque yesterday with about 40 friends and the subject of politics was touched on briefly. I stayed out of it for the most part with a single statement of "research the guy named Ron Paul." Listening to the conversation of about 10 minutes, I was left with the impression most of my friends are ignorant about the world around them. The general consenses was, "Well, I think Rudy Guliani is leading the poll's and I tend to vote Republican." This pretty much confirmed by belief most people pay little attention and simply vote for who MSM tells them to.

Lets hope people wake up this time.

DjLoTi
06-25-2007, 09:04 AM
Yeah emilysdad, I'm tired about reading and hearing about 'polls'. I mean, they had polls before they even debated. I can understand polls starting in like 3-4 months into the election process... but the 'poll' concept is just a tool for the MSM to further promote their agenda.

Also, I had a similar experience like your barb-o-que. I think you had a good approach, though. If people just read and learn, they'll become Ron Paul fans. They won't be convinced over night, and they have to learn for themselves.

Mani
06-25-2007, 09:09 AM
I like the part about RP's exclusion, but I am tired of reading about these so called national polls. I find it ironic that in one so called national poll 76% are against the war and want our troops home, yet another so called national poll has the so called three front running "war mongers" with 61% of the vote. I'm sorry but this makes little sense to me. Maybe the national poll folks should cold call a different group of 1000 people, heh. Of course, I'm sure most folks realize these joke polls are nothing more than MSM propaganda pushing the desired neocon candidate down our throats.

Then again, I read message board posts where people say stuff like, "I really like Ron Paul, but I won't vote for him because he can't win." Huh? I guess these people will vote for somebody they don't like because they can win?

We went to a barbeque yesterday with about 40 friends and the subject of politics was touched on briefly. I stayed out of it for the most part with a single statement of "research the guy named Ron Paul." Listening to the conversation of about 10 minutes, I was left with the impression most of my friends are ignorant about the world around them. The general consenses was, "Well, I think Rudy Guliani is leading the poll's and I tend to vote Republican." This pretty much confirmed by belief most people pay little attention and simply vote for who MSM tells them to.

Lets hope people wake up this time.

Ron Paul is not a little sound bite that's easy to just tag along behind. He makes you think, he requires you to analyze what he says and do some research. Is the public ready to get off their lazy butts? Normally, no.

But if his message can get across to enough people, and the momentum really starts to build, so much so it can no longer be ignored, the lazy followers will start to listen to the leaders (like the people on this forum). Many of the followers will tune in because they realize something is happening and that's when many of these people will be interested in Ron Paul.

It'll take time and money, but it is possible.

Captain Shays
06-25-2007, 09:16 AM
we should conduct our own poll and ask only one question. Have you ever been polled?