COMMENTARY | With the most recent Republican presidential debate occurring on Thursday, Dec. 15, Fox News wants Iowans -- and the rest of the nation -- to understand that if Texas congressman Ron Paul should win, their first-in-the-nation caucus will count as a waste of time and serious GOP-leaning voters should look toward New Hampshire and South Carolina to choose a truly viable Republican candidate to run against President Obama.
Or that seems to be the gist of what Chris Wallace had to say on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (as reported by Mediaite) a few hours before the sole remaining debate standing between Paul, who is surging in the local polls, and a possible victory in the Hawkeye State on Jan. 3.
"Well, and the Ron Paul people aren't going to like me saying this," Wallace said, "but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won't count and it will go on."
So, to reiterate: "Iowa won't count." But only if Ron Paul wins. Otherwise, because every other GOP candidate is presumably acceptable to the "Republican establishment" (oddly enough, this line of reasoning would seem to include Tea Party Caucus leader Rep. Michele Bachmann and ultra-conservative ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum as part of the "establishment" -- unless they have been discounted altogether), a victory in Iowa will count and should be looked upon as a voter mandate for the legitimacy of their candidacy.
What? Regardless of who wins the Iowa Caucus, it counts. Delegates are elected that will eventually choose a presidential nominee. It could be the presidential hopeful that is a long-shot that faces the Democratic incumbent in November 2012, or it could be someone more in tune with the GOP party apparatus. Just because the "establishment" does not accept a candidate as party-friendly does not mean that a voter's choice and the majority voters' choice does not count.
But such a statement and its source are somewhat problematic. Wallace is a moderator at the debate which kicks off at 9 p.m. EST on Fox News Channel in Sioux City, Iowa. He will co-moderate with Fox News anchors Megyn Kelly and Neil Cavuto.
With that type of pre-debate and pre-Iowa Caucus analysis of Rep. Paul's candidacy, Wallace might as well be standing at the polls and buying votes for other establishment approved contenders. He has essentially told Iowans that Paul, who has replaced Romney as the second-strongest candidate in Iowa in two of the last three local polls (via Real Clear Politics tracking), cannot win the national election and that a vote for Paul is worthless. Such comments are only designed to weaken
Succinctly: If you're planning to vote for Texas congressman Ron Paul in the upcoming Iowa Caucus, don't bother. It won't count. Or, rather, it will count for Iowa -- the state does send delegates to the Republican National Convention, after all -- but not nationally. According to Wallace, the rest of the nation will just "go on" and select someone who can actually win the Republican nomination.
Fox News and its primary media outlet, Fox News Channel, has long been viewed as a propaganda source for all things conservative and a direct-to-consumer mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Wallace, for better or worse, is generally viewed as one of Fox News' few truly "fair and balanced" newsmen. But as conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan pointed out on his blog, "The Dish," such a statement by Wallace not only shows bias against a candidate, it does so in a manner that appears to push the agenda of "Republican establishment" by marginalizing an unacceptable contender.
Sullivan has called for Chris Wallace to recuse himself from the Iowa debate.
Whether purposeful or unwittingly, Wallace allowed himself to become a tool of the Republican establishment and the promulgator of said establishment through Fox News.
But Sullivan, quick with the double entendre, said it best: "A man who is openly backing the Establishment against the possible winner of the vote is not an impartial moderator. He is a tool."
Chris Wallace noted that the "Ron Paul people" were not going to like him saying what he did. He was undoubtedly correct. And they should not like it. Nor should anyone else in a democratic society. Why? Because going into the debate and the Iowa Caucus, which is less than three weeks away, congressman Paul has just as good a chance of winning as does any other person on the ballot, including the lowly polling former Utah governor, Jon Huntsman. For a respected newsman to tell Iowans that voting for Paul or any other candidate that might not be acceptable to the establishment is tantamount to tampering with the vote itself. Saying that a Paul vote discredits or makes valueless the vote only promotes voting dishonesty and truly marginalizes the outlying and long-shot candidates, further solidifying the power of the "establishment." And it devalues the democratic process by padding the numbers of those contenders that are acceptable to the powers that be instead of being reflective of who the voters truly would like to see represent the Republican Party.
In the democratic process, majority rules. What truly invalidates the process is not voting for the candidate one actually wants to see elected. Pay no attention to the guy behind the Fox News curtain. A win by Ron Paul -- or Santorum, or Bachmann, or Perry, or whoever -- will not discredit Iowa. Making that statement, however, certainly was a discredit to Chris Wallace.
big east expansion google buzz trace cyrus hilary duff pregnant hilary duff pregnant psat psat
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.