You know what would be funny? Tonight's debate is on Fox News, as you may know (and, yes, I'll be tweeting as usual, and I should have a wrap-up over at Greg's place later). Anyway, what would be funny is if Fox News really acted, suddenly, as if it were just a total party hack enforcer and rigged the debate in obvious, over-the-top ways in favor of...well, that's the question, isn't it? They would certainly be rigging it against Ron Paul, and perhaps against Newt Gingrich, but for? I suppose that's what we're all still wondering.
Meanwhile, and on a totally different subject...I'll be back tomorrow, but if you haven't been over to Washington Monthly to read my guest posts over there, those of you who like to engage with my comments on democracy might want to check out this one on the occasion of the formal end of the the Iraq War for the US. As regular readers know, I unwind everyone once in a while on that subject. Also I wrote some other stuff, but that's the one that Tweedledum and Tweedledee would pick. Because, you know, it's the longest.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Anyway, what would be funny is if Fox News really acted, suddenly, as if it were just a total party hack enforcer and rigged the debate in obvious, over-the-top ways in favor of...well, that's the question, isn't it? They would certainly be rigging it against Ron Paul, and perhaps against Newt Gingrich, but for?
ReplyDeleteHa-haha hahahaha!
Here are your winnings, Captain JB Renault.
As to who they stacked the debate FOR - all I'll say is that Iowa polling has been Gingrich-Paul-Romney. the NH polling has been Romney-Gingrich-Paul. Even if they weren't overtly servicing Romney, it's not hard to figure who stands to benefit most from Paul and Gingrich getting torn apart.
This is about the debate on Fox.
ReplyDeleteI really disagree with the CW that Mitt Romney does well in these things by "focusing on Barack Obama" or something to that effect. The theory is that he's shoring up support with GOP primary voters by training his fire on Obama instead of the other GOP candidates. FALSE, I say!. In fact, I think it's been one the mistakes of his campaign. He does not stand out in that crowd when he goes after Obama. He has only distinguished himself from his opponents by being evasive and seeming disengaged from the primary. Romney has not used the primary to develop what "Romney Conservatism" is and why it's better than Gingrich et al and better than the status quo. I really think Romney is a horrible general election candidate, although I see why the Beltway journos think he's got this locked up DC thinks America loves safe, non-offensive alternatives and ignores that these kinds of candidates of almost no core constituency. Assuming Romney in the nominee, the polls will be close throgh the fall and the press will declare Obama in deep trouble. Then, in the fall, just like in the primary we will start to realize when we've known for a while: No one likes Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is an extremely compelling political figure of high intellect and great moral character.
Fox News really acted, suddenly, as if it were just a total party hack enforcer and rigged the debate in obvious, over-the-top ways in favor of...
ReplyDeleteITSELF. Perhaps this is what has mostly been missed about inside actors determining a primary in the invisible stage: too much emphasis is placed on finding the 'right' candidate and too little on coordinating events to retain power.
Suppose I accept your Washington Monthly assertion that the end of Iraq is a triumph of persistent action from those of us in the peanut gallery. If so, it follows that the peanut gallery is at loggerheads with big institutional forces for power in a democracy. If elections are determined by extraneous details such as the economy, and all or most candidates are malleable, then a winning candidate is the one who will retain power for big institutions, not the one who will tip the balance of a general election.
If this is true, then support for Paul among we plebes is something of a fool's errand, no matter how many of us throw said support behind him.
Fox wants anybody but Ron Paul. CSH is right, they want somebody they can control. Paul's foreign policy isn't so much what Fox cares about as the fact that they know he can't be controlled by anyone -- he thinks for himself and calls the truth as he sees it. JB often makes a convincing case for the propriety of politicians acting as mere conduits for institutional political forces... Ron Paul is constitutionally (Do you see what I did there?!) incapable of doing this. He's an imperfect candidate, but his complete unwillingness to carry water for the powerful is one reason he's so popular with average folks.
ReplyDelete@PA Politico, that is an excellent point. Romney could be talking about his plans and philosophy, but isn't saying much about it. His economic plan (summarized here) is more moderate than the other plans I've looked.
ReplyDeleteFor the rest of your prediction (no core constituency, dispirited votes at election), I have my doubts, but I'm going to keep your words in mind.