mycatharsis.com

They’re even threatening to pull their sponsorship of Sunday’s Fox debate. Apparently FoxNews is more concerned about their own hold on power than in bringing new voters to a party that got trounced in the last election. A candidate places in the top 5 in Iowa’s caucus, seems to be the CLEAR frontrunner for the GOP in last quarters fundraising, seems to be the type who would do great in New Hampshire, has the strong support of the states party the debate purportedly is for, and he doesn’t meet Fox’s unspecified ‘criteria’ for inclusion? It really is remarkable. They get trounced in 2006, with bleak prospects for 08, and how do they treat the only candidate who appears to be bringing them new voters, the only candidate who’s showing any signs of grassroots support and enthusiasm? Fox and the GOP power structure would much prefer to be a big fish in a rapidly evaporating pond.

Useful to remember with the first vote about to take place, and with media enterprises like Faux News and ABC trying to decide for us who ’should’ win the election, and who ’should’ be allowed to debate …

The 1992 Iowa Democratic caucus results …

Tom Harkin - 76%

Paul Tsongas - 4%

Bill Clinton - 3%

Bob Kerrey - 2%

Jerry Brown - 2%

That is not a misprint; the 1992 nominee and winner at 3 freakin percent!  And to show that 92 wasn’t simply a freak occurrence, the 1988 Republican Caucus results …

Bob Dole - 37%

Pat Robertson - 25%

George H.W. Bush - 19%

Clearly, simply winning Iowa tomorrow will not be enough.  But more importantly, look at Clinton’s numbers in his first 1992 primary. 3% !!!! That’s Duncan Hunter territory.  Fox and ABC trying to restrict candidates by certain criteria looks pretty foolish in that context.  But even ABC’s more formal criteria of 5% looks bad in this context.    They would have dropped a winning candidate from their debates if this was 1992.  And the polls, especially the national ones, don’t count for a single thing! So why are they used to narrow the field?  Including Fred Thompson over Ron Paul looks simply foolish, as Thompson continues a free-fall and Paul’s numbers only rise.  But that’s assuming these companies have no agenda with the candidates they select, and it seems pretty well accepted, by left and right,  that that is not the case.  A sad state of affairs, to say the least.  No wonder people even trust politicians more than they do the media!

Of course, even if, as it now looks, Ron Paul beats Rudy Giuliani in both Iowa AND New Hampshire, Rudy does not have to worry about Fox News forgetting about him.  Well before I was aware of the parasitic/symbiotic relationship between the two, I was confused as to why FoxNews seemed to be shilling so hard for Giuliani.  The only confusion I have now is why I used to watch them in the first place.

All in all, though, I think I’m more disillusioned than ever with the debate process.  The questions picked by the moderators have bordered on absurd, especially considering the precarious situations we find ourselves in both militarily and economically nowadays. Even when these important issues are raised, the candidates are only allowed a few minutes, tops, to promote their vision.  I think we’d do much better with a round table format, questions picked by popular vote over the internet to ensure the candidates are asked the questions voters want to hear,  and much longer response times, say 10 to 15 minutes apiece. And to make it really interesting, combine the Democratic and Republican debates into one.