Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter
  4
Share on Facebook
  5
Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 9 Shares     
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Iowa: Watch!...Watch!...Watch!... Why Are You Watching?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   News 1   Funny 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 12/31/11

opednews.com

This article cross-posted from WhowhatWhy



The conventional media love to baffle us with bullshit.

Following months of endless horserace reporting on the upcoming GOP caucuses in Iowa, they are now publishing warnings that...it is all virtually meaningless.

The takeaway from this is that the media are essentially admitting that they fill your free time with political "reporting" that is about as relevant as watching televised poker matches.

That, of course, is instead of figuring out what is deeply wrong with America and what can (maybe) still be done about it.

Big outlets like the New York Times, CNN and Politico serve up an endless junk food diet of polls, random street interviews, daily candidate posturing, and essentially flood the field with personnel. They give us the excitement of dark horses coming suddenly from behind, as in this, from CNN the other day:

"A new survey of people likely to attend Iowa's Republican caucuses indicates that former House speaker Newt Gingrich's support in the state is plunging while former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's is surging, with support for Santorum more than tripling since the beginning of December.

"According to a new CNN/Time/ORC International poll, 25% of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and 22% said they would support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's 3-point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

"Meanwhile, Gingrich has plunged from 33% to 14% this month while Santorum grew to 16%. The poll's release comes six days before the Iowa caucuses kick off Republican nominating contests."

Then, suddenly, with the days counting down to the all-important Iowa caucuses, a new refrain begins to play from the pipes. Iowa...means almost nothing.

Here's establishment editorialist Michael Barone, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

"The Iowa Republican caucuses have a poor record in choosing their party's nominees. In the five presidential nominating cycles with active Iowa Republican caucus competition, the Hawkeye State has voted for the eventual Republican nominee only twice -- in 1996 for Bob Dole, in 2000 for George W. Bush -- and only once was the Iowa winner elected president.

"... In a state of three million people, a bare 119,000 Republicans showed up for the caucuses. Some 60% of them identified as evangelical or born-again Christians -- a far higher percentage than in any presidential contest in any large non-Southern state that year."

A day or so later, we get a similar, if more entertaining version, from the New York Times' columnist Gail Collins.

"Only days until the Iowa caucuses! Can you believe it? Less than 8,000 minutes to go!

"Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that the Iowa caucuses are really ridiculous."

[snip]

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Author, investigative journalist, editor-in-chief at WhoWhatWhy.com
Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Real Reason For The Afghan War?

The Military and Those Strange Threats to Obama

CloseReading: Are Joe Biden's "Gaffes" Accidental? Or Brilliant?

Tea Party Types say: Next Overboard, Lifeguards!

NY Times' Umbrella Man Exposed

JFK Umbrella Man -- More Doubts

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

by any major political party candidates, political... by bogi666 on Sunday, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:24:08 PM
[[No Vote ]] Boycott the vote! It only legitimiz... by Joseph Zernik on Tuesday, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:16:24 PM