I read the three-part series “Questions Reporters Should Ask” by Todd Gitlin on the Neiman Watchdog: Questions the Press Should Ask Web site. Each of the three articles included eight questions that reporters should ask Huckabee, Romney and Obama, respectively. The first question on his list for Huckabee is in response to Huckabee saying, “If we see any part of our society and culture that’s decaying, what’s going to keep it from rotting? The Christians. God’s people.”
Gitlin asks, “Do you believe that people who are not Christians are not ‘God’s people’?” That’s a tough question and I can’t imagine how Huckabee would answer it, but if he is willing to make such a claim, he should be able to answer a question like Gitlin’s. Huckabee’s assertion that Christians are the only people who can save our culture from “decaying” is a clear attempt to endear himself to conservative Christians, but it is also a divisive comment considering the fact that there are many religious groups present in the U.S. today.
Gitlin’s questions for the other candidates are also largely follow-up questions based on things the candidates have said in the past, probably during campaign speeches to people who already supported them. Presidential candidates of both major political parties need to be able to substantiate and defend the assertions they make to everyone, not just to people who already agree with them.
Jennifer Ernst and Matthew Barge dissected claims of two senators concerning the consequences of Roe v.Wade in their article “Abortion Distortions” on FactCheck.org. Just as the previous article concerned the validity of assertions made by presidential candidates attempting to endear their electorates, this reading concerns the accuracy of statements made by elected officials attempting to further their own political causes. Predictably, Republican Senator Rick Santorum believes that Roe v. Wade has had a negative impact on society, and Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer asserts that it has had a positive effect. The issue, however, is not the viewpoint of either senator regarding Roe v. Wade but rather, the “facts” they use in support of their positions.
Boxer, the Democrat, claimed that if abortion was made illegal, 5,000 women would die per year – an assertion that is, as Ernst and Barge revealed, based on a 1936 study conducted before the introduction of penicillin or other advances in abortion techniques. The statistic is, by all accounts from abortion statistic experts, outdated. Santorum, the Conservative, claimed that the suicide rate among women has become “much worse” since Roe v. Wade, but according to the Center for Disease Control, the suicide rate among women had actually dropped two percentage points when the article was written.
Both senators’ claims seemed believable, and there are surely people who have heard or read those assertions that took the senators at their word. The easily conducted research done by the authors of the article shows, however, that both Boxer and Santorum knew that their “facts” were not completely correct and knowingly manipulated accurate information to further their own campaigns (for or against) abortion rights.
The other article I chose to read was listed as “FactCheck Subscribers Find Us Clear, Unbiased, Reliable and Useful,” on the class syllabus, but I couldn’t find the article on FactCheck.org, so I decided to read an article about Ron Paul, in keeping with the elected-officials theme I’ve created so far. “Wrong Paul” by Joe Miller was interesting to read because Ron Paul is, if nothing else, one of the most entertaining political candidates I’ve had the pleasure of watching and listening to during debates. Miller starts by examining some of Paul’s “more outlandish claims” including one theory that a “secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union”…huh? Miller shows that the Superhighway is actually a myth and that the organizations Paul cites in the above claim are “neither secret nor nefarious.” Paul has made many fanatical claims, particularly during the Republican debates, but to read some of the things he has said is enlightening because it seems like he simply fabricates conspiracy theories.
Most Republicans now claim to love Ronald Reagan, whether or not they actually loved him when he was in office. Apparently Ron Paul has jumped on the bandwagon too, trying to build an affinity with Republicans by establishing a connection between himself and Ronald Reagan in his television ads; Miller points out, however, that Paul attempted “to totally disassociate” himself from Reagan in 1988. Paul, an extreme conservative even by most Republicans’ estimation, is not above trying to gain more votes from moderate Republicans, and he probably thinks that associating himself with the beloved Ronald Reagan is a way to do that. As Miller shows, however, Paul’s connection with Reagan is questionable at best.
