Our View: Republican’s top-tier does not line up with Iowa Straw Poll
Published: Sunday, September 11, 2011
Updated: Thursday, July 12, 2012 15:07
The entire presidential election process is like a game of tug-of-war: two opposing teams pushing and pulling a rope of ideas onto the other. In a weird way, we are more or less the judges. We determine who is more capable, more strategic, more empathetic, more sincere, the list goes on.
However, it seems that regardless of whom we choose as the winner, there will always be complaints about who is elected for president. But, as November comes closer and closer we can't help but note who is on their way to becoming a presidential challenger to current president Barack Obama.
In mid-August, the Iowa Straw Poll was held, after which Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney were announced the Republican's new top-tier. But, if Texas Rep. Ron Paul was behind first place Bachmann by only one percent, then how does this make any sense?
Nine candidates were on the ballot when the political festival took place on the Iowa State University campus, and after six hours of voting, Bachmann came in first with 28 percent of nearly 17,000 votes, Paul inched behind her with 27 percent and Tim Pawlenty trailed in third with 13 percent. Yet neither Pawlenty nor Paul is in the Republican top-tier.
"The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart brought the matter up soon after the Iowa Straw Poll took place and the "new top-tier" was announced. Steward noted in various examples that the media has seemingly been ignoring Ron Paul's existence in the 2012 presidential elections.
The New American's Jack Kerwick wrote an opinions piece titled, "Ron Paul: Why a top-tier candidate is ignored by Republicans." In his article, Kerwick states that, "Even though [Paul] is the partisan for constitutional or ‘limited' government par excellence, [he] is despised and feared by the party of ‘limited government.'"
Who's to say if this Kerwick's reasoning is right or wrong, but what else could be the reason? And if that is the case, then how is this in any way just?
It's very possible that one could argue that we all have somewhat of a say in who is chosen as a presidential candidate, even if it might not feel like we have any control over what happens, but at least be honest to the public.
Presidential elections will never be perfect. People will always find something to complain about. Maybe this is only another one of those confusing moments where two dots don't connect but top officials don't care to explain why that is. And in response, — well, no — we don't get to respond. We get to sit back and wonder by Paul or Pawlenty aren't on the new top-tier.
It's not that Stewart or Kerwick or anyone else who is baffled by the new top-tier is a fan of Paul or Pawlenty, but why have these straw polls if they don't seem to account for anything?
The public should at least be filled in on as to why Paul and Pawlenty didn't make the top-tier. As we stated before, it's not that we are or aren't fans of either of the two, but we're beginning to feel a little left out from how exactly the top-tier is decided upon.
Every portion of the presidential elections is an important component. It's debatable, but determining a presidential candidate is the most important factor behind the actual November elections themselves. We're just asking for all of it to make some sense.