Fox NEWS' Varney: Obama offering free preschool so toddlers will vote for him

Thank you to Con for thinking up this debate and for carrying it through to the end even though he had personal matters to deal with. I've liked this debate a lot. It has a slightly surreal quality, which is very pleasant.I'm dismayed, though, that Con has spent so much of his final round discussing what the resolution is and what it isn't. After all, I had so much sympathy for Con when he said in round 1 "I do not want to hand wring over many rules. I ask that we not resort to semantic misconduct, quibbling over every errant word and punctuation." I don't want to either! I want a sort of free-form, wild and lovely debate style. And so to find us both here, in round 4, grubbing around with the resolution is less than we both hoped, I think. What is the debate about?In round 1, Con said, "I ask that we not resort to semantic misconduct..." I took this to mean that we try to respond honestly to the intention behind the words, rather than to the words themselves if we believe they misrepresent the intention. Here is the evidence of Con's motivation in this debate:"In another nauseating lie from Fox NEWS..." (round 1)"There are other issues with Varney's argument, and I would like to see how well such a statement can possibly be defended." (round 1)"I believe that the Fox NEWS reporting and analysis on this matter cannot be defended or justified." (round 1)"The resolution was always intended to draw attention to the hyperbole of Fox NEWS. The network often allows it’s pundits to overspeak with impunity. In this case, a ridiculous statement was made." (round 2)Then, in the comments to this debate, Con says "I honestly thought that nobody would pick it up," and refers to this debate as a "joke".This is a protest debate. Perhaps, rather than debating with me, Con would like to be debating with a representative of the FOX network, or even Varney himself.Of course, I can't speak for the FOX network, but for the duration of the debate I am in the role of its defender. When Con says "Fox NEWS reporting and analysis on this matter cannot be defended or justified", I disagree. I think the analysis was justifiable and appropriate. Varney was expected to give an opinion and he did. His opinion was not outlandish and there's no reason to think it was "a nauseating lie" as Con claims.The resolution stated: "Is Varney correct?"The answer is yes. His statement was appropriate. It met the requirements of his role and situation. It was almost certainly his true opinion. Yes, he was correct to make it.Con said, "I am aware that Fox NEWS is, among conservatives, (as John Lennon might say) more popular than Jesus. The notion that Fox NEWS must be defended at all costs is common among Republicans, and I note an air of this trend in the arguments so far presented by Pro."Con is accusing me of being a conservative who has replaced worship of Jesus with worship of a television network. In fact, I have never watched Fox NEWS (apart from the segment that Con provided), and certainly do not worship it in any way. Nor are my political beliefs relevant to this debate. This is a strangely personal attack, which is entirely inconsistent with Con's otherwise charming behavior, and which I can only attribute to his being so rushed in the final round.It really is ridiculous to initiate a debate attacking Fox NEWS and then take issue with the fact that your opponent is trying to defend it. Con said, "in order for the "sole" motivation for the Presidents advocacy of preschool education to be vote-bribing, then there can be no 'other' reasons."In the final round, Con has introduced a new line of argument: that even the possibility of other reasons for the President's announcement is enough to disprove the resolution. May I suggest that Con is doing exactly what he forbade in round 1. He is engaging in semantic misconduct. In the fifth line of text in round 1, Con states:"Varney seems to be claiming that President Obama's main motivation for asking for universal preschool is to bribe toddlers into voting for him in the future." (my emphasis)Please note the words "main motivation" NOT "sole motivation". This is what Varney seems to be claiming, according to Con. Later, he says "sole motivation" but almost immediately asks that we not "quibble over every errant word". I complied with this suggestion. I overlooked the change in wording and argued the content, Con's argument that Varney was wrong to say what he did.Con is taking advantage of my compliance with his request to avoid semantics, by bringing up a semantic argument in the final round.SUMMARY: YES, Varney was correct to state his opinion on Fox NEWSCon and I agree that Varney's role includes giving his opinion and predictions. Politicians, including Obama, are in the business of seeking votes. The following points I made remain uncontested by Con, and therefore I assume he agrees: Varney's opinion was consistent with his beliefs and therefore not a lie. It is impossible for Varney, Con, I or anyone reading this debate to know what President Obama's motivation is. Making guesses about the President's motivation and future behavior is a legitimate activity for journalists, including Varney. Con's main argument rests on the fact that the Presidency is term-limited. Personally, I believe that when Varney spoke of Obama's vote-seeking behavior, he meant vote seeking for the Democrats in general, and for the next Presidential candidate, endorsed by Obama. This is not semantic quibbling. It's genuinely what I think he meant. Moreover, I think the text defends this interpretation. He starts off talking about the President in the third person ("the president", "his campaign"), but then shifts to the general second person to talk about vote-seeking behavior ("you raise taxes on the rich", "you offer all kinds of free stuff", "people who will vote for you in the future"). This is entirely consistent with him meaning Democrats in general. However, it's also possible that Varney doesn't rule out Obama returning and seeking election in some other capacity. Con doesn't believe it will happen, but on scant evidence. Varney has a different opinion, no doubt. Conclusion Varney's behavior was correct. It's his job to give his opinion and analysis and he gave it. There is no reason to think it was a "nauseating lie" as Con claimed. The Fox NEWS reporting on this issue - although perhaps not to everyone's taste - can indeed be defended and justified.