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

Con said, "The resolution was always intended to draw attention to the hyperbole of Fox NEWS. The network often allows its pundits to overspeak with impunity." overspeak: To overstate or exaggerate; to make exaggerated claims for (1). impunity: exemption from punishment (3) Con doesn't say so, but we can conclude from the juxtaposition of statements that he believes that: Stuart Varney was overspeaking in the highlighted segment and he should be punished for it. I disagree. Stuart Varney was doing his job and doing it well. In any case, punishment and the threat of it is an inappropriate motivator for people working in creative fields. They respond better to rewards, or even better in the absense of extrinsic motivators, which allows full range to their intrinsic motivation (5,6). Andrew Cohen from the Atlantic has the following to say about punditry: "News programs that use pundits aren't (just) looking for smart commentary. They also are looking for sizzle and certitude from their guests. They are looking for entertainment. You can be right or wrong, a famous television producer once told me, just don't be boring. So, sadly, the analyst who candidly declares she isn't quite sure how the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- as if anyone does -- is far less appealing as a television character than is the analyst willing to declare with metaphysical certainty how the vote will go. It doesn't matter if the second analyst turns out to be wrong or the first analyst turns out to be right. What matters is that he gave good quote and she didn't." Con would be right if he said that Stuart Varney can't read President Obama's mind. Of course he can't. Nobody can. So the man had a guess. Was he right or wrong? Certainly. Was he boring? Absolutely not. My opponent was fixated, and here we are days later having a debate about it. Varney obviously did a great job. He should not be punished. And now I will address Con's arguments directly. Con said: "Obama has sworn off elected office in the future. Although other presidents have sought lower office after their terms, Obama has said that he will not do this. He is term-limited, and cannot be elected President again." This is splitting hairs. At the next presidential election, presumably, Obama will endorse a candidate for president. They will appear, side by side, smiling and waving, and people will think, "ooh, I don't know about this new candidate. She seems a little bit aggressive...but Barack Obama supports her, and I really want that stream of goodies to continue...okay, I'll vote." Technically, people will be voting for the new candidate, but emotionally they'll be voting for Obama. This was my understanding of Varney's words. There are other possible explanations.Perhaps Varney is anticipating a President-lead constitutional ammendment via the state convention method, whereby ordinary citizens vote (7)! How exciting. I wonder what the ammendment might be. If Obama is targeting parents of four-year-olds, and - lets face it - women in particular, perhaps it's an ammendment that is particularly relevant to that group. Or perhaps, Obama is trying to overturn the 22nd ammendment, which places term limits on the Presidency! Then, not only would he need votes to overturn the ammendment, he would need votes in subsequent elections. In fact, a bill has recently been introduced with this very purpose and has been referred to committee (8). Perhaps Varney was making reference to that. Con said, "Obama may have proposed universal Pre K in an attempt to improve the American education system. This must be ruled out before any argument that the proposal is an attempt to bribe off potential voters can be demonstrated." This is outrageous. Con is introducing theories out of the blue and insisting that they must be "ruled out" before any other arguments can be made. Not only that, but his theory is about the motives of someone that neither of us know personally. No. This argument is about whether it was fair of Varney to make the assessment he did: that politicians, including Obama, do stuff for votes. Why yes. They do.Con said, "If it is argued that Obama is completely dedicated to the destruction of the entire United States...capitalism...evil plot...vote-bribing...every American four year old...take their guns and kill Jews."I'm surprised that Con anticipated this argument from me. However, I will not be making it, and so his objections are irrelevant. (1) http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu... (2) http://oxforddictionaries.com... (3) http://oxforddictionaries.com... (4) http://www.theatlantic.com... (5) http://www.buzzle.com... (6) http://www.wisegeek.com... (7) http://en.wikipedia.org...(8) http://conservativebyte.com...