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

The resolution The resolution states: Fox NEWS' Varney: Obama offering free preschool so toddlers will vote for him Which, after round 1 we agreed that "toddlers" would be interpreted as "affected people" on the grounds that the toddlers neither pay for their education nor vote. So really we mean caregivers and teachers.Please note that the resolution starts with Varney. The main topic of this debate is Varney and whether or not he is justified in his statement.In subsequent rounds, Con has wandered away from the resolution. In particular, he has tried to rephrase it in a way to exclude Varney altogether and has added the words "the sole reason that Obama is advocating..." as if it were somehow possible to read the President's mind. No. We cannot read the President's mind. That's why we rely on experts like Varney to interpret the facts for us. Journalists deal in facts, opinion, analysis and prediction Con complains journalists should only deal with facts. I disagree. If that were true, then no comments could ever be made about the possible motives of public figures or anything about the future. Rather, analysis and informed opinion are central to journalism. Mary Schmich from The Chicago Tribune won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary last year. Her prize-winning entries about Chicago are full of speculation about people’s motives. For example: “But I'm guessing that Chico is doing more than just playing the politics of class and place…When he talks about Emanuel, he's talking about something personal.” (1) Note how she even uses the words “I’m guessing”. Mark Mahoney from The Post-Star won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorials in 2009 and often makes predictions about the future. For example: “The need for help this coming year, and particularly this coming winter, will be greater than ever./ The people who are struggling are going to need all the help they can get - from both the givers and the receivers.” (2) Mary Schmich and Mark Mahoney are among the best, most recognized, journalists in America. They show that guesses and predictions are a useful, valid part of journalism. Therefore, Varney was acting completely within his job description when he speculated about Obama’s motives and future behavior. Obama’s future behavior Please note that Con’s complaint about Varney is based on his own (Con’s) guesses about Obama’s motivation and behavior. In particular, Con believes that Obama is motivated by zeal to improve America’s education system. He also believes that Obama does not intend to ever again be in a position that requires people to vote for him. He has provided no evidence at all related to Obama’s motives. With regards to The Presidents’ future non-vote-seeking behavior, Con says: “Although other presidents have sought lower office after terms, Obama has said that he will not do this”. This claim is unreferenced. Even if we accept it as true, the possibility remains that Obama could change his mind. “If Obama runs for office again, I will go back and admit that I was wrong all along.” I'm not sure how how this statement really ties in to the current debate. So this leaves us in a situation where Stuart Varney believes the President’s motives to be one thing, Con another. They also differ in their predictions about the President’s future behavior. If we were in a court of law, whose opinion would prevail? On one side, we have Stuart Varney, economic journalist, LSE graduate, expert business contributor on the Fox Network, father of six, who has over thirty years of experience as a journalist in the USA (3). On the other side, we have “DeFool” an anonymous online debater who claims to be a liberal atheist and Obama supporter (4). In the absence of other evidence, I’m afraid, Varney’s opinion carries more weight. I believe that Obama may well seek votes in the future, and that his actions in relation to Pre-K education will strengthen the resolve of teachers and parents to vote for him. Obama may endorse another Presidential candidate Con claims that voting for Obama does not including voting for a candidate endorsed by Obama. However, people often use this kind of language. For example, people say vote for equality (5), vote for justice (6) or vote for peace (7) when actually it’s technically impossible to vote for those things directly. You have to vote for actual candidates. Nowhere in the segment does Varney say that the votes are for Obama. He does say that Obama is buying votes, but he doesn’t specify who the votes are for. So yes, he could have meant votes for democrats in general. Regrettably, Con responded to the idea of Obama endorsing a new Presidential candidate with the lyrics to YMCA and Staying Alive. I can only interpret this as some kind of mocking gesture. Con's conclusion makes no sense Con concludes, "The sole reason President Obama is advocating for universal Pre-K is NOT to entice affected voters to vote for him" This is a new idea that Con has failed to substantiate in any way. How would advocating for universal Pre-K avoid enticing parents to vote for Obama? Why would President Obama, or any politician, want to deter voters? And, of course, it a direct contradiction of Con's second premise. If President Obama cannot attract votes (as is Con's rather outlandish claim) why would he need to advocate schemes in a bizarre attempt to avoid attracting votes? It makes no sense at all. Varney has a background in economics Varney's first objection to the very expensive scheme is that it's not clear where the money to fund it will come from. He is afraid that rich people like him will be taxed to pay for it. To Varney, this issue is one of wealth redistribution - that money is being taken from the rich to pay for the poor. He doesn't like it, and complains that this is typical of President Obama's preferential treatment of certain demographics, which are also the demographics that vote for him. So far, so standard, and Con hasn't contested any of this. Instead, he is basing his criticism of Varney's analysis on the idea that Obama will never need votes again and therefore cannot be motivated to encourage voters. However, Con cannot prove this, and in fact has not even provided evidence to support this idea. Therefore, it only remains for us to thank Varney for his analysis and interpretation of the news of the day. (1) http://www.chicagotribune.com... (2) http://poststar.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.debate.org... (5) http://www.hrc.org... (6) http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org... (7) http://www.voteforpeace.org...