Why is it that the national front-runners aren’t winning post-debate polls, but scant days later the actual winners are barely on the radar any more? Last night, we once again saw Ron Paul, a paleo-conservative amongst neo-cons, trounce the other Republican candidates, with Governor Mike Huckabee polling in second place amongst debate viewers. I predict that national polls this weekend will still show Huckabee polling in the single digits nationally and Ron Paul somewhere below 5% with likely primary voters.

How does a candidate get 33% of the post-debate vote and then lose 90% of it by week’s end? Because most news outlets have already invested in the candidates of their choice. Debate coverage on CNN and MSNBC has been almost entirely about their anointed front-runners, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. Even though he didn’t participate in the debate, Fred Thompson is receiving more press coverage today than Paul or Huckabee.

The result of this is that on a national basis (by which I mean outside of Iowa and New Hampshire), most Republicans just don’t know anything about Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul. When receiving a cold call from Gallup or Zogby, why say you intend to vote for somebody whose name you barely know? They recognize Giuliani from the September 11, 2001 attacks, many remember John McCain from his 2000 run, Mitt Romney has received a ton of press because he’s tan, Mormon, and wealthy, and Fred Thompson is on television almost 24 hours a day on Law & Order. I strongly suspect that these four candidates are front-runners based almost solely upon their name recognition, as opposed to any actual qualifications or policy positions. People that have been watching the candidates perform side-by-side are in a better position to make an informed decision.

That decision has been pretty clear. If you’re for cutting taxes and smaller government, anybody in the field will suit those needs. If you’re for “ending the war with honor,” it looks like Mike Huckabee and John McCain made a strong showing. If you’re for ending the war promptly, Paul is your only bet. It looks like the Republican vote is pretty well split on that, with McCain and Huckabee splitting 33% of respondents and Paul standing alone with another 33%. The internally-conflicted pro-choice pro-gun-control pro-horrible-personal-life segment of the Republican party has split between Romney and Giuliani, with a small minority choosing Tancredo, Hunter, or Brownback.

I want to see more Huckabee and Paul coverage. Maybe they aren’t as exciting as Mitt Romney’s George Harrison tan, John McCain’s verbal gaffes, Fred Thompson’s eloquent assistant DAs, or Giuliani’s mountain of political baggage, but you aren’t going to catch any of those guys performing Freebird, are you?

I read The Register because they put an insightful and irreverent spin on tech news. Occasionally they break into the realm of insightful and biting political observations that should not go unnoticed. This past Friday Thomas Greene wrote a great piece on the news media reaction to recent bomb scares in England. Please excuse the odd spelling and use of quaint terms like “rubbish.” They can’t help it, they’re from the wrong side of the Atlantic:

Yes, the Bushies asked for the war, and yes, Congress authorised it, but the mainstream news industry enabled it. They literally sold it. The Iraq war could not have been undertaken if the American press had the spine to do their jobs, and had tried to verify what the Administration was claiming. The press would soon have discovered that the White House’s story could not be verified. If American reporters had simply done what they’re paid to do, the front page headlines of America’s newspapers would have read: “No Credible Evidence of Bush WMD Claims”, instead of “Shock and Awe”.

I generally don’t like it when journalists make each other the subjects of withering critique, but generally that comes up in regards to coverage of meaningless aspects of political races or whatever Hollywood scandal is wasting airtime that week. On matters of serious policy matters (as opposed to frivolous policy matters), I’m much more inclined to lend my ear.

The conclusion of his look at how the British press mishandled the recent “explosive” devices found in London and Glasgow, and how the American press has handled international events since 9/11/2001 is that the news media is every bit as responsible for the current mess we’re in as George Bush and Tony Blair are. Greene takes it a step further: the journalists, media outlets, and politicians that have capitalized on and encouraged the pervasive fear of Islamic extremists groups are themselves terrorists.

Clearly he meant organizations like Fox News, NBC, CBS, and ABC, all of whom enthusiastically ginned up the casus belli, but I think it goes further than that. On the other end of the political media spectrum, there are many that have latched on to a broad theme of “The West Under Siege” that has a similar effect and similar motivations. Leftie/progressive bloggers, radio hosts, and even former sportscasters have been vigorously proclaiming that our civil liberties and representative democracy are in mortal peril. It’s a shame, but fear sells.