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.

One of the many problems facing the public these days is insidious: the misuse of language to obscure meaning. Let’s take a look at an example, two phrases used by people with opposing views on the United States’ involvement in the insurgency / civil war / emerging caliphate in Iraq:

Redeploy / Cut & Run

The current war / occupation / police action in Iraq has become deeply unpopular, with a dwindling supply of heady triumphs and a steady stream of dismal news. Reports of bombings against military and civilian targets have become a disheartening echo of the media drumbeat that lead up to the invasion back in 2003. Increasingly public debate has shifted to the discussion of how American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen are going to be removed from the combat area. As the combat area can be loosely described as “Iraq in its entirety,” we see the repeated use of euphemisms to describe the various plans.

To cut and run is literally when the crew of an entangled ship cuts loose any moorings or anchors that hold it fast in order to get clear of some imminent danger. Those who advocate remaining actively engaged in combat in Iraq have frequently labeled any opposition as a “cut and run” strategy. This plays upon the prideful view most Americans hold of our military. The image of our soldiers fleeing the battlefield is a strong motivating factor for many who lived through the turmoil of the Vietnam War, as well as those simply raised in a patriotic tradition that props up America’s general tendency to prevail in arms. We seem to place less value on soldiers that die on the losing side of a conflict, and fear consigning our recent war losses to such a status.

To redeploy is a pretty straightforward concept. We deployed our armed forced into Iraq (which is to say we invaded), and now many in the public arena would like to re-deploy them back out of Iraq (which is to say they’d like to un-invade it). Traditionally this would involve retreating, surrendering, and acknowledging the victory of the enemy. To acknowledge the victory of the enemy is to acknowledge defeat. Defeat doesn’t play well, so opponents to the continuation of the Iraq War like to call retreat redeployment.

In fairness, most plans that bear the label “redeployment” involve swapping out American men and women with guns with Iraqi men with guns, so that the Iraqi men can win or lose for themselves (spoiler: their victory isn’t really part of the redeployment plan). This will let the Iraqi national government lose without America having to lose. This is similar to what large companies do when they outsource profits for tax purposes or outsource liabilities for their shareholder reports.

Please call it what it is: retreat. We can retreat and let Iraqi national forces take up our positions, or we can retreat and let tribal or insurgent or Al Qaeda forces take up our positions, but we’re talking about retreat here. Learn to swallow the pill, folks; we don’t have the political will to win this fight, so we’re talking about losing it.

Presumably-competent commanders like David Petraeus say it will probably take 9-10 years to properly stomp out the insurgency in Iraq. We can spend a decade pulling this band-aid off, or we can get it over with quickly. The decision is ours, and we shouldn’t delude ourselves about it one way or the other.

Definitions: civil war, insurgency, occupation, police action, redeploy, retreat, surrender, denial

If you’ve got any favorite terms that are being misused or twisted sideways, I’d like to hear about it.