In FOX News’ attempt to cover all who THEY feel are potential 2012 candidates for President, they decided to produce a segment on Mitt Romney, who opted out of the interview and IMHO clearly did not want to be included in the series. Perhaps FOX felt that 11 For ’12 didn’t roll off the lips quite as well as the original? So they decided to go ahead with the segment anyway.
Rather than highlight Romney’s achievements in a positive light, FOX chose to play up what they felt were his negatives, including comparing the Massachusetts Health Care Bill to Obamacare.
Now, I’m not naive. I fully expected a mention of the MA Health Care Bill. Instead, the majority of the piece seemed to center around this issue with only a few quick blurbs about his successful business background at Bain, Bain Capital, and the saving of the Olympics.
After viewing the video I was left with a sense that Romneycare is all Mitt Romney accomplished and the rest according to FOX, is insignificant. However, I know better and I know that’s not the case. In light of the Romney segment, I believe he made the correct choice by not ACTIVELY partaking in the piece. I don’t believe FOX would have done it any differently.
With FOX having 4 horses (Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Santorum) in the race for 2012, it would be to their advantage to try to take the top horse out early. I’m not saying that this is what their plan was, I’m just opening it up as a possibility. It seems that with ALL the tv exposure that Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich are getting on FOX, they can’t seem to pass Romney in the polls and in the race to 2012.
What I’m going to ask readers of this post to do, is to view both Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin’s profiles. See if you feel that they covered Palin’s negatives with the same enthusiasm and intensity as they did Romney’s.
Well, were they fair and balanced?