Should Big Media Choose Our Candidates?

Why should ABC and Fox get to decide who is a viable candidate for president?

Should Big Media decide for the rest of us who is -- and more importantly who is not -- a viable candidate for president? It's bad enough that thus far the reporting of this year's quadrennial presidential pursuit has been even more insubstantial than ever, focused on the horse race, the fundraising, the polls, the pundits, the haircuts and assorted other bits of silliness -- anything other than actual issues of concern to voters and importance to the world.

Now we find Big Media, (specifically its Fox/ABC News wing,) determined to narrow the field of presidential candidates before any of us, other than a handful of white people in Iowa, even get a chance to vote!

Both television networks plan to winnow out presidential candidates they deem unacceptable and prevent them from participating in important debates to be held this weekend -- just before the crucial New Hampshire primary.

Fox has invited just five of the seven remaining Republican candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for Sunday in the Granite State -- only two days before the nation's first presidential primary. Although Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and even the barely breathing Fred Thompson were all invited, two current candidates, both current Members of Congress, were not -- Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.

The Fox excuse? "Space is limited" in the "souped-up bus" that is serving as a mobile studio. As a result, Fox executives say that, for space reasons, they decided only to invite those candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls. Forget the fact that Ron Paul actually is ahead of Thompson (6 percent to 4 percent) among all New Hampshire voters in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, or that the two were tied with the support of 4 percent of likely voters ...

Forget as well the fact that Paul recently shattered the record for online fundraising in a single day, raising nearly $6 million in 24 hours -- a little more than a month after he amazed the pollsters, pundits and political professionals by hauling in $4.3 million during the same time span. (Not bad considering that on the day that John Kerry accepted the 2004 Democratic nomination, he raised $5.7 million on the Internet -- the biggest online fundraising day on record until the supposedly non-viable Ron Paul surpassed it.)

But consider at least these facts: in just the last three months, Paul collected more than $19.5 million, bringing his total for the year to more than $25 million. More than 130,000 contributors gave to Paul during the fourth quarter, including more than 107,000 new donors.

"This is exciting. It's crazy. I can't imagine any other Republican raising this kind of money this quarter. This means Ron Paul's message is really resonating with people," Jim Forsythe, who leads Paul's New Hampshire MeetUp group, told the Washington Post.

But Big Media doesn't seem as impressed -- at least now. Remember just a few months ago, however, when how much money a candidate was able to raise was the Big Media imprimatur of viability? Now that Ron Paul has vaulted near the top of the fundraisers, it seems the bar is being moved, and is set a little higher for him.