The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rick Santorum Will Score Upset Win in Tonight’s ‘Pivotal’ ABC Debate in Iowa

Posted on | December 10, 2011 | 33 Comments

That’s not the headline on the ABC News story, of course:

Only three weeks from the Iowa caucuses, the top Republican candidates will square off tonight at a pivotal debate in the state capital. The debate, hosted by ABC News and moderated by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, starts at 9pm ET, live from Drake University.
The prime-time debate comes as the GOP race has started to reach a boiling point. With Newt Gingrich surging to the top of the pack, former front-runner Mitt Romney has launched scathing attacks from all sides, from his key surrogates to a political action committee that, while not affiliated with the campaign, is funded by many Romney donors.

We should recognize this as what it is: Hype, of the same sort of stuff Hunter S. Thompson used to write when he was moonlighting as a publicist for a Florida wrestling promoter:

“The entire Fort Walton Beach police force is gripped in a state of fear this week; all leaves have been cancelled and Chief Bloor is said to be drilling his men for an Emergency Alert situation on Friday and Saturday night — because those are the nights when ‘Kazika, The Mad Jap,’ a 440-pound sadist from the vile slums of Hiroshima, is scheduled to make his first — and no doubt his last — appearance in Fish-head Auditorium. Local wrestling impressario Lionel Olay is known to have spoken privately with Chief Bloor, urging him to have ‘every available officer’ on duty at ringside this weekend, because of the Mad Jap’s legendary temper and his invariably savage reaction to racial insults. Last week, in Detroit, Kazika ran amok and tore the spleens out of three spectators, one of whom allegedly called him a ‘yellow devil’ . . .”
— from Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

The TV network publicists want to hype up this “pivotal” debate as a cage match between Newt and Mitt, so that viewers tune in to see these two Mad Jap stranglers go at one another. The multimillionaire ABC celebrity superstar anchors Diane and George want to burnish their reputations as Important Journalists by presiding over an event of historic consequence and, for that very reason, Rick Santorum might finally catch a break.

What better “news” for ABC than to have their cage-match debate destroy both of the Mad Jap stranglers? And what better dramatic turn in the saga of Campaign 2012 than for the upset winner to be the scrappy underdog now polling in single digits? Can’t you just hear Diane and George in the post-debate analysis segment, “I was surprisingly impressed with Rick Santorum”?

This is predictable, you see. It’s about the narrative arc, because TV news is show business, and show business requires a story that captures the public imagination. The people who run TV news are, to a greater extent than most viewers understand, deliberately controlling the story, deciding what is and is not “news.”

Our perceptions are being manipulated by these people, as I argued last month in my American Spectator column, “Debating the Deciders”:

During the third debate — Aug. 11 in Ames, Iowa, televised by Fox — the moderators clearly were trying to incite clashes between Bachmann and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who both were going all-out to win that week’s Iowa Republican Party straw poll. Pawlenty came out the loser in both the Thursday debate and the Saturday straw poll, and by Sunday quit the race. Meanwhile, the race had been transformed by the entrance of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who quickly rose to become the front-runner. Perry seemed an unstoppable juggernaut until his performance in three June debates derailed his bandwagon. While most of Perry’s debate damage resulted from self-inflicted wounds, this is not to say that the manipulations of moderators were without effect. Howard Kurtz watched as the Fox News team planned for the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando, Florida, aiming to “get some fireworks going,” as Fox managing editor Bill Sammon put it.

Political bias isn’t the only bias of which news media are guilty, although they’re guilty as hell of that. Even those in the media who are conservative tend to have their own prejudices, including the prejudice for inciting “fireworks” in debates — and beating other networks.

That’s why I’ve got a gut hunch about tonight’s debate: The ABC moderators aren’t willing to let Fox News play the “pivotal” role with the Dec. 15 debate. If this race is going to pivot, by God, Diane and George will do the pivoting. I’ve called Santorum a “brutal counter-puncher” in debates (he got some heavy body blows in on Perry during that Orlando debate), and if my hunch is right, the ABC moderators will let him use those skills. Here’s what to look for: Controversial “gotcha” question to either Mitt or Newt and then, after they’ve attempted to evade the question, the moderators call on Santorum to respond, at which point he hammers on the front-runner, who then gets 30 seconds to respond and this back-and-forth then turns into a shouting match — “fireworks!” — with the two candidates interrupting each other.

Let’s face it: The media view Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann as yesterday’s news. Wouldn’t they relish their role as Deciders and Gatekeepers in picking Santorum as the new “Flavor of the Month”?

Should this happen — and it’s just a gut hunch, so I can’t guarantee it will happen — those of my readers who don’t like Santorum are going to be screaming bloody murder about these liberal network celebrities deliberately maniupulating the GOP presidential race. And my response will be, “You just now noticed this? They’ve been doing it all year, and it took you 12 months to catch onto it?”

The problem with some people is that they’re insufficiently cynical. No matter how many times they get played for suckers, they’re still suckers. And the carnies who run TV news have a professional obligation never to give a sucker an even break.

Category: ABC, Debates, Election 2012, Iowa, Rick Santorum

Comments

33 Responses to “Rick Santorum Will Score Upset Win in Tonight’s ‘Pivotal’ ABC Debate in Iowa”

  1. Charles
    December 10th, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

    Is it being too cynical to observe you failed to mention Ron Paul?

  2. richard mcenroe
    December 10th, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

    The biggest problem w/debate: By the time these clowns have been out in public long enough for us to know they’re jerks, they’re mostly too old to slap in the back of the head without looking like a bully.  And yes, that includes Ron Paul.  Happy now?

  3. Anonymous
    December 10th, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

    The product of news organizations is not news.  It’s you.  They sell your eyes to advertisers.

    Unfortunately most people do not want hard news, except for one-off events.  One-off events won’t pay the bills.

    There is a group that’s large and can be attracted, though: soap opera women.  News that holds their interest is easy to produce, news or no news.  So that’s the business model: soap opera women.

    Nothing will run that will lose the interest of soap opera women, lest they tune away.  Their tastes edit everything.  If something reported correctly will turn them off, it will be rewritten incorrectly to hold them.

    The narrative sets are all the same and easy to produce.

    The news business will survive or fail on this audience: there’s no other possible business model in sight.

    The rest of us can point out that there’s no reason that an entertainment choice should be a public policy choice, and ridicule these people.

  4. Rhodium Heart
    December 10th, 2011 @ 7:14 pm

    Rick Santorum is NOT a scrappy underdog. He’s an obnoxious loser pervert who’s obsessed with where other guys stick their [ding-dongs] when the economy of this country is in the outhouse and the security of the world is deteriorating.

  5. Anonymous
    December 10th, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

    Because it’s just a coincidence that as leftist notions of morality have become the norm our government has lost all restraint in its’ urge to run all our lives.

  6. Rhodium Heart
    December 10th, 2011 @ 7:24 pm

    You do see the fatal contradiction in your position, don’t you? You’re upset (rightfully so) that the left wants “to run all our lives.” And your solution (and Santorum’s)? Run all our lives! It’s enough to make me a Ronulan (except for the whole abandoning the world to the forces of evil thing).

  7. BOOM! Hot Gay Mess Suddenly Explodes Over Rick Perry’s Iowa Campaign Ad : The Other McCain
    December 10th, 2011 @ 7:31 pm

    […] to wonder whether Perry will be asked about this “mired in controversy” angle during tonight’s “pivotal” debate. If such a question is asked, of course, there’s no need to wonder what Perry will do: […]

  8. ABC News Republican Debate in Iowa | The Lonely Conservative
    December 10th, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

    […] weeks left until the Iowa caucuses. Fox News is hosting another debate on December 15, also in Iowa.The Other McCain predicts a stunning upset victory by Rick Santorum. Wouldn’t that be something? video […]

  9. In Case You Didn’t Know, Journalists are Carnies… « Andrew J. Patrick
    December 10th, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

    […] they “have a professional obligation never to give a sucker an even break.“ Willie Geist and Wolf Blitzer hit up the convenience store for Elmer's Glue, […]

  10. Nine Circles
    December 10th, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

    Why should anyone mention a loon in a serious debate?

  11. Mike Woodyard
    December 10th, 2011 @ 8:06 pm

    The hype has been going on all week but not just
    from ABC. It’s coming from Limbaugh, Levin, Beck, Hannity, and the talk radio
    dominated republican establishment mafia. ABC
    will try to push Santorum to top tier
    and bring down Ron Paul. I’m a truck driver and listen to talk radio about 9
    hours a day. I can tell the fix is in for Santorum and taking down Ron Paul is
    the top priority as he serves neither the warfare republicans who cut deals with
    the welfare democrats.

  12. Andrew Patrick
    December 10th, 2011 @ 9:36 pm

    Let’s assume, for the moment, that such is true.

    He’d still be a better president than Obama.

    And I expect those economic issues would tie up his time so well as to prevent any dick-investigating.

  13. riccaric
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:02 pm

    I’d have to say that Santorum finished 4th ahead of Rick Perry and Romney.  That should keep him at a healthy 3-4% in the polls.  Should still be the favorite to win the nomination though.

  14. ThePaganTemple
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

    Stay out of the fortune telling business Stacy.

  15. Kyle
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

    “Can’t you just hear Diane and George in the post-debate analysis segment, ‘I was surprisingly impressed with Rick Santorum’? This is predictable, you see.”

    It ain’t predictable if it doesn’t happen.

    Let us blow the chump whistle for you: twe-e-e-e-ee!!!

  16. Charles
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:21 pm

    He mentioned Newt Gingrich.

  17. ThePaganTemple
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:44 pm

    That Rick Paul guy sure had an interesting take on Gingrich’s Palestinian statement. For the record, Gingrich has been dead right on this issue. A friend of mine has the best take, he calls them “Pseudostinians”. Gingrich is the first major political figure I’ve known about who has the guts to tell the truth about the Palestinian issue and he deserves everyone’s support on that account alone.

  18. ThePaganTemple
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

    Actually, most of the commentators said Gingrich probably cemented his standing and Romney probably hurt himself. Nobody said much about Santorum at all, though one person did say Bachmann had a great debate. But the overall consensus was Gingrich is at this point the presumptive nominee.

  19. ThePaganTemple
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:50 pm

    I actually thought Perry did pretty damn good, especially for him. And Santorum actually did good too, frankly, other than that annoying little instance where he turned all squishy and squashy over the Palestinian controversy. That was actually the issue where Perry knocked it out of the park by bringing it back to Obama and the Iran issue and failing to secure the drone.

  20. ThePaganTemple
    December 10th, 2011 @ 11:53 pm

    Let me take this opportunity to introduce you to the real world, the one where nobody’s worried about Ron Paul.

  21. Tennwriter
    December 11th, 2011 @ 12:22 am

    Libertarianism: Cheap certainties for adolescent minds.

    If libertarianism were correct, we’d all be libertarians.  Its a simple, easy solution to all our complex problems that requires about twenty minutes to figure everything out in economics and gov’t  policy if its true.

  22. Markg8
    December 11th, 2011 @ 12:29 am

    Perry confused himself about whether Obama had 2 or 3 different options on the drone and blew both of them. Either there’s  something seriously wrong with him or he just can’t handle debates. You shouldn’t have to have to tell yourself  “oh, you know what he means”.
     

  23. Markg8
    December 11th, 2011 @ 12:32 am

    Gingrich Inc is Santorum’s agent for speaking engagements. Don’t look for Ricky to bite the hand that feeds him.

  24. ThePaganTemple
    December 11th, 2011 @ 12:45 am

    I think he meant Obama had two different legitimate options, but opted for the third, in other words doing nothing, with he didn’t see as a legitimate option. Yeah, he got thrown there for a second or two, but at least he didn’t have to ponder it for an excruciatingly long period of time.

  25. Tennwriter
    December 11th, 2011 @ 12:58 am

    OK, the first line is harsh. Mea culpa.

  26. Anonymous
    December 11th, 2011 @ 4:57 am

    not a single republican candidate hits the lows of john edwards, given a 100% free pass until it was too late to do damage to the democrats.

  27. Anonymous
    December 11th, 2011 @ 8:36 am

    Actually, because your premise is false, your conclusion is too.

    The socons I grew up with don’t want to run other people’s lives; they belong to the First Church of Leave Me The Hell Alone.

    Not wanting the government spending money stolen from me at gunpoint on

    — Displaying pictures of men with bullwhips in their ass or crucifixes dipped in piss

    — telling my kids that this behavior is anywhere on the spectrum of normal in schools that my kids are required to attend at gunpoint.

    — accusing me of hate crimes that can send me to jail because I follow my religion and say so. If I launch physical attacks, we have laws about that already.

    — distributing government money stolen at gunpoint from me to groups that will promote gay adoption while denying it to groups that share my beliefs and have a far better track record.

    — Not lying about the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution saying   “wall of separation” and then using that as justification for banning my religion from the public square while promoting every other religion, including your Anti-Theism.

    — etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad infintum nauseam…

    doesn’t constitute wanting a theocracy; it constitutes wanting to get out from under the Theocracy of Anti-Theism Leftists like you have imposed.

    In short, I want a government that doesn’t have the power to push your views on me… which is what’s actually been happening over the last 50 years.

  28. Rhodium Heart
    December 11th, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

    All well and good. But let’s put your views to the test:

    1. You say you belong to, how did you put it, “First Church of Leave Me the Hell Alone.” OK. So you must be applauding Obama for repealing DADT. You must have been nauseated when Santorum was visibly repulsed by the gay soldier a few debates ago. If you want to leave people alone, then I’m guessing you definitely want to let people who put their lives on the line for this country to do what they want to do on their free time. Santorum certainly doesn’t.

    2. You don’t raise the federalism issue, but I presume you fancy yourself quite the 10th Amendment federalist. Does that include allowing the states to do what they want in areas where you disagree? Right-to-die laws in Oregon? Medical marijuana in California? Same-sex marriage in Mass. or Vermont? I don’t know whether Santorum is a federalist on the first two issues — though I doubt it — but I know he’s not on the third. A real leave-me-alone conservative (Ron Paul, and Rick Perry left to his own devices) would allow OR, CA, VT or MA to do whatever wackiness they want. 50 states as 50 separate laboratories and all that. A Big Government, fair weather federalist would block all of the above.

  29. Bob Belvedere
    December 12th, 2011 @ 9:56 am

    Well-said, SDN!  Bravo!

  30. Bob Belvedere
    December 12th, 2011 @ 9:59 am

    A bloviating clock is right twice a day and Newton Leroy was dead-on accurate in this case and should be praised for calling a spade a spade.

  31. Bob Belvedere
    December 12th, 2011 @ 10:01 am

    And the carnies who run TV news have a professional obligation never to give a sucker an even break.

    ‘Or smarten up a chump’, to finish the quote from one of our greatest philosophers.

  32. Bob Belvedere
    December 12th, 2011 @ 10:07 am

    The Mad Jap had nothing on Professor Toru Tanaka.

    Goddamn Japs!

    I thank the Good Lord everyday that he sent us Chief Jay Strongbow to go on the warpath and beat those yellow devils.

  33. Jim
    December 12th, 2011 @ 10:49 am

    He takes his 8-12 percent of the party and walks, they lose… and they know it.  You bet your ass they are worried about him and with good reason.