The Other McCain

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

Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning

Posted on | February 3, 2012 | 39 Comments

“[Obama] made the claim that his policies of taxing the rich is authorized by the Bible. That he is doing what is biblically called for by taxing the rich, by having the government tax the rich. Now, I’ve read the Bible, and I must have missed that passage. . . . This is an administration that attacks religion, and then tries to cloak itself in religion in order to take your money.”
— Rick Santorum, Thursday in Fallon, Nevada

“Sincerity is the important thing on TV. A presidential candidate should at least seem to believe what he’s saying — even if it’s all stone crazy.”
— Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

If you’ve been watching Fox News lately, you are perhaps aware that the “fair and balanced” network has jumped onto the same bandwagon as most of the rest of the major media: The GOP presidential campaign is now a two-man race between the frontrunners, Mitt and Newt.

This was evidently the narrative the media wanted back in December, before Rick Santorum shocked the world with his astonishing surge to victory in Iowa — a result that was immediately dismissed as a fluke by the media, so that they could get back to telling you about the two-man frontrunner race they had decided on weeks earlier.

That Fox is part of this media bandwagon is a fact I note in passing, while pointing out what was obvious to me long ago: Newt can’t beat Mitt.

It can’t happen and won’t happen, and those conservatives who believe they can make it happen are engaged in a type of behavior that Ace of Spades has called “wishcasting” — the idea that you can do anything you want to do, if only you wish and hope and believe in it enough.

There are many reasons why the seemingly possible dream of a Newt nomination is actually less practically feasible than the admittedly long-shot chance of an unexpected comeback by Rick Santorum. Most of these reasons have to do with Newt’s biography and character: His personal flaws and failings, which are well known even to his supporters, but which he (and they) suppose will be ignored by undecided voters who are less ideological than themselves because, doggone it, he has such great ideas!

You see a bit of this admiration for Newt’s ideas in Karl Rove’s campaign critique, where he faults Romney for relying too heavily on the “successful businesman” biographical narrative. But the problem for Newt is that, beyond his career as a leader of conservative Republicans, his biographical narrative is a major net negative. Even if Republican primary voters could overlook everything else, Gingrich’s two divorces are the kind of “baggage” that he can’t possibly carry to the White House.

Now, maybe you’ve got a divorce or two under your own belt and wish to believe that the American people would be willing to overlook this element of Gingrich’s biographical narrative — but this belief is only possible if you assume that most people share your own vehement opposition to Obama and would be willing to ignore the messy details of Newt’s narrative.

Please see R. Emmett Tyrrell’s column last week on that subject. Furthermore, let’s quote Tyrrell’s column this week:

Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination!
Newt quoted Soros as saying, “We think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Citing Goldman Sachs’ profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: “Those ads,” he averred, “are your money recycled to attack me.” On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs’ or of Soros’s aiding Romney.

The astute reader will perhaps perceive that the esteemed editor of The American Spectator relied on his shoe-leather man’s reporting from Newt’s Fort Myers “Fear and Loathing” rally, a service I was more than happy to provide, and which in turn involves a debt to the good readers who hit the tip jar for the Florida trip.

Ideology vs. Biography

My conservative friends who don’t like Tyrrell’s take on the Gingrich campaign will, however, find it difficult to denounce him as spineless soulmate of David Brooks. Bob Tyrrell is no RINO, he just damn well knows that Newt couldn’t withstand the media scrutiny of a general election campaign against Obama.

The obverse of that coin is perhaps less apparent to most conservatives who like Gingrich for his “grandiose” ideas and are thus engaged in a wishcasting campaign on Newt’s behalf. Conservatives who don’t like Rick Santorum will immediately cite as their primary objections those elements of Santorum’s political career (e.g., his votes for No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, his 2004 endorsement of Arlen Specter) which are only objectionable to conservative Republicans like themselves.

Would these ideological deviations be a liability in a general election? Not in the least, and Santorum’s conservative critics don’t even pretend they would. And the attractiveness of Santorum’s biographical narrative — devout Catholic family man, grandson of an Italian immigrant coal miner — even his conservative critics cannot deny. To accept Santorum as the more plausible of the two remaining conservative “Not Romney” candidates, however, would demand of these ideologues an unacceptable confession: Ideas aren’t everything in politics.

We are guilty of “wishcasting” if we ignore the obvious fact that many voters are grossly superficial in the way they look at elections. All you have to do to understand this, however, is to take seriously what independent voters always say: “I vote for the man, not the party.”

These voters are foolish, of course. They naively believe that they can assess “the man” running for president based on what they gather of his personal character by watching him on TV.

Independent voters are generally, as numerous studies have shows, the least-informed segment of the electorate. Their knowledge of policy issues is almost non-existent, and they are more interested in the fortunes of their favorite sports teams (or favorite American Idol contestants) than they are in the arguments for or against building the Keystone pipeline.

Independent voters are seldom a factor in primary elections, and only rarely play a role in off-year elections, in “backlash” years like 1966, 1978, 1994, 2006 or 2010, sparked by the presidential administration’s overreach. Independent voters usually pay no significant attention to politics except in the final weeks of a presidential campaign, when they see the two candidates on TV and decide — on the entirely superficial impressions conveyed by television — which of them seems less threatening and/or more trustworthy.

If you think those kinds of voters will pick Newt Gingrich over Barack Obama, seek professional help immediately. You’re delusional.

A Comic Episode on the Campaign Trail

You can defend your delusions in the comments, but I frankly didn’t intend to write a mini-essay on this subject when I woke up this morning. Rather, the plan was to aggregate some Big Headlines about the campaign, preparatory to making another push for Rick Santorum. So now the Big Headlines:

The Trump trap
— Washington Post

Romney playing with Trump-brand fire?
— Politico

Gingrich Camp Errs; Trump to Back Romney
— Wall Street Journal

Trump Bails On Newt, Reportedly Will
Now Endorse Mitt. Jen Rubin Hit Hardest
— AOSHQ

Only in this craziest of crazy campaign years could a comic episode be so perfectly scripted: When Trump flew into Vegas on Wednesday night, some of Newt’s crew thought he was coming to endorse their guy before Saturday’s Nevada caucuses and they pushed this angle to the media. For a few hours, therefore, the pro-Gingrich people were praising Trump as a patriotic tribune of the people, a genuine populist hero, while the pro-Romney people were denouncing Trump as a shallow self-promoting vulgarian. And then it was learned that, no, The Donald came to Vegas to throw his celebrity weight behind Mitt, at which point Newt’s people regretted their previous praise for Trump, and the Romney people began attempting to explain the upside of the shallow self-promoting vulgarian’s support.

Meanwhile, almost entirely off the media radar, Rick Santorum was announcing his campaign schedule in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota, which includes a trip to the factory that makes his sweater vests:

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum plans to attend a pancake breakfast Sunday before visiting Bemidji Woolen Mills and giving a campaign speech.
According to an email from Santorum’s campaign, the former Pennsylvania senator will visit the St. Philip’s Catholic Church pancake breakfast at 12:30 p.m. Sunday.
He will tour Bemidji Woolen Mills, manufacturer for the candidate’s official sweater vest, at 1 p.m. and attend a rally at 2:30 p.m. in the Sanford Center.

That story from the Bemidji Pioneer didn’t make the headlines at Drudge, and you probably won’t hear much about it on Fox News or talk radio. Nor, for that matter, will Fox News make much of the fact that Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri. For whatever reason — and they must have reasons, although they have never bothered to explain them — the executives who call the shots at Fox have decreed that the battle for the Republican nomination is now entirely a frontrunner fight between Mitt and Newt, and everything that might distract from that narrative is to be shoved aside.

The Medium, the Message, the Messengers

Conservatives have spent years decrying the biases of the liberal mainstream media. But when this campaign is over, if conservatives find themselves once more saddled with a Republican nominee not of their choosing, perhaps it will be time to begin considering the question of whether “media bias” is a problem that transcends ideological categories. That is to say, as Marshall McLuhan famously put it, the medium is the message, and TV people are TV people, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

Television requires certain elements in order to be good TV. Dramatic conflict makes for good TV and (if I can engage in a mind-reading guesswork) the executives at Fox News see the fight between the bombastic Gingrich and the slick Romney as good TV. Both of these candidates were already “celebrities” to the network’s GOP-leaning audience before the campaign ever began, whereas Santorum was comparatively obscure.

So every time Rick Santorum manages to force himself into the story, the executives at Fox News curse their misfortune: He’s messing up their narrative, distracting from the storyline they’ve spent weeks crafting for their viewers. And if you have no special reason to view Fox with a critical eye, you probably don’t notice their reluctance to take Santorum’s campaign seriously, or to speculate about the reasons for that reluctance.

Everyone has biases and prejudices — far be it from the Future U.S. Ambassador to Vanuatu to claim selfless objectivity — but the biases and prejudices of network news executives have the power to produce self-fulfilling prophecies. Everytime you see Chris Stirewalt or Brit Hume mutter on Fox that Santorum can’t raise enough money to be a contender, you are in effect being told: “Don’t give money to Santorum. He can’t win.” And when that message is broadcast repeatedly to a nationwide audience of millions, it amounts to a pre-emptive effort to strangle the Santorum campaign, which is exactly the desired effect.

“Make that pesky underdog go away,” Stirewalt and Hume are telling you, “so we can get back to telling you about the exciting drama of the Newt-versus-Mitt frontrunner fight.”

What they are not telling you, however, is what they know as well as I do: Newt can’t beat Mitt, and so the “exciting drama” of the frontrunner fight for the GOP nomination — if they can ever finish strangling Santorum’s campaign — will be a swift and decisive victory for Romney. And then Fox News can move on to telling you about the exciting drama of the general election campaign between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Let’s face it: The folks at Fox are as tired of this primary campaign as you are. They’re itching to get on to the Big Show. Their expense-paid trips to the Republican National Convention in Tampa are a done deal, anyway.

However, unlike you — the average conservative Republican voter — the folks at Fox don’t really give a damn who wins in November. When the election is over, no matter whether Obama is re-elected, the folks at Fox will still get paid to be on TV, and their ratings might actually be higher in a second term for President Obama than they would be in a first term for President Romney. (Recall that MSNBC got a ratings bump during Bush’s second term, when the resentments of disgruntled left-wing moonbats made Keith Olbermann a minor celebrity for a few years.)

Their Biases and Mine

Let me acknowledge that there is an unavoidable element of self-interest reflected in my criticism of Fox. Several years ago, in one of my first arguments with Conor Friedersdorf, I accused him of “insufficient cynicism,” being guilty of the naive True Believer mentality that warps the political thinking of young idealists and other fools.

Wise men recognize the extent to which their own self-interests influence their political opinions. So it is with me. Being temperamentally unsuited to life within the confines of bureaucratic institutions, I am inarguably prejudiced in favor of liberty, seeking the kind of dynamic and unregulated society in which there is opportunity for a man averse to the paperwork and red tape — applying for licenses and permits — which the 21st-century Managerial State necessarily imposes as what economists call “barriers to entry” into the marketplace.

Digital technology has permitted me to compete, in a minor way, with the bureaucratic institutions of journalism where I spent more than two decades of my life as an often disruptive employee, subject to the discipline of those more temperamentally suited to the managerial tasks required by any complex enterprise. Even a medium-sized daily newspaper requires the services of many such people, whose aptitude for management almost always coincides with the sense that someone like me needs to be controlled and carefully supervised, lest he say or do something that would disrupt or embarrass the organization.

It took me a long, long time to analyze and fully accept this understanding of my career predicament, and even longer to find a way out of it — namely, this wild-ass second career as a Road Man for the Lords of Karma. Some third phase of my career may loom ahead, shrouded in the misty fog, but for now I’m just hurtling along in the same haphazard high-speed manner I’ve been traveling these past four years. And I cheerfully acknowledge the cynical fact that this freelance existence biases my opinions about everything, including the cosmic significance of Vanuatu, Crucial Linch-Pin of the South Pacific.

Other journalists have the luxury of never having been required to examine the element of self-interest in their political attitudes. If you’re pulling down six figures in a political-news gig at a TV network, the last thing in the world you want to do is to damage your reputation by suggesting something crazy like the idea that a low-budget underdog candidate currently running a distant third in the national polls could actually be a stronger contender than the famous frontrunner your network has been touting as the Last Hope of Conservatism.

Outside the Box, or Just Plain Crazy?

This off-the-wall idea — that Santorum, and not Gingrich, is the strongest alternative to Romney — could never possibly occur to someone whose self-interest required him to say only Things That Make Logical Sense.

As much as people in the business world talk glibly about the importance of”thinking outside the box,” they are prone to mockery of unusual ideas, and the news business is like every other business in this regard. Just as no one in 2008 would have imagined I could hustle up enough PayPal contributions from blog readers to fund the long four-state campaign-trail trip from Iowa to Florida, neither can they permit themselves to wonder if I might be onto something when I suggest that Newt’s current “frontrunner” status is far more fragile than it looks.

Newt’s campaign can only survive a few more humiliating defeats before it implodes from the enormous weight of its utter implausibility. Whereas by contrast, Santorum has always been a long shot. Santorum’s expectations are lower, and he is therefore able to “succeed” with results that would be a bitter disappointment to the supporters of a big-budget frontrunner like Newt.

Gingrich will get stomped Saturday in Nevada. A few weeks from now, when Gingrich’s supporters have seen their man defeated over and over, without a significant win since South Carolina, Newt will quit and endorse Romney.

That prediction may look crazy now, but remember that Tim Pawlenty — who was once the most prominent Conservative Alternative to Romney — did exactly that after he placed third in the Ames straw poll.

Crazy, as I say, and I can get away with making that kind of crazy prediction because I’m just some dude out here in the blogosphere, rather than a prestigious TV personality whose self-interest requires that he say only Things That Make Logical Sense.

Where Will You Be Next Friday?

In order to be a voice crying in the wilderness, you first have to be willing to go out into the wilderness. That’s true for me, and it’s also true for Rick Santorum, who stuck to his guns on social issues, and then waited patiently and prayerfully for an opportunity he hoped would come.

Has he hoped in vain?

Rick Santorum will speak at CPAC next week, at 10:25 Friday morning, and let me conclude this 3,000-word rambling discourse with yet another crazy idea: How many thousands of people would take a one-day trip to Washington, D.C., to pack that ballroom with cheering supporters for Rick Santorum?

How many pro-lifers are within driving distance of D.C.? How many conservative Catholics? How many evangelical home-schoolers? How many people who like what Rick Santorum says about getting tough on Iran?

A three-day pass to CPAC costs $195, or $125 if you are a military veteran or active-duty personnel, or $35 for students. So let me ask you — all you people who believe that America is not just another place on the map, but a providential nation founded with an eye toward the purposes of our Creator — this simple question: Do you think it would be worth your time, effort and money to be there on Friday morning in the Marriott Ballroom, to make a show of force on behalf of Rick Santorum?

How far would you have to drive? How much time at work would you miss? How much would you spend on gas or a plane ticket, to be there Friday morning in Washington, D.C.?

Is it worth it to you?

This is a question only you can answer, but I can tell you what it would be worth to Rick Santorum. I’m told on good authority that CPAC has received more than 400 applications for media credentials, and another 350 requests for credentials from bloggers. All of those reporters and bloggers will be there in D.C. next Friday morning to see what kind of reception Rick Santorum gets at CPAC.

And I know that there must be many thousands of you Santorum supporters out there reading this who could be there next Friday if you really wanted to be there, and I know that such a show of force would make a huge difference in how the media perceives Santorum’s CPAC speech.

So here you see one of those rare opportunities when what Ace derides as “wishcasting” can actually happen, when ordinary people can make a difference if only they will have the courage to act on their beliefs.

In my mind’s eye, dear reader, I can imagine the scene next Friday morning when — in a shock to the entire media establishment — a veritable army comes marching into the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel with one mission uniting them: To show the world that they support Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign.

Not only can I imagine you as a member of Santorum’s army, giving him a thunderous ovation in that crowded ballroom, but I can see the reporters afterwards scrambling around the hotel corridors to interview people wearing Santorum stickers and Santorum T-shirts and Santorum sweater vests and carrying Santorum signs.

And it may be, dear reader, that one of these reporters will ask you for an interview. “Who are you? Where did you come from? Why are you here?” Tell them: “I am a soldier in Santorum’s army, and I came here to support the man who is going to be the next President of the United States.”

They won’t believe you, of course. But neither would they believe that there was any significance to yesterday’s earthquake in Vanuatu.

“Everybody is guilty of some transgression somewhere against conservatism . . . except Santorum.”
— Rush Limbaugh, Monday, Jan. 30, 2012

I’ll see you at CPAC, dear reader.

Category: $10 to Win in 2010, Colorado, CPAC, Election 2012, Fox News, Media Bias, Minnesota, Missouri, Mitt Romney, Nevada, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Vanuatu

Comments

39 Responses to “Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning”

  1. Quartermaster
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

    I agree with you. Newt will drop and endorse Mittens. They are far more alike than the two of them want to admit. Opportunism, your name is Gingrich.

    While Santorum is a long shot, and I agree with Malkin’s evaluation of the man, he is the only conservative running in the race. Paul is simply loonie in foreign policy and too dangerous, although he does make some good points. But the “can’t we all just get along” argument is juvenile. I wish Santorum would take a hard look at Paul’s domestic positions. A good hard look, because Paul is the only sane guy on that score.

  2. tranquil.night
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

    Stacy, I know that the situations aren’t exactly comparable, but just to remind you Ronaldus Magnus divorced Jane Wyman to marry Nancy, if I remember correct.

    Your points are valid, but you’re doing what everybody is doing – even Newt vis a vis Santorum – asserting your perspective as a fact and commanding what those facts should dictate politically. It’s the very “wishcasting” you describe.

  3. Anonymous
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

    Doom?

  4. Anonymous
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

    I don’t think RSM’s point is that Neuter has been divorced and engaged in infidelity….it is the way he went about those things that are problematic, especially considering that he has nothing in his resume besides being a career politician who last resigned in disgrace.

  5. Adjoran
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

    I listen to FoxNews, at least “Special Report,” and never heard them say it is a two-man race now.  I’ve heard them say Newt wants it to be a two-man race, but they also noted his calls for Santorum to drop out were pathetic.  Now, they have been talking mostly about Mitt and Newt, but results of 9% – 17% – 13% don’t earn a lot of free media.  Media is always reactive and usually overly so.

    Don’t know or care what Hannity or O’Reilly are saying.

  6. Adjoran
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

    I don’t see Newt dropping out until his money dries up.  And while I expect he will endorse the nominee, I can’t imagine him endorsing Romney before the convention.

  7. Anonymous
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

    You remember incorrectly, Wyman divorced Reagan, and she did so not long after Reagan began to stand up and speak out against Communism.

    Reagan himself was always tactful in addressing this topic, but it is generally believed that Wyman was a liberal who disapproved of Reagan’s rightward turn. And he did not meet Nancy Davis until after his divorce.

    To use Reagan’s one divorce to justify and defend Gingrich’s two divorces is therefore to make an apples-and-oranges comparison that doesn’t work as logic.

    However, I do not say this as a Pharisee sitting in judgment on Gingrich. My argument is that the divorces (and messy details thereof) are part of the “baggage” that make it impossible for Newt either to win the nomination or, were we to stipulate his nomination as a hypothetical possibility, to defeat Obama. No amount of conservative admiration for Gingrich’s good qualities can ever overcome that fact.

    So when Gingrich says that Santorum should drop out and “coalesce” behind Gingrich, those who support Newt’s argument are blind (willingly or not) to the invalidity of the argument, which assumes that a Newt-vs.-Mitt race would automatically favor Newt. Instead, I assure you that if Santorum did drop out, Romney would finish off Gingrich very quickly. Why? Because most rank-and-file Republican primary voters, however conservative they may be, recognize instinctively that Gingrich lacks the qualities necessary to the task of winning the general election.

    But just wait and watch and see if I’m not proven correct in my hunch that Newt will quit before Santorum does. Gingrich’s smartest move at this point, if he wants to survive past Super Tuesday, would be to concentrate all his resources in Arizona, immediately. Yet his ego won’t permit Newt to admit even to himself that he is already down to his last ditch. He will lose Saturday in Nevada, he’s not even on the ballot for Tuesday’s primary in Missouri, he lacks the organization to win the Minnesota or Washington State caucuses, and Michigan is Mitt’s home turf. So unless Newt can win Arizona, he’ll go into Super Tuesday without a single victory to his credit in six weeks.

    An alleged frontrunner can only put so many L’s on the scoreboard before people start to question his claims to be a genuine contender, and once they start doubting — whoosh! — the whole thing collapses.  That’s what happened to Pawlenty, after all.

    By contrast, a low-budget underdog like Santorum can hang in there, running a barebones campaign and waiting for that one big break. The media (and the Iowa GOP leadership) cheated Santourm out of the opportunity to claim victory the night of the caucuses, and by the time the truth was known, the media narrative had already switched to Newt’s “comeback” in South Carolina. So now Santorum is back to underdog mode, looking for his shot. And this CPAC speech might be the shot he’s been looking for.

    We’ll wait and see. It’s always an against-the-odds thing with the underdog, and you have to be able to deal with lots of disappointment in order to maintain hope.

  8. Anonymous
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

     *nods* Doom.

  9. Pathfinder's wife
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

    It’s a pity we can’t take Santorum’s call for a moral society (which is a very sane take on one of our key problems and has nothing to do with being a hater of anyone), Paul’s call for fiscal sense and individual liberty (which isn’t at all kooky and points to another of our key issues), Gingrich’s call for remembering our spirit of adventure (which puts his moon comments in a proper perspective and points to something we have forgotten about ourselves, again, like the other three, helping the country enormously in the task of regaining a sense of itself), and well, Romney’s purdy looks and business acumen…and could distill them into one canidate.
    Political skill is somewhat lacking, but it would be a very enticing persona to vote for; one that could not only win but might even do a great deal of good.

    Hmm, perhaps somebody could program Romney to do this? (admittedly the man is by far the best looking sucker, and thus the proper receptacle to implant such brainwaves therein)
    And then have the VP be a war hero.
    Yeah, I’m engaging in wishcasting — the difference is I don’t mistake wishes for reality.

  10. Garym
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

    Doom, Doom II, or Doom 3?

  11. Garym
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

    O’Reilly’s oars are fully in the water for your boy. Hannity loves him some Newt, but actually gives all of them the time of day.

  12. richard mcenroe
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

    I don’t recall Reagan refusing even to respond to discovery in his divorce until forced to by a judge… and then immediately granting the divorce rather than do so.

    I also don’t recall Reagan making a habit of it.

  13. richard mcenroe
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

    Mix Newt and Romney and you get what we got now: a hollow suit not as smart as he thinks he is, with a sense of entitlement, unsavory connections, grandiose plans and an inability to take criticism.

  14. rosalie
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

    I’m looking forward to his CPAC speech.  If it’s exceptionally good, it just might do the trick.

  15. As I Predicted…. | Daily Pundit
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

    […] I Predicted…. Posted on February 3, 2012 11:58 am by Bill Quick Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps Campaigning : The Other McCain That Fox is part of this media bandwagon is a fact I note in passing, while pointing out what was […]

  16. tranquil.night
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

    Thank you for the replies and thank you for Wyman/Davis recap. I apologize for equating the two. I can’t argue against educated guess, as your guess is more educated than mine. If I were in Team Newt’s inner circle, I’d be protesting against the tact to push Santorum out and be preparing for the likelihood of what RSM just posited. If Newtzilla were truly dedicated to seeing the S.S. Romney get the nom, then he’d kamikazee himself into the battleship hoping to punch a hole big enough for Rick to get through.

    Personally, I just wish Rick were a bit more open to some of the more aggressive spending, tax, entitlement reforms that Newt has demonstrated a willingness and ability in shouldering the political weight. As I’ve written before, it’s the only thing holding me back aside from not seeing him tested as a frontrunner with the necessary financial or organizational capacity to combat Romney which is keeping me from supporting him as the logical not-Mitt at least with a shot of drawing the nomination out and pulling Mitt to the right along the way.

    Thanks again.

  17. Newt Can’t Beat Mitt | The Lonely Conservative
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

    […] RulesHomeNewt Can’t Beat MittFebruary 3, 2012 By Lonely Conservative No comments yetStacy McCain points out what’s obvious to many of us.That Fox is part of this media bandwagon is a fact I […]

  18. Edward
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

    Who is John McCain?

    Wait.  This isn’t Jeopardy?

  19. SteveM
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

    If not for Sheldon Adelson, I believe that Santorum would already have emerged as the principle alternative to Romney. Take away the Soros-esque money which Adelson has pumped into the Gingrich campaign, and it would have gone the way of the Perry campaign by now.

    For all the claims that Newt represents the Tea Party, he actually represents one very wealthy casino magnate.

  20. Daily scoreboard « Don Surber
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 5:01 pm

    […] 15. From the Other McCain: […]

  21. ThePaganTemple
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 5:08 pm

     Mitt will probably win Arizona for the same reason John McCain won his reelection bid to the Senate. He suddenly decided to get tough on  illegal immigration.

  22. Cimmerianconan
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

    I see this time and time again:
    “Ron Paul is great but he is loonie when it comes to foreign policy.”

    Do I think Paul can save our country? No. Do I think any of the R’s can? No. We are most likely beyond saving. There are few that understand the debt problem. The game is likely over.

    With that glass half full admission out of the way, Ron Paul is not a loon irt foreign policy.

    We are currently implementing an invade the world/invite the world policy. We invade countries while inviting them all to come here. This makes sense how?

    We fight sharia in their countries, and then are amazed when they honor kill on these shores? Why? We invade them to export democracy, but then are confused when they vote Hamas to power? Why?

    We are bankrupt. We borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. We are broke. We cannot afford any more.

    Here is an idea, get out of every country. Bring home the troops. Stop spending money to defend Germany and Japan.

    Cut spending across the board by 40% minimum. (40 cents per dollar)

    Cut back the military. No more nation building. If we need to hit someone, then we blow them up and leave.

    This used to be conservative thought. Defend ourselves and then forget those that attacked. Not our problem.

    If you get out of the Middle East, the moslems fight each other (here is a hint, consult history on this). Let Israel do what they want and stop dictating policy to them. Stop all foreign aid.

    Ron Paul is crazy because he doesn’t want to fund this money pit in perpetuity? He seems the most sane of anyone of them.

    There was a time when conservative meant looking after ourselves and our own. The military has only sound and logical purpose, to kill people and break things. Nation building is suicide. Inviting people to our country that want to establish sharia as law of the land is suicide.

    I am can’t call myself conservative anymore, as those that use that term to describe themselves seem down right leftist to me.

    my blog, since disqus is a pain in the a:
    http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/

     

  23. Quartermaster
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

    Yes, Paul is a loon ball when it comes to foreign policy. You also need to take a look at his stance on immigration. He’s not much good on securing the border and he’s as much of a open door idiot as McCain and Bush.

    Many of us cold warriors were read out of the party by that squishy idiot Frum back in the early oughts, but we were able to laugh at him because that power doesn’t exist anymore. We were also proven right on the nation building stuff and have expended a ton on of blood and treasure doing something we could never do. Wilsonians have a problem with such things, though, and always will. Paul is not wrong on this score.

    Paul, however, is wrong about cutting the defense budget in a time when the world is in great flux politically. If it had not been for some serious good luck at Midway, we may well have lost the Pacific war, and we found ourselves in that boat because of what is now a Paulian philosophy on defense. It takes a ton of money to maintain a first class defense, and if you let things slide then it takes very little time to end up with a second class defense. The next war will be won, or lost, with what we start the war with. 

    We are on a razor’s edge with maintaining certain industrial skills needed to build Submarines, for example. We have problems in certain yards because the Naval project officers have a declining skill set. In combination with optimal manning (short handing ships is another,more accurate way of expressing it) and the dead hand of PC in the Navy we may already be nearing a turning point in being unable to build the basic ship types we need to wage war. We also seem to want metrosexuals for commanding officers as well (unless you are female you are a semi-insane feminista, then that’s OK).

    There are many points that could be made on this, and it would take a very long article to treat them with any justice, so this will have to suffice here. There is enough to all this to make me say that Paul is not suitable. I wish we could take a composite of the idiots running and make an ideal candidate, but that isn’t going to happen. A degraded electorate will inspire degraded men to run. We have that in spades when we look at the Newt or Mittens. Alas, Santorum is a statist as well (Malkin described him quite well), but I would have to say he’s the best of the group we have. 

    It pains me to say it, but the entire lot is sorry. That’s what you get when you abandon the founding principles, and you forget God as well.

  24. richard mcenroe
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

    Who is “Model RNC Candidate”?  The names are interchangeable.

  25. richard mcenroe
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

    With charming ties to domestic and Chinese organized crime.

  26. Pathfinder's wife
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

    I don’t quite consider Paul a complete loon on foreign policy — there are some valid points to what he says, and they certainly have some precedent.  Just like I don’t think his domestic/fiscal policies are completely golden.

    I do however consider him to perhaps be a bit too idealistic and cleaving to principles to the point of appearing naive.  Principles are great, but they can get you killed (or your countrymen killed), and we are not playing with people who fight fair even more than we ever did before.

    Still, on some topics concerning foreign policy he is worth at least listening to — being a bit less interventionist is certainly worth a shot.

  27. Anonymous
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 9:29 pm

     HALO style doom, complete with galactic-sized neutron bombs.

  28. Adjoran
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

     More specifically, Adelson is under investigation for violations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits American companies from paying bribes or “protection” abroad.  Personally, I believe it puts us at a competitive disadvantage as non-USA companies don’t have to comply, and in a large part of the world corruption is how business is done.

    But it is the law, and Adelson has had problems with it for a long time.

  29. Adjoran
    February 3rd, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

     Well, under the law unconnected PACs are allowed to do what they wish as long as they stay out of communication with the campaign they are helping.  When Newt demanded Romney stop the PACs hitting him, he was asking him to violate the law.

    As much as I disdain Gingrich for his many betrayals some people want to forget, I will defend him on representing one casino magnate.  Newt’s never represented anyone but himself in his life.

    But I do agree Santorum would have had the leg up after Iowa if the casino money hadn’t suddenly shown up.

  30. Conan The King of Aquilonia
    February 4th, 2012 @ 12:43 am

     And here I am, on a crazy right wing web site and  those that populate here have nothing but suicide to offer for comfort.
    We are done, and those that are sane offer no hope.

  31. Conan The King of Aquilonia
    February 4th, 2012 @ 12:48 am

     And tell me, when the country is bankrupt, how will we defend ourselves?

  32. Conan The King of Aquilonia
    February 4th, 2012 @ 12:52 am

     No one bothered to refute anything I wrote with any substance….Conservatism has failed. The liberals won and the conservatives fell in line.

  33. Conan The King of Aquilonia
    February 4th, 2012 @ 12:53 am

     Quartermaster,
    You are not my enemy, but you offer nothing.

  34. Conan The King of Aquilonia
    February 4th, 2012 @ 1:05 am

     And do not misunderstand me Q, I would love to have you as my neighbor and perhaps a gun range buddy(big compliment there)

  35. Denny Rice
    February 4th, 2012 @ 5:08 am

    It’s Newt or bust for me and America. Newt is the ONLY Conservative candidate that has a RECORD of consistent conservatism with achievements to back it up that are virtuously unequaled in our time. Please DROP OUT Rick Santorum, before YOU are held mostly responsible for giving us RINO Romney to destroy the Republican Party. Go Newt!!!

  36. Santorum 45-Obama 44, Obama Approval At 20% With Undecideds » Pirate's Cove
    February 4th, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

    […] should make R.S. McCain pretty happy (via Hot Air) (Rasmussen) The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for […]

  37. Anonymous
    February 4th, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

    Pawlenty’s endorsement was bought by Romney, and Huntsman’s grudging endorsement is evidence of the same. Perry and Cain, to the credit of their honesty, refused to go that way. Bachmann, despite plenty of pressure from Mitt, is refusing to cave. But the failure of all to endorse the true conservative does no credit to their political judgment.

    Stacy is correct that Santorum is the best not-Romney at present. Newt has twice managed to self-destruct in this campaign, and is looking more and more difficult to drag over the finish line. If he were truly realistic and truly honest he’d pass the torch to Santorum.

    But can Newt be bought? On that hangs the possibility of his endorsing Romney. And if so, what will buy him — money or the prestige (such as it is) of backing him who conventional wisdom sees as the likely winner?

    In the final analysis, conservatives need to keep in mind that Romney is a poor campaigner. Only his money keeps him in the race today, while even money plus conservative disdain for John McMain couldn’t prop him in up in 2008. But his money will be small change against Obama’s hoard.

  38. Ed Morrissey, Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, Tom Tancredo: Gosh, Everybody’s for Santorum Now! : The Other McCain
    February 6th, 2012 @ 7:13 am

    […] was another earthquake in Vanuatu last week. I’m just sayin’ . . .PREVIOUSLY:Feb. 3: Gingrich, Romney, Trump Monopolize Media; Santorum Keeps CampaigningJan. 30: Like an Earthquake in Vanuatu: Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum!Jan. 29: Steak & […]

  39. Gingrich’s Glass Jaw : The Other McCain
    February 6th, 2012 @ 9:12 am

    […] largesse of a single donor, if Adelson sneezes, Gingrich gets the flu.Now, let me remind you of what I wrote Friday:Newt’s current “frontrunner” status is far more fragile than it looks. Newt’s campaign can […]