The Other McCain

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

Rick Santorum: It’s About a Movement

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 74 Comments

“When Allahpundit first asked, ‘Second look at Gingrich?’ on Oct. 18, my visceral reaction was, ‘Are you freaking kidding me?’ Nothing astonishes me more than poll numbers . . . suggesting that people are taking Newt seriously as a presidential candidate. And of all the prognotications I’ve ever made, of none have I been more confident than in predicting this: It won’t last.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Nov. 14, 2011

Bill Quick is for Newt. Now that his candidate’s implausible posture of “viability” has collapsed, The Guy Who Named the Blogosphere shrugs:

You know, now that it’s pretty much guaranteed that we’ve got a Romneycare versus Obamacare race this year, I’m actually looking forward to voting for Newt in the California primary. At least I’ll get to vote for one candidate I actually want to vote for this year.

No regrets for Bill. He never had a problem with Gingrich’s narcissistic grandiosity, but Rick Santorum’s opposition to porn? Unacceptable!

My temperament and instincts are simply different than Daily Pundit’s, and this long-running friendly electoral flame-war between Bill and I (with Smitty throwing in the occasional volley) reflects those differences.

The point of yesterday’s political psychotherapy session was to put into perspective the emotional reactions to which political junkies are prone. My combative temperament and populist instincts — to hell with these elitist insiders and their shabby self-serving ways! — are not universally admired by my fellow conservatives, some of whom don’t share my view that the Republican Party keeps losing fights because it is run by people who are more interested in advancing their own narrow ambitions than in accomplishing anything meaningful toward the defeat of liberalism.

In that basic sense, nothing has changed since 2009: The GOP Establishment is still an arrogant bunch of clueless dilberts collecting paychecks for running their phony sham opposition to liberalism.

My support for the Santorum campaign is a continuation of my support for the Tea Party, for the “Not One Cent” Rebellion (Marco Rubio vs. the NRSC), and for Doug Hoffman vs. Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

What I would like to see is for Rick Santorum to emerge from this fight with the scalp of the allegedly “inevitable” Mitt Romney on his belt — a savage warrior, red in tooth and claw, and ready to lead a howling bloodthirsty tribe of right-wing barbarians against a Democratic Party stricken with fear at the prospect of contending against a genuine grassroots conservative movement.

This goes back to something my friend Stephen Gordon said to me a few years ago. Gordo was the Alabama state director for the 2008 Ron Paul campaign and, when I remarked on the ferocious dedication of the Paulistas, Gordo said: “The Ron Paul movement is not about Ron Paul, it’s about a movement.”

Exactly. Which is why I am perturbed by those who have viewed the 2012 presidential campaign as merely a matter of personalities.

To hell with that. It’s about building a grassroots conservative movement powerful enough to overwhelm all opposition. Newt Gingrich failed to do that, and why? Because Newt was always all about that 10-car motorcade and the big media entourage.

And the Tiffany’s account.

And the Aegean luxury cruise with his third wife.

Whatever anyone’s disagreement with Rick Santorum about “issues,” the point is that he has organized an actual movement, one which has exceeded all expectations, whereas Newt Gingrich . . .

Well, some guys actually like big fake boobs. I’m just not one of them.

 

RICK SANTORUM for PRESIDENT
He’s Real — And He’s Spectacular!

Category: Bill Quick, Election 2012, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

Comments

74 Responses to “Rick Santorum: It’s About a Movement”

  1. Tennwriter
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

    We told the McCainiacs, and they responded by trying to insult us, and intimidate us.  What we told them would happen, did happen.  The Establishment won, and it therefore lost.

    We’ve been telling the Romneyites, and well, its true that Obama has really stunk up the place, and maybe Romney’s money and his Establishment buddies can drag his robot self over the line.  And out come the wild insults again.But such wild insults are a good reason to vote against whoever uses them.  They toxify the atmosphere needful for a civil republic.

    Part of me of course, wants to give as good as I get, but frankly I’m not that good at it.  But I can manage condescending laughter.

    The Romneyites have one thing to offer: He might be better on the Supreme Court.  The anti-Romneyans point out that he’s not likely to be considering who he is.

    So I’m left scratching my head…Why am I voting for Romney?  Oh, yes, because someone on the Intartubezs might call me a bad name.

    Considering that the Romneyites and the Establishment full of losers are what got us in this mess in the first place, I think I can bear up under their scorn.

    And maybe, just maybe, he said being wildly naive, the next time I say ‘don’t vote for that pathetic moderate, he has little chance of winning’ maybe some moderate will actually listen to logic.  Naah.  

  2. ThePaganTemple
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:15 pm

     I agree with a lot of what you say here in spirit, but the time to do and say all that is during the primaries. Once the primaries is over, then it becomes a whole nuther ball game. You don’t like the Establishment? Then vote against them when they run in your state primaries. Vote for Tea Party members and other solid conservatives in your Senate and House primaries, in your state and local races, in your school boards, etc.

    That’s how you change things. Look, I know how you feel. But let’s be realistic. Even if I had gotten my wishes, and the GOP had nominated Palin, or Bachmann, the facts of the matter are, they wouldn’t change things either, because the system is bigger than any one person, even if that person becomes President.

    Everybody holds up the example of Reagan, rightly so, but ask yourself, what did Reagan actually change, systemically, about the system, over the long term?

    Not a lot I’m afraid.

  3. richard mcenroe
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:51 pm

     Look at his judicial appointments in MA.

  4. richard mcenroe
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:53 pm

     And the mighty Mr. Adjoran bears the One Revealed Truth, he who got his start with the one President ever forced out of office for his malfeasance.

  5. Ford Prefect
    March 28th, 2012 @ 10:58 pm

    Actually, REAL RINOs nominate losers. Time, and time, and time again.  

    If Romney is nominated he will lose by about 10 points given that he is a weaker candidate than the last loser the GOP put up.

    However, if by some miracle, Romney doesn’t fold like a cheap tent under the first assault from the Chicago thug, and ends up beating Obama, then we end up with another GWHB for 1 term after which, Nancy Pelosi will be elected the next President.

    Thanks Adjoran and PT. You guys have been soooo helpful.

  6. Ford Prefect
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:11 pm

    I know you’re generally considered around here to be just this side of clueless Adjoran, but you’re outdoing yourself on this one.

    Run the numbers Bub. The liberal GOP candidate that you love so much never managed to get anywhere near the votes of what the conservative candidates got. 

    The difficulty for conservatives is that they are a majority in the party but also the majority of candidates from which to pick are also conservative.  Meanwhile, if you’re a Lib like Mitt,  and you can outlast the other weak Libs that MIGHT run, then you can get your 25% of the primary vote guaranteed.  With 25% of the GOP vote, you win the nomination.

    But 25% of the GOP vote is not going to win you the WH. Even if you pick up the squish vote, you still need the conservative vote.  Mitt is apparently too dumb to see this. If I was on a board hiring a CEO and he displayed the kind of serial stupidity that Mitt constantly displays, I wouldn’t get near him.

    Bottom line, if Romney loses the general, it will be because of the morons who voted for him in the primaries. 

    Personally, I will hold my nose and vote for Mitt if he picks a rock-ribbed conservative for a running mate.

    That is HIS only hope.

  7. richard mcenroe
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:12 pm

     So the last time people took your advice, we got Jimmy Carter?

  8. Ford Prefect
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:16 pm

    But you AREN’T telling it “how it is” are you? Romney doesn’t have the nomination yet does he sister?

    When he gets to 1144 then you can tell us all “how it is”. Until then, yours is an “opinion” not a neutral objective fact.  There is a difference. Learn it.

  9. Tparker602
    March 28th, 2012 @ 11:24 pm

    I truly was sorry to hear that Marco Rubio has now endorsed Romney… It’s becoming clearer that Santorum is not the Washington “insider” that people claimed he was! I believe many are feeling “disenfranchised”… as we’re all being fed Romney with a silver spoon.

    I can’t help but remember as Santorum spoke near the steps of the Supreme Court on Monday… the reporter was asking for his reaction to the fact that several “significant” Republicans were calling for the party to rally around Romney… Rick replied “Since the significant have spoken… I guess we’ll have to let the insignificant voters decide.”

  10. Adobe_Walls
    March 29th, 2012 @ 12:29 am

    So we should be praying for a tragedy.

  11. Adobe_Walls
    March 29th, 2012 @ 12:35 am

    Attempting to make the GOP a conservative party is a fool’s errand.

  12. Tennwriter
    March 29th, 2012 @ 1:48 am

    Reagan broke the Soviet Empire, midwifed the Computer Age, and showed the Laffer Curve was right.Sure he left a lot undone, but any of those three would be a good life’s work for a man.The Left, despite its vast grasp, is actually pretty fragile because its Anti-Reality.  This is of course, why the Left was perhaps so absolutely petrified by Palin.

    I think Reagan is proof that one brave man could rip the guts out of the Left.  And yes, the system would still be around, but it would be very badly hurt, and greatly limited afterwards.

  13. rosalie
    March 29th, 2012 @ 8:15 am

    I think I’m the only one who isn’t whining.  I think the pro Romney people are whining because  we’re not following in lockstep with the party.  What has the party done for us lately? 

  14. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 8:58 am

     Now see there, you’re just delusional. How have I been “helpful” or not? I never was a Romney guy, but I can see the handwriting on the wall, and it says in plain English Romney is going to be the nominee. I’m not happy about that, but that is just the facts of the matter.

    You can bitch and moan and whine about it all you want to, but by God when election day roles around I’m supporting the GOP nominee, bottom fucking line.

  15. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 9:00 am

     What has the party done for us lately?

    How about what they’ve done for you everyday, prevented and continually fight to prevent the Democrats from turning our country into a full-scale openly socialist country. 

  16. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 9:08 am

     I’m not talking about specific accomplishments, I’m talking about systemic change. In order to get that, you have to change the system, and you do that by electing people at all levels, not just one person for President. As important as the President is, he by himself is not going to change a damn thing, and if he tried to change too much, his own party is going to stab him in the back. That’s what I mean about systemic change. It’s a team effort.

    Furthermore, and I say this as kindly as possible, but there’s no reason to believe Rick Santorum would change a damn thing insofar as the system itself goes. He’s a child of the system. He’s not going to change jack shit. Mainly because he’s not going to win to begin with, but if he did, I think you’d find yourself sorely disappointed at the results.

  17. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 9:31 am

     Only if you think you can make it happen overnight, or by electing one particular person to the presidency, and for damn sure if that person is Santorum.

  18. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 9:32 am

     Then how about we just rephrase it to something like “the way it is obviously going to be”?

  19. Tennwriter
    March 29th, 2012 @ 10:17 am

    Um, if collapsing the  worldwide Soviet Empire isn’t systemic change, I’m Ron Paul.

    The only way to get real change is to put the socons in charge.  So yes, a team is needed (and hopefully the libertarians can sit at the right handof power, and the RINOs sit down at the botton of the table.)

  20. ThePaganTemple
    March 29th, 2012 @ 10:28 am

     How much has Russia really changed? They’ve gone straight from socialist totalitarianism to a fascist system. But regardless I was talking about systemic change within the country, not outside of it.

    And putting the SoCons “in charge” and expecting the fiscon wing, if that’s what you means by libertarians, to sit at the sidelines ain’t going to happen. Nor should it.

    Unless you think the country would be well served under the thumbs of the Mike Huckabee wing of the party. I know I don’t.

    And don’t get me wrong, I want them to have their rightful place. Just not “in charge”. I want somebody that believes in federalist principles, and people like Huckabee and Santorum just don’t fit that bill.

  21. Across the Great Divide | Daily Pundit
    March 29th, 2012 @ 11:35 am

    […] the Great Divide Posted on March 29, 2012 8:35 am by Bill Quick Rick Santorum: It’s About a Movement : The Other McCain Bill Quick is for Newt. Now that his candidate’s implausible posture of […]

  22. Amanda Citizen
    March 30th, 2012 @ 8:59 am

    Just to let you know- Newt and Romney also supported No Child Left Behind. They must have taken one for the Team? As a matter of fact, Newt Voted for the creation of the Federal Dept. of Education in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. He also supported Medicare Part D,He voted for the “Gun Free School Zones Act” which resulted in schools being easier targets for shooters, and disarming law-abiding citizens, individual healthcare mandates, Global Warming, voted to increase the Debt limit 4 times,Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout, supported many bailouts,He says he is “very, very supportive” of Federal ethanol subsidies, went against the Tea Party and endorsed liberal RINO DeDe Scozzafava against Tea Party candidate Hoffman. btw, Santorum and Palin stood up for the Tea PArty and endorsed Hoffman. All of that plus much more. That goes without saying he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi advocating manmade Global Warming! Newt is better than Romney, but Santorum is the BEST!

  23. Amanda Citizen
    March 30th, 2012 @ 9:02 am

    Santorum is the BEST!!! Santorum was extremely fiscally conservative in a very liberal state. He is in CAGW’s “Taxpayer Hero” category & National Taxpayers Union graded him an “A” 7 times for being one of the top fiscal conservatives.  Michael Farris made a point with his status update on FB: Are they winning Red States or Blue States?Romney has won 13 states. Of these, 8 were carried by Obama and 5 were carried by McCain. Of the 5 GOP states he won, 3 are on the border of Utah. Santorum has won 10 states. Of these, 7 were carried by McCain and 3 were carried by Obama. In general, Romney has strength in areas where the Dem’s will be even stronger in November–Illinois, Mass, Maine, New Hampshire etc. will all be Obama’s in November. We are on the verge of nominating a Republican candidate who has minimal strength in areas where Republicans can and must do well.                                                                               

  24. Tennwriter
    March 30th, 2012 @ 9:44 am

    Considering I wondered one night if the Sovs had nuked my home town, I’d say they’ve changed a LOT.I know, but outside the country fits in with the discussion better.  It is relevant.Considering if you want a real fiscon you need a socon, no I don’t mean the fiscon wing.Right now, we have RINOS in charge, Libertarians as the chihuahua, and Socons at the bottom of the table.  I propose putting Socons at the head of the table, giving thelibertarians a seat at the table (which increases their influence, but does not make it dominant), and kicking the RINOs to the bottom.

    And much of the dislike of Huckabee is he did not attend an Ivy League college.  He’s not nearly as bad as many say.  Bigotry ain’t pretty.