Via Ben Domenech at Ricochet. Shorter John Hinderaker, Leave Mittens alone!! Yes, because way back when, the establishment left Reagan untouched as he battled his way to the nomination, so he went on to win and win re-election in a landslide. What nonsense. They threw everything they had at him and then some. Winners win, losers lose, then they whine and make excuses. I'm thrilled that John is so forward thinking that he's already begun. Man up, John. Just because Romney is a loser doesn't mean you have to sound like one, too.
John Hinderaker encapsulates an assumption which has started to take hold among many of Mitt Romney’s backers: that the fault for what appears to be an increasingly likely 2012 election loss lies with conservatives for making this a real primary. Speaking of the see-saw of not-Romney candidates, he writes:
The same pattern has been repeated more than once during the current, discouraging presidential nominating process. If the GOP loses this year’s presidential contest, the party will have no one to blame but its own activists.
I'm hearing this meme repeated by many increasingly dejected Romney supporters around Washington, D.C. See, if people had just gotten in line when we told them to, the theory goes, things would be looking up. But this is revisionist history, and this is a meme that deserves to die.
The worst, most unfortunate, part of this - see below - is that Jennifer Rubin, a WaPo whatever she is is smearing Rick Santorum for his religious beliefs. Frankly, that's offensive to the point of being despicable. The Leftist never disappears from some of these supposed converts to the right.
Unfortunately, like most, I now expect this from one as politically small-minded as Jennifer Rubin.
But simple-minded chriping about this video below is light-weight, shallow thinking when it comes to matters of principle, both personal and political. This makes an excellent case as to why so many seem to be supporting Santorum over Romney.
Personally, and for the record, I endorsed Newt some time back and have said nothing otherwise, since.
Watch it - follow up below. It's from 2006.
What it demonstrates is how much more serious, consistent and enlightened, as well as conservative, is Santorum's world view, than is Rubin's and perhaps even Romney's.
Santorum easily bests Romney on two critical counts. Unlike Romney, his advocacy for life never changed for political expedience, as Romney's most assuredly has, no matter what he wants people to believe today. More importantly, Constitutionally and small government-wise, Santorum also emerges the better of Romney.
While his faith has been consistent and devout, he acknowledges its limitations when it comes to passing laws, clearly stating, "this is from a personal point of view, from a governmental point of view, I supported Title 10 ... and have voted for contraception." Mind you, his doing that in light of his devout religious beliefs demonstrates his full appreciation for the separation of church and state, as well as an ernest appreciation for limited government.
In contrast to Mitt Romney, who implemented the model for Obamacare, Romneycare, in Massachusetts, and seems to come upon his pro-Life views based upon happenstance, Santorum wins any serious comparisons hands down.
Why should anyone have to explain this to supposedly intelligent people? In fact, Jennifer Rubin is basically smearing Rick Santorum purely for his religious beliefs because Santorum qualifies his views in that specific manner, personal and religious, not political.
Now, he qualifies his religious views by saying he doesn’t vote against contraception “because it’s not the taking of a human life” (in other contexts he has emphasized that as a legal matter he has no problem with contraception). But how does that square with his professed belief that a candidate’s values are essential to understanding and predicting his behavior?
One would think Jennifer Rubin would have a more enlightened view of both faith and Constitutional government given the high opinion at least she often seems to have of herself as a pundit.
Ace must have him a Santorum rage going on. I tried to call him but he didn't answer, so I'm responding here. He had no business insulting me because he apparently couldn't grasp a valid argument, one not even that complex, frankly.
@DanRiehl meaningless pap as usual. always necessary to merely assert your "right" to be wrong when arguing for the wrong things.
Among other things in his anti-Santorum rant, he Tweeted:
His (Santorum's) moronic attempt at this is conjuring a non-rape Priest sex situation and claiming "Well that's still bad right? So we need laws."
I responded:
For ur anti-Santorum logic to hold, law would have no role in maintaining a civil society. Ppl can disagree on how tht should be defined. But you can't undermine the style of his argument, merely disagree on the context.
What Ace apparently couldn't comprehend is that civil society is, indeed, based upon law. Duh! It's kind of, you know, why we have them! So much for "meaningless pap."
Therefore, the style of Santorum's argument is correct, precisely as I said. It's the context of his argument that creates the problem. Now, I seriously doubt Santorum believes we should return to a time when homosexuality is outlawed. I could be wrong, but I think this involved minors. That would make Santorum's approach to the issue sloppy and problematic, but perhaps not wrong. But that's aside from my point concerning Ace.
If he hadn't have been all wrought up over Santorum, he might have taken the time to understand that I agree with him. But the logic he used to argue against Santorum in that case was flawed. If he wants to dismiss that as "meaningless pap," fine. But that would only make him dumb.
The Daily Caller reports that some in Congress may be interested in investigating Media Matters relative to its tax exempt status. I'm no area expert; however, if there are legitimate questions to be raised - and there may well be - this is something I believe we should all support. What's important is that it be focused only on the tax issue and not content. My only real complaint with some of what's been going on around this is when it has drifted into targeting, or attacking specific journalists for their reporting based upon Media Matters as a source. We need to challenge it based upon facts and truth, not one's decision to publish it. I'm not seeing any Dan Rathers in the media surrounding this whole Media Matters topic and when the right starts channeling Hillary Clinton and her vast right wing conspiracy nonsense, it needs to be treated the same way it was when she made her ridiculous comment. It should be dismissed. The right needs to defeat the left, not become it.
Congressional Republicans are now interested in examining Media Matters For America‘s tax-exempt status, The Daily Caller has learned. Doing so would cause the GOP to wade into the complex world of tax laws that govern “exempt organizations” such as Media Matters and more than 1 million other charitable organizations that are exempt from federal income tax.
Media Matters’ critics have questioned its tax-exempt status for some time. The Internal Revenue Service has a series of requirements that must be met before organizations can qualify. Successful applicants pay no federal income tax because the government presumes such charities perform services that benefit the public. Donors also may deduct their charitable contributions.
I Tweeted out Bill Jacobson's well deserved award when I saw it. But I only now saw this in John Hawkin's excellent, illustrated CPAC round-up post. Anyone who thinks I'm an underrated blogger has obviously never bothered to ask me my opinion. heh! Frankly, I don't consider myself much of a blogger anymore. I pop in to pop off, now and then. That's about it.
Carriers Transit Strait of Hormuz Despite Iranian Threats
As tensions mount, there are at least two and possibly three U.S. carriers within the theater of operations including the Persian Gulf, as the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln transited the Strait of Hormuz, despite previous Iranian threats and Iranian patrols following the ship.
Also of note from John's post, this category contains the blogs I admire most for their work today. Personally, I'd have given Scoop best video blog, taken Big Government out, only because you can't compare the model to what indie bloggers do out here, year after year. That's in no way to diss BG, obviously, just apples and oranges. I would have taken Hot Air out, too, it's professional now. These guys below are doing what I did, or tried to do for years out here as it grew up and that indie niche will always be what I admire most when it comes to blogging. Along with needing to be a bit crazy, it takes an amazing amount of effort and creativity to do this stuff on your own, without a team behind you, as I have now, thanks to Andrew Breitbart.
John Hawkins of RightWingNews has a poll out of Right-side bloggers. Contrast these two questions. What does it tell us? If the least conservative candidate, Romney is also viewed as the most electable, then these conservative bloggers (I didn't participate) don't even believe in what they purport to believe in enough to fight for it, and or they think conservatism is a losing proposition. What the hell is the point of blogging if that's how you feel? You're not interested in advancing your own agenda, you're only interested in spouting off about your victim status. Go the hell away and leave the blogging to people willing to fight for what they believe in, not whine because you're a candy-assed mainstream media kool-aid drinking loser.
5) Which candidate do you consider to be the most conservative?
I really don't want open warfare with RedState, however displeased I may be with some of what I've seen there lately. That said, two RedState members have offered defenses in my comments area for a post I linked earlier. It was not my post and I don't monitor RS for their content. It came via an email tip from a friend. My own post made it clear it was not a front page post, as did the RightScoop post at my link. It was fair.
Dan, you're every bit as welcome to come author a diary of nonsense at RedState as this anti-Santorum clown did.
Not only that, you're even welcome to put a comment on that post correcting the record. It is a big part of the DNA of having a community online. Just like your own commenters.
But please, enough with the "REDSTATE MISLEADS" hyperbole, implying that those that control and provide editorial direction for the site somehow authored or pushed a diary with false information. You know it's not true.
As does streiff, whose posts I usually admire for their quality.
Dan, virtually all registered RedState commenters have the ability to post diaries. Those are listed at the far right side of the page under the title, oddly enough, of "Member Diaries." So long as those diaries don't violate site rules members are free to write whatever they wish.
As I made clear in responding, it is not my job to correct RS content on their site. Furthermore, RedState is part of a business enterprise. I assume site rules prevent libel and must be subject to some type of review. Libel aside, if the standard is, one can say anything about a candidate without it being true - there's still a similar open question around a Tweet by Erick, the editor, dealing with Santorum and an individual mandate, btw - perhaps RS should review its standards. I'm unaware of any serious and reputable blog site, large or small, that allows untruths, in general, or about a candidate, to be posted and stand unless a commenter comes along to correct the record.
Thanks, Mike - first off, I didn't author the original post, or coordinate in any way. It's also not my job to clarify a RS post on the site. I also left the bit in that makes it clear that it was not a front page post. If your position is, RS is not responsible for non-front paged posts, in this day and age, I'd disagree. Blog sites large and small even have to monitor comments, let alone posts, today for content out of concern for what gets put there. That said, while I don't back Santorum, Erick's jihad has gotten a bit ridiculous imo and in the opinions of some others. Make of that what you will, probably nothing. But there it is.
While not a regular reader, from several recent items I've seen via links, RS doesn't seem to be doing itself many favors this primary season. It always has been something of a preaches only to the faithful readers blog. But what good is that if it costs you your credibility?
I really don’t understand the need to smear people in this election cycle. A blog over at RedState (not on front page) has the headline “Santorum supports SOPA” and then has the video below as the body with this little quote to mislead people....
I actually thought it might be something when I first saw it being circulated because of the way it was played up, so I called someone with Santorum and got a big yawn. Sure enough, it's been out there since June from HuffPo, to TPM and the MSM.
Last evening I Tweeted that if you can't do an oppo drop with more sophistication than Johnny Hayseed losing his virginity to a barnyard animal, you'll never run with Team Mitt. There was a reason for that. Stacy McCain is in Iowa and I believe checked in with the Santorum folks, too. Stacy likes Santorum and brings the pain in a way I won't. I guess I'm getting soft in my old age.
There is a point to all this. Some folks ie campaigns still think the blogosphere is a bunch of amateurs. They need to get over that misconception. From a half-hour before an embargoed poll broke some had access to, to this, the entire RS effort to hit Santorum out here has been a joke, because it's been so obvious, as well as over-reaching. Like I said, amateur hour.
Frankly, I doubt few, if any, endorsements matter, let alone from a blog, mine included. But for Powerline to equate "establishment" candidate with "someone who won tough elections and governed successfully" is as nonsensical, as it is insulting to those of us who would prefer a less establishment-aligned candidate. But then, PL is an establishment blog. They seem to be as tone deaf as Mitt's campaign given their phrasing. Furthermore, if they really thought Pawlenty, who turned tail and ran before the corn was ripe in Iowa, was the guy, just how good might be their judgment in selecting a candidate? Given that, not very good if you ask me. Their second choice has been running since 2008 and can't get much beyond 20%. I can only imagine how weak Romney will prove to be in the general. Last night a PPP poll had Ron Paul beating Mitt among Republicans. That's a loser, in my opinion.
Romney was not my first choice in this election cycle–Tim Pawlenty was. But Pawlenty’s campaign failed to catch fire, mostly because GOP voters saw him as an “establishment” candidate; that is, perhaps, someone who won tough elections and governed successfully.
Perry is establishment, but he's not of DC, plus he meets PL's criteria as regards governing and winning elections. Romney lost his in Massachusetts. That's enough for me given the field. Also, as Ed at Hot Air points out, a brokered convention isn't all it's cracked up to be - for the grassroots. All things considered, I believe we should pick our nominee from among those currently running.
Even if a candidate were to jump in at this late date, it would have to be one who could reliably raise money fast, organize effectively, have good name recognition, be well prepared on policy, and survive the kind of intense vetting that has derailed Cain, Rick Perry, Bachmann, and has deflated Gingrich’s bubble. That’s a recipe for an establishment candidate, not an outsider. We should stop fantasizing about white knights riding to the rescue and focus on the choices we have in front of us now.
While both Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum are fine Constitutional conservatives, when one factors in the critical element of electoral viability, Texas Governor Rick Perry is the only prudent choice for both conservatives and Republicans. Contrary to the myth that he is simply one more in a long, futile line of so-called compassionate conservatives, in practical terms, Perry is actually a repudiation of the too-largely failed governmental legacy of Bush/Rove, regardless of its ability to win an election, or two.
Next year cannot be about trying to elect the next best contender for some would-be political version of Donald Trump's The Apprentice. Nor can we afford to allow it to be about politically ill-conceived tests for purity. By successfully governing a large, sophisticated state for a good number of years, beating back challengers, including from the Bush/Rove camp, and consistently winning re-election by significant margins, Perry has proved himself to be a skilled and electorally-viable politician with sound, chiefly conservative ideas for governing.
