Riehl World View

Post's Jennifer Rubin Calls Taranto, Limbaugh "Neanderthal Jerks"

After being criticized by many conservatives for smearing Rick Santorum for his religious beliefs, I weighed in here, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called author David Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto "neanderthal jerks" in what appears to have been a Twitter dispute, before unfollowing the two men. Screencap below. Rubin also spelled neanderthal incorrectly and labeled GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's social views as "unacceptable."

Click image to enlarge

 

Daily Caller: Politico reporter withheld information? Really?

I'd love to read a killer expose that brought MMfA down. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that with these Daily Caller items and this latest appears to have some problems. I can't find anything to prove what the headline asserts and without knowing what was on, or off, the record between Smith and Brock, or what was provided on background only, I honestly don't see the major problem here. Also, Smith asserts he didn't have the funding portion of a 2010 Media Matters planning document and DC doesn't prove that he did.

Politico reporter withheld information about liberal Media Matters For America

It would also help if someone in their building figured out how to write a lede. This sounds like the opening of a story about a hunting trip with Uncle Joe. Or, maybe it was a fishing expedition gone wrong, or mishandled somehow?

About a year ago, the organization Media Matters For America gave Politico reporter Ben Smith a 2010 planning memo for a profile he was writing on the liberal advocacy group.

If there were a story there, the lede should have been something like ...

Last year Politico's Ben Smith withheld important information from a 2010 Media Matters planning memo in an effort to shield Media Matters from criticism at a time when many were questioning its tax exempt status.

It's really not clear to me what the story is, or isn't, given the way it's organized. Smith may have been prohibited from sharing some of this per agreement. It happens. And if targeting pols is a big no no for MMfA, that needs to be highlighted, not buried paragraphs below the lede.

Smith made no mention of Media Matters targeting organizations other than Fox News, such as the libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Heritage Foundation. Nor does he reveal that, according to the memo, Media Matters was intent on researching Republican political figures like Republican former U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina and Republican Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, and the prominent libertarian political donor Peter Thiel.

If people want to accuse me of just ragging on the Caller, fine. They haven't exactly been fair to me in the past. But the fact is, if they had the goods I'd acknowledge and applaud it. So far, what I'm seeing is somewhat amateurish and more heat, than light, unless I'm missing it because it was a poorly structured story. Sorry but that's my honest take, not sour grapes.

If the right is going to win any new media war, I think we're going to have to do better than this. I love gotcha journalism, but both sides need to be careful to actually get someone when they do it, and not just throw a bunch of smoke that isn't at all clear and could damage someone's reputation. Yes, the Left does that. But if this is simply a case of the right doing it, that doesn't somehow suddenly make it okay.

A Word On Ben Smith And The Caller Story

I like Ed Morrissey's take on this Media Matters stuff. 

The actual story here might be the reverse of how Carlson et al frame it here. This sounds as though the White House uses Brock and Media Matters to conduct a proxy war against its perceived enemies in the news media and to push its propaganda out through the MSM.

Frankly, given that the right is now in the process of building out a counterpart to both CAP and MMfA (it's about time duh!), maybe it's time to start beating them, instead of complaining about them? Just a thought, anyway. Also, for the record, some friends on the right can hate on me if they want, but I've pushed items to Ben Smith from the right and never had him turn something down over ideology. He's published items based upon tips from me and has always treated me fairly and it's only fair to him that I acknowledge it given some of the back and forth today.

Maybe the real point is, we have to continue to get better on the right when it comes to media? I think we are and that's why I'm happy to be working with the Breitbart sites, for example. Opportunities like that didn't exist in the recent past. Don't get mad, get even fwiw.

Erickson First To Cave

Must be a slow news day at The Hill, I usually expect substance from them. It always amazes me how media likes to give media more credit for influence than it deserves . Endorsement, non-endorsement, it doesn't mean anything. Man, that Nikki Haley endorsement sure put Mitt over the top in South Carolina, now didn't it? Not.

Influential conservative blogger endorses ‘sweet meteor of death’ in GOP primary

As for Allahpundit, bad news, dude. The reason we didn't see a top tier candidate is because they mostly decided the vulnerable incumbent of which you speak can't be beat in November. He may be. Clinton got in as a second tier candidate because Bush 41's numbers were so high coming off Iraq War 1, when it came time to jump off, many first-tier Democrats stood down, not wanting to blow their chance. They ended up being very wrong. Clinton was an accidental president in that sense.

Honestly, my core problem with the field is less their specific weaknesses than the fact that we failed to entice a top-tier star candidate into the field against a vulnerable incumbent whom conservatives despise.

Ed Morrisey endorsed Santorum, yesterday. In general, I'd give that more weight than Erick's showmanship, as Ed tends to provide a more solid, logical rationale for what he says, or doesn't. Still, such endorsements, or non-endorsements are actually for the individual making them, as opposed to the candidate. And bloggers, especially, have little sway. I make them on occasion, but it's always more about me declaring a position, or advancing an argument from my own perspective, than fooling myself that it's going to have some real impact, as some do.

This primary is going to be won by a candidate, a campaign and the air and ground war it fights, not what any pundit thinks about it. As for Erickson's statement, it's really nothing but an expression of what most conservatives have been saying all along, openly, or behind the scenes.

But most of us are, at least, still in the fight, while knowing the long odds. Ed's endorsement of Santorum is one proof of that. Erickson's throwing up his hands and walking away is basically a concession to Romney and simply another incidence of his being one of the first to quit the battle. Not much new there, unfortunately, not that it matters, either.

Rich Lowry Was 12 When Reagan Was Elected And It Shows

That NRO's Rich Lowry would follow up his ignorance and sloppy incompetence as an editor over the Abrams, Lord dust up with a childish petulance suggests his temperament hasn't changed much since he was 12 years old when former President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Not only did he apparently drop the ball as a competent editor when publishing Elliott Abram's initial misleading piece, he seems to still have no serious grasp of the issue at hand on March 21, 1986 when Newt Gingrich addressed the House with the special order in question.

If Lowry understood the actual issue and pertinent history, he would appreciate that Abrams attacked Newt Gingrich from the Left, or soft side of national defense that was actually in opposition to Reagan in the sense it sought to undermine him at the time.

Gingrich, on the other hand, was a Reagan ally and his special order was, in fact, more in line with Reagan, than was it opposed to him. Actually, it wasnt opposed to Reagan at all. If anything, a knowledgeable individual would have understood Gingrich's speech as, in a very real sense, contextually cheering Reagan on to fulfill his own vision, while simply pointing out deficiencies inherent in Reagan's administration given the complexity of the political and administrative challenges at hand.

Gingrich was also echoing the sentiments of such luminaries and staunch Reaganites as those he invoked in the special order no one at NRO seems interested in pointing out, see below. If Lowry's ignorant premise in defense of Abram's is to be believed, then we must lump Will, Krauthammer, Kristol and Kirkpatrick in the bash Reagan camp, too. Does anyone believe that foolishness, beside NRO's currently less than esteemed editor? I don't think so.

From the Gingrich special order in question: The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.

It would seem to me per the above, Gingrich had a pretty firm set of thinkers in support of the argument he was making with his special order and I'd stack them up against Rich Lowry given the subject in question any day of the week. Would Lowry now purport to know the history better than they, as well? Or, will he retract his piece? Clearly, if one is going to take Newt to task over this, the above named must be taken to task for bashing Reagan, as well.

This from Lowry's latest bit of adolescent-sounding tripe.

You can read it in all its glory here. (I suspect Newt’s fans will find it unerringly brilliant, while others will roll their eyes.) Gingrich spokesman Joe DeSantis called on NR today to retract Elliott’s piece. In light of all the above, I call on Joe DeSantis to retract his call for a retraction.

In point of fact, Gingrich didn't only aim to support Reagan against some voices in his own administration in a highly charged debate going on at the time, he also criticized his very own House, suggesting it too needed to be gotten into order. The critical passages highlighting that are in bold below. If I'm correct, instead of functioning as a competent editor and seeking out the complete special order to acquaint himself with the full and appropriate context prior to posting, Lowry simply ran the Abram's smear of Gingrich, perhaps as it fit the days dump on Newt narrative on behalf of NRO Foundation benefactor, Mitt Romney.

The gap between Ronald Reagan's United Nations speech in which he courageously called for support for freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, and Nicaragua, the gap between that speech and the reality of our pathetically incompetent efforts is a gap that should be a scandal if only we took it seriously.

The change for which Gingrich was advocating was not a change in Reagan, it was a change with regard to foot-dragging and undermining going on in Congress and Reagan's own administration - he was also arguing for the institutionalization of Reagan's policy so it continued on without him once he left office, both because Newt thought Reagan was so right and that others were intent on preventing said institutionalization for the longer term to extend Reagan's own vision in the particular area of foreign policy. That was not happening, which is the root - and the only root - of Gingrich's criticism at the time.

Of course, as appropriate Reagan's name would be invoked. He was the President, after all, one Gingrich clearly supported and fully agreed with on the pertinent issue. Should Gingrich have slighted him and not acknowledged him as Commander-In-Chief while making a point in support of Reagan's own vision?

In fact, Gingrich's audience was other than Reagan. It's that context that observers of this silliness like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Lord who recall it first hand get, that a then 18 year old Rich Lowry apparently does not. Obviously, he never bothered to fulfill his charge as a competent editor and acquaint himself with it. As to what Abram's actual motivations may be for writing his smear in the first place, I know not. But, clearly, he slipped a fast one past an evidently incurious and disengaged Rich Lowry.  

Fourth, the burden be borne by House and Senate Republicans who agree with President Reagan's vision and have not fought hard enough to force the changes in the executive branch. We can hardly expect our friends on the left who do not agree with this policy or our friends on the left who do not agree with this policy or our friends who are pressured because as Democrats they believe Reagan is right, they exist in a caucus whose majority clearly does not believe Reagan is right, to lead the way in forcing the executive branch to become competent or to lead the way in articulating the case to the American people.

Newt's special order was actually a call to arms in support of Reagan, not some genuinely harsh criticism of the man himself - NOT IN THE LEAST!

The burden must be borne by House and Senate Republicans who agree with the President's vision, who are afraid of the transnational Soviet empire, who understand the Communist Cuban colonial army, and who understand that what we are doing today simply is not good enough.

Fifth, the burden of responsibility must be borne by our own political supporters who have not held our feet to the fire and who have not focused on results rather than intentions.

Call it a bit of now rather old and arcane high rhetoric dug up out of context to smear someone, or call it silly rhetoric as Lowry would seem to infer, perhaps as he must be a rather silly man himself to have taken his editorial responsibilities so lightly, but to fully appreciate its genuine motive and intent one would also need to appreciate the precise debate that was taking place at the time. Because individuals like Levin, Limbaugh and Lord, Rollins and others were there and know the subject as participants, or observers, as I know it, they understand this and, consequently, take great exception to the fraud that Rich Lowry perpetuated.

A mere eighteen years old when the floor speech was given, perhaps Rich Lowry was too overly fixated upon finding some next best acne medication at the time to have paid much attention to political and world events in March of 1986. Certainly, we can forgive the lad for that. But as he now holds the title of Editor at what was once a prestigious conservative publication such as NRO, hopefully it's not too much to expect Rich Lowry to do his homework before publishing Mitt Romney's oppo research next time out. Perhaps he could simply pass it along to Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, then no one would notice or care about it, as she doesnt appear to have any standards at all these days, given the insane garbage that she routinely spews out for Mitt Romney day in and day out.

Updated: Rich Lowry's Post On Lord's Alleged Distortion Down The Memory Hole?

Update: Lowry's NRO post is back up this morning, someone claimed it was a coding error. I've never seen that at NRO before. If so, it might suggest Lowry was doing some editing post-publication and somehow messed up the coding. But not my area, so who knows. He has, in my opinion, still doubled down on stupid and insulting as the original post content lacked context making it appear to be Gingrich bashing Reagan. That was misleading. That is NOT the case, see for yourself here.

I've heard of Friday night doc dumps, but not literally dumping documents already published without some form of acknowledgement. Most any responsible blogger would view that as a breach of protocol. What to make of this by NRO editor Rich Lowry? The title remains but the body of the post is gone for now.

Hmm, no response yet from Rich on Twitter. I guess we'll just have to wait. Below are screencaps of the original post from a reader who emailed same from before it disappeared, if one's interested. One should be able to click to expand the images and read them in sequence if desired.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3 

Image 4

 

Who Is Paul Mulshine?

On December 15th, Newark Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine quoted a controversial excerpt from an old Ron Paul newsletter, then doubled-down in defending it. I find it curious that a large, mostly liberal newspaper in New Jersey would prop up supposedly conservative, Ron Paul supporting columnist Paul Mulshine to represent the Right given some of Mulshine's musing and his own newsletter past.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Oh my God! How could someone write such a thing? Perhaps because it's not just opinion polls that show that few blacks have sensible political opinions. Have these guys ever read election returns? Exit polls? 

For the record, Mulshine considers himself far more enlightened than we lowly bloggers, even taking to the Wall Street Journal to tell us so.

If you haven’t read this morning’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, “All I Wanted for Christmas Was a Newspaper”, it’s just the kind of arrogant-clueless screed by a newspaperman against the blogosphere that elicits first anger, then pity.

As for other Conservatives, former Reagan speech writer Jeffrey Lord, who now writes at the American Spectator, is "perhaps the worst writer among the so-called "neo" conservative pundits, a dreadful bunch of prose stylists...." Limbaugh and Hannity are also mere neo-cons, in Mulshine's vernacular, and author of "Liberty and Tyranny" and the soon to be released "Ameritopia", Mark Levin is a Marxist, according to the Ledger's one true conservative, Paul Mulshine. How can you take a guy like that seriously?

Yet, here is the masterful Mulshine weighing in on AIDS in an old David Horowitz newsletter of sorts, Heterodoxy in January 1994. Does this sound like an enlightened Conservative to you, or a chapter out of Ron Paul's book that recently made news for pretty much the exact same sentiment? Whatever the case, it is representative of the type of thinking the liberal Star Ledger opts to use as demonstrative of Conservative thought.

Perhaps it's because AIDS continues to act in a politically incorrect manner. HIV is like a smart bomb seeking out all those groups beloved by liberals: homosexuals, drugusing minorities, people from the Third World—virtually every PC-approved group except lesbians.

(When a purported case of lesbian-to-lesbian HIV transmission was reported recently, lesbians greeted the news like the Immaculate Conception; finally, they were victims too, entitled to all the rights and privileges.)

And the most un-PC thing about HIV lies in the people it spares: white heterosexual males, most particularly those who live in suburbia de him feel "gayer." Which it no doubt did. All indications are that, as it concerns American sex lives, AIDS will remain "a gay disease." Gay activists hate that locution, not only because it's true, but because it points up the inherent flaw in the gayrights movement.

If society is going to create a new class of civil rights based on behavior, society has a right to demand that that behavior either be in society's interests or at the very least be harmless. But the behavior of gay Americans in the last two decades has fit neither of those criteria.

In the Jan/Feb issue, it was black intellect, or the lack thereof, that caught Mulshine's attention, again, on a Nation cruise. No doubt they came away thinking we Conservatives are a thoughtful, enlightened bunch after this.

But atleast it's not only black women incapable of rational thought in Mulshine's world view. Women don't seem to have much to offer when it comes to logic and reason - Math being proof of that, as it is for male's only, evidently. But Mulshine can't resist including minorities, too, for some odd reason, which undercuts his reasoning given that includes the male of the species, or race, in this case. So, what is Mulshine really thinking with this?

Certain questions are hard to face for us beleaguered white males. We don't want to consider the real reason, for instance, why women and minorities do worse than we do on standardized tests such as the SAT. We hide behind the easy excuse: the test is culturally biased. This is the easy way out, and like most easy ways out, it is not true. The test isn't biased. It is mathematics itself that is biased.

Only in a male-dominated, Eurocentric world would two plus two always have to equal four. Always! There's no room for discussion, no area for compromise. Just the same rigid answer, day after day. This is exactly the sort of system you'd expect a white male to set up. Why, just look at the number one! It's the very first number men invented, and what's it shaped like? All straight and rigid and pointy like that?

I rest my case. Math is unfair. It's time we started to raise consciousness about the need to make mathematics more flexible. We need to get rid of the ludicrous idea ' that there's just one "correct" answer to every math problem. We need to soften and, yes, feminize math. This is, of course, a ludicrous proposal, but if I were to write a book on this theme under a female pen name, perhaps with a picture of a lesbian in a muumuu on the back cover, I'd have a best-seller. Let's face it: Women hate math. Not all women, just the type of women who end up as militant feminists and, for that matter, the type of foggy-brained males who support them.

Whatever his thinking, or the Ledger's motivations,  it does cause one to wonder precisely what interest is being served by having Mulshine hold court as representative of Conservatism at a mostly liberal large newspaper. Are they shedding light on a different type of thinking to give readers a glimpse of Conservatism, or do they enjoy him as a parody of sorts, while painting an otherwise ridiculous view of Conservatives for their readers? If it's that, it would make Paul Mulshine the Star Ledger's useful idiot. But then, on the upside, at least he'd be useful for something besides getting a paycheck to spout nonsense in that case.

FishBowlDC's Ignorant, Inaccurate Sexist Attack On Michelle Fields

If one takes the full 58 minutes to watch a substantive and informative Brian Lamb, Michelle Fields interview (at bottom) upon which FishBowlDC's latest hit job on Fields is based, you will find out what a truly despicable hit job it is, lacking in both substance and accuracy. The interview is very worthwhile for those inclined to take politics, media, and most especially their nexus, seriously. FishBowlDC should also correct a manufactured quote from Fields - see below.

Fields reveals herself to be thoughtful, substantive and accomplished, albeit still relatively young in age. But that isn't what FBDC wants you to think, or know of her, obviously.

”What we’re doing is almost like citizen journalism. Which is basically when an individual who doesn’t have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event, but doesn’t’ have a background in journalism.” Hear that kids? Screw school and hard work. Get an iPhone and go capture yourself a job in journalism. Really, Michelle. You’re off to a super start. There’s 58 and a half more minutes to go.

Actually, Fields took school very seriously based upon her telling of it, was extremely active in Libertarian causes and organized activism and, given her age, her grasp of New Media, as opposed to old, seems almost intuitive at this point. I'd wager she's also vastly more informed than they on her subject matter based upon the reading she cites. Unfortunately, FBDC didn't allow any of that to get in the way of their petty attempt to malign someone who looks to be a rising star in Right-side media - and clearly Fields is that for reasons that matter, not simply because of her good looks.

When talking about her reporting on the Occupy movement, she says, “We’re not doing what a typical journalist does. Which is they go.. They have their mic, they do their standup, maybe interview two or three people, put together B-Roll.” Hear that, Martha Raddatz? All those trips to Iraq PALE in comparison to the time that Michelle braved the front lines of Wall Street.

Acutally, they do pale as compared to Fields work in this instance. Fields went with the textbook Right-side view of the movement, was pushed down and apparently hit by police, treated with kindness by the protesters, and so came away with an entirely different, if snap-shot view of events. And because she is of the Right, her reporting has far more authenticity than would that of your typical mainstream media journalist. Her efforts there reveal all the best a more citizen-based media has to offer, as an adjunct to traditional media. That FBDC would so malign it only demonstrates their wholly superficial, if not downright silly, view of such matters.

Later in the interview, she opines on the differences between the today’s reportage and yesterday and tells us that “people want biased journalism. They want people to tell them what their opinion is.”

Factually, what Fields is saying there is that people want their news people to be more honest about who they are and what they think, not tell the consumer what to think. Current trends in media completely support that conclusion. FBDC turns it on it's head to fire but one more embarassingly errant shot at Fields.

In fact, the quote below (emphasis added) isn't even accurate. It pieces together two different disconencted sentences. And what Fields actually says in the second sentence is, "People want someone to tell them what they think," not "to" as FBDC suggests. They, again, meaning the anchor, or journalist. FishBowlDC needs to offer up a correction for the misquote, assuming they have any standards for something akin to decent journalism.

As the interview winds down, Lamb asks where Michelle would like to see her career go. She says she would like to be “in the media. As a journalist. Maybe an anchor.” Let’s not get carried away, Michelle. Reality can be a dear friend sometimes. Lamb asks if America is ready for an anchor who gives opinions and Michelle doubles down on her journalistic philosophy. “I think people want opinions.  People want someone to tell them what to think.”

Along with discussing her own political coming of age, such as it is, Fields discusses her late Father, the values instilled in her by him and her thoughts on media, both New and old, all with the depth and substance one hour allows. The clips Lamb includes are telling and point to her already significant contributions via New Media.

From millionaires and billionaires advocating for higher taxes, while refusing to make voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt, a quote from the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee on Herman Cain, "He had it coming, didn't he," her work has often gone viral for good reason. It contains insights, or observations establishment media doesn't seem able to deliver, for whatever reason - ones that people want, based upon web traffic. Her explaining Reddit and Twitter to the aging Lamb is also telling, as far as the changing of the guard in media. For a student of New Media and the new faces coming up that will be making it, the Lamb, Fields interview is well worth one's time.

Read the FBDC item, then take time to watch the full hour and decide for yourself which is supercilious and not much worth one's time, as opposed to what appears to be a very substantive young woman well on her way to saying something important enough that many people will want to hear it via New Media.

It's hard to imagine what kind of petty jealously would allow what now seems to be a vendetta of sorts, aimed at discrediting Fields, painting her as simply some bimbette. So, yes, the attack is utterly sexist, undeserved and, frankly, rather despicable in its attempt to marginalize a bright, young new voice. Perhaps FBDC editor Betsy Rothstein is simply feeling her age and that life and media are passing her by, or the writer, this Peter Ogburn, can't manage to get a date. But, whatever it is behind it, it certainly can't be any more worthy, or worthwile, than is the shoddy and malicious bit of work it ultimately produced.

The Aging Of Ann Coulter

Time was, there were huge debates and often heated arguments between bloggers out here over Ann Coulter. It boiled down to, is her style worth it? Does it attract, or turn off potential allies? In that sense, Bill Jacobson has it wrong.

Coulter isn't becoming "a political kamikaze." She's always been that. Her misfortune, assuming she even cares, is that her bombast isn't currently being directed at the Left; it's targeting the very people who were more prone to view her positively. In that sense, her brand is still about going down in flames, but for a different audience.

It's really nothing new, the net effect is that Ann Coulter is getting very old. See Bill Jacobson's take on Ann Coulter over at Legal Insurrection.

Ann, we get it, you support Mitt and you don’t like Newt. Nothing wrong with that, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But in the quest to sink the U.S.S. Newt, you are becoming a political kamikaze.

Shall We Ask Jennifer Rubin Who Won The Debate? Oh, Why Bother

Seriously, do we even have to ask Rubin who she thought the winners and losers were last night? Take a guess. Reading her primary commentary is like watching a one-legged woman trip the light-weight hacktastiq, ultimately falling flat on her face.

Winners: Romney (who might have revived his frontrunner status) and Bachmann.

Losers: Gingrich and Paul.

Here's a little something Rubin appears to have missed entirely. My Tweet:

Chris Wallace is wrapping up Mitt Romney and tying him in a knot

Rubin also entirely misses perhaps Romney's biggest strategic error. By pretending to already have the nomination locked up, he's been busy talking compromise, while many are looking for a Conservative. I pointed that out in real time on Twitter, as well. If it resonates with Iowa voters, as it did with me, a WaPo hack like Rubin in the tank for Romney isn't going to be able to help him at all.

I get that Mitt is making it look like he's debating Obama, but in context, it makes him look detached from this particular discussion -- by the time Mitt shifts Left for the general election, he'll be on the other side. Geesh!

I think the debate was, in many ways a wash, but Newt had as many, if not more, strong moments, than weak ones. Frankly, I don't want Newt, I still like Perry. But suggesting he was a loser, as some Beltway pundits and flacks like Rubin are doing is purely a reflection of their seeing what they want to see.

As I also noted on Twitter last night, the media and GOP establishment lined up against Newt may be his biggest asset right now. Thanks, Jenn. Via the AP at your paper's site - of all places - here's where Chris Wallace humiliated your guy, in case you missed it.

However, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, with help from Santorum, bore in on Romney’s biggest liability: his changed positions on gun control, gay rights and particularly abortion. Romney gave his standard response about having a change of heart regarding his former support for abortion rights. He then got drawn into a complicated back-on-forth about what he meant when he vowed in 1994 to be a better defender of gay rights than Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., whom he was trying to unseat.

Rubin may also want to have a look at Aaron Goldstein's take at AmSpec which is honest and balanced, attributes Rubin's stain of punditry clearly lacks.

However, Romney wasn't so sure footed when it came to Chris Wallace's question concerning Romney's positions on abortion and gay marriage. This will only serve to reinforce the reservations conservatives have had towards Romney.

Newt Gingrich - True to the tortoise-like nature of his campaign, he started slow but finished fast and strong. He was on the defensive early in the debate when he jostled with both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann on Fannie & Freddie.

... But by the end of the night, Newt had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand. It all started with his proposals to restrain the power of the judiciary and continued with his statements on the UN, the Keystone Pipeline, and even immigration when he said on his first day as President he would drop immigration lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina and cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities. Newt struck the right balance of historical perspective, eloquence, and good humor.