I don't disagree with anything James Taranto writes at the link below. It's a solid piece of analysis. But by combining feminism, irrationality and two women, Jennifer Rubin and Conor (with one N) Friedersdorf, I fear he may have opened himself up to charges of sexism.
This column has tended to agree with the conventional wisdom that among the Republicans running for president, Mitt Romney is the safest choice, the most "electable." See, for example, our rebuttal of Richard Miniter's contrarian column from late last month. We still think Romney, on balance, would be a stronger general-election candidate than Newt Gingrich for reasons of the latter's personal and political character. But Rick Santorum's surge has us thinking second thoughts about the electability question.
This story Romney told today to humanize himself may well be true. I have no idea. But I did find it interesting that it's so common, you can even buy stock photo images with shoes painted in such a manner. Also, an advanced Google search yields over 90,000 links to identical stories involving several different individuals and instances. Regardless, this speaks to Romney's core problem. So much of him has been manufactured for political purposes over the years, I simply don't take anything the guy says at face value. That will likely be a significant factor for many people in any general election if Romney wins the nomination.
“So I happened to go in the room where the groomsmen and the groom were. And I found the groom's shoes, the patent leather shoes that he had rented, and I took some of that shocking pink nail polish and I wrote something on the bottom of his shoes.
“And we went to the wedding and the minister gave a beautiful service and then he said let us pray and the couple knelt down. Now I hadn't calculated that everyone in the audience would put their head down in prayer so they couldn't see what I had written on his shoes.
“But slowly but surely people ahead of us began to shake a little bit and point up at the shoes and in bright pink letters it said H-E-L-P on the bottom of his shoes.
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."
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.
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.
Via Michael Gershon - to this Daily Beast link. While I don't see it as cut and dried and much depends on the framing of the debate into next Fall, I did find myself thinking about why Obama would make what appears to be such a colossal and obvious blunder with the contraception flap.
Conservatives gleefully revived the culture wars. But they're not winning. How Obama set a trap for the right.
This administration is many things, politically dumb isn't one of them. Something in some poling somewhere must be telling them there's just enough of an angle for them to exploit, along with their wanting social issues, not financial news, driving as much of the political discussion as possible.
That doesn't mean I think it's a sure winner for them, but if there weren't an angle, they wouldn't have made the play.
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.
Via Buzzfeed, which missed something of an attack angle from the right in this short Romney riff on gay marriage. Romney says he wanted to stop the gay marriage ruling so it didn't go across the country.
Too bad he wasn't thinking that way when he implemented the model for Obamacare at the state-level as Romneycare, huh? Or, was he...?
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.
Byron York began his column, "How would Mitt Romney be received? Would the conservative crowd embrace him enthusiastically, or hold him at a distance?" That caused me to think it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Romney, before pondering his ending a bit more.
So after an undoubtedly friendly reception, Romney's speech left questions in some conservative minds. Why, after all these years of campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, does he still feel the need to say the word "conservative" so many times that it calls attention to itself? And why, when he wanted to emphasize the strength of his conservatism, did he describe it as "severe"? The CPAC crowd was obviously receptive to Romney's message and his record. Why reach for more?
The simple answer is, Romney isn't conservative. Beyond that, his uncomfortable handling of the speech and the written text suggests he and whoever wrote it don't even think in those terms. He's been running for President as a Republican forever and obviously knows CPAC and a conservative movement exist, ... or does he? Ultimately, I'm reminded of something from Bush 43 I recently quoted in another context. Emphasis mine.
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer. Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC. Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make. “Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”
The harshest conclusion one could draw, fair, or not, is that Romney doesn't think in terms of liberal versus conservative, but perhaps more in terms of who is qualified to lead America and who is not. And that could almost be viewed as a question of class, unfortunately. Whatever it is, Romney seems to think he is of it (those qualified to lead America) and perhaps the people who attend CPAC - ones he deigns to appear before, now and again, without taking the time to understand them, or what they represent, are, perhaps, not.
Admittedly, there's much assumption in there and it may not be entirely fair. But Romney's clumsiness around and in speaking to them will likely continue to foster doubts among conservatives as to whether Romney genuinely takes what they believe in seriously, or not.
