Riehl World View

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.

Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not Conservative

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.

I certainly continue to have my doubts.

The Hidden Irony In Obama's Health Care Position

I was in the car and heard Sean Hannity questioning a liberal caller as to why one individual should be compelled to pay for another individual to have sex by underwriting their birth control, let alone perhaps deal with the consequences.

Then, it occured to me, in nearly every state in the union, it's illegal for you to pay for sex. How do you get from there to underwriting the cost of another's desired sexual activity in a nation supposedly based upon individual liberty? It simply does not compute.

NC's Renee Ellmers Waxes Henry Waxman

The gentlewoman refuses to yield to Waxy on the payroll tax cut extension. h/t Caleb Howe.

Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of Romney

Mr. Mitt "Nice Guy" Romney, recently focused on only attacking Obama, may be going away again as last night after being trounced in three states, the Romney campaign issued a statement similar to the one issued after South Carolina. That one mentioned Newt Gingrich. However, it could be complicated, as Romney's attacks on Gingrich may have helped drag down his numbers, contributing to last night's thrashing by Rick Santorum in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota.

Denver, Colorado (CNN) – As Rick Santorum counted up his victories Tuesday night, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney signaled the campaign would take a tougher approach toward his resurgent rival and portray him as a Washington insider.

In Colorado, last night Romney received 22,875 votes for 35% of the vote. In 2008, he received 33,288 for 60% of the vote. Santorum won with 26,372 for 40%.

In Missouri, Romney received 63,826 votes last night for 25% and second place. In 2008, he received 172,329 votes for 29% and third place. Santorum won with 138,957 for 55%.

As for Minnesota, Romney received 8,096 votes for 17% and third place behind Ron Paul. In 2008, Romney received 25,990 votes for 41% and first place. Santorum won with 21,436 for 35%.

Romney's trending coming off of his loss to John McCain in the 2008 primary is not positive. He attracted more votes as the not McCain alternative that year, than he has for the nomination. The low turnout across the primaries doesn't appear to be good news for the GOP in general, either. They've been counting on an energized base to defeat Barack Obama in November.

How Obama learned to stop worrying and love the super PAC

Obama "SuperPac" flip-flops "performance wear for politicians determined to win at any cost." Romney "SuperPac flip-flops, available with a variety of quotations, not shown. Click here for larger image.

By Sissy Willis of sisu

"If we fail to act, we concede this election to a small group of powerful people intent on removing the President at any cost," fast-talking campaign manager Jim Messina wrote in an email to the little people following a conference call with major bundlers last night, attempting to shift the blame for his boss's flip flop on super Pacs onto the opposition …

Like our own Massachusetts Junior Senator Scott Brown's limousine-liberal challenger Elizabeth Warren, faux populist Barack Obama has depended upon the magician's trick of misdirection to draw our attention away from the major gifts of the influential "1 percent" to focus on the small contributions of the great unwashed "99 percent." Warren is still peddling that snake oil, but Obama has finally pulled back the curtain, signaling his own "small group of powerful people" that it's now okay to contribute to an outside super PAC supporting his re-election …

Read full post at here.

Romney Would Fit Right In On The Ninth Circuit Court

If Romney couldn't be trusted after he was elected governor, how can he be trusted if he's elected President? This fits right in with today's news on Prop 8 and even more so with Obama's war on religion. It's starting to look a lot like a dictatorship with liberal courts siding with liberal politicians.

BOSTON, December 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.

Of Mice And Meteors ... Conservatives And Santorum

Obviously, as a Conservative, I'm a not Mitt. I backed Newt because his numbers took off and have always said I'd back Santorum if his did. I'm not withdrawing my support for Gingrich. But I don't bash conservatives unless I absolutely have to for some unusual reason - I support them. They're the ones out there taking the bullets, while we mostly opine. That's the easy part. It's also why I consistently pushed back against Redstate when it was foolishly attacking Santorum early.

As for Santorum, who most expect to have a good day today, I'll leave it at this below.

Rush Limbaugh:

“Everybody is guilty of some transgression somewhere against conservatism, except Santorum,” Limbaugh said Tuesday after noting that Newt Gingrich had debated John Kerry on global warming, and “they agreed on practically every point. Nobody is innocent.”

The audio of the comment was promptly picked up by DailyRushbo.com, a website dedicated to hosting news from conservative media outlets, in a blog post titled, “Did Rush Limbaugh just endorse Rick Santorum in Fla. primary?” — before being circulated by a number of other conservative blogs.

Mark Levin:

Mark Levin says he’ll support the nominee no matter who it is, however when it comes down to his preferences among the current GOP candidates, if he were to vote today it would come down to two people: Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

Add in Michelle Malkin - her latest: Santorum’s got game and Ed Morrissey for their Santorum endorsements and you'll understand why I told Stacy the meteor BS was pretty much just that. But did he listen? Noooo. Heh!

Stacy McCain on Santorum:

This looks to be a big day for Rick Santorum, which probably explains why last night Erick Erickson began apocalyptic doomsaying:

Squish Pawlenty Bashes Santorum As Not Conservative Enough

Seriously, Pawlenty is such a lightweight, of course he's with Romney. He turned tail and ran after losing a straw poll to Bachmann. So much for resolve and leadership. One can't get much more squishy than Tiny Tim Pawlenty.

Naturally, he's now carrying water for the other cipher in the race. If it's Romney versus Obama next Fall, we can call them both zero. And Pawlenty looks like a zero for this, too. What business does he have saying anything about who is, or isn't, a solid conservative? If it takes one to know one, Pawlenty wouldn't know a conservative from the hole in his head that convinced him to run away so early on.

In a conference call this morning, Romney backer and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty lit into Santorum, suggesting that the former Pennsylvania senator isn’t as conservative as he claims to be.

“I wanted to focus this morning on the notion that Rick Santorum is presenting to caucus attendees in Minnesota and to conservatives beyond, that Rick Santorum is really as conservative as those caucus attendees, and he’s not,” Pawlenty said.

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.