Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List. FReepmail me to get on or off.
Posted on 01/05/2012 3:52:13 AM PST by expat1000
While other candidates were busy rising and falling, sinking and swimming, reaching out to experts and promoting themselves to insiders, Rick Santorum did things the old fashioned way. He campaigned. And the candidate whom the insiders ignored and disdained, came within a hair of winning Iowa.
So now it's another round of Pile on Santorum. After the previous round of Pile on Gingrich. Which is how we ended up with a match between Romney and Ron Paul. What exactly is the point of destroying Santorum I have to wonder? These attacks aren't really based on ideological opposition. Not for the most part. The war on Santorum in being waged to clear the way for some other candidate. And so every non-Romney candidate is being destroyed to make way for the one true Anti-Romney.
Who is the one true Anti-Romney? To some it's Perry, to others it's Gingrich and to others it's anybody but the candidates actually running.
There are many furious headlines being written castigating Santorum for somehow having sneaked under the radar without paying his dues by being lambasted by the conservative establishment for a week. The consensus is that he only almost won because all the other candidates crashed and burned. That might be true, but who tanked the other candidates? Aside from Cain, the liberal media hardly had to lift a finger. It was the gatekeepers of the establishment who did all the heavy lifting.
The National Review, which helped sink Gingrich, fires its biggest shotgun at Santorum by putting up a photo of him together with George W. Bush. It used to be Democrats that tried to sink Republicans with photos like that. But if we are going to disqualify any Republican who had his photo taken with Bush, the primary season just got a lot simpler.
The case against Santorum is that he is a "Big Government Conservative", all capital letters. That is the official talking point. But assuming that Santorum is a big government conservative, who are the small government conservatives? Romney, Perry, Gingrich?
When your competition are two state governors, one of whom was responsible for RomneyCare and the other for proposing a health insurance program for Mexicans, Santorum's transgressions like "national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in schools" don't seem that great a sin. What's left then for small government conservatism? Newt Gingrich? I like Gingrich, but he's not exactly immune to that charge by about a mile.
Worse still we are told that Santorum "voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey." Horrifyingly unelectable. How can anyone possibly support a candidate who opposes mass shipping of American jobs overseas. Americans might support such a candidate, but the Chamber of Commerce never will.
At the London Telegraph, James Delingpole asserts that Santorum is "so left on the issues that matter he makes even Mitt Romney look like a red meat conservative". So I suppose we have found our Anti-Romney and he is Mitt Romney. The only way to possibly stop Santorum's radical left-wing opposition to NAFTA and support for economic literacy programs in schools is by rushing to vote for Mitt Romney to save America.
Longtime readers know that I am not a strong supporter of any candidate. There are candidates that I like while acknowledging their flaws. Overall I have tried to be fair to any legitimate candidate in the field and tried to find something good to say about them. As the seemingly inevitable ascent of Romney continues, I will find something to like about him, if only that his name isn't Obama.
What irritates me is that the primaries have descended into the depths of personal destruction where spurious attacks are used by supporters of one side or another until the field is a mass of ridiculed and banished candidates, and our winner is the man with the least personality and the least interest in what we think of him.
Proxies and backers for one Anti-Romney or another, and for Romney, trade insults and undermine each other's candidates, and while they are often right on the facts, those critiques are context-free because they rarely compare one candidate to another. Unfortunately we are well past the point where we can hope for a perfect candidate or even a great candidate, all we are doing now is the dirty business of comparison shopping candidates, trying to decide which one fits in our budget and won't break down after a hundred miles. There is something deceptive about rival car salesmen tearing down every used Chevy because it doesn't handle like a Porsche, when all they've got to offer are used Fords and used Hondas.
This race has come down to three Anti-Romneys. If conservatives can unite around an Anti-Romney then Romney is in big trouble. If they can't then Romney is the nominee. It's that simple and everyone knows it. But who will the Anti-Romney be?
The proxies accuse everyone who isn't their candidate of secretly being in league with Romney, which gives the man a little too much credit. If Romney was that kind of evil supergenius then he would have won more elections. They emphasize the big government vices of the other side while underplaying their own man's big government peccadilloes. So let's lay all the cards on the table.
All three Anti-Romneys are flawed. Deeply flawed. Human beings are naturally flawed, professional politicians more so. They all have their strengths and their weaknesses and they aren't the same. They have all variously denounced big government while all serving in very big government positions. They all have electability issues. They have all screwed up and been the object of mocking laughter.
I am not here to endorse or promote any of them. I like two of them, but I don't know if either of them can win an election against the Community Organizer in Chief and his press corps, and that is what matters most to me. The third I dislike, but would still prefer over Romney.
This isn't about who you should support. You will all make that decision yourselves. This is about how the primary coverage has boiled down to a circular firing squad that is as dishonest as it could possibly be. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a candidate's flaws. It's a public service. What is wrong is pretending that a disqualifying flaw in one candidate is a minor blemish on another. That's not honest criticism, it's trying to sell a bad product by tearing down the competition.
There are no Porsches here. There isn't anyone who didn't exercise government power or fund government programs. And there also isn't anyone who isn't a critic of some forms of government power. Anyone who served in congress or oversaw a state and claims otherwise is a liar. And everyone is also jumping on the small government reform bandwagon with varying degrees of sincerity. And that means more debates over the difference between legitimate and illegitimate exercise of government power is. But the bottom line is that they're all 1989 Chevy's and all we can do is try to make a case for the car that will actually take us four years on one tank of gas without costing too much.
That means we all have to do the numbers for ourselves and decide what fits in our budget and look at our gut reaction to the product. You have to decide what you can and can't live with.What candidate's values fit yours and which of their positions cross the line.
We have had enough messiahs in tailored suits. We're not looking for a Greek deity, just a flawed man who can win an election and check some of the worst abuses of the past four years. That's not aiming very high, but barring the arrival of some wonderful third party candidate, it's what we've got. There are plenty of other options for checking government power at the congressional level and in other ways, but this is what we have in the way of options at the presidential level.
Will we come together around an Anti-Romney? Probably not. The same establishment that destroyed every potential Anti-Romney will do its best to finish off Santorum clearing the way for a Romney nomination. Gingrich has made one comeback after being destroyed by the establishment and another one can't be ruled out. Perry has been trying to make a comeback, but has lacked the forum to do it in. Any one of them can still become the Anti-Romney and history will change.
I can't predict the future, but there are lessons that can be taken away from the present. The establishment has internalized too much of the media's criticisms and the preoccupations of its influential backers. It is not truly interested in changing things, only in perpetuating the status quo. Too much of the conservative media and new media has echoed them creating a circular firing squad whose only real purpose was to make it impossible for anyone who isn't Romney to make it to the nomination. How much of this was intentional and how much of it was an inevitable outcome of website traffic driven economics and the growing adoption of Huffington Post and Drudge like coverage of politics by conservative media is difficult to say. But the outcome is clear and clearly unpleasant. The gossip website ethos of sensationalism and a predatory appetite for human failings trumping all else.
It is hard for idealism to thrive or even receive a fair hearing in an atmosphere of constant media cynicism where the only reason to build up a candidate is to tear him down again, where a sneering version of 1984's Two Minute Hate is always playing in every theater. The triviality of the debates was nothing compared to the triviality of the right of center media coverage of the candidates.
If we truly want another Reagan to emerge, then the forum has to be there to make it happen. And that means a serious discussion rather than a two second ridicule reel of some obvious flaw. It means digging deep into a candidate's positions, rather than airing their commercials or their talking points. It also means honestly examining flaws, rather than tearing down any rival candidates for no other reason then that their name isn't Rick or Newt. And it means opening yourself up to inspiration from even flawed candidates who have the potential to be more.
In 2012 we may have to settle for an Anti-Romney or even only an Anti-Obama, but it doesn't always have to be that way. And the change in tone that can make it happen begins with us.
And let the smears come--ALL of them—after he wins the nomination everything the MSM throws at him can be blown off with a “that's ancient history—already dealt with it—time to move on—or do you work for an “olds” organization?)
“There are many furious headlines being written castigating Santorum for somehow having sneaked under the radar without paying his dues by being lambasted by the conservative establishment for a week. The consensus is that he only almost won because all the other candidates crashed and burned. That might be true, but who tanked the other candidates? Aside from Cain, the liberal media hardly had to lift a finger. It was the gatekeepers of the establishment who did all the heavy lifting.”
Uh, it was the Purity Caucus that did most of that. They wanted to get rid of every non-Mitt candidate because of something they said that wasnt conservative enough.
And now, the guy that did nothing but stay in the shadows, lived in Iowa for weeks, and comes out almost in front is in the spotlight. The Purity Caucus doesn’t want him to get the same treatment because they have been pumping him as the “true conservative”, even though if you use their own standards, he is “no better”.
Well that’s too bad for him. He wants to be on top, Now he is going to have to do more than visit farms and malt shops.
Agreed. I’m a Perry-backer but I really like Santorum as well. My main concern with him is his financial/organizational sustainability for the long haul. But I do find it amusing that he is being labeled a “big government conservative” when I’ve never heard that term used about the biggest RINO moderate we have in the race. Perhaps it’s because in the case of Romney, it’s kind of hard to call him a conservative (big government or otherwise) with a straight face-though many in the establishment are trying their best.
I don’t know who’s going to ultimately emerge as the anti-Romney. I’m sticking with Perry till he decides to hang it up-but I think on the merits, Santorum would definitely be my second choice.
And while other Americans went to work every day, Rick Santorum campaigned in Iowa. Just like our current President, campaigning every day. No jobs.
What you say is totally unfair. Obama HAS A JOB he is supposed to be doing.
Santorum wants that job and it takes hard work to get it.
Santorum is also benefiting from being the anti-Gingrich. Many could never get completely comfortable with the potential that Bad Newt might show up at any time.
If they feel they have a choice, and someone who has a chance to win, I think we’ll see a lot of Gingrich’s support (what’s left of it) flock to that candidate, i.e. Santorum.
If Santorum turns in a solid second-place finish in NH, the money will start rolling in for him even faster and Newt’s time may be running out.
We’re not looking for a Greek deity, just a flawed man who can win an election and check some of the worst abuses of the past four years...
I am looking for Superman.
That man is Newt so long as he continues to intellectually eviscerate that Lame-O MuttTard.
Might be Perry, “IF!”, he can get his game on and sharpen his knives.
Could be Santorum but, he needs to learn commity of speech.
Romney is a corporate salesman and a good one. However, he has taken no position so he can be all things to all people.
My hope is that like any other “Me too” salesman he goes down in flames.
We need a couple more debates now that we have fewer voices, who diffuse the real thinkers and then we will see who really has a plan for America.
Mitt, with his 59 page/point proposal, which no one with ADD or a “Type A” personality would give more than 3 minutes of serious thought.
Santorum, who seems to be a good man and fairly conservative but lacks a Power Point plan and points that are quickly understood.
Newt, gets it and is a very flawed man. Hell, ain’t I? A record of real achievement from a conservative point of view?
You betcha!
I’ll spell it out in a second.
Rick, Rick, Rick. I took you on as a recommendation from a friend but you ain’t working it and I suspect you were talked into doing something maybe you hadn’t seriously considered before.
Doesn’t mean you couldn’t be a decent President but, dang it! Act like you want it and I can stay with you as an alternative to Mitt. As it is, all I can do is send you my hard earned loot and hope your voice mutes the governer but sadly, yours is the one that currently not heard.
Get with it or Go home. BTW, love what you are doing in Texas.
Romney’s positions and that of Newt’s are pretty well known.
One has acted them out and the other has not.
One is opportunist for the purpose of advancement, the other is a serious intellect and strategist whose performance in the past I very much agreed with.
In fact, I had to educate our new local host his 2nd day on the air. He made the unfortunate mistake of Praising Bill Clinton for Welfare Reform, the Balanced Budget and lowered taxes through capital gains tax cut.
Brian Sussman made an unfortunate mistake of trying to give Clinton credit on the one hand while demonstrating his errors on the other.
I called in and thanked him for deciding to become a full time talk jock but I wanted to correct his view about Clintons legacy. Not to be contrarian or take away from him or Bill Clinton but they were just plain wrong and I asked I might quickly demonstrate why Clinton deserved zero Credit and when I am through who really should get the credit, without insulting anyone.
So I quickly went through them:
Contract with America, who wrote it? Newt Gingrich was his reply.
That is correct.
Now to clear the record I’ll go through them in the order I think is most powerful:
Capital Gains tax cut-
Was thought of as a response to Clintons raising of taxes and as a tool to keep the investment community well, inevesting and spurring additional investment. That was a Contract with America initiative and a well thought out position by Newt.
There was some horse trading and Newt gave away something no one really cared about to get it and the economy kept going with the result being unemployment dropping from 7% to 4% in a few short years.
The host immediately got the idea, said he would probably rephrase his thought at the end and asked me to continue.
Balanced Budget -
Again, Newt gave Clinton some bases that were already on the secondary list, devised by Dick Cheney, as alternatives for closure. Clinton got a win for his anti-military wing, we gave away something we didn’t care about and got what we wanted.
Welfare Reform -
this was the end goal all along and with a new Republican majority Congress it easily passed the House only to have Clinton veto it.
No problem. The President has the bully pulpit but was embroiled in a few distractions at the time which made it possible for Newt, Dole and few others to take their case directly to the American people who were sick of welfare queens.
Clinton was made aware the American people and the Houses were very much in the majority and very excited about reforming welfare. Still, he vetoed it again and then tried to make the argument he was going to co-opt the argument and reshape welfare reform as he saw fit.
It became very apparent the American taxpayer had, had enough and so had the houses. The pressure became to much and Clinton relented with nary a change to the original welfare reform act.
While he took credit for welfare reform it was never his idea, never became a priority until politically forced.
This was a Newt idea and part of the Contract with America which he shepherded.
Mitt has done nothing like this and I can trust Newt to follow through on his positions.
Still, I am in the Bachman(was), Santorum or Perry Camp. They just need to catch and if they cant’ then I am with Newt, all....the ...way.
Welfare Reform, the Balanced Budget and lowered taxes through capital gains tax cut.
Who has a record like that?
Who can perform like that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.