Riehl World View

Dear Spineless Cowards: STFU About Santorum's Religion-based Comments

2012-02-18T16:51:15-05:00

I'm going to move on from this issue, as I'm tired of people whining about various religion-based comments Santorum has made over time. What is wrong with you people? Are you incapable of understanding what he is actually saying, or simply clueless that the promiscuity and deterioration in certain values America now lives with due to the sexual revolution have had profoundly negative consequences on our society in some ways?

It's an acknowledged fact, one Santorum has also clearly stated he does not believe one can reverse through legislation, executive action, or something governmental in nature. There is no there there to all this nonsense, except for the sheepish way some of you are bowing to pressure from a liberal media intent on making a big deal of it.

If that isn't enough for you, the current occupant of the White House worshipped at the church of Reverend Wright for one, or two decades. But, hey, no problem with that - it's personal because it's his religion, or whatever. Yet, you want to tell me Santorum's devout Catholicism makes him unsuitable for the presidency? What kind of gutless wonders are you people, anyway? You call yourself conservative fighters but lack the intelligence, or can't muster the courage to push back against silly bullshit like this from the liberal media? Then, go away. I'm tired of hearing and reading your clueless whining.

So, STFU about it, or at least be sure to keep it out of my face. Because, all I'm going to do going forward is call you spineless, or clueless, and tell you to kiss my ass.

SANTORUM: Well, good. I -- you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by -- by -- I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul's campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is -- I think it's -- I think it's Title 10, which is -- which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.

And so, you know, it's funny that on the conservative side, I'm getting ripped for having voted for this. And now all of a sudden, the left is trying to make me out that somehow I -- you know, I want to stop women, or men for that matter, from getting -- you know, doing things and taking things for contraception.

That -- look, I have my own views on these things. They're deeply held beliefs. But not everything that I think is -- that I disagree with morally should the government be involved in. Only when there is -- there are -- there are real consequences to society or to the -- or to the rights of individuals do I -- do I feel a need to speak out. And that's why I do on the issue of abortion because we have another -- we have another person involved in the decision.

But the issue of contraception, that's not the case. It's something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency.

Romney: From Electable To Not Credible In Sixty Seconds

2012-02-18T14:57:23-05:00

First, a brief word on Newt, who I endorsed. Get over it. Adelson may be happy to use him as a stalking horse for his second choice, Romney, but I'm not. I understood the warnings going in and accepted them, but in South Carolina, Romney got under Newt's skin and he self-destructed.

We all saw how erratic and ego driven he became. He looked frumpy and angry in the debate and gave a flat, wonky speech at CPAC that I gave a solid A on policy, but an F, politically. I don't care if he gets another $10 mil and has a good week, or two. Once bitten, twice shy and he'll never pull enough people back to be competitive. There's no point in backing a guy who very well may self-destruct again a week, or a month later, let alone never survive a general election. There's now no reason to believe he could ever do that, especially against Team Obama.

That said, I'll defend him against unfair criticism, as well as defend Santorum against same, just as I have been doing all along. But Newt's ship has sailed and his supporters may as well switch to Romney, as that's what backing Newt at this point means. And Adelson, along with most everyone else, knows it.

As for Romney being electable, it's time to put that myth behind us. If one had doubts as to his political viability after 2008, when he couldn't beat a once broke John McCain, or a Mike Huckabee, what we've witnessed this year should tell every one that Mitt is a losing proposition. You can not drop hundreds of millions of dollars into a SuperPAC and beat an incumbent president by destroying him with ads. Because of his image, along with his weak political and communication skills, that's the only trick Mitt has in his bag and it's simply not going to cut it for the general election.

Whether Romney is able to drag Santorum down enough to win his own state is debatable; that alone is enough to tell us what a failed proposition would be a Romney nomination.

GOP HEAVIES MAY SEEK NEW HORSE IF MITT BUCKED ON FEB. 28: 'If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate' -- Doing the Hail Mary math
Most reporters still think Romney “will find a way to win Michigan.” Nevertheless, some of the nation’s most powerful Republicans are poring over filing deadlines and pondering worst-case scenarios.

Consider this, Santorum has been running a campaign on a shoe string. His campaign headquarters may as well be the back seat of his car. If an Adelson-type had given him Newt money, we wouldn't even be having this conversation - Romney would have withdrawn at CPAC for the second presidential contest in a row.

The ultimate in silliness is the same people who are still insisting Romney is electable, are also saying Santorum is not. Well, if Santorum isn't - and I don't buy that - then Romney shouldn't even be on the ballot, or mentioned in the pages of serious pundits. Given Santorum's besting Romney in so many state and national polls, one would have to be an idiot, or a Romney sychophant, to be pushing those two conclusions at the same time. They are unsupportable by anything close to objective, logical reasoning. More from link above.

Our friend handed us a printout of FEC deadlines for ballot access, with five of them circled and starred: California (March 23), Montana (March 12), New Jersey (April 2), New Mexico (March 16) and South Dakota (March 27). The point: Even after Feb. 28, it might be possible to assemble a Hail Mary candidacy that could garner enough delegates to force a CONTESTED convention (a different nuance than BROKERED, which implies that someone is in charge).

While the constituent groups and demographics to make Santorum a winner in the general election may look somewhat different than anticipated going in, I do believe Santorum has as good, if not a better chance than Romney to win the general election. He's already besting Romney with next to nothing in resources - a far cry from Mitt's situation.

Whether Mitt wins the nomination, or the nominee is ultimately selected at the GOP convention, I've no idea. But even if Romney somehow manages to dig himself out of his current hole and prevail, the experience of Romney 2008 and Romney 2012 suggests only a fool would believe the GOP will be going into the general election with anything other than a loser as a politician. The accompanying fall off in GOP turn out could also cost us desperately needed House and Senate seats.

Adelson may be willing to take that bet by using Newt as a stalking horse to keep Santorum down and give us Romney, conservatives should not.

If You Don't Believe Santorum Is Electable, You Don't Believe In Conservatism, The GOP, Or Yourself

2012-02-17T14:21:34-05:00

I've said repeatedly, I have not endorsed Santorum and I am not endorsing him now. It's a trivial thing for a blogger to do in any event. Who really cares in the end? It makes no significant difference and is more about the blogger, than any one candidate due to our limited reach. And that goes for them all. However, this is the latest from Rasmussen - not me.

National GOP: Santorum 39%, Romney 27%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 10%

Follow the bouncing ball. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has now bounced to a 12-point lead over Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

If you insist that Rick Santorum is un-electable at this point, but call yourself a Republican - which I don't btw - then you are wasting your time in the wrong party and may as well go Independent. I did when I left the Democrats and haven't joined another one since. But given these numbers, there is no valid argument in suggesting Santorum would not be an acceptable nominee for the GOP, any more than one can say that about Romney at this point.

But if you are a conservative looking at these numbers and saying Santorum can't win, then you may as well give it up, or stop calling yourself a conservative, because you don't believe enough in what you profess to believe in to even fight for it when called. You assume conservatism is a loser out of the gate. Frankly, I don't believe that, which is why I became one in my twenties. I believe it not only can win in America but must for America to remain strong. And I am always willing to fight to put that assumption to the test.

If you aren't, then I would suggest you are simply wasting your time and the time of others by even considering yourself associated with the cause. Change your ideology, or take up another hobby. Buy a bicycle, or take up knitting, so you have something to show for your efforts at the end of the day. Because if you claim to believe in conservatism but aren't willing to fight for it in America, especially in this day and age, then, frankly, you have and will end up with nothing you want at all.

Leave it to the people who actually believe in both conservatism and themselves enough to fight for those things and to represent conservatism. Because, whatever it is you claim to believe in, obviously, you really don't. You're just clutter on the road to an ever increasing statism and it would be better for everyone, including yourself, if you simply got the hell out of the way.

James Taranto Should Be More Careful

2012-02-17T00:43:18-05:00

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.

Fear and Feminism - Some criticism of Rick Santorum is downright irrational.

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.

Did Romney Steal "Prank" Story From The Internet?

2012-02-16T21:00:56-05:00

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.

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

2012-02-16T12:29:06-05:00

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

Ace Is Only Fooling Himself With High-Minded Nonsense

2012-02-16T10:25:58-05:00

This is a perfect case of self-delusion from Ace of Spades aka high-minded nonsense. Now, I haven't backed Santorum and didn't know Ace's most recent quest has apparently been to attack him for anything and everything in the name of all things Romney.

It doesn't surprise me, as Ace has almost always gone for the allegedly safe establishment squish over the years. If anything, I was surprised he backed Perry in the first place. Someone must have influenced him, as he seems incapable of genuine free thinking on his own terms.

Last night, simply for pointing out a flaw in an argument he was attempting to make, not necessarily disagreeing with him on Santorum, by the way, he attacked me personally because he couldn't comprehend the argument. Later, he came back and started name calling. Whatever. I've been friendly to him over the years but he can go his own way, no skin off my nose. But he then went on his blog and scribbled this nonsense below, while his reality is the complete opposite of what he claims and probably believes it is. It's not the least bit libertarian in nature and his thinking has far more in common with leftism.

I grew up on the East Coast. For a while, I lived in California.

I was blown away to learn that people could just start bonfires on the beach, whenever they liked.

Now, to be honest, I learned on this when the government was trying to crack down on the practice, but I was blown away at the idea that a private citizen could, in this country, previous to changes in this law at least, simply create a bonfire on the beach and enjoy it. Just because he wanted to.

Then I started to think like this: What kind of a mind-screw did they do on me when I should be surprised that people would be allowed to do this?

You see what I mean? My default mental state, thanks to the more statist area I grew up in (at least as far as bonfires) was that of course I wasn't permitted by The State to build a bonfire and enjoy it.

My default belief, absent any external stimulus, was that of course that would be an Illegal Act, and of course I should not Break the Law.

And this is where I begin to get angry:

How much of each of our current mental landscapes are shaped by government such that we internalize the idea that the basic right to be left alone (presuming you're not destroying other's property) doesn't exist?

Now, I've already addressed this Santorum video pushed out by the Romney camp. In essence, Santorum says he's a devout Catholic who believes such and such; however, he respects the separation between church and state and doesn't want to pass laws based upon that personal belief.

In a sense, Santorum's stated world view defines the combination of conservatism and libertarianism that informed the Reaganite philosophy. It's values-based, without forcing said values upon the population beyond the notion of when life begins, which is not even addressed in the Christian bible, so far as I'm aware.

Yet, Ace, who, for whatever reason, suddenly wants his readers to believe he's a noble free thinker who has seen the light on the beach and knows the enemy is big government is only fooling himself. I guess he calls them morons for a reason, after all. The government isn't telling Ace how to think in Santorum's case, the media is. He's still marching to another's drum and doesn't even realize it, not standing romantically on some beach ready to fight back the storm of big government.

He's actually going with the big government establishment choice, Mitt "Romneycare" Romney, for heaven's sake. And why? All one can suppose is he's doing it out of fear of what the media will say of a devout Catholic who clearly states he would not advocate for laws based purely upon his religion; that, or Ace himself is an intolerant, anti-religious bigot. That's not to claim he is, or that I much care at this point, but to list the plausible options behind the choice he's making.

Personally, I don't much care what any of the candidate's religions happen to be. But if one is going to play that game, there's an even more solid case to be made that Romney's Mormonism will do him in in the general because Catholics and many protestants don't embrace it. I'm not letting any of that nonsense influence my thinking as regards any of the current candidates.

One will never have the fortitude to fight effectively against big government if one is so willing to scream like a spanked bitch over a paper cut delivered by a liberal press that detests organized religion. One can cave to it if he or she wants. But to then hold his or herself out as some self righteous free thinking warrior for small government is laughable. To be fair, at least that fits with the notion of Ace as a first-rate humorist, which he often is. Perhaps he should stick with that and give up on the whole deep thoughts on politics shtick. He doesn't seem able to pull that off nearly as well.

WaPo's Rubin Smears Santorum Over His Religious Beliefs

2012-02-16T08:44:34-05:00

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's Foolish Pap Smear

2012-02-15T21:18:14-05:00

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.

Congress, Media Matters And The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

2012-02-15T09:34:57-05:00

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.

Melissa Updates Her CPAC Post - And Stacy McCain Weighs in

2012-02-14T23:10:14-05:00

Melissa Clouthier has updated her post on CPAC with regard to certain dress and behavior.

As I expected would happen, Stacy McCain jumps in.

A, hopefully, final point or two from me. My ex had two sons and a daughter who came of age under our roof at the time. How I felt, or how I counseled them, or tried to, about such things was quite different than my reaction to young people at CPAC.

From my previous post:

CPAC is about politics, not parenting.

If I had seen a person, young or old, behaving in a manner I thought genuinely problematic in some way at CPAC, I could have approached them about it. I didn't see it. I assume neither Erick nor Melissa said anything to them at the time. That's probably for the best.

I love Melissa, she really is a dear friend (though I always give her room to deny it ; ) ) but I fail to see anything productive coming from two older farts, like me, clucking their tongues about this on the Internet after the event.

There are far worse places for a young person to be in this day and age than at CPAC - however they are dressed, or perhaps behave on any one night. And no matter how they were dressed, or acted, I appreciate and even admire the fact that something mattered enough to them to draw them to CPAC - certainly it wasn't only the opposite sex here or there at, or after, the day's events. I have no desire to discourage such participation by anyone. Enough said.

Ack! I Agree With Andrew Sullivan

2012-02-14T16:58:45-05:00

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.

Most Underrated? WTF?

2012-02-14T15:48:52-05:00

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.

7) Most Underrated Blog: Presenter (Matt Lewis)

Legal Insurrection (Winner)
JammieWearingFool (Runner-Up)
Patterico
Pirate’s Cove
Riehl World View

Here's one item of mine from today, off to work on a Super Tuesday item for Big Government.

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.

3) Best News Blog: The Right Scoop (Winner) Big Government (Runner-Up) Gateway Pundit Verum Serum Weasel Zippers

Ma And Pa CPAC With Melissa And Erick?

2012-02-14T12:13:13-05:00

Via my dear friend Melissa, next time I want pics!!!

Erick Erickson wrote a must-read piece to the young men of the conservative movement. It’s good stuff and especially important considering men are to be future leaders at home, at church, etc. Women will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores.

Erick: More than a few of the twenty and thirty somethings who go to CPAC seem to treat it like an extension of their college days doing their best to hook up before passing out. It’s not the majority to be sure, but it is a noticeable minority.

Talk about blogs coming of age. In my opinion, CPAC is about politics, not parenting. If it takes hundreds of new folks with perhaps more libertarian, than traditional, leanings to infuse a more powerful right in America, I'll take it. And if some number of them are hotties in tube tops, I'll find a way to endure because I love America just that much. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! ; )

Daily Caller: Politico reporter withheld information? Really?

2012-02-14T10:35:10-05:00

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.

Romney Steps In It With Gay Marriage Line

2012-02-13T22:41:24-05:00

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...?

A Word On Ben Smith And The Caller Story

2012-02-13T20:49:28-05:00

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.

Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your way

2012-02-11T23:30:34-05:00

Singer Whitney Houston's untimely death at the age of 48 today has derailed the political clown cars off Matt Drudge's top of the fold and filled the Twitter stream with currents of emotional angst revealing more about the twitterers than Houston herself. We'd never thought much about the legendary singer one way or the other till tonight, when we heard of her passing, googled and discovered the transcendence of her Gospel-trained pop sound: I will always love you. We'd heard it before, just never made the connection. Breathtaking.

By Sissy Willis of sisu

It was going to be all about Mitt Romney's twofer tonight and tomorrow on the Sunday talk shows — winning the CPAC straw poll and then the Maine caucuses! — but now a transcendent singer has died at 48, and politics will just have to wait. It's Whitney Houston 24/7 till further notice …

Read full post here.

Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not Conservative

2012-02-11T21:27:32-05:00

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

2012-02-10T16:06:51-05:00

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

2012-02-08T10:13:30-05:00

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

Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of Romney

2012-02-08T08:54:21-05:00

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

2012-02-07T22:17:42-05:00

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

2012-02-07T18:56:02-05:00

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

2012-02-07T16:37:36-05:00

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

2012-02-07T14:14:36-05:00

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

2012-02-07T10:47:25-05:00

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.

Ann Coulter Naked

2012-02-06T09:04:44-05:00

Via David Catron at The American Spectator. Is it naked hypocrisy, naked dishonesty, naked opportunism, perhaps all of the above - or something else? Whatever it is, it's unsightly as hell and not worth looking at.

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

Yet Coulter, once the scourge of such malleable "moderates," has gone through some sort of transformation that has rendered her blind to Romney's cheap opportunism. And if the primary voters are foolish enough to follow her advice, they will rue the day they listened to her and the establishment Republicans with whom she has now made common cause. As Coulter herself pointed out last year when she spoke at CPAC, Barack Obama will be reelected in 2012 if the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney for President.

What Newt Did With The Media Last Night

2012-02-05T17:40:29-05:00

It's easy to miss the nuance underneath a campaign. Look what Newt did with the media last night, as opposed to how he has handled them in debates.

Freedom Works chairman and former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) blasted Newt Gingrich for his continued tough attacks on Mitt Romney saying Gingrich was carrying out a vendetta against the Republican frontrunner.

Along with needing to get Romney out of his head, while painting a positive vision for his campaign - Gingrich scores points when he's lambasting the media, not playing ball with them. His opening remarks last night were good, it's when he took questions that he went wrong.

Newt could have criticized the media for trying to drive wedges and inflame controversy between him and Romney. He could say he hates Romney's negativity but move on from there. Unfortunately, instead of doing that, Newt played ball with the media. They teed it up for him to hit Romney and he took the bait. He played their game, not his.

Instead of seeing them as an adversary, they were teamates last night. He always treats them that way behind the scenes. But by doing it at his presser, Newt lost the game. If he doesn't get a handle on it ASAP, he'll continue to unravel and Santorum will end up the last not Mitt standing for all practical purposes.