Skip to content

Nomination Excitations: Over Under Sideways Down

23 March 2012 @ 09:35


-Stacy McCain is on the road again in the next leg of his Fear And Loathing 2012 Tour. He arrived in Louisiana last night, site of a primary on Saturday, and attended a Newt Gingrich event. He filed a report this morning over at The American Spectator on that and the endgame of Newton Leroy’s campaign.

A highlight:

The fact is that, despite having raised more than $20 million for his campaign, Newt is now broke — the latest Federal Election Commission report showed Gingrich’s campaign running in the red. He has won 135 delegates, according to Associated Press projections, and has vowed to go "all the way to Tampa," but if he loses in Louisiana on Saturday, it’s impossible to imagine how he can continue actively campaigning even another week, much less until the GOP convention in August.

-He also published a post over at his place on how ‘everybody went crazy’ while he was on his way there. Indeed things were out where the buses don’t run yesterday. The most interesting [and the saddest] example was Instapundit joining the Chrous Hysterical. Because I respect Glenn Reynolds, I will put his instafoolishness down to suffering from mental campaign exhaustion.


-The occurrence that drove Instapundit over the virtual edge was Rick Santorum’s statement, as reported by Arlette Saenz of ABC News:

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

Matt Lewis for the defense [tip of the fedora to Pundette]:

His argument is (and you can disagree with it) is that voters just might make the calculus that, if you’re going to have to settle for Obama Lite any way, you might as well stick with Obama.

… If you’re going to have to settle for RomneyCare, why not stick with ObamaCare?

(Note: I know Santorum said “we,” but I’ve heard the shtick enough times to know what he meant. And what he meant was that “we” — the voters — want a clearer contrast.)

…Romney’s response — that he was “disappointed to hear that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican” — was utterly misleading. I’m not surprised the media outlet that broke this story attempted to generate some buzz with it, nor am I surprised the Romney campaign has attempted to blow this out of proportion. What does surprise me, however, is how many people have bought into it.

I fault Mr. Santorum only for not wording it as clearly as Mr. Lewis does.

I am reminded of the old saying [by Harry Truman, if I am correct]: If the choice is between a Democrat and a ‘Democrat’, the people will choose the Democrat every time. And don’t forget this other one: Better the devil you know.

Mr. Lewis and others believe that Mzz Saenz wanted to generate news, especially considering that Rick Santorum has been saying the same thing in his speeches for months. In other words, this is a case of the Left wanting to create another negative narrative against the Right. I think he’s right. Therefore, this is a perfect time to Just Say ‘So?


Mark Steyn has a weird vibe, man [tip of the fedora to Pundette]:

Let’s take it as read that Rick Santorum is weird. After all, he believes in the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, the traditional socio-religious understanding of a transcendent purpose to human existence. Once upon a time, back in the mists of, ooh, the mid–20th century, all these things were, if not entirely universal, sufficiently mainstream as to be barely worthy of discussion. Now they’re not. Isn’t the fact that conventional morality is now "weird" itself deeply weird? The instant weirdification of ideas taken for granted for millennia is surely mega-weird — unless you think that our generation is possessed of wisdom unique to human history. In which case, why are we broke?

Look, I get the problem with a Santorum candidacy. And I get why he seems weird to Swedes and Aussies, and even Americans. If you’re surfing a news bulletin en route from Glee to Modern Family, Santorum must seem off-the-charts weird, like a monochrome episode that’s been implausibly colorized from a show too old even for TV Land reruns. It would be healthier to thrash these questions out in the culture, in the movies and novels and pop songs. But Hollywood has taken sides, and the Right has mostly retreated from the field. And somebody has to talk about these things somewhere or other. Our fiscal crisis is not some unfortunate bookkeeping accident that a bit of recalibration by a savvy technocrat can fix. In the United States as in Greece, it is a reflection of the character of a people. The problem isn’t that Rick Santorum’s weird, but that a government of record-breaking brokeness already busting through its newest debt-ceiling increase even as it announces bazillions in new spending is entirely normal.

Dead solid perfect.

Mr. Santorum is trying to get people to understand the eternal truth that a government and a society are only a good and virtuous as the people who inhabit them. If any sound reforms do get implemented, they will not be long for this world if we don’t reform our own corrupted souls. We have to recapture those virtues that animated the actions of The Founding Generation. We have to reject the Leftist Thinking parasite that is slowly eating away within each and every one of us. Six generations of imbecility is enough.


Jeff Goldstein on Willard’s praising of George Bush’s and Hank Paulson’s economic policies in 2008 [tip of the fedora to Wombat-Socho's Live At Five]:

I’m not sure what’s worse here: that the GOP’s “inevitable” candidate, touted by the GOP establishment and their lapdogs for his “electability,” is now on record as praising the economic portion Bush presidency; or that he is now on record as claiming that it was TARP — supported by Obama and rejected by conservatives — that saved us from a depression.– Which, I guess once you’ve decided that we’re in a recovering economy — and that the economy is recovering under the stewardship of your presumptive presidential opponent — you have no choice but to try to give the big government, GOP establishment credit for the genesis of that recovery.

Ad this is the guy our Party is choosing to run against Barack Obama? — a guy who at every step it seems fundamentally agrees with him on policy?

I honestly feel sorry for all the Romney boosters still trying to promote his conservatism. Because the very idea has become absolutely laughable. Which in turn means the defenses have necessarily become increasingly strained and surreal.

Excuse me sir, m’am: Do you want Regular Obama or Obama Lite with your crap sandwich?

As for the Willard supporters who are trying to defend him: keep it up, folks, but don’t blame some of us if we respect you less in the morning.

-Jeff has more here on Willard’s agreement with the energy policies of Obama and Stephen Chu.

Here’s one of the major reasons that makes it really hard to commit to voting for Romney if he ends up being the Nominee:

…Can anyone recall a precedent for such an overwhelming volume of negative ads in a GOP presidential primary campaign? If the Romney campaign wished to prove that negative advertising works, especially when one candidate can afford to vastly out-spend his opponents, they have succeeded. But by making conservative Republicans the targets of such attack-ad blitzes, Team Mitt has embittered many opponents of the moderate whom pundits and GOP leaders are now calling the party’s "inevitable" nominee.This is a legitimate grievance….

Indeed, it is. This campaign strategy is a dishonorable way to win a nomination. And, since it positions his strength as emanating from the negative pole, it crushes enthusiasm, which is a necessary ingredient in making sure the base will gladly take up arms and march in the fall campaign. That Romney would endorse this strategy tells us that he is a man without principles and makes one seriously question whether the image of this ‘solid, upright, upstanding man’ is all smoke and mirrors, and that beneath the surface lurks a Richard III.

This perception has just being given some more fuel by the now-infamous Etch-A-Sketch comments made by his press flack and friend.

And don’t be fooled by what appears to be the truth that he is a grand family man. So was Don Corleone. Unlike Don Vito, however, who was a Mensch, it appears that Mitt is a different kind of creature: The Hollow Man.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion.


  1. Rosalie permalink
    23 March 2012 @ 10:04 10:04

    Santorum said he would support Romney even though he’s a mirror image of O, so he’s definitely not relenting about how much they’re the same. The truth hurts. I just hope that it doesn’t hurt him as much as Romney.

  2. 23 March 2012 @ 11:06 11:06

    I have been surprised at the resistance on the Right to Santorum, and the utter unwillingness to bother finding out what he has really said, and think about it.

    And when I pointed out at my place the fact that Romney and Gingrich said basically the same thing about porn prosecutions, a commenter I used to respect more basically said back to me “Yeah, but Santorum really means it, and that’s why I can’t vote for the guy.”

    Ok, so I’m paraphrasing, but it was definitely an interesting exchange just the same.

    • Rosalie permalink
      23 March 2012 @ 16:46 16:46

      I would think that that’s a good thing if Santorum “really means it”. So the commenter would rather vote for someone who doesn’t really mean what they say. How nice.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: