I think. (At least I think I do.) And I have thoughts.
Here a just a couple from the insanity of the past 24 hours.
- Drudge may very well be in the tank for
Romney or SaintOrum
Many trashed Matt Drudge on Twitter when he sensationalized the ABC Interview with Marianne Gingrich LEWINSKY style. Rush Limbaugh noted that it was this was the exact 14 year anniversary of the Blue Dress Debacle. I defended Drudge since his job isn’t to “be fair” or to push a particular candidate but to get eyeballs that result in advertising dollars for his capitalistic endeavors. I thought he had given Gingrich some pretty flattering coverage throughout the Iowa and New Hampshire debates but the choice of THIS graphic – following a decisive win is causing me to rethink that theory:
Those who are familiar with marketing, PR and graphic design realize that EVERY choice of a picture, type style, or color MEANS something. The photo is dark, joyless, without color and it’s shot from behind, capturing only a downward side glance from the supposed victorious winner. Even the angle of Newt shows more shadow than light. Although Drudge didn’t take the picture, there certainly were hundreds of other choices that would create a much more celebratory mood. If I was pro-Mitt I might have a side by side still “pushing” my candidate making him look taller, or at least as well lit and happy as the winner. But since there is NO other image but a somewhat non-expressive Newt, I wonder. Could he be ANTI-Gingrich?
- Herman Cain is disappointing
I wasn’t going to write about the appearance of Herman Cain at the Texas Straw Poll last week because, …it just seemed pointless. But seeing him mock the election in South Carolina with Comedy Central is just too much. I acknowledge he had a great plan in 999. I magnify his hard work-ethic achievements rising to financial success. But in the most important election of our lifetime, you are going to pull attention away from your own party and serious issues to make jokes? The founding fathers who risked their lives, fortunes and personal honor deserve better. My other recent disappointments with Mr. Cain:
- Saying he would fully release all documents to prove his innocence and still not doing so.
- Not considering the toll on his wife and family BEFORE subjecting them to the campaign.
- Never apologizing to Rick Perry for suggesting he might be a racist.
- Saying he would endorse someone in a “couple of weeks” and then not doing it.
- Selfishly shopping his endorsement in exchange for self-promoting his 999 plan.
- Endorsing “We the People” which really turned out to be all about him.
- Saying he couldn’t endorse because it would “split his supporters” (Really? This is about keeping your endorsers together?)
There. I feel better.
- Some people hate Newt as much as they did Palin
and for all of the same (non)reasons
The comely conservative commentator,
SE Cupp tweeted last night, “South Carolina pulled the voting lever for Obama tonight,” or something like that. Sounds like she has been brainwashed by her deranged boss at BeckTV that Newt is the anti-Christ. Or would it be anti-Joseph Smith? Not sure.
But she wasn’t alone. I wrote yesterday how one of my Twitter heroes, @KurtSchlichter was passing similar gas throughout the day. And now pro-Romney and pro-Santorum are acting every bit as hormonally challenged as what THEY accused the Palinista or Caniacs of doing and being.
I believe that this is less of a reflection on the former speaker who actually (and successfully) ran Federal government, balanced the budget 4 times, orchestrated a national campaign for conservatives to take over Congress and implement conservative LAW for the first time in 50 years. It can’t be about the other two or three being any better. Can it? Romney only has 3 years as governor (the last year spent campaigning for President) where he drastically rose taxes breaking a campaign promise, engineered the most liberal social and entitlement policies IN HISTORY up to that time and is living color image of Obama’s anti-Wall Street campaign strategy.
You think Santorum has more integrity? He’s done a great job in intentionally hiding what the people of Pennsylvania thought of him only a few years ago when he was thrown out of office by 18 points. And don’t forget that little “unprincipled” move of betraying your supposed #1 cause by endorsing the most anti-life candidate available merely for political purposes. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when the Mormon shows more class than the supposed socially conservative Catholic by trying to score rebound political points over an unsubstantiated attack by your Christian brother’s ex-wife. Can’t believe I’m quoting Mitt Romney, but “let’s move on and get to the real issues.” Like Rick Santorum’s MORE liberal ACU rating than Gingrich. This is a guy you think has leadership skills? The man has about as much charisma as a chunk of coal from Carbondale. No Palin power-like motivation to make these Newt naysayers so knee jerk here.
Maybe they think Gingrich is terrible because he cheated on the first two wives. Forget for a minute that Gingrich has numerous people who verify both of Newt’s first to wives were pills. It is no excuse that his family urged Newt to get out of the first and the second cheated on him, but you may want to consider that major national evangelicals who themselves are thin skinned to the televangelist taint are convinced of Newt’s integrity. Even Romney supporter Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is defending Gingrich on this. Perhaps they have been victim of an unfaithful spouse? Are they projecting a fear that by electing Gingrich we are condoning multiple marriages? Gingrich himself has been nearly evangelical in his non-stop projects and speeches about the need to embrace God and Christian virtue not just in our society, but in government. Do you trust the landscapers who admit they cut down your rosebush or the ones that try to obscure it? Would you rather teach people they have to be perfect, or that they can be redeemed always do better than they have before? It is certainly a fair subject. It could account for the illogical extrapolation to his prospective political power. As South Carolina showed, most evangelicals (half of who have been through a divorce or two themselves by the way) don’t hold this against him. And it certainly will not be an issue with the American public who re-elected a TRUE serial adulterer and accused rapist for the sake of jobs.
SE Cupp urged a Gingrich google-fest search on what Newt did to Jim Wright, the corrupt Speaker of the House who found a way to use tax payer money to buy his books. What you find is that Gingrich had been fighting the “corrupt left-wing machine” since he arrived. All of the 84 retaliatory charges against him were found to be baseless. Quite a feat when you have an entire angry political party that is dirty enough to sell state secrets to the Chinese and fake charges against the first black Supreme Court Justice. Does Gingrich deserve canonization? Hell no. He was guilty early in his career (as nearly all of Congress was) of using the Congressional bank as his own overdraft account (more than some, less than most) and overemphasizing and distorting any political leverage he could against the Democrats to get them out of power. I still think that EVERYTHING we know about Gingrich’s political ethics is far better than what Santorum has done. Santorum intentionally lied about where he lived to get Pennsylvanians to pay for his kids homeschooling and he clearly traded influence for campaign donations helping a charity upon which he served get Federal funds. Big-pharma – you know the guys that intentionally keep cancer cures off of the market because they will eat into their profits - was so upset that the drug company GlaxoSmithKline wrote that Santorum “creates a big hole we will need to fill.” I don’t even want to get into his home loan scandal.
- Sarah Palin is beginning to p*** me off
(and my message to Rick Santorum)
On the South Carolina Gingrich victory coverage, Palin told (the always smokin’) Meagan Kelly and (always smart) Bret Baier that there was no need for Rick Santorum to get out of the race because Perry already did. WHAT? Isn’t it interesting that those of us that defended her right to jump in (or not) when she thought it best (not when others did) now have to listen to her tell other people what they should or shouldn’t do? Disappointing in a big way. Isn’t that Rick Santorum’s call? Wouldn’t it have been a bit less self-important to say “that’s up to him?”
This whole iron sharpens iron is great, except when it whittles both swords down to toothpicks. Isn’t it a BETTER call to show unity in attacking Romney or Obama? (Sorry Mitt-sters.)
She did say that what Rick Perry had done in “taking one for the conservative team” was “patriotic.” Doesn’t that infer that Rick Santorum continuing to attack the other conservative and pull votes would be - unpatriotic? How could Perry be patriotic only changing the balance by 4% and Santorum “not need to get out” in a state where he could ensure Romney being on the ropes? Or is Palin really one of these politicians that won’t endorse her “guy” (Santorum?) unless he looks like he’ll win? She didn’t do that before with Nikki Haley and others so I don’t think that is it.
Of all people (or birds) I am fiercely for candidates not being pushed to get in, get out or let anyone make a decision on their campaign that risks THEIR money, THEIR families reputation or THEIR dream. I also have no qualms about presenting a case for them to consider as a request. Here is mine:
Senator Santorum, you know you have no cash, no infrastructure and no real national identity. You lived a year in Iowa to barely eeked out a win that didn’t even translate into 20% of the vote in the ONE state that should reaffirm your social conservative selling points. I’m requesting that you first ask yourself whether you are really doing this for the country, the conservative cause or simply your own ambition. Secondly, I’m asking you that if you choose to stay in – would you at least act like a team member of the conservative cause by focusing your attacks on Mitt Romney and not the person who is consistently 20 points ahead of you in the national polls? Newt has consistently avoided attacking you unless you do first.
Your decision will determine whether we see you as a patriot like Perry or something else much less attractive.
All that said about Mama G, she does give a VERY lengthy overview of why Todd endorsed Newt. Some Palinologists have informed me they have clearly taken this as a signal the she also is pro-Newt. (I’ve written that I think Gingrich is as closely aligned to her populist strategy as anyone running or not.)
I don’t fault her for making her own decision about running or not running, but if she still considers herself a leader – THEN MAKE A FRICKIN’ STAND! One of the most appealing traits about her (I thought) was her repulsion of political B.S. and the ability to make quick, wise decisions.
Even though her brother said the week after she “unannounced” that she WAS planning to get in (I’m informed this was an erroneous report), I was willing to overlook the conflict of interest in her FOXNews role commenting on the people she might be running against. (I wrote in my review of the UNDEFEATED if she ran I would vote for her.)
But lead, follow or get out of the way, will ya?
- Final (thankfully) Newt Reagan Comparison
I sat in amazement as Santorum tried to pass off what Gingrich did with Reagan and Clinton as a mere footnote. I was stunned by those who are for (the equivalent) of Eddie Haskell or Mr Rodgers on the faith they can do a fraction as much.
Before changing his mind and outright endorsing Newt Gingrich, Michael Reagan had this to say about his father:
"Had my dad been standing in the debate as a possible nominee of the party, Rick Santorum would have attacked him on abortion," Reagan said. "[Michele] Bachmann would have attacked him on marriage. Everybody would have attacked him on taxes. Yet every one of them today would tell you he was the greatest president of our lifetime. If you snapshot people the way we do today, you can find wrong with everybody. We have a tendency not to look at the whole of a person but to take them in snapshots."
And I suppose he truly must believe in Gingrich. He also had this to say when he wasn’t sure he would endorse anyone:
"I won't just lay the Reagan mantle on somebody and be used in that way,"
So maybe this thing is playing exactly as it should.
It’s time to watch football so I’m done thinking.