Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Conservative Tantrum Continues

In the past couple months, conservatives have proven that they don’t know what conservatism means, that they are hopeless suckers for the MSM rope-a-dope, that they are incapable of understanding math, and that they’re whiny hypocrites. Good grief. The latest involves their disparate reaction to two recent “gaffes” by Romney and Santorum.

Yesterday, Romney’s campaign spokesman was asked whether or not Romney had moved too far to the right to win the general election. He said:
“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”
Conservatives went insane. “This proves Romney’s a flip flopper” they whined. Meanwhile, last week, Santorum was asked how he plans to win over voters seeing as how he has no plan to create jobs. Said Ricky:
“I don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be. It doesn't matter to me. My campaign doesn't hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates.”
Conservatives stuck their fingers in their ears and pretended not to hear this one.

So which one is more important? Or said differently, if conservatives weren’t acting like retarded children, which one of these should have bothered them more?

First, note a critical difference between these two gaffes in terms of who said them. Santorum’s gaffe was said by Santorum himself. It thus provides an important insight into his mindset. The Romney “gaffe,” however, was made by a spokesman. It is therefore inappropriate to attribute this to Romney or to whine that he’s gaffe prone or to claim that this gives us an insight into his true mentality... as conservatives are doing. Instead, the proper response to such a comment is to seek clarification from Romney himself. Romney, by the way, immediately rejected this quote when asked about it -- though conservatives continue to whine about it. Santorum, by comparison, doubled-down on stupid and conservatives doubled-down on intentional blindness to keep ignoring it.

Secondly, the biggest test to determine whether criticism is valid or just hypocritical is to ask if the critic would still be upset if someone else had said it. If the Romney question had been asked of Santorum and he gave the same response, would conservatives get all whiny-outraged? Hardly. They would have said, “well, that’s true. That’s why it doesn’t matter that Santorum’s been whining about pornography and Satan because the general election is a whole new contest and everything said now pretty much disappears.” In other words, if Santorum had said this, conservatives would not have called it a gaffe. So calling it a gaffe because Romney’s spokesman said it is hypocritical.

Now compare the response to Ricky’s gaffe. There is no doubt that any candidate who claimed that the unemployment rate doesn’t matter and who says they don’t care about unemployment would be viewed as having committed an horrific gaffe. Yet, conservatives hypocritically ignored this one.

Third, lets look at what was really said. In the Romney case, the aid was responding to a specific question about whether or not Romney could compete in the general election. His answer was both truthful and essentially what any candidate would have said -- general elections are fought differently from primaries and they essentially begin with a clean slate. He never said Romney planned to abandon his values. In fact, Romney’s values weren't even under discussion. What was under discussion was simply the question of candidate packaging. To interpret this as evidence that Romney has no values requires a deliberate misinterpretation because it requires assuming that the answer addressed a different question than what was really asked.

Now lets look at what Santorum said, because unlike the “Romney” quote, this one is vitally important. Rick has claimed repeatedly to be a Tea Party candidate despite the utter lack of an economic plan and lack of any plan to cut spending or the size of government. Rick also has whined that he’s been unfairly maligned as being concerned only about social issues despite the fact he has no economic plan, and he’s spent the campaign slurring Romney’s religion, slurring Obama’s religion, declaring himself the arbiter of what constitutes Christianity, waging a war against contraception, promising to push gays back into the closet, promising to somehow make people marry, and promising to focus the powers of the federal government like a laser beam on pornography.

So when Rick says that he doesn’t care about unemployment, Rick is accidentally admitting both that he does not care about Tea Party values AND that his attack on the MSM for “mischaracterizing” him is a lie. Indeed, Rick entirely confirms everything his critics have been saying with this quote, i.e. that he does not care about economic concerns.

Further, Rick wasn’t done talking when he said the above. He went on to say this:
“We have one nominee who says he wants to run the economy. What kind of conservative says the president runs the economy? What kind of conservative says, 'I'm the guy because of my economic experience that can create jobs?' I don't know.”
Think about this. Rick is essentially saying that HE BELIEVES conservatives should not get involved in trying to make the economy run better -- an interpretation which is completely confirmed by Rick’s lack of any economic plan. This is a declaration of satisfaction with the government the way it is today. And yet, conservatives weren’t stunned by this?

Moreover, Ricky then laughably claimed that his candidacy is about “freedom” (unlike Romney who wants to “control” the economy). Only his definition of “freedom” includes leaving Big Government unchanged, pushing gays into the closet, stopping people from having sex unless they intend to procreate, letting the government decide what people can read, having the government control the internet, forcing taxpayers to pay billions so Ricky can have HHS "promote families" (that’s his economic plan), having the government forcibly unionize companies like FedEx, etc. etc. etc. Again, conservatives ignored this.

Let’s be honest. To attack Romney for something his staffer said, which Romney immediately refuted, and which was both truthful and accurate and wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow if some other candidate had said it, and which wasn’t even discussing the point over which it has been used to attack Romney, is hypocritical and ridiculous and reflects very poorly on conservatives. To simultaneously ignore Rick's quote, which confirms all the worst fears conservatives should have of Santorum -- that he cares about nothing more than forcing his hateful version of Christianity on the country and that he utterly disdains economic conservatism and Tea Party values -- is even worse.

Conservatism has gone off the rails. It is in the midst of a temper tantrum and is acting hypocritically and childishly. It is making itself a laughing stock. And it’s going to take a lot to prove again that conservatives aren’t the mindless, idiotic zombies the left claims. Ug.

112 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

good post, Andrew. It is time for Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul to gracefully bow out and graciously support Romney. Heat needs to be applied to Democrats, not Romney

Tennessee Jed said...

I actually think much of this is tied to two things: 1) Romney passed "Romneycare" and in the early campaign had advisors decide not to "flip flop" on it; e.g. defending it rather than denouncing. 2) Evangelicalism. This is the root of Santorumism. "Overturn Roe" and mistrust the "mormon." Please ignore the fact Santorum sucks up to labor.

Hey, we have never said all the candidates don't have flaws, and Obama worst of all. But, Obama does have the advantage of the media and incumbancy to partially offset the millstone of his record. Romney remains best suited to beat him in November.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I wouldn't get too upset at the punditry. Romney is winning the nomination, despite the punditry's best efforts.

StanH said...

Make no mistake, it will be Romney. What we are hearing from Santorum is the death rattle of a failed candidate, who cannot face his reality with grace. That being said, I believe a brutal primary is not all bad, “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.” I believe it’s pulled Romney to the right, we’ll see.

TJ said...

Good article, as always, Andrew. Ann Coulter is hammering away at this today as well.

T-Rav said...

Your assignment for today, Andrew--come up with at least three positive things to say about Rick Santorum, and at least three negative things to say about Mitt Romney. You will be graded.

Tennessee Jed said...

Rav - because your comment was "leaked" to the general polulace, you have left open the door for cheating. Hell, a guy like myself might come in and say 1) He is NOT Arlen Specter!!!

However, I am on to your little "trap" because you would pounce on him immediately and state either a) no, but he did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night or b) no but he did endorse him. O.K. then let's try:

2) Big Labor loves the guy and we need those disaffected angry white labor Reagan Democrats to pull through the voter fraud in swing rust belt states. Hmnnnn . . . maybe . . . . nah.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Here is something positive for Santorum. Arlen Spector dumped on Rick. Someone that Arlen hates can't be all bad.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, thanks for the article. Yours is the first word I've seen on Santorum's horrific statements. However, I heard nothing this morning but criticism of the Etch-a-Sketch remark. On the upside, I was able to glean the next meme from what I heard.

Basically, it is this: in complete ignorance of the question which spawned "Etch-a-Gate," now that Romney has the nomination in the bag, conservative talkers will take on the role of "pushing Romney to the right." They will do this by taking his conservative remarks and pretending that he has never made such statements before (much like they are doing already).

This still leaves them with their escape hatch should Romney lose his presidential bid: they will claim that he "resisted" their prods and didn't come right far enough, thereby losing the election to someone who is further to the left than he ever was. (It makes sense if you don't think about it.)

Joel Farnham said...

Here's another. Santorum "helped" define Romney. Everything Santorum is not. Romney is. :-)

Santorum is a team player. He always voted for the team. I mean it. He put aside his principles when the Republicans needed a team player.

Santorum always shines up the best candidate by being second best.

He wears sweater vests very well.

Andrew,

There are so many! :-)

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav - Rick has nice hair, he dresses well, and he has a nice looking wife...

Mitt - has a really stupid first name, he was born north of the Mason/Dixon line, and is a 1%'er who gives too much money away.

Do I get an "A"?

[Sorry I have been away celebrating my Mom's 80th with the family and have just gotten back into my "groove"...]

T-Rav said...

No, that's not what I intended to--darn it! Fine, I'll "grade on the curve," as they say.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Since it's essentially mathematically impossible for them to win, and they can no longer advance their message -- to the contrary, they are now hurting their causes -- I agree that they need to drop out. At this point, all they are is spoilers.

Joel Farnham said...

Romney is diabolical!

He put his spokesman up to talking about the etch-a-sketch, knowing, KNOWING Santorum would pick up on it, thereby making Santorum look the fool. Romney really is a meanie.

Romney has operatives every where. Did you know that Romney's old campaign manager, Schmidt, was placed in McCain's old organization to disrupt it? I believe Schmidt was the one who recommended Palin.

Romney also has some stealth blacks in Obama's Administration. For now, they are there just to observe and report.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think RomneyCare is just an excuse or they would be holding all the same issues the other candidates have done against them. But they aren't. Why? Because Santorum represents an attempt by the Religious Right to fight back against the influence of economic conservatism -- he's their weapon. And it doesn't matter to them that he's a liar or a big government liberal because they don't care about those things -- they only care about making sure that the party remains obsessed with their issues. Frankly, this would be a good time for religious conservatives to wake up and to dump the Religious Right... they do religious conservatives and the party no good.

Also, you are correct that they have tapped into anti-Mormonism among evangelicals. Apparently Jesus hates and fears those who don't toe the line.

LawHawkRFD said...

I don't know that conservatism has gone off the rails, but a certain large group of them have. I think Jed probably put his finger on it with the Santorumism branch of evangelism. If this thing ends sooner rather than later with Santorum and Gingrich finally reading the handwriting on the wall, maybe we can continue with the evangelism metaphor a little farther. We can bring the lost sheep back into the fold. But of this goes on much longer, they will have gone so far afield that the ravening wolves will get them, and the flock will suffer irreparably.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Romney has already won it, they just haven't finished counting. Mathematically it's essentially impossible for him to lose.

My concern, however, is with the damage the pundits are doing to the conservative brand. They are making us look like idiots. They can't identify genuine conservatives, they bite on every MSM smear, they are acting hypocritically and childishly, and they are fully embracing all the negative stereotypes.

Also, while I keep hearing this crap that "we're making Romney more conservative," that's delusional bull. They are teaching Romney that he can win without them. That's an invite for him to move left... not right.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I LOVE the idea of a strong primary... but it needs to be a primary of ideas, not name calling. If candidate X were out there saying that candidate Y's plan isn't conservative and won't work because _____, I would be thrilled. But instead, the primary has turned into name calling: "candidate X is a liar." That's not constructive and it doesn't help us sell people on conservatism.

I agree with you that what we're seeing now is Santorum demonstrating a complete lack of grace as it becomes increasingly clear he's lost. I will actually be surprised if he ever gets out of the race. His people are now pushing delusional ideas about the delegate to the national convention somehow planning to secretly revolt and pick him. That reminds me of Hilter in his bunker issuing orders to imaginary division.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, Thanks! I'm glad to hear it. I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter, even despite her earlier infatuation with Chris Christie. And she's been very good at cutting through the hypocrisy throughout this election. It stuns me that conservatives who have struggled so much against media double-standards are so willing to impose their own, and I'm glad she's calling people on this.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Three bad things about Romney is easy, three good things about Firehouse Rick is probably impossible.

Romney -- (1) His economic plan is not boldly conservative or transformative, (2) He lacks the public empathy which will ever make the public love him, and (3) He does fall for things other government-increasing ideas which conservatives fall for, like the Patriot Act.

Santorm -- I will have to think about this because there honestly is nothing. The man is personally and philosophically odious. He's a hateful, judgmental liar who supports corruption, Big Government economics and wants to use the force of government to impose his sick f*cking views on everyone else. Besides that he's ok though I guess.

Joel Farnham said...

Way off topic.

Today is Talk like Shatner Day! I found it on Twitchy.com, Michelle Malkin's new site. It has selected twitterings.

This one article includes links to teach yourself how to talk like Shatner.

Back on topic.

Andrew,

You make it sound like Romney is going to go back to RINO status. I have a feeling you are the one who is going to be pleasantly surprised. I am not saying that Romney is Reagan, but I am saying that Romney is more conservative and solid than you think.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, LOL! "leaked" :)

I don't believe that Santorum will win over Reagan Democrats. For one thing, I'm not sure there are any left who aren't already regular Republican voters. For another, Ricky is winning union voters among Republicans, but I see no evidence that he's brought any more to the party or that any of the ones who voted for him in the primaries will support Obama instead of Romney. Also, most Reagan Democrats weren't union guys, they were low-income Catholics and Rick is getting killed among Catholics by Romney.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, LOL! Yeah, that's true I guess -- anyone Arlen hates can't be all bad, right?

StanH said...

Thanks “W,” …for the oil.

The Hitler image is apt Andrew, and funny. He’ll soon back off, and move into the fold.

To T-Rav:

Santorum’s positives: 1) Good family man. 2) He ran a pretty good bootstraps campaign, his main appeal not Romney. 3) I’m at a loss.

Romney negatives: 1) Romneycare 2) His vocal embrace of being a progressive 3) His embrace of global warming.

Note: Romney will have a Hell of a time explaining these three, he’ll still win the general, but we could have had a Reagan conservative…oh well. Hopefully Romney will be as moldable as we hope, or said another way, move with the political winds.

StanH said...

Excuse the "W" comment.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Believe it or not, I was getting hints that would be the new meme already on Tuesday night. Several of the pundits who were so depressed about Illinois started talking about how they were all pushing Romney to the right. They kept ignoring almost everything he said and they listed the things they wanted him to say (all of which he'd already said a million times). They also claimed that while some might consider Santorum a spoiler at this point, he really wasn't because what he was doing was keeping Romney honest and forcing him "to try to connect with conservatives" who he clearly could not win as evidence by his blow out win..... just accept, don't think about it.

And it doesn't surprise me at all that talk radio will now continue to whine about Romney while simultaneously claiming that they are really helping him out or keeping him honest. Then, when the public finally gets fully behind Romney in the general election, they will take credit for "sharpening him as a candidate."

This is like bullying someone and then claiming that you built their character when they go out and have success in life.

Also, let's be honest -- on this idea that they are pushing him right and that he will need to respect their views, that's wrong. They have proven to him that with all their PR might they could not stop him. Translation: he doesn't need them and he is free to ignore their concerns. That's the danger of un-constructive criticism... that you end up getting shut out.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have to disagree -- NO ONE wears sweater vests well. They should ban sweater vests. ;)

In the past, Santorum has indeed been a team player. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not though. And he certainly isn't a team player right now, and that's the problem. It isn't that he challenges Romney that is the problem, the problem is THE WAY he challenges Romney. Attack his plans and his record, that's fine -- that's good politics. Run around name calling, pretend to represent the Tea Party when you don't, drag the debate off into crazyland, slander Mormons, and attack Romney's supporters as paid-for stooges and RINOs... that's bad.

You are correct though, he has defined Romney by comparison. Indeed, until Ricky got started, I never bothered thinking about Romney as moral, but he's clearly a moral man -- Rick is not. Romney's a tolerant and decent man who is confident in his own beliefs -- Rick is not. Romney is rational and the complete package (economic, social, foreign policy) -- Rick is not. Romney is an accomplished leader -- Rick is not. Romney is thoughtful -- Rick is not. I trust Romney's judgment -- Rick lacks judgment. So yeah, Rick has definitely helped define Romney.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Welcome back! Rick does have a good looking wife.

Born north of the Mason/Dixon line... LOL! You could just shorten that to "neither born nor lived in Texas"! ;)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Grading on a curve may be necessary here.

Good things about Ricky... hmm. I'm still struggling. I honestly can't think of anything good he's done or said which he didn't promptly ruin. Even on social issues, he takes the issues so far beyond the realm of what can (or should) be achieved that all he ends up doing is giving the left fundraising opportunities. He is our version of Pelosi without the brains she has or the ability she has to actually get things done.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, LOL! Yeah, the conspiratorial thinking is all creeping in. That's what happens when people start emoting rather than thinking. They're big on trying to link his endorsers to donation too with the idea being that everyone who endorses Romney has been paid.


Here's one no one has thought of yet, but I'm sure will come: Romney passed Romneycare just so that Obama would pass Obamacare so that Obamacare would anger the public and make it easier for Romney to win the White House.... only he didn't count on Superman Santorum coming along and pointing out that we can't trust Lex Romney because he passed Romneycare originally. It was all part of a plan... and Rick saw through it! ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Well said, and I agree. I really think this is about evangelicalism v. conservatism right now. Since the late 1980s, various Religious Right groups (who are almost entirely evangelical) have forced the idea that conservatism equates to religious fundamentalism. They are indifferent to and vacillate on economic issues, foreign policy issues and environmental/regulatory issues... those don't matter to them. What matters to them is stopping abortion, prayer in school, stopping pornography, requiring the teaching of creationism, and stopping the gay menace. That has been their platform and they have demanded that all conservative conforms to this. This has put them at odds with the libertarians.

For the past 3-5 years, however, the economic conservatives and libertarians have started fighting back. So far, they haven't repudiate religious conservatism and I don't think they intend to. But they have been locked in a death struggle with the Religious Right, who are incensed that the party doesn't see their beliefs as the only relevant beliefs. Santorum is the Religious Right's Trojan Horse to fight back against the "growing libertarian influence" (to quote Santorum himself).

If they keep going the way they are going, there will be a break between conservatism and the Religious Right, and the RR will lose.

If I were to offer advise to religious conservatives right now it would be to abandon the Religious Right and adopt a much more nuanced set of goals. The new force of economic conservatives are not opposed to religious conservatism, they are just opposed to obnoxious religious conservatism -- the kind which says pornography is the greatest challenge we face or that every election needs to be about abortion or which judges certain Christians as moral and others not on theological grounds.

rlaWTX said...

There was a picture making the rounds on fb of the US - an over-sized Texas and the rest was labeled "not Texas" - it was pretty funny.

Andrew, if you didn't have so many facts backing up your opinion of Saint Rick, I'd worry that you had caught a Derangement Syndrome... ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, No not at all. In fact, I have come to believe that Romney is a genuine conservative even if his past doesn't indicate that. And I think conservatives are lucky that Romney is a conservative and doesn't appear to be vindictive. Because if he was a moderate or was vindictive, then conservatives would have set themselves up for 8 long years of one blow after another. Fortunately, I don't see that happening because Romney is a bigger man than that.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, That's a good list on both candidates.

I too wish we had gotten someone like Cain or Paul Ryan, but annoyingly, we did not. But as for the selection of Romney, I'm pleased with it.

In terms of being moldable, I honestly have come to believe that Romney is a good deal more conservative than people think. I also think he'll take a backseat to the Congress, which is very conservative. So he doesn't really worry me on that account.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I've seen that as your avatar and I thought it was hilarious! :)

No, no derangement syndrome, I just want conservatives to stop doing these mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are being conservative supporting the guy and that somehow moderates actually find him tolerable. This is very much a conservative KoolAid moment and I feel it needs to be pointed out.

tryanmax said...

If I could modify the "off the rails" comment, I like to think of conservatism as the rails, and certain factions of the right have gone off of them.

tryanmax said...

On pros and cons, I could list a dozen Romney cons, none of which are intolerable. I even think he can turn RomneyCare to his advantage by attacking Obama/ObamaCare from the seat of experience. Time will tell, though.

As for Santorum pros, that's a toughy. I can't even say I'm full on board with his foreign policy. Ricky is so hawkish, I'm afraid that if he were Commander in Chief then Ron Paul would finally have a point.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's a good way to put it -- some members of the conservative community have gone off the rails. Conservatism itself is fine, it's just being ignored by many of its supposed believers.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav et al.,

On this say something good about Ricky, I'm honestly having a problem. The man is a turd and everything he does is destructive and discrediting. But I will do my best.

1. He hasn't abandoned his wife or kids and there is no evidence yet of affairs. I would bet that egomaniac Rick will eventually get caught -- he gives off all the signs.

2. All indications are that he was an effective liaison with lobbyists and obtained a good deal of cash for Republicans... though all of his contacts have abandoned him personally.

3. As far as mindless, unprincipled followers go, he was the best. He did whatever the party wanted. And the party does need those people as well... just not as leaders.

Anything beyond that is pushing your luck.

And I know you are hoping I would say:

1. "Well, I have to admit that he's moral." Only, he's not. A moral man would not lie almost every time he opens his mouth. A moral man would not distort his own record or name-call his opponents. A moral man would not appeal to theological hate and smear other religions to win over a small sect of voters. A moral man would not attack or question the faith of others. A moral man would not show the hate Rick has shown for gays and women. And a moral man would not believe the government should be used to force his own believes on people.

2. "He has voted for some conservative things in the past." Hardly. Name them. And then compare them to all of the liberal and anti-conservative things he's voted for. Moreover, compare that to the time he spends smearing conservatives, playing into class warfare and racism arguments, attacking capitalism, attacking solidly conservative religious groups like Mormons, etc.

3. "He supports social conservatism." No, I don't credit him here either. Why? Several reasons. First, his intolerance makes social conservatism a hard sell -- he scares people. Secondly, he's a moron. Rather than slowly moving toward his goals in an achievable manner, he advocates swinging for the fences with constitutional amendments which simply cannot pass. Basically, he is advocating a path which is destined to fail. Third, his definition of religious conservatism is unacceptable. Most of the religious conservatives I know genuinely believe in religious freedom. They don't hate gays. They don't want the government to impose their theology on others. They don't want to force women out of the workforce or shutdown mosques and they don't judge other Christians as not-Christian just because they disagree with them. Rick does all of that.

He is literally one of a handful of people in this country about who I can think of nothing truly good to say.

Doc Whoa said...

I share some of Santorum's views and I can't stand him. He puts everything into the nastiest spin.

Doc Whoa said...

Also, anyone who doesn't understand the governing is primarily about economics is not anyone we should be listening to.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, A belief in capitalism is THE underpinning of conservatism. Conservatism is a theory for establishing the relationship between the government and the governed in all aspects. To ignore the biggest way in which the government interacts with the public is just stupid. It's like opening a restaurant but only dealing in condiments.

On not liking Santorum, Ann Coulter said something similar. She said that even when she agrees with Santorum, he still manages to lose the argument in her eyes, and that's true.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, no, I wasn't actually hoping you'd say those things. I was just seeing if you could say anything good about Santorum, which you're apparently having a great deal of trouble with.

I bring this up not because I think Santorum is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE or anything like that (I don't, and I never have), but because it seems to me this whole post is trying to divert attention from what Romney's aide really did say about him. And I know it's not what Romney himself said, but it encapsulates perfectly all the problems a lot of conservatives have with him, and it was said by a person who presumably knows the man better than any of us do.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Finding something good to say about Ricky (unless I'm a Democrat) is virtually impossible.

But no, I'm not trying to deflect what Romney's aid said. I am making the point that conservatives are wrong to read anything into it and they are acting hypocritically in being upset by this. They want to be offended by Romney so they are now reading their prejudices into anything they can to find the offense they crave. That's my point.

And the proof is simple: Romney never said it... yet they act like he did. Romney disavowed it... yet they act like he embraced it. And they wouldn't have thought twice if anyone else had said it or even if Romney had said it in 2008.

So it does not encapsulate the problems conservative have with Romney, it highlights the hypocritical prejudice of conservatives have toward Romney. In other words, it tells us much more about them than it does about Romney and what it tells us is not a positive thing.

T-Rav said...

Great. So if I have a problem with Romney, it's my fault.

I'm just going to drop this because I'll get overheated if I go on.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's not what I'm saying. I understand the problems you have with Romney and I can't (or won't) tell you that you're wrong. His record is not perfect. But to LOOK for insult in comments like this is wrong. This comment tells us NOTHING about Romney.

rlaWTX said...

ding ding ding
back into your corners
;)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, LOL! Sometimes a little arguing is a good thing. But we can move on in any event. In a few months it won't matter and we'll all be busy hoping for a major slapdown to Obama. :)

T-Rav said...

Thanks, ref. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Speaking of "refs" and not to chance the topic, but what do you all think of this New Orleans Saints thing?

I'm shocked by the punishments to tell the truth. I'm not saying they're wrong, they're probably very fair -- but I am shocked.

rlaWTX said...

I missed it - what happened in the Big Easy?

rlaWTX said...

(and I'm the family peacemaker too - lots of headaches, little appreciation. trying to stop.)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It's a noble profession. :)

They got caught paying bounties to players who injured players on the other team. Serious money too like $50,000. So their head coach has been suspended for a year and their defensive coordinator was suspended indefinitely from the NFL. Even their general manager got suspended for half the season. Several players will still get suspended as well.

It's a real mess.

Individualist said...

Jed

I guess the reason Romney does not have my full support is solely due to Romneycare. I can see this coming up by the dems if he gets into office and pushes a repeal of Obamacare.

That said I ended up voting for him in Florida because he was the best of the list available at the time.

There is just something about Santorum that irks me and Newt never seemed to be able to get it together. Neither seemed all that conservative to me although I do like some of Newt's ideas.

Tam said...

Regarding the Saints, I admit I haven't read a lot of details because I just don't care that much, but what I understand is that the coach (and assistant, apparently) gave bonuses to their players to hurt other players. To me, that seems criminal and should be punished. I kind of think that the coaches should be banned for life, not just for a year, or at least have criminal charges brought. I'm maybe over reacting, as I said, I don't know all the details. But paying someone to hurt someone else? How is that not criminal? Sounds like the south side chicago values Lady O wants the country to embrace.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, The thing about Newt is that he has some great conservative ideas. Unfortunately, he's just not consistent. When he looks back on his life, I think he will realize that was his biggest failure -- that he always knew the right thing to do, but he didn't always do it.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, LOL! It does sound like south side Chicago rules, doesn't it?

In terms of sending them to jail, I agree with you. It's one thing to encourage great plays or even hard (clean) hits. But paying people to hurt other people should be criminal. And it probably is actually, though I doubt any prosecutors will try it.

The NHL actually had to deal with this in the 1970s when they had "enforcers" who would enter games for the sole purpose of hurting other players. I know some of that ended up in litigation eventually and the NHL eventually drove the practice out of the game.

I'm just stunned that the NFL doled out the sentences they did. The history of the NFL is to make a lot of noise and then hand out four game suspensions. So I think it's good they took this step -- though I don't know if it's enough?

tryanmax said...

RE: NFL--C'mon people, we've all seen those dystopian future sports movies. This is the future of the game. The Saints are just ahead of their time.

AndrewPrice said...

So you're saying we should embrace the inner coliseum spectator and enjoy the mayhem because it's coming no matter what we do?

Perhaps the NFL should go ahead and adopt mixed-martial arts rules now too?

tryanmax said...

I say we keep going until we get to THIS /sarc

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, that was a pretty silly movie. I guess that opening was meant to be social commentary, but it seemed pretty lame to me.

rlaWTX said...

thanks for the info... somehow, I am not surprised to hear about this in NO anymore than I would in Chicago...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Yeah, NO isn't the most ethical place in the country is it? What is it with liberal cities and the culture of corruption? Oh yeah... liberals.

rlaWTX said...

hmmmmm so puzzling...

T-Rav said...

Okay, fine. I still think the "Etch-A-Sketch" thing is a big deal, and I still would have taken Santorum's side of it over Romney's. Except that he then went and did this. LINK I may be a Romney-bashing hard-core socon, but I'm an honest Romney-bashing hard-core socon.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I have never doubted your honesty. :)

And I have to tell you, that my gut tells me that Santorum actually would rather have Obama win than Romney... so this doesn't surprise me. Santorum wants to be a spoiler.

T-Rav said...

Yeah, the bounty thing is awful. I actually like New Orleans (well, I like going there--I wouldn't want to live there), and I like the Saints, and rooted for them back in 2010. Sean Payton and Drew Brees both struck me as first-rate guys, so this is just really saddening. And yeah, the most surprising thing to me is they actually punished it; because you know half the teams in the country are doing this. Including the Patriots.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Jim DeMint all but endorsed Romney today and suggested the others should get out of the race.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree with you 100%. I like the Saints. I like Drew Brees and Sean Payton -- they seem like truly decent people (Brees especially). And this makes me very sad.

I also have no doubt that half the teams in the league are doing this.

Ed said...

I just saw the article T-Rav linked. If I didn't already dislike Santorum so much, that would do it for me. I'm not sold on Romney, but I hate Santorum. I could take any of the others by a mile before I would even consider that jerk.

Ed said...

On the Saints, I also have to imagine this goes on all over the league.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm well past that point. Fortunately, the race is basically over and people are catching on. So the more he acts like a jerk, the quicker people will begin to repudiate him and get this thing over. I expect you're going to see a flood of Romney endorsements in the next two weeks and you're probably going to see a lot of talk radio start to use comments like the one today as a way to change sides.

From what I heard yesterday, Laura Ingraham has already jumped onto the Romney bandwagon. I expect Rush will find an excuse to follow. Then Santorum becomes little more than a curiosity -- a Ron Paul-like figure out there campaigning away without anyone really paying attention.

AndrewPrice said...

I suspect that lots of team had something like this or something similar. Maybe not to the extent or maybe not sanctioned by the coaches, but similar. BUT... it's like speeding. Even if everyone else is doing it, you are the guy who got caught and you have to pay the price. New Orleans will probably implode this year. We don't know what will happen next year though.

AndrewPrice said...

BTW, several people said this morning on the local radio that Santorum's comment (the one T-Rav pointed too) has basically killed him. And they are starting to abandon him.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I think the comment is Santorum's death-knell. He can't win anymore anyway, but his comment reveals how petty and vindictive he really is.

Still, Santorum has his apologists. I finally figured out why Laura Ingraham fascinates me so. She is a one-woman microcosm of RWR insanity. This morning, she had the temerity to continue attacking Romney's spokesman's Etch-a-Sketch comment while running interference for Santorum's near-endorsement of Obama.

In a nutshell: We don't trust Romney, therefore he can't be trusted, and the Etch-a-Sketch remark only underlines that. Santorum, on the other hand, can't possibly mean what he said because if he did, it would be political suicide.

Oh, and Ricky still can pull off a win, but even if he doesn't, do you really think he won't endorse Mitt in the general?

My response: Yes.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think people are looking for an excuse to start endorsing Romney now that Illinois made it so obvious that Rick is finished. This will probably the excuse lots of people start using. Talk radio, however, won't come over just yet because they need to make sure the "conservative public" is ready for the switch before they bravely rush to where everyone else is already heading.

I honestly don't know if Santorum will endorse him or not. I think he will eventually, but only after a lot of smears and then he'll do so very grudgingly. He wants Romney to win because his goal is to be able to say "only a Religious Right conservative can win elections."

Joel Farnham said...

I really don't want to laugh at Santorum Supporters, but it is getting hard not to point and laugh.

I think the last three primary elections clearly show that Santorum has no organic following. More importantly, they show an incredible level of immaturity being exhibited by Santorum. Now, I know Santorum lost his senate seat. Until this last stupidity, I never knew why. From what I remember, he was well liked. I guess that was kept hidden.

People are still trying to spin Santorum out of it, but... why bother?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I know several conservatives from Pennsylvania and they have nothing but contempt for him, and this election really shows why. He's an immature, whiny, hateful man.

I have no idea why talk radio is still trying to rally behind him. He simply can't win. He's not offering a worthwhile platform. I think talk radio simply has their finger in the wind and they think it's save to act like rebels by supporting him.

But yeah, the mental gymnastics they are going through to support him are pretty laughable at this point.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I just looked at RedState -- where they have a list of article on the far outside of the site (their "members diary" site).

They are foaming at the mouth. They are blaming Romney for the financial crisis, excusing Santorum's comments, obsessing over the ech-a-sketch, whining that conservatives need to finally come together to stop Romney, etc. It's like a room full of retards jerking each other off... to put it mildly.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Yeah, I know. RedState has gone "full retard" and the funny thing about it is Erick Erickson doesn't realize it.

tryanmax said...

AAARRRGGG! Santorum is on Beck. You can probably imagine.

Glenn: Oh, Ricky, tell us what you really meant. (Can I smell your hair?)

Ricky: I just said what I've always said; I would rather see Obama reelected if it can't be me. Me, me, me. (Still not creepier than me. Me, me, me.)

<><><><>

Since I'm on about Glenn-in-the-Bag, his site "The Blaze" takes issue with Mitt for not being an establishment Republican, or at least that's what THIS article and clip seem to imply. I know what they're doing, conflating "Republican" with "conservative." Disgusting.

Oh and, Andrew, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I haven't been over there very much, but my trip just now was a bit of a shock. "Full retard" is the word. They are foaming at Romney like HuffoPo foams at Rush. And talk about drinking KoolAid. Apparently, Santorum can do no wrong.

Interesting point about Erick. When I've seen him on CNN, he tries to act very noncommittal now that Newt isn't going to win it. And he talks about getting behind the nominee. I wonder if he's read his own site lately?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That was the most accurate description I could come up with that wouldn't have gotten me arrested. Seriously, as Joel says, "they've gone full retard." Wow.

So now Romney is the anti-establishment guy huh? This is getting pathetic.

As for Beck, I honestly have no respect for the little gnome, and it wouldn't surprise me if he and Ricky got together to lament to loss of virtue in the world. They can rub each other with pages from the Bible and gold coins.

AndrewPrice said...

You know, let me add about Rick. How in the world can anyone see him as a representative of Christianity? He is the Ayatollah of Christendom... a raving loon who thinks religion is about power.

tryanmax said...

LOL! Andrew, don't make me pee! LOL!

Actually, I think Romney is the pro-quasi-establishment anti-non-conservative counter-circum-establishment RINO-INO, which means whatever you need it to in order to dislike him.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You have to admit, that is what a Santorum/Beck party would eventually become! ;)

Good point about Romney, that is the perfect description for maximum potential dislike. It sounds like you've got all the bases covered!

tryanmax said...

OMG! I just heard something in the replay that I missed the first time. Apparently, Ricky thinks it is "outrageous" that anyone would take him out of context to suggest he supports Obama. Outrageous, I tell you! But Mitt's aide totally confirmed his boss as a flip-flopper with that Etch-a-Sketch comment. That's totally fair.

Head, meet wall. Wall, head. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat...

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The first BIG clue I had that something is truly wrong with Rick is that he has repeatedly accused others of doing what he himself had in fact done -- not just Romney, but everyone.

He has also been very hypocritical throughout, applying double-standards far and wide. It would have been SHOCKED if Rick had not taken that position.

DUQ said...

I went to RedState for a while, but I quit a while back because they really did go "full retard." It got to the point that they were wholesale ignoring facts and just spinning everything any way they wanted.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I have not been very pleased with many conservative websites for a while now. They have wrongly attacked Congressional Republicans, they have wrongly attacked various Republican candidates, and they've even (frankly) wrongly attacked Obama. Obama is a disaster, but not everything he's done needs to be knee-jerked. Some of it would be quite useful to our side if these people would stop with the mindlessness.

That's where you would hope the contributors would step in and say, "wait a minute, this is a good idea actually." But few of those places do that -- they just play to the mob.

Joel Farnham said...

DUQ,

I have the distinction of being banned from RedState. I earned it by BWD (Blogging While Drunk). Eh. it happens. I was banned by Moe Lane.

I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get them to lighten up.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, LOL! Congrats!

What did you say?

Joel Farnham said...

It was something about cork and stuffing cows to stop methane and we should get into the cork futures.

When no one commented for over an hour, I put a new one out about, even "The Great Moe Lane" would think this is funny.

I was banned after that.

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! That seems a little petty to ban you over... they must have no sense of humor over there?

Joel Farnham said...

Moe felt I was calling him out. A guy was complaining because I was pushing sober-minded diaries off. I think I had posted three times that day.

From what I can tell, these guys take themselves too seriously. Also, the ones who stick around are the lick-spittles who always back Erick.

AndrewPrice said...

Ah. Those types never have any sense of humor, and they take offense very easily. From my travels over there, there is a lot of groupthink going on. I'm amazed how one of them will post something rather unreasonable and then 150 comments will appear all of them parroting the article without question and getting nasty at anyone who may disagree with them even slightly. It's very Huffpo-like.

Sadly, that's too often the way of the internet.

Joel Farnham said...

I agree Andrew.

DUQ said...

Joel, That's really funny. I wish I'd seen that! :D

Joel Farnham said...

DUQ,

I have my diary bookmarked some where. It will take a day to find it.

Looking back, I am glad that they did ban me. RedState may call itself conservative, but in actuality, it isn't. Erick Erickson sold it, then stayed on as editor. Then Erick Erickson was hired by CNN. Shortly after that it became an outlet for Establishment Republicans.

DUQ said...

Joel, I'd love to see that!

I'd always heard that RedState is conservative, but it never struck me as that. They always seemed to be very establishment. And then to have CNN hire Erick is a really bad sign for them being genuine conservatives.

tryanmax said...

Glenn Beck is such a fart! The subject line on his last email is "Santorum yells at Glenn on Radio." That is so far from what happened, there are no adequate words to describe the falsehood. What really happened is Ricky called up Glenn-boy's show to get his ego stroked and to be reassured that Mitt Romney is a big ol' meanie. Glenn then stroked Ricky's hair and sang him a lullaby. Wait, maybe not that last bit. But it might have. I'm really not sure.

AndrewPrice said...

That's odd. Why would Glenn attack Ricky? Have you read the e-mail? Did they actually disagree about anything or is this just PR? I wonder what this means?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ and Joel, I've never been big on RedState and Erick has not impressed me at all on CNN -- he's just repeating conventional wisdoms.

tryanmax said...

Yes, I read the email, and it tried to paint a picture of Santorum calling the show to straighten Glenn out about the endorsement he gave Obama. But Glenn was already running cover for the remarks before Ricky called in.

I'm certain the subject line is just to get people to open the darn email which, sadly, I did. Also, it's an attempt to spin Glenn as objective when he clearly gave up on that some months ago.

AndrewPrice said...

Interesting. So he threw Santorum under the bus even though he has been trying to help Santorum. It sounds like Glenn has decided to pivot and Ricky lost a friend.

tryanmax said...

Mmm, no. I must be being unclear. Glenn and Ricky are still rubbing gold bullion and Gospel tracts on each others' glistening bodies. They were doing just that on radio today for everyone to hear.

But since then, they've been trying to spin the love-fest as a smack-down. It wasn't even a lover's quarrel; it was mutual political fellatio. (Sorry to be so graphic, but it is that disgusting!)

If I continue to listen to Glenn Beck it will be as one aiming to spot a mangled body among the train wreckage.

AndrewPrice said...

I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight. Blech!

Ahh! I get it. They're trying to pretend that Glenn is unbiased?

tryanmax said...

You've got it! Glenn was busy whitewashing Ricky's endorsement of Obama when Ricky called in. Then it all got mushy. And the email sent this evening is a complete lie! That's why I popped in to comment. Mr. The-Truth-Has-No-Agenda himself has been sucked into Ricky's ethical black hole.

AndrewPrice said...

// shakes head

There really is no one out there with much integrity anymore is there? It's funny, growing up, I never had the sense. Even many on the left were fundamentally honest -- just misguided. But these days, there it's so common to mislead rather than enlighten.

DUQ said...

Andrew, I saw that Santorum is way behind in Wisconsin now. I thought he would do well there with the union guys and the rural population. I expect he'll win Louisiana today though.

Joel Farnham said...

Oh noes!!! What if Santorum doesn't win Louisiana? What will the followers of Saint Ricky do? Will they cut their wrists? Will they curse? Stamp their feet? Fall down and pound their fists on the floor? Cry-out desperately?

Maybe "The One" will come around and soothe their tattered feelings.

Or alternatively, maybe they can grow a pair and learn to not put their faith in princes.

DUQ said...

Joel, No doubt it will be because Romney cheated and he bought every single voter in the state! Don't you see, Santorum is the ONLY choice! He's our "The One."

Post a Comment