-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 3 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Tiger Woods Sinks Lower
May 12, 2013 | 20 comments
-
I Ask Anurima Bhargava for a Date
May 10, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Wlady asks, quite reasonably, why I’m blaming “the pundits” for narrowing the GOP field. Well, it’s because the way they frame the debates and the horse race and the issues in the first place helps affect the polling results. I have never seen a story on the race that didn’t call Santorum a long shot. I have never seen a story in the establishment media that didn’t describe him as a “social issues champion,” or somesuch, thus making him sound like a one-trick pony and perhaps a fringe candidate.
If one goes by titles, Santorum should be referred to in neutral stories as the former Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, or the former third-ranking Republican in the Senate, or some such honorific. Instead, he merely gets lumped in, FROM THE BEGINNING, as an also-ran.
In debates, as I have noted (Wolf Blitzer’s greater fairness notwithstanding), the tendency has been to give far more air time to Romney and Perry than to Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, and Huntsman, and sometimes more time to the top two than to Bachmann and Paul as well (although sometimes those latter two get more air time because they are “put on the spot” with questions suggesting that they are crazy people, in order to make all conservatives by extension look crazy).
Again and again I hear people saying, “I’d be for XXX if I thought XXX had a chance.” Well, the reason XXX doesn’t seem to have a chance is because the punditocracy says XXX has no chance, so it limits the money XXX can raise, puts other hurdles in his path, and becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If, as Wlady suggests, the race is now between Romney and Perry, even this early in the proceedings, then we are all the worse off for the lack of choices. Somehow, I suspect this isn’t the case. At this time in 2008, John McCain was a dead man walking and Rudy Giuliani was the favorite. At this time in 1992, Bill Clinton had not even entered the race. At this time in 2004, Howard Dean was a sudden juggernaut and whatshisname Trippi was a genius. I also seem to remember well Presidents George Romney and Ed Muskie, and maybe Hubert Humphrey in 1976, and I am told that in 1964 the Republican nomination contest was a heck of a battle between Henry Cabot Lodge and Nelson Rockefeller.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/13/answering-wlady-re-the-pundits
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
SpiralArchitect| 9.13.11 @ 5:03PM
I concur with quin.
Ginrgich, Santorum & Cain - any of these fine men would make a fine POTUS.
Hopefully Santorum uses this as a booster for a future bid.
Gingrich, so smart, so quick to speak and seemingly flawlessly with his replies & commentary. I would be honored & privilaged as an American to have any of those three serve in the new POTUS' cabinet. ;)
Mimi| 9.13.11 @ 9:02PM
I'm on the same page with you Spiral....after last nights show it seemed like Perry might be a "wrong turn side glance" in and out front runner. Newt is always right on the money on all the issues....since Calista and becoming a Catholic convert ...He's a NEW Newt. You can't not just LOVE Herman Cain...there is so much there to like and admire. Of the three Santorum may just be the "Dark Horse"...such a MARK of great integrity, experienced and the type you could just live your life and feel confident your President would do the right thing...do right by us the people and the country.
I just hope who-ever is finally chosen will choose all the candidates for his administration..they have been a remarkable group...serving the dish to the country of the Conservative message!
MikeBee| 9.13.11 @ 6:19PM
Quin,
You're right. I believe that the media is attempting to "pick" a frontrunner whom, they believe, is beatable by the Big O. They did this when McCain ran against W. In the last election cycle, they had "anointed" McCain long before the Republican race was decided.
Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:49PM
The Ruling Elite & Their Media Flunkie Stooges Are Setting Us Up For Their MittensCare Romney/ HillaryCare Perry Agenda.
This Is Just How We Got The Serial Traitor To Conservatism John McCain of McCain-Finegold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Gang of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003, TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.11 @ 8:33PM
Quin, I am sorry. Santorum hasn't presided over the creation of gazillions of good jobs and corporate immigration as Perry has.
Mr. Perry has done most everything right for Texas. I live and run a business here. I know.
In my mind, he and Sarah would be the dream team, not only for election...but for governance of the US.
...and hey, $5,000 is NOT corporate cronyism.
Rubio seems splendid...but a little green yet.
Mr. Romney seems like a nice man, but God bless him, he is a New England Liberal.
It finally seems to me that we need a bulldog in DC to root out all those czars and their bureaucracies.
Without Sarah as an option, I gotta' go with Perry.
Zack| 9.13.11 @ 9:03PM
I agree that Perry or Romney would be the best options to address the economy, and they both have legitimate paths to election (I think the base would like Perry more, but I think moderates might like Mitt more). Santorum's got great social conservative credentials, but 2012 is going to be all about the economy. I think focusing too much on gay rights/abortion would be a mistake, and I think it'd be hard for Santorum not to get caught up in that.
As for Palin, um, no... She's the embodiment of distraction from the issues and seems like a great way to give Obama 4 more years.
Zack| 9.13.11 @ 8:53PM
I'm sorry but Santorum has done absolutely zero to show that he's a serious candidate. Cain and Bachman were both initially considered fringe candidates, but they made some impact in the polls and got some attention (although they've both slipped back since Perry entered).
Sure there's a bit of a circle, in that media influences polling which influences media, but a good candidate is able to make his own way without crying about the media. Just look at Huckabee 4 years ago - absolute fringe candidate to start, but he ended up one of the last guys standing (his weakness was fundraising, not media attention).
Finally, if you're waiting for Christie, Ryan, or Rubio to enter, don't hold your breath. If they didn't enter before the field included Perry, why would they enter now?
Zack| 9.13.11 @ 8:58PM
P.S. The guy with the legitimate gripe is Gary Johnson, who couldn't even get on the stage. I don't know that I'd vote for him, but he seems at least as viable as Huntsman.
Mark J. Goluskin | 9.14.11 @ 1:01AM
Even Johnson is more mainstream Republican than Ron Paul. I would like to see him in these debates too.
Clint| 9.13.11 @ 9:50PM
" Rick Perry supported Lance Armstrong's 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s like ObamaCare. That’s not free market.
Rick Perry, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to. That’s corporate welfare, a recipe for corruption, and as bad as the TARP bailouts that caused the Tea Parties to explode all across America. In fact, Perry gave 20 million dollars to Countrywide Financial which later went bankrupt.
He supported a new state business tax. He set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways. The Austin Tea Party and the Austin Toll Party booed him on the steps of the state Capitol for that.
Rick Perry, signed an executive order mandating young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine, while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision,"
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Carpe Diem.
Clint| 9.13.11 @ 9:53PM
Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, singled out Romney's Massachusetts health care plan as a primary reason why the national front-runner for the Republican nomination "clearly has difficulties" with members of the movement.
"He's attached to RomneyCare and has done a poor job of distancing himself from that," Meckler told reporters at a breakfast in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I think he probably squandered an incredible opportunity and was probably the best guy to say, ‘I tried this and it failed,' and he has not done a good job of that. So he has taken positions that are contrary to what the average Tea Partier would take -- positions on man-made global warming, positions on energy efficiency. So I think he's in real trouble with the Tea Party base."
Mark J. Goluskin | 9.14.11 @ 1:00AM
Quin, on this you are absolutely spot on! I watched the debate and you know what? Newt Gingrich is beginning to look pretty good. But will the Leftywhore media give him the time of day? Noooo! Yet, they STILL are propping up the repulsive John Huntsman, Jr. If ever a candidate needs to run on the Other Team, it is this guy. And where is Thaddeus McCotter? I would rather see him in these debates over Huntsman or Ron Paul.
Teflon93| 9.14.11 @ 8:14AM
A perfect example of this was a few weeks ago when National Review editors Rich Lowy and Ramesh Ponnuru produced an editorial proclaiming the "top-tier" Republican candidates to be Romney, Pawlenty, and Hunstman (!)). Mind you, these three men were NOT leading polls at the time---Bachmann and Paul were near the top. But they simply decided that the RINOs were the class in the field.
This to me is a sure sign of Frummery---no true conservative would pass over fellow conservatives to tout RINOs. Buckley must be spinning like a transaxle.