Quote of the Day

Posted on | February 8, 2012 | 54 Comments

“There are a lot of yellow-stained drawers in Washington Cocktail Party haunts this morning.”
— Bill Quick, Daily Pundit

The Establishment is nothing if not confident and, although their confidence was surely shaken by Rick Santorum’s Tuesday sweep, Mitt Romney still has an overwhelming advantage in terms of money.

The Mitt Machine is probably even now gearing up to flood the airwaves in upcoming primary states with TV attack ads highlighting scandals like the time Rick got a C-minus on his fifth-grade report card.

People who don’t live in New Hampshire or South Carolina probably don’t realize that the Romney campaign aired attack ads against Santorum in those states, labelling him a “Washington insider” addicted to “pork barrel spending.” Indeed, one reason Newt was able to beat Mitt in South Carolina is that Santorum’s Iowa win distracted Team Romney from their previous destroy-Newt-at-all-costs mission.

Given that history, I do not underestimate Romney’s continued likelihood of winning the nomination. Beating Mitt is going to be a lot harder than most conservatives imagine, and if you don’t want Romney to be the GOP nominee, you’d better start praying now.

Early this morning at The American Spectator, I outlined a possible strategic scenario that might help stop Mitt. Please read that, and pray.

Also, please go give Rick Santorum some money — $25, $50, $100 — because these “upset miracles” can be kind of expensive.

Category: Bill Quick, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

Comments

54 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

Edward
February 8th, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

*shrug* yet isn’t Santorum precisely in the same mold as Bush was? Fiscally liberal, socially conservative? I’m supposed to be enamored of this?
Dave
February 8th, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

Decision Matrix if Romney wins the nomination

Romney wins
4 years moderate GOP, followed by 4 years Democrat
-or-
8 years moderate GOP

In either case, no conservative GOP in the White House until 2020 at best. (and that will be a longshot)

Obama wins
4 years of a marxist, conservatives get a do-over chance at a conservative nominee in 2016.

…That will be very tempting
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

You can make the same argument for Newt, BTW. He lobbied for all that “Bush stuff” when he left the Speaker’s office.
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

Just Santorum’s turn in the barrel.
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

No, not really. Only if you listen to the shrieking hyenas at Red State who have tried to paint Santorum as some kind of big government spendocrat. He has some bad votes in his career, but he’s no fiscal liberal.
richard mcenroe
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

Money for Newt and then turn on your local media. DO NOT let attacks on your chosen candidate go unchallenged.
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

Unfortunately, that argument has taken hold at Rightscoop and other conservative sites.
Adjoran
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

You spent a few days in SC, mainly at events or McDonald’s or on the road, so I submit you don’t know shi’ite from Shinola about the ads that ran here.

Romney’s ads here were virtually all against Newt. Yeah, a couple pointing out Santorum’s spending record came in late, but they weren’t a significant fraction of what he spent, which I’d say was overall 70% anti-Newt, 25% positive, 5% anti-Santorum. Santorum was never a threat in SC, so didn’t merit the attention from anyone.

Which brings up an interesting point: Newt was outgunned on ads here worse than in Florida because Romney had bought up most of the available ad time (it ain’t unlimited, no matter how it sounds when you sit through it) by the time Adelson had set up his PAC. So how come the money didn’t work in SC like it did in Florida?

It sure as hell isn’t because we’re smarter – SC has consistently ranked in the bottom two states in education for decades. Granted, our dumbest are mainly Democrats, but the Republicans aren’t overall much to brag about.

It was because Newt had those two back-to-back sizzling debate performances where dumb questioners gave him the opening to attack the media. That set the tone for both, which were also probably two of his three best debates ever anyway. Both happened just before the SC primary. That’s why he won.
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

Hey, can someone help me out? Where’s the link to Santorum’s address to the CA Republican group or Tea Party that is so outstanding? It was only here on the Other McCain … I need to send it to someone who wants “proof” of Santorum’s seriousness and that he gets the Left.

Thanks in advance, I really appreciate it!
Adjoran
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

The next President will be a one-termer, no matter who gets the nomination.

You cannot make the kind of cuts we need in the federal budget without laying off hundreds of thousands of federal “workers” and by the ripple effect a significant number of private workers for contractors who will no longer have contracts. Unemployment WILL remain high for the next four years barring an absolute miracle well beyond the ability of ANY policy to affect.

Also, no matter who we elect, they cannot do anything about the impending meltdown of Spain and Portugal, which will make Greece look like a blip on the radar screen.
Adjoran
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

Yes, allow Obama a second term, one to three more Supreme Court Justices, 200-300 lower federal judges appointed for life, four more years of his EPA and FCC and FTC and NLRB and Executive Orders to circumvent the law. Brilliant!

Your great-grandchildren and mine will still be suffering from that.
Mike Rogers
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

That, and people don’t like being told who to vote for.
Finrod Felagund
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

You’ve got a damn lot of gall, Stacy, writing about how the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns need to cooperate to defeat Romney, when you’ve been dumping bile on Gingrich pretty much every day for weeks now.

Physician, heal thyself.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
February 8th, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/bradying-is-replacing-tebowing.html These are Pats fans trying to heal themselves. They all do not have a Gisele to swear at their critics and console them, so they monkey their favorite QB in his moment of defeat. Do not mock them. They are in great pain.

I want to see the Democrats “Bradying” in November.
John Higgins
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:11 pm

Romney will get the nomination, then will have to pick a Tea Party candidate to excite the base ala John McCain. I’m guessing Romney will pick Rubio. And as much as I like Marco, I’m still not sure I could pull the lever for Romney.
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

After Jan. 10, Fox News was non-stop Newt-Mitt “frontrunner” competition until February 7. I considered it a duty to warn against what I expected: Namely, another Newt meltdown, which began to be apparent at least as early as Monday, Jan. 30, and which fully emerged on Saturday, Feb. 4.

This seemed predictable to me, and people need to stop blaming me for being right about these things, as if I had somehow caused what I merely predicted. Don’t kill the messenger who brings bad tidings.
Finrod Felagund
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:32 pm

You can’t claim to be just reporting on the fire when you’re standing there throwing gasoline on it. That’s as bad as Jon Stewart pulling out the clown nose and saying ‘but I’m not a real media source’ any time anyone complains about the Daily Show being badly wrong and biased as fuck.

You *are* a better person than Jon Stewart, aren’t you?
Did I Mention That I’m Bitter? | Daily Pundit
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

[…] Did I Mention That I’m Bitter? Posted on February 8, 2012 1:33 pm by Bill Quick Quote of the Day : The Other McCain […]
Finrod Felagund
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

Oh, and people like me are going to stand back and say things like ‘good for the goose, good for the gander’ when Romney unloads millions of dollars of half-truth and out-of-context accusation ads against Santorum, just like he did against Gingrich. After all, you sat there and mocked Gingrich for complaining about that crap, we’ll see how it feels when your candidate is being crapped on.
Edward
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

C’mon Adjoran do you really see Romney having the testicles to make those cuts?
tranquil.night
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

Bravo Stacy, that’s a profoundly far-sighted proposal. Just maybe with combined resources, the Romney juggernaut doesn’t have the ammo to effectively carpet bomb both camps. Even if it isn’t how Rick and Newt play it publically, I am praying they’ll see the wisdom what you’ve put forward. Congrats to Team Rick on those awesome wins. Honestly if Newt starts showing weakness in his strongholds before Super Tuesday, he should drop out and throw his full strength to Rick because your guy is really coming on strong on all fronts right at the time voters are getting desperate for a strong Conservative challenger.
Edward
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

Ok then. Let’s throw all that stuff away.

Show me where Santorum was fiscally conservative.
ThePaganTemple
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

There you go again, trying to pave the way for “President Romney” (you obviously hope) to let us down easy on the government cutting deal. Again, why does he have to let them all go in one day? Why can’t he phase them out over a six to eight year period? And if it does lead to an increase in unemployment, isn’t that going to be more than offset by the increase in employment and economic growth? It’s a necessary prerequisite that you’re trying to paint as a necessary evil. I don’t see it as an evil at all. If the next President isn’t re-elected, it won’t be because of this. If anything it will be because he doesn’t do it.
ThePaganTemple
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

If Obama is reelected it won’t be our fault. Imagine just for a second a friend sets you up on a blind date with what turns out to be the ugliest god damn woman you ever saw in your life, and who has the personality of a piece of cheap processed wood. On top of that, she stinks, not because she doesn’t bathe, but just because she has a naturally horrific odor you just can’t hide. If your buddy tries to talk her up and tells you the two of you should get married, what would you do?
ThePaganTemple
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

That, and most people just dislike Romney. He didn’t even win over half the vote in New Hampshire. Plus most people didn’t think Santorum had a chance. That, and even the people that like Mitt know deep down in their heart of hearts that even if he does win he’s going to change not a god damn thing.
Pathfinder's wife
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

No it isn’t; here’s why: that interview where he said something to the effect of “well the founders certainly built a system which makes it difficult for me to impose things [for everyone’s own good naturally] without congressional backing”.

Or as my husband called it when he heard it: “I could save the reich if only I did not have the Reichstag standing in my way”. (my husband is a bit overly sensitive to such things perhaps, but sometimes it’s wise to pay attention to overly sensitive people — perhaps their eyes, ears, and noses are better)

And this was the fellow whose one great work of legislature while still in IL, his signature piece if you will the one thing he found urgent enough to actually work on, was the BAIPA overturn — that cannot be stressed enough and should be dwelled on every day.

History does not repeat, but it can copy.

***and yes, even that twit Perry, even him (and I can’t stand him!) if he got the nomination I could vote for, because of the above
ThePaganTemple
February 8th, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

I think Nikki Haley has already bought the VP spot, but you could be right.
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

“There are a lot of yellow-stained drawers in Washington Cocktail Party haunts this morning.”

I sure hope that’s true. Since “my” candidates never ran or have been jettisoned, my only hope is to upset the D.C. applecart as much as possible while building some new ones in the Senate and House. The federal government does not fear the constituency enough to be a healthy relationship. It’s essential to change it.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
February 8th, 2012 @ 6:45 pm

When anmials attack reporters. Are the animals bad, or is it the reporters?
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-am-guessing-this-will-not-help-spur.html
Evi L. Bloggerlady
February 8th, 2012 @ 6:46 pm

I am all for Santorum’s victory. But I doubt the full impact of him winning has yet sunk in. It should. Because it is a bigger deal than they think it is.
Multimedia Group
February 8th, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

Spin away at will as to “why he won”. I could just as easily state that Mitt has been winning because he has the backing of the establishment and lots of money, not because of his ideas or his convictions (assuming he has any). He’s an opportunist and GOP opportunists don’t easily win the WH.

History is our guide here. Let’s look at the moderate Republicans who have actually won the White House in the last 30 years. Don’t have to look far to see that only one has done it, GHWB. And he did it on the strength of his association with Reagan and the fact that he chose a conservative running mate.

McCain only missed losing horribly by choosing a conservative as his running mate. Mitt might be able to get to 48% if he choses someone like Rubio or Jindal. That’s his best hope.
richard mcenroe
February 8th, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

http://tinyurl.com/cclq9jd
Enjoy.
I'm Not On The Rick Santorum Bandwagon....Yet - The POH Diaries
February 8th, 2012 @ 8:07 pm

[…] bandwagon yet, but if something crazy happens in Arizona, Maine, or Michigan I might just ask Stacy McCain if I could take a turn driving the thing once in a while. Tweet Tagged with: […]
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 8:08 pm

You raise an interesting question: What is Romney’s ROI (return on investment)? Like, when they spend $5 million for 25 percent of the vote, wouldn’t Romney investors get a better return on other investment vehicles?

Would Bain Capital Romney have recommended to one of his clients to invest in GOP candidate Romney?
Anonymous
February 8th, 2012 @ 8:12 pm

If we use the old (Protestant Work Ethic) industrious-wealth-creation as a sign of possibly being among The Elect, that comparison might not bode well for RSM.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
February 8th, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

“Santorum is clearly a better natural politician than Romney. If you gave Romney a car and an adviser or two and asked him to go at it on his own for a year on the campaign trail–based entirely on his instincts and convictions–it probably wouldn’t turn out very well.”
Rich Lowry
Multimedia Group
February 8th, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

I think Conservatives should be happy with either Newt or Rick. There’s no point in dumping on either one of them to the level that either’s supporters tend to do. Just recognize them for what they are; imperfect human beings who are a lot closer to what we would like in our candidate than the self-described progressive that is Mitt Romney.

Furthermore, I don’t see that Newt has really “melted down”. That’s hyperbole. He’s being Newt.

Nothing new here.

You can always tell what Newt is thinking, good or bad. To the extent that he was unfairly trashed and lied about by the Romneybots makes his complaints understandable. That, to me is refreshing. He’s our Winston Churchill and I think he would be stellar as President. Of course, I think Rick would be even better, but both are good.
Multimedia Group
February 8th, 2012 @ 9:19 pm

I think it is possible that Rubio could garner an extra 5% for Mitt. That makes it possible for Mitt to lose by only 10 points rather than 15.
Multimedia Group
February 8th, 2012 @ 9:54 pm

“What you see here, though, isn’t a giant boom for what Santorum is pushing, especially the socon stuff, which is about as popular as a case of crabs amongst the general electorate.” -Bill Quick

Bill Quick is one of those guys in whose judgement about anything I question. He’s a breed of “conservative” that is dubious in it’s clear thinking. Thomas Sowell once wrote about the folly of thinking that one can be a “fiscal conservative” and “socially liberal”. Such thinking doesn’t make you conservative but rather, double-minded.

Social liberalism relies on the state for sustenance. Guys like Quick will push anti-socon positions like abortion, evolution being taught in public schools, radical environmentalism, gay marriage, and so on. All of these positions are “socially liberal” but survive through totalitarian means, usually through court rulings.

In a libertarian America (and I’m not a fan of such a construct over the preferable “civil society” as Levin terms it), the States would decide these issues. So if Californians want to approve gay marriage (which they don’t by the way, that’s the courts dictating it once again), then let them. You can be married in California and any other state that agrees with California and you’re good to go. But don’t put a gun to my head here in Georgia and force me to approve of your progressive view of the world.

Sowell’s argument was that actually, a social liberal is also a fiscal liberal since the only way to get social liberalism accomplished is usually through large expenditures of tax dollars.

So yes, we all understand that Quick hates social conservatives like Santorum but my guess is that, at least Santorum won’t stand up before the world and claim that he voted for Medicare Part D because Jesus told him to.
Classical Values » Is Obama more popular than a case of the crabs?
February 8th, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

[…] Santorum’s “victories” in three “primaries,” Bill Quick (via Stacy McCain) said this: What you see here, though, isn’t a giant boom for what Santorum is pushing, […]
richard mcenroe
February 8th, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

Calling that Huey Long faux-populist knock off our Churchill is simply mindboggling.

Unless maybe you mean the Churchill who couldn’t be talked out of Gallipoli because it was his own big idea…
richard mcenroe
February 8th, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%
Multimedia Group
February 8th, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

He’s not the romanticized version of Churchill that we now know, but rather, a lot like the real man that was. Remember, Churchill was not all that popular in his earlier career and he was certainly a flawed individual.

But “faux populist”? Where’s that come from? Newt is a big idea guy (some good, some not so good) and most of his ideas are not exactly the kind of thing that are deemed what the Cambridge Dictionary terms “political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes”. That is, unless a moon base is something that the masses are clamoring for. The populist language Newt uses is what most Conservatives use; terms like “the elite media” could be construed as populist so maybe he might say “guilty” to that one.

The reason I’m not a huge Newt fan is that, for all the bombast and large ideas, he’s also an opportunist. Not as big of one as Romney (or McCain before him) but he does try to cater to the occasional audience like the Warmer crowd and the lovers of FDR. But his record is one of a conservative bent and thus, I’m inclined to think positively of him in ways I could never for the sleazy progressive from Massachusetts.
DaveO
February 8th, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

Using the Delaware Senatorial race as a guide – what is the likelihood that the national GOP will, just as the Delaware party did in 2010, sit out the race for President if Romney is not rubberstamped?

The folks who run and fund the GOP win whether Obama stays or Romney because the money and the lobbyists stay the same.
Finrod Felagund
February 8th, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

I would argue that the Protestant Work Ethic severely undervalues both information and entertainment, both of which Stacy is excellent at delivering.
Finrod Felagund
February 9th, 2012 @ 12:10 am

There are other ‘socially liberal’ issues than what you mention, though; drug legalization (marijuana in particular) for example. In this case it’s the social conservatives wanting Big Government running the War On Drugs.
Pathfinder's wife
February 9th, 2012 @ 12:54 am

Sowell is correct — the concept of being free to do as one pleases will always have to be paid for, usually by society (as many of the things that please humans means they wind up not being able to self-support, and sometimes they also put others lives in danger).

There’s also the fact that when everything becomes “free” then nothing is — rights come with inherent responsiblities…being a grown up is such a drag.
Pathfinder's wife
February 9th, 2012 @ 12:55 am

Well, I’m not sure doing the exact opposite (giving people free reign to legalized drugs) is going to be a much better answer.

Now I do have a suggestion (for winning the war on drugs) and think it would probably work damn well — but I doubt anybody would want to carry through with the plan.
Finrod Felagund
February 9th, 2012 @ 9:36 am

Well, Portugal decriminalized pretty much all drugs in 2000, and the marijuana usage rate there continues to be lower than the cocaine usage rate in the United States. Decriminalization there did pretty much none of the horrible things that SoCons say ending the War On Some Drugs would do.
Pathfinder's wife
February 9th, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

You also have to take into consideration that Portugal is hardly the U.S. (less disposable income per capita, different cultural mores, smaller thus more easily policed, and you have to be careful of any stats coming out of Euroland…they are sometimes padded to make a pretty picture).

I believe the War on Drugs is a racket, but making drugs free and easy probably isn’t going to be a great idea either.

I suggest allowing the drugs through and ever so often lacing them with poison (make it so a drug user just never knows for sure), the death penalty for killing somebody while DUI — buy a ticket, take the ride played out to the ultimate conclusion as it were, let people weigh the potential consequences of their actions in the most direct possible way. See, I can be pretty neo-libertarian too;)