The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Erick Erickson, Santorum Consultant?

Posted on | February 23, 2012 | 34 Comments

JOHNSTOWN, Ohio
In the preceding post, I described Erick Erickson as hating Rick Santorum “with the heat of ten thousand suns,” which evidently prompted commenters to call my attention to Erickson’s post-debate analysis at Red State:

It was the last debate. Newt Gingrich won it.
He was the only candidate who repeatedly steered the questions toward Barack Obama. He was the only candidate who dared point out that the media barely touched Obama’s infanticide support as an Illinois State Senator. He returned to the role of elder statesman.
The crowd leaned to Mitt Romney. It was probably inevitable. Mesa, AZ is the second largest concentration of Mormons in America and the State Republican Party handled getting the seats filled. It threw Rick Santorum off his game. The crowd booed Santorum taking on Romneycare’s individual mandate.
Santorum did not shine. He came in, it seemed, prepared to be beaten up. He was off his game. In the second half of the debate he did better. But the beginning was stumbling, bumbling, angry, and in the weeds. One thing he did very, very well is steer the contraception issue to families.
If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters. Note to the Santorum campaign: you will actually win the debate even in the general election if you focus your social values critique on the integrity of the American nuclear family.

To quote P.J. O’Rourke: “What the f–k? What the f–king f–k, huh?”

Certainly I cannot be the only conservative who recalls how Erickson spent the final week before the Iowa caucuses furiously attacking Santorum in what was, so far as I could figure, a final desperate attempt to salvage hope for a Rick Perry comeback. And yet now Erickson deems it his prerogative to offer strategic “messaging” advice to the Santorum campaign?

This is not to say that Erickson’s advice is wrong, of course. But this kind of sadistic “frenemies” stuff — Erickson relentlessly pounding on Santorum for months and then expecting Santorum to heed his advice — just boggles my mind. Why does Erickson, who has made it abundantly clear that he would rather have Romney than Santorum as the GOP nominee, make this show of pretending to want to help Santorum?

Alternate explanatory theories come to mind, but I need to get on the road to Michigan, and don’t have time to delve into it now. Let the commenters attempt to explain this weirdness.

UPDATE: Bill Quick offers his own assessment of the debate, acknowledging his pro-Gingrich bias and, hey, NTTAWWT. It was a good night for Newt, but the problem is that Newt is now down so low that a comeback appears impossible for him. (Was I the only one who noticed that Gingrich refrained from attacking Mitt last night? Is anyone else even slightly curious about that oddity?)

Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey summarizes his reaction:

Unfortunately Santorum seemed almost overprepared for the fight. Instead of providing a brief response and refocusing attention on current issues like the economy, Santorum kept explaining, and explaining, and explaining, and added an apology or two along the way. There is an axiom in politics: Explaining is not winning. Save the explanations for your web page, not for debates. Santorum came across as measured, honest, and open, but ended up sounding defensive almost all night long. . . .
Does this debate move the needle for anyone? I doubt it. Gingrich had a very good debate but not a real gamechanger, and his position in the polling has dropped so low nearly everywhere that he’d practically need the other three men on stage to declare themselves Kennedy Democrats in order to get out of that hole. Santorum may have rattled the confidence of some new supporters and give undecideds less reason to join his column, but it wasn’t a terrible performance such as Rick Perry’s debates in September and October, and Santorum did have some good moments as well.

That generally comports with my own view. My problem in judging a debate performance is that I know I’m not neutral. Why the hell would I even watch a debate if I didn’t care who won?

Because I know I’m not neutral, I don’t trust my own subjective impressions of the event, but neither am I willing to outsource my thinking to the media. Neither the New York Times nor Fox News nor Erick Erickson is going to tell me what to think and, while I acknowledge the ability or major media institutions to influence political outcomes — i.e., by telling other people what to think — I try to keep in mind the distinction between (a) what actually happened and (b) what the major media say happened.

Perceptions have a way of becoming realities in politics, and there are times when the stimuli and and the reactions become conflated: We begin judging events by the reactions of others, rather than judging events as independent phenomena in their own right.

Nobody is paying me to tell people What It Really Means, nor am I being paid to tell politicians how to run their campaigns. In fact, I’m being paid precious little to tell anybody anything at all.

There are times when I feel like I’m just unloading my twisted brain onto the blogosphere for the amusement of the readership — maybe I should write a book, Monetize Your Insanity: Psychosis for Fun & Profit — and as long as y’all keep hitting the tip jar to keep the show on the road, that’s OK with me: “A Road Man for the Lords of Karma.”

UPDATE II: Linked at Memeorandum in connection with Byron York’s Washington Examiner column, “In Arizona, GOP debates end on low point.” Byron’s good people. I expect to see him in Michigan between now and Tuesday.

 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Bookmark and Share
Category: Arizona, Debates, Michigan, Ohio, Red State, Rick Santorum

Comments

  • avagreen

    Erick has lost his mind (and his way).
    Romney 2012 !

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    A couple of weeks ago, Erick posted that he had “studiously avoided endorsing any candidate” in this cycle, which I found surprising. 

    But come to think of it, he may not have formally endorsed Perry – there wasn’t much time for an actual endorsement with all the frenetic boot-licking.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    “If Santorum can consistently steer this issue back to stable families, he has an issue that will win over independent voters.”

    But for Santorum to go with stability, it would mean making judgements. Is that what all those eminently qualified fence-straddling undecideds are going to want to hear as they decide whether to watch American Idol or go out and cast a ballot? That they’re being judged and found wanting because “stable family” isn’t really all that hip anymore?

    Weak advice though it has a semblance of traditional populism. It seems maybe the better advice is not to continue getting dragged by the media’s leash on the contraception issue but to dig deeper pillars for the foundation that there’s an intentional attack on religious liberty – specifically of the Christian sort – and that a spirited defense of that remains in order.

  • Finrod Felagund

    My guess is that even though Erickson doesn’t like Santorum, he still wants Santorum to defeat Obama.

    Come to think of it, that’s about my position too.

  • Ethel

     He’s spending too much time with the CNN crew.

  • Quartermaster

    Anyone with a brain believes that. Even people who aspire to the Ambassadorship to Vanuatu agree with you.

    That should set the bar pretty low. Low enough to encompass at least, what, 20% of the electorate?

  • willpeir

    My guess would be worry about backlash? Having fiscal conservatives lead over social conservatives only works if there’s actually fiscal elements to what they’re doing. If you’re pushing for fiscal, while sneering at “backwoods” morals, but then when in power doing nothing but managing the decline (poorly), you’ve effectively pissed everyone off and pleased no one. Which is great for the New York cocktail circuit, not so great for the entire rest of the world.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com/ Thomas L. Knapp

    “he still wants Santorum to defeat Obama”

    And people in hell want icewater, too. But they’re not likely to get it.

  • Lemuel Vargas

    As Sarah Palin  succinctly said,  all the republican nominees are much better than Obama if you only take the time to study their platforms.
    In my opinion, Sarah Palin has been and is still an astute and keen observer of political events and thus will follow whoever she endorses in this election and vote accordingly. If she does not endorse, then whoever is the Repub nominee will be my choice.
    my 2 cents worth of opinion..

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I think he’s trying to retain his legitimacy among the conservatives.  He may be smart enough to realize how he has damaged his reputation, starting last Fall with the Palin Countdown posts.

    Erick Erickson, however, remains dead to me.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I missed you, Tom.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com/ Thomas L. Knapp

    I didn’t know I’d been gone!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Forgot: Thanks for the linky love, Stacy.

    Speaking of HST, this description fits EE:
    He speaks for the Werewolf in us; the bully, the predatory shyster who turns into something unspeakable, full of claws and bleeding string-warts on nights when the moon comes too close….

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    It is just when you show up we realize we miss you.  

  • http://profiles.google.com/icebergwtq William Quick

    There are times when I feel like I’m just unloading my twisted brain onto the blogosphere for the amusement of the readership —

    Um, Stacy….aside from a very, very, very few, that’s all any of us are doing.

    As you recently pointed out, the opportunity cost of blogging blocks us from the far more lucrative occupation of fork lift driving.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    What I did take from that debate is Santorum, Gingrich and Romney could definitely hold their own against Obama (which obviously pluses and minuses for each of those candidates).  Even Paul, who I disagree with on foreign policy, did okay on constitutional and fiscal issues last night.  

     I thought RS’s observation about Santorum doing well on the contraception issue last night and pivoting to families was a good point.  

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    You weren’t around that I saw for a few days.

    Off topic: I have a dilemma. My barrel of Maker’s Mark is ready to be bottled starting in April. I can buy two bottles of it if I get down to Loretto, KY between April and September, but such a trip might prevent me and the Mrs. from going away for our annual week-and-a-half over XMas – what to do…what to do???

  • robertstacymccain

    Forklift driving is far less mentally exhausting.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com/ Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Buy those two bottles, and save one of them to get hammered with over Xmas.

    Signed,
    Ann Landers

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • K-Bob

    I watched some of the CNN post-debate toss-around.  When it got to Ericson, all I could hear was fart noises and ploppy sounds.  That’s about how much I respect his opinion.

    Gergen is at least a two-dimensional shill for a fake, center-left form of “conservatism.”  You can discount everything the man says.  But Eric “bi-labial frickative” Ericson needs to just go join MSNBC and get it over with.

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    Right up until you realize that was a schoolyard back there…

  • smbren

    First time posting to say I loathe Mr. Erickson. Just wanted to put it out there.

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    If I was a political consultant I’d be more for advising Santorum to  stick to his social con message vis a vis “you can’t have a free society if everybody thinks ‘liberty’ means ‘I can do anything I want!’” (and that it also costs us in money as well as freedom from rules) while at the same time putting out some feelers to those libertarians that do understand that this is a problem.

    And he can do it while talking up his personal opinions; take the women in the military thing: 
    say something along the lines that he realizes that women have been good and loyal servicemen, and he applauds them for that and wouldn’t want to take opportunities away from them…but, well, maybe it’s just a personal thing, but as a man he hates the idea of women being blown up, that he was raised to believe that men are supposed to protect and cherish women and children, and yeah it tears him up to see women not getting that sort of tender feeling, much like they don’t seem to get taken as anything other than an overnight parking spot and their children’s fathers run out on them and the kids; that this is personally a hard thing for him to take and he wished more men at least thought that way nowdays (please forgive, ladies, not trying to take your freedom away from you)

    I’m telling you: guaranteed to work on at least some of them.

  • Pingback: Fear And Loathing 2012: The Road Trip To Super Tuesday « The Camp Of The Saints

  • JimmyDean

    Santorum is being dishonest about his stance on contraceptives, he tries to muddy the issue by talking about 12 year olds using birth control, but it’s clear from Sanotrum’s quotes, it’s actually married Protestants using birth control that he also has a problem with and wants to make a campaign issue.

    Here is the famous quote:

        One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

        It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

        Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    Wow, where to begin:
    This goes to that bit about many mainline churches straying doctrinally from Christianity.
    There have been a few very notable Protestant churches who have publicly come out in support of Obama’s contraception plan…since that plan entails the use of abortifacients as contraception, and will be available to all who “need them” then it stands to reason that those churches are much in support of the sort of society that would need them (and this has been hashed out here already) and also by implication support that practice.

    Not exactly a very Christian stance, don’t you think?  Or have these churches decided that doctrinal, Christian moral teachings aren’t hip enough and need an updating?

    Oh, and I believe one of the Christian doctrines/teachings does very much entail the sins of Onan?  Which means that you are very much sinning if the only reason you are ever (note the word “ever”, Santorum certainly has taken this fine line into account) ever bop the nasty is for “fun” (sex is supposed to be an act of giving and partaking of the fruitfulness that God has granted us all — you’re not doing that if you’re wrapping it up all the time).
    Now, a person can either say “ok, guess I’m a heretic then” and go on with life, but it is quite another for a church to doctrinally let you off the hook for it.

    Santorum could have been a bit more clever by half when making this statement, but he does have a big point (and he never mentioned Protestants at all, so you’re just throwing mud and hoping it will stick).

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Obviously, you’re a very perceptive person.

    Erick Erickson Delenda Est!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Uh..I think he has the same sentiments toward Cafeteria Catholics – and he’s quite right.

  • SDN

    One of the bigger mistakes of the Catholic Church is that its’ printing presses haven’t been running at speeds rivaling the Treasury’s cranking out excommunications for said “Cafeteria Catholics.” People have the right to believe what they want to. And the Church has the right to get rid of members who don’t meet the definition.

    And it should, before there is no definition at all.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Exactly. Either you stand for something or you don’t.

  • Pingback: Fear and Loathing in Romneyland : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: My Saturday Night in Hell : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: Election Day in Hell, Michigan: Does Romney Have a Snowball’s Chance of Winning? : The Other McCain

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE