Category: Rush Limbaugh

If You Think Mitt Romney Is ‘Electable’ …

Posted on Comments

. . . just wait. Maybe you’re right. But if you’re right, why are liberals so eager to have Romney as the Republican nominee? Maybe you think George Stephanopoulos is stupid?

Rick Santorum will hold a party tonight in Steubenville, Ohio, which he and his supporters hope will be a “Super Tuesday” victory celebration. Yet the latest polls indicate that Mitt Romney could win the Ohio Republican primary and, coming on the heels of Romney’s narrow win last week in Michigan, a Buckeye State victory might be enough to effectively clinch the nomination as the GOP Establishment’s “It’s His Turn” candidate. Whoever wins the Ohio primary, however, the result of today’s vote will be actual news, in contrast to the ridiculous ginned-up controversy that has swirled around Rush Limbaugh for the past week. And the story of how “SlutGate” became such an all-consuming affair is worth re-examining chiefly because it demonstrates the operational methodology of what the late Andrew Breitbart called the “Democrat-Media Complex.”
Go back to Saturday, Jan. 7, when ABC broadcast from Saint Anselm’s College in Manchester, N.H., a debate among six Republican presidential candidates, with George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer as moderators. After the first commercial break in the broadcast, seemingly out of the blue, Stephanopoulos posed this question to Romney: “Senator Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception.… Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” . . .

That’s from my American Spectator column today, which suggests the possibility that clueless Republicans have been manipulated like puppets on the media’s strings. And by “clueless Republicans,” I mean the 31%-38% of Ohio GOP primary voters who, according to the Real Clear Politics average, are willing to nominate the man Team Obama wants to face in November:

Mitt Romney could all but guarantee he’ll be the GOP presidential nominee by winning Ohio on Super Tuesday. …
“Ohio is a state that [Rick] Santorum cannot afford to lose,” said GOP strategist Alex Castellanos, who worked for Romney in 2008 but is neutral in this race. “If Santorum loses Ohio, it’ll be practically impossible to stop Romney.”

Exactly. For all intents and purposes, Ohio is the nomination, an unfortunate reality for which we could blame many factors, if we wanted to engage in hindsight recriminations. But there’s no point today in scapegoating the Republicans who have heretofore unwittingly aided the candidate they claimed to oppose by supporting Not Romneys who were clearly doomed from the outset.

Maybe Santorum can win tonight in Ohio, and we won’t have to contemplate the likelihood of a Romney-led debacle in November. And maybe, as I said, you think Mitt is “electable.” Maybe you think you’re smarter than George Stephanopoulos and his ABC News colleague Claire Shipman and their good buddy Jay Carney.

Why, however, are all these liberals convinced that Mitt is such a perfect choice as the Designated Republican Loser for November? I hesitate to endorse their cynical logic, but does anyone else remember how our Designated Republican Loser in 2008 grinned all the way to the nomination after winning “Super Tuesday” with a semi-secret tailwind of anti-Mormon prejudice?

Yeah, maybe I’m the only one who remembers that, or maybe not. Crack Emcee at The Macho Response doesn’t seem to care much for the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and I link his post not to endorse such anti-LDS views, but rather to remind you what kind of stuff is out there.

Maybe all you Republicans who think you’re smarter than George Stephanopoulos are now saying to yourself, “Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell us that the Democrats would be willing to exploit such religious bigotry merely to win an election?”

Damn right they would — and will. If they can’t beat Romney with the “greedy Wall Street 1-percenter” class-warfare argument, the Democrats will not hesitate to Do Whatever It Takes to Win. Continue reading If You Think Mitt Romney Is ‘Electable’ … →

Rush Limbaugh Apologizes on Radio Show; Byron York Explains Background

Posted on Comments

Rush Limbaugh devoted the opening monologue of his nationally syndicated radio program today to explaining why he issued an apology to Sandra Fluke. Limbaugh said that in his fight with the Left, he had “descended to their level.”

Limbaugh then cited a Washington Examiner column by Byron York, in which Republican sources on Capitol Hill explained how Democrats had made a last-minute effort to substitute Fluke as a witness at a Feb. 16 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) rejected Fluke as lacking demonstrable expertise on the issue which was the subject of the hearing.

Fluke was subsequently invited by Nancy Pelosi to speak at a Feb. 27 meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee, which was turned into a media event with Fluke presented as if she were testifying before an actual hearing. York writes:

The entire basis of her testimony to the Democratic Steering Committee the next week was that she had “a friend” who had a medical problem that required her to take birth control pills. Georgetown’s policy covers her friend’s condition, Fluke said, but did not actually pay for the pills, which caused her friend to stop purchasing and taking the pills and, later, to suffer a medical emergency. It was all pretty vague, and certainly wasn’t expert testimony.

Limbaugh subsequently read on his program a Feb. 28 Cybercast News Service article about Fluke’s “testimony.” When he labeled her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” left-wing organizations including Media Matters orchestrated a campaign to pressure advertisers to drop Limbaugh’s program, which remains the most popular radio show in America.

In her appearance at the Feb. 27 committee meeting, Fluke asserted that her fellow Georgetown Law students “struggled financially” to pay for contraceptives which, she told congressional Democrats “can cost a woman over $3,000” during the course of a three-year legal eductation. John McCormack of the Weekly Standard found that generic birth-control pills are available at a pharmacy near Georgetown for $9 a month, which would make the cost of a three-year supply $324.

PREVIOUSLY:

Facts From Which They Wish to Distract

Posted on Comments

Why has the Left spent the past five days ginning up a ridiculous controversy over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “slut” to describe liberal liar Sandra Fluke? Is it possible that they’re trying to distract attention from their own shady activity? Michelle Malkin is not distracted:

In a scathing fundraising e-mail appeal, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina name-checked wealthy free-market philanthropists Charles and David Koch — along with a growing movement of grassroots conservatives who have freely, voluntarily and legally given money to the Koch-founded nonprofit activist group Americans for Prosperity and its sister foundation. . . .
The threat of scrutiny was backed by Obama himself, whose official campaign Twitter account directed 12 million-plus followers this week to “add your name to demand that the Koch brothers make their donors public.”

Did you catch that? The President of the United States used his official Twitter account to attack the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity, a move that is clearly part of a coordinated effort by left-wing activists (including Occupy Wall Street and their union-thug allies) to smear and intimidate their political opponents.

Meanwhile, no fewer than seven advertisers have been harassed into pulling their ads from Limbaugh’s radio show, and why? Because of attacks from this same Obama smear machinee, that’s why.

If Rush Limbaugh isn’t on the radio, reaching millions of Americans to tell them about what Obama and his allies are up to, isn’t that going to make it easier for the Democrats to get away with their dirty tricks? So however much you may regret the use of the word “slut” on the radio, don’t you think that your offended sensibilities are less important than the work Rush Limbaugh does in opposing and exposing the Left?

On the one hand, we do not wish to endorse misconduct, but to throw Rush Limbaugh under the bus for a few insulting words? At a time when his enemies (who are also our enemies) are trying to destroy him? We need to re-focus our attention, and remember that old Air Force saying: When you’re taking flak, it’s because you’re over the target.

Rush has been bombing the hell out of the target for 25 years, and I’m pretty sure he’ll survive this latest burst of flak just fine — no thanks to certain people who overestimate their own importance.

Since We Can’t Call Sandra Fluke a ‘Slut,’ Would ‘Lying Liberal Bitch’ Be OK?

Posted on Comments

Sandra “Not a Slut” Fluke testifies, Monday, Feb. 27, 2012

Far be it from me to stoop to name-calling as a substitute for argument, but this question is not merely rhetorical. It seems that Sandra Fluke — who is receiving media Martyr of the Month beatification as the Matthew Shepard of “reproductive rights” — stands accused of makin’ stuff up.

This story isn’t on my beat: Until Wednesday, I’d been covering the GOP presidential campaign, then I had a family emergency that required me to drive home from Michigan, then Andrew Breitbart died on Thursday, and so I’ve been kind of busy with other stuff. I hadn’t too much followed the details of this controversy, except to note that everybody was slamming Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut.” Fortunately, John McCormack of the Weekly Standard was all over this story:

Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

(We make note of the key facts: One witness, testifying before Congress, about mandating free contraception coverage.)

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university’s policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

(Again noting the key facts: Fluke claims to have conducted a survey, discovering that 40% of her felllow students “struggled financially” because of contraceptive costs averaging $1,000 a year during the three years required to complete law school. Fluke made these claims, it must be repeated, during a congressional hearing at which she was the only witness.)

Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.’s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills — the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen — for $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

WHOA! John McCormack has done something here that evidently no one else — not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not Nancy Pelosi’s staffers in the House of Representatives — is capable of doing: Calling up a drugstore and asking them how much birth-control pills cost.

Give that man a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.

Now let’s back up a minute and consider the key facts again: Nancy Pelosi holds a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee seeking to justify a federal policy that would mandate insurance coverage of contraceptives — with no deductible and no co-payment — even for religious institutions where artificial contraception is forbidden as a matter of church doctrine.

In justification of this policy, Pelosi produces exactly one witness, Sandra Fluke, who then asserts that she has conducted a survey of her fellow students, determined that four out of every ten of them have “struggled financially” to pay for their contraception which, she has further determined, “can cost a woman over $3,000” during the three years required to complete law school.

Craig Bannister’s CNS article about Fluke’s testimony mocked these assertions, and when Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners about the story, he used the words “slut” and “prostitute” to describe Fluke, thus making Limbaugh the target of one of those online lynch mobs that Media Matters specializes in orchestrating.

While everyone is focused on Limbaugh’s alleged “misogyny,” however, it seems that we are ignoring much more important questions:

  • How and when did Fluke conduct her survey of Georgetown Law students’ alleged struggles with contraceptive costs? How many students participated in this survey? What kind of questions were asked? Was the survey conducted with a statistically valid sample? Can Fluke describe her survey’s methodology and provide us with the original questionnaires?
  • How did Fluke arrive at her $3,000 estimate of the cost of contraception? What types of contraceptives — condoms, diaphragms, pills, spermicidal foam — were included in these calculations?
  • Was Fluke aware that a monthly supply of birth-control pills could be obtained for as little as $9 a month? Are Fluke’s math skills sufficient to multiply 9 x 12 x 3 and realize that a three-year supply of pills would therefore cost $324, which is 89.2% less than her $3,000 estimate?
  • Is Fluke aware that annual full-time tuition at Georgetown Law School is $46,865, compared to which an annual cost of $108 for birth-control pills is what statisticians might call “a drop in the bucket”?

Let me be clear: I don’t think Sandra Fluke could provide credible answers to these questions, because I think Sandra Fluke lied through her teeth at that congressional hearing, and I think it’s high time people stop worrying about the alleged misogyny involved in calling someone a “slut” and start asking some hard questions about the alleged lying of Sandra Fluke.

Ace of Spades is giving Jake Tapper hell because Tapper got an interview with Sandra Fluke and didn’t bother to ask her any hard questions about her wildly exaggerated estimate of contraceptive costs. But instead of expecting journalists to do actual journalism, here’s a wild idea:

Aren’t Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives? Doesn’t that give them subpoena power? Couldn’t some GOP committee chairman subpoena Sandra Fluke, put her under oath, and force her to answer some hard questions under penalty of perjury?

I’d sure as hell like to see that hearing, wouldn’t you? And if the House Republicans don’t give us that hearing, I’m prepared to denounce John Boehner as a gutless sissy-boy.

Now, I’ll wait for liberals to accuse me of “homophobia,” so we can spend another week engaged in pointless distractions.

UPDATE: At one point in this “controversy,” Ace tried to find the proper comic tone for riffing on Sandra Fluke:

She’s not a hero. She’s just a Chubster looking for some camera time.

Not good. I thought about going there. The line where I have Fluke “lying through her teeth”? That was going to be “lying her chubby ass off,” but I wasn’t sure that readers would understand that I actually like chubby asses, and I didn’t want to risk offending women who’ve got that kind of more-cushion-for-the-pushin’ biscuits-and-gravy action that me and Sir Mix-a-Lot dig, IYKWIMAITYD.

So I decided against that joke, with a bit of a guilty conscience for even having considered it.

I also felt a slight twinge of guilt when I remembered having made fun of Maureen Dowd’s musty old vajayjay a few years ago. But then I thought about all the vicious things MoDo wrote about Sarah Palin, and my conscience felt a whole lot better all of a sudden.

UPDATE II: Linked by Bob Agard, Monoblog and Rio Norte Line — thanks! — and I want to take this opportunity to apologize to readers for some of our commenters who have made derogatory remarks about Sandra Fluke’s appearance. This is terribly unfortunate, and probably sexist, too.

Besides, it is inaccurate to imply that Sandra Fluke is unattractive.

A recent survey I’ve conducted indicates that 27% of men are attracted to women with the “varsity softball scholarship” look. In fact, seven out of 10 Eritrean immigrant cab drivers in the D.C. metropolitan area say that they would be attracted to Sandra Fluke, especially if her family were willing to provide a dowry that included a small herd of goats, or if they could score a Permanent Residency Visa out of the deal.

Also, if given a choice between Maureen Dowd and Sandra Fluke, the Eritrean cab drivers would unanimously choose Fluke.

While We Were Out, Rush Limbaugh Apologized and Romney Won the Washington State GOP Caucuses

Posted on Comments

The entire crew of the blog — me, Smitty and Wombat — left home yesterday evening to attend the “Remember Breitbart” event in D.C., and got back home in the wee a.m. hours. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh issued this statement:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. . . .
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

So “slut” joins the “n-word” on the List of Forbidden Terms, and we are now at a loss for any way to describe Meghan McCain.

In other important news developments, Mitt Romney scored a surprisingly easy win in Washington State’s Republican caucuses:

With 99% of the vote in, Romney had 38%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 25% and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum had 24%. They were trailed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10%.

As Ed Morrissey points out, no delegates were awarded as a result of this vote. Most news accounts omit the non-binding nature of Saturday’s vote, which was for some reason very important news when Romney lost non-binding contests in three states on Feb. 7.

What Do You Call a Woman Who Is So ‘Sexually Active’ That She Needs More Contraception Than She Can Afford? UPDATE: Is Sandra Fluke a Fraud?

Posted on Comments

Apparently, the old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon word “slut” won’t do:

Speaker John Boehner on Friday denounced radio host Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” remarks aimed at Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke, but the Ohio Republican also jabbed at Democrats who have been fundraising off the fracas.
“The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an e-mail Friday morning.

In a predictable MMFA-led tactic, the Left has gone after Limbaugh’s advertisers. Limbaugh is amazed by the ridiculous uproar:

What has happened to our country where law students have to buy their own contraceptives? What has happened to us, folks? What have we done with our hearts? How did we become so cruel?
How did we become so heartless? Require each other to pay for the contraceptives of the women law students at Georgetown? Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi: “It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations. ‘Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,’ Fluke told the hearing. …” That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it. Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale.

Michelle Malkin writes:

The language Rush used is completely unacceptable…except when it’s used against the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, myself, and every other prominent female conservative in public life, of course.

Let us be clear: Words have meanings. To call a woman a “slut” is to say that she is promiscuous — easy, a pushover, loose, “Runaround Sue” — whatever synonym you choose.

The pejorative intent of the word “slut” or any other such term is to express a disapproval of vice, because virtue loses some of its prestige if vice goes uncondemned. We praise and encourage honesty by our condemnation of liars, just as a high regard for courage requires us to scorn cowardice.

We cannot esteem loyalty without also denouncing two-faced backstabbing crapweasels. But why bring John McCain into this?

If we remove “slut” from our discourse, we thereby discard half the reward of chastity, namely the superiority of prestige that the virtuous woman should rightly enjoy in comparison to those who are less virtuous. And, I must hasten to add, we also degrade our discourse if we misuse “slut” as an ugly synonym for “woman I don’t like,” as the Left uses the word against conservative women who have never done anything to deserve a reputation for promiscuity.

The degradation of language is one of the weapons of totalitarianism. During the 1930s, epithets like “saboteur” and “parasite” were used by Stalin and his henchmen to vilify people in the Soviet Union whose only real crime was to have been suspected of posing a threat to Stalin’s supremacy. Nowadays, labels like “racist” and “homophobe” are applied with similar purpose by the Left in America, and this degradation of language in the age of Political Correctness (a phenomenon also known as Cultural Marxism) ought to alarm us, as a warning signal of an encroaching totalitarian ethos in our society.

The Left has substituted the clinical-sounding term “sexually active” for more value-laden terms used to describe promiscuity, because the Left is actively seeking to destroy the system of traditional moral values that condemns sex outside marriage. And while pretending that they have no such intent, the Democrats are exploiting the phony “War on Contraception” meme they’ve created for purely partisan political purposes.

We can laugh at the hysteria — “Republicans are coming to steal your ladyparts!” — but we cannot ignore the fact that the Left is engaged in a Culture War offensive with potentially serious consequences.

UPDATE: Jammie Wearing Fool finds evidence that Sandra Fluke, who was presented as a 23-year-old “coed,” is in fact 30 years old. She is an experienced left-wing activist, past president of “Law Students for Reproductive Justice” (!!!) and evidently enrolled at Georgetown University Law School with the specific purpose of challenging the Catholic university’s policy of denying insurance coverage for contraception.

So apparently, this was all a phony political stunt. It’s a good thing Sandra Fluke didn’t dress up like a hooker and use a hidden camera, or she might have been denounced by Rolling Stone.

UPDATE II: It is important to keep in mind that this controversy involves a genuine public policy dispute, namely the attempt by Democrats to use ObamaCare to impose universal, mandatory, no-deductible, no-co-pay contraceptive coverage on private insurers — and to demonize any opponent as a misogynistic theocrat who would ban contraception. We must keep this in mind, I say, as headlines indicate that “SlutGate” is rapidly becoming an idiotic media carnival sideshow:

Obama in personal phone call to Sandra Fluke:
Your parents should be proud
— Hot Air

Carly Fiorina: Limbaugh ‘insulting’
— Politico

Second Advertiser Pulls Out From Limbaugh 
— Think Progress

The purpose of the carnival sideshow is to distract you from what is really at issue, by focusing your attention on scapegoats and  inflammatory appeals to emotional triggers.

Florida Conservative to Limbaugh: ‘I Don’t Think That I’ve Ever Been Accused of Being an Establishment Republican!’

Posted on Comments

As I said this morning, everybody’s gone crazy, and it seems that even Rush Limbaugh drank the kooky Kool-Aid, inspiring a paranoid outburst that Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon felt obliged to correct:

As a longtime fan and admirer of Rush Limbaugh, I was disappointed to hear his comments regarding the work of the Congressional Redistricting Subcommittee on which I am honored to serve. His suggestions that we “rigged” the maps to force Allen West out of Congress are simply ludicrous. I was there…it didn’t happen…I know. It is especially surprising to see Mr. Limbaugh join with the chorus of left wing groups that are attacking our work.
I can only presume that Mr. Limbaugh’s lack of knowledge of our process, laws and constitution would lead him to make such statements and would lead him to take these kind of cheap shots at Representative Will Weatherford and the work of our committee. . . .
I was the only Florida legislator to endorse Herman Cain (when he was at 5% in the polls) before September 24th, the day he won Presidency 5 and started his climb in the polls. Last week I endorsed Rick Santorum. I’ve filed and/or passed the Health Care Freedom Amendment, the red-light camera repeal, the cap and trade repeal, etc., etc. I don’t think that I’ve ever been accused of being an “establishment Republican”!

Read the whole thing. People need to chill out.

UPDATE: Newt’s Populist Turn

Posted on Comments

FORT MYERS, Fla.
6:51 p.m. ET: During his speech today at Page Field, Newt Gingrich spun a conspiratorial view of the opposition to him, saying that Mitt Romney’s campaign is using “recycled” bailout money to attack him.

Saying that Goldman Sachs chose Barack Obama in 2008, Gingrich said the giant Wall Street bank — using taxpayer funds from bailouts — had “recycled” that money into support for Mitt Romney’s campaign. Gingrich said that, if elected president, he would request “a thorough audit” to find out “where the money went.”

Gingrich also referenced remarks by international financier George Soros critical of his campaign. Soros, Gingrich said, was “in Europe, and he’s explaining to Europeans the American campaign … And so Soros says, you know, we think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Gingrich said, “They are uncomfortable with me and they should be.”

I’m sitting here comparing notes with Jeff Briscoe from Port Charlotte, whose site is Report Bucket. Neither of us seems to have the Goldman Sachs conspiracy remarks on video — I switched between photo and video mode during the speech — but during the speech, I provided an open phone link for Pete Da Tech Guy who transcribed much of it live, and he provides these direct quotes: “Goldman Sacks is very uncomfortable with me. . . . Those ads are your money recycled to attack me.”

Gingrich described his campaign as one of “grassroots populist conservatism” versus “The Establishment.” He cited the fact that Herman Cain appeared with him today here and elsehwere on the campaign trail, and also that Todd Palin has agreed to record a message of support for automated get-out-the-vote phone calls.

* * * PREVIOUSLY (2:40 p.m. ET) * * *

Sitting here at a McDonald’s on Colonial Boulevard a half-mile from Page Field, where Newt Gingrich and Michael Reagan will hold a “grassroots rally” at 3 p.m. I’m not expecting much of a crowd for a mid-afternoon event on a Monday, but maybe I’ll be surprised. There were already three TV satellite trucks at the site when I cruised by about 1:3o p.m., and there were lots of cops preparing for a heavy security presence.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way up here from Naples, the commercial breaks were pretty much wall-to-wall attack ads, Mitt vs. Newt and Newt vs. Mitt. It seemed as if the anti-Newt ads were the majority. Ed Morrissey has audio of Limbaugh telling Newt to stop complaining about Mitt’s attacks.

It’s been a bad week for Newt and I frankly don’t believe the Insider Advantage poll showing Newt within five. If you look at the Real Clear Politics average, there are five other Florida polls in the past five days showing Mitt winning by anywhere from 11 to 20 points. The latest Quinnipiac poll, with Romney up by 14 points, is about average. So if Romney wins by less than 10, it would be surprising.

Somebody in the Newt camp tossed an “internal memo” over the fence to Matt Lewis. Long story short, they’re lowering expectations in Florida. And as I pointed out in my American Spectator column, second place in Florida is worthless — it’s winner-take-all. Team Gingrich just blew through about $2 million for nothing.

Well, it’s past 2:30 now, so I’d better get over to the airport. Let’s hope the Gingrich people don’t sic the cops on me.

UPDATE: It’s nearly 4 p.m. and no Newt yet. There are about 250-300 people here and four network satellite trucks. I talked to one network reporter who told me about the war between the press corps and the Gingrich campaign over charter travel:

The Gingrich campaign isn’t taking reporters on their charter flight on Monday to travel from Pensacola to Miami with stops along the way, destinations that are physically impossible to get to by car in a day.
The reason?
Campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond says he’s ticked off after several media outlets opted not to get on a charter Saturday night.
“I have better things to do than complain with you guys about the cost of flights,” Hammond said when asked why the Monday charter was canceled.
The campaign is also not taking press with them to Nevada on Tuesday night after the Florida primary after initially saying they would be included.

Read the whole thing. It seems that the networks thought the charter rates they were being charged by the Gingrich campaign were too high. So there’s a little inside-baseball camapign stuff for you.