Category: Debates

Rick Santorum Will Score Upset Win in Tonight’s ‘Pivotal’ ABC Debate in Iowa

Posted on Comments

That’s not the headline on the ABC News story, of course:

Only three weeks from the Iowa caucuses, the top Republican candidates will square off tonight at a pivotal debate in the state capital. The debate, hosted by ABC News and moderated by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, starts at 9pm ET, live from Drake University.
The prime-time debate comes as the GOP race has started to reach a boiling point. With Newt Gingrich surging to the top of the pack, former front-runner Mitt Romney has launched scathing attacks from all sides, from his key surrogates to a political action committee that, while not affiliated with the campaign, is funded by many Romney donors.

We should recognize this as what it is: Hype, of the same sort of stuff Hunter S. Thompson used to write when he was moonlighting as a publicist for a Florida wrestling promoter:

“The entire Fort Walton Beach police force is gripped in a state of fear this week; all leaves have been cancelled and Chief Bloor is said to be drilling his men for an Emergency Alert situation on Friday and Saturday night — because those are the nights when ‘Kazika, The Mad Jap,’ a 440-pound sadist from the vile slums of Hiroshima, is scheduled to make his first — and no doubt his last — appearance in Fish-head Auditorium. Local wrestling impressario Lionel Olay is known to have spoken privately with Chief Bloor, urging him to have ‘every available officer’ on duty at ringside this weekend, because of the Mad Jap’s legendary temper and his invariably savage reaction to racial insults. Last week, in Detroit, Kazika ran amok and tore the spleens out of three spectators, one of whom allegedly called him a ‘yellow devil’ . . .”
— from Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

The TV network publicists want to hype up this “pivotal” debate as a cage match between Newt and Mitt, so that viewers tune in to see these two Mad Jap stranglers go at one another. The multimillionaire ABC celebrity superstar anchors Diane and George want to burnish their reputations as Important Journalists by presiding over an event of historic consequence and, for that very reason, Rick Santorum might finally catch a break.

What better “news” for ABC than to have their cage-match debate destroy both of the Mad Jap stranglers? And what better dramatic turn in the saga of Campaign 2012 than for the upset winner to be the scrappy underdog now polling in single digits? Can’t you just hear Diane and George in the post-debate analysis segment, “I was surprisingly impressed with Rick Santorum”?

This is predictable, you see. It’s about the narrative arc, because TV news is show business, and show business requires a story that captures the public imagination. The people who run TV news are, to a greater extent than most viewers understand, deliberately controlling the story, deciding what is and is not “news.”

Our perceptions are being manipulated by these people, as I argued last month in my American Spectator column, “Debating the Deciders”:

During the third debate — Aug. 11 in Ames, Iowa, televised by Fox — the moderators clearly were trying to incite clashes between Bachmann and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who both were going all-out to win that week’s Iowa Republican Party straw poll. Pawlenty came out the loser in both the Thursday debate and the Saturday straw poll, and by Sunday quit the race. Meanwhile, the race had been transformed by the entrance of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who quickly rose to become the front-runner. Perry seemed an unstoppable juggernaut until his performance in three June debates derailed his bandwagon. While most of Perry’s debate damage resulted from self-inflicted wounds, this is not to say that the manipulations of moderators were without effect. Howard Kurtz watched as the Fox News team planned for the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando, Florida, aiming to “get some fireworks going,” as Fox managing editor Bill Sammon put it.

Political bias isn’t the only bias of which news media are guilty, although they’re guilty as hell of that. Even those in the media who are conservative tend to have their own prejudices, including the prejudice for inciting “fireworks” in debates — and beating other networks.

That’s why I’ve got a gut hunch about tonight’s debate: The ABC moderators aren’t willing to let Fox News play the “pivotal” role with the Dec. 15 debate. If this race is going to pivot, by God, Diane and George will do the pivoting. I’ve called Santorum a “brutal counter-puncher” in debates (he got some heavy body blows in on Perry during that Orlando debate), and if my hunch is right, the ABC moderators will let him use those skills. Here’s what to look for: Controversial “gotcha” question to either Mitt or Newt and then, after they’ve attempted to evade the question, the moderators call on Santorum to respond, at which point he hammers on the front-runner, who then gets 30 seconds to respond and this back-and-forth then turns into a shouting match — “fireworks!” — with the two candidates interrupting each other.

Let’s face it: The media view Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann as yesterday’s news. Wouldn’t they relish their role as Deciders and Gatekeepers in picking Santorum as the new “Flavor of the Month”?

Should this happen — and it’s just a gut hunch, so I can’t guarantee it will happen — those of my readers who don’t like Santorum are going to be screaming bloody murder about these liberal network celebrities deliberately maniupulating the GOP presidential race. And my response will be, “You just now noticed this? They’ve been doing it all year, and it took you 12 months to catch onto it?”

The problem with some people is that they’re insufficiently cynical. No matter how many times they get played for suckers, they’re still suckers. And the carnies who run TV news have a professional obligation never to give a sucker an even break.

Miracles Keep Happening Every Day

Posted on Comments

What were the odds, huh? Michele Bachmann becomes the fifth Republican presidential candidate to turn down the Donald Trump/NewsMax debate, meaning that on Dec. 27, it’s Newt Gingrich vs. Rick Santorum. This is like the Philly palooka Rocky Balboa getting a shot at Apollo Creed. And Rick’s OK with that:

“Many of my opponents jockeyed to be the first to fly up to New York and use Donald Trump for a photo op and no doubt try and secure an endorsement. But when Donald wants to moderate a debate — they refuse to attend. That’s what’s so wrong with politics today — hypocrisy. At this critical time in our nation’s history, just weeks before Iowans cast this important vote — many of the other candidates want to hide behind TV ads and mail pieces. We plan to be there front and center in person to debate Newt directly, and if it’s just the two of us, we’re fine with it.
“There’s no doubt that any of us are better than Barack Obama — however, we can’t afford to put up a person who can’t clearly articulate a vision or has a glass jaw or an unprincipled past. Donald Trump knows business and knows global markets — and we all know he’ll be able to bring in a broad audience. And let’s be honest, at least Donald Trump will have more in common with the candidates than with the vast majority of past moderators.”

Lisa Graas credits Santorum’s “moral reasoning.” I’d call it a miracle. What were the two things Santorum needed? Publicity, and a chance to show himself the equal of the front-runners.

Boom! He’s got it.

What else does he need? Money.

We’ve had miracles every day since that earthquake in Vanuatu.

UPDATE: “Perry bets the house on social conservatives.”

Yeah. Too little, too late. Iowa’s biggest evangelical leader endorsed Rick Santorum a week ago.

RECENTLY:

BOOM! Michele Bachmann Publishes Gingrich’s 2004 Pro-Amnesty Letter

Posted on Comments

Michele Bachmann today offered what she called “more evidence indicating that Newt Gingrich is the most liberal GOP candidate,” in a press release that cites a pro-amnesty letter Gingrich signed in 2004.

The Gingrich letter, sponsored by the neoconservative National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), called for President Bush to offer a “new path” via guest-worker arrangements and to “recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave.” The letter was co-authored by longtime pro-immigration activist Tamar Jacoby and originally published Feb. 6, 2004, in the Wall Street Journal.

“This letter is a clear indication that Speaker Gingrich has a deep history of supporting amnesty,” Bachmann said in the press release, sent to national media Saturday shortly after noon ET. “I don’t agree that you should make 11 million workers legal because that in effect is amnesty and will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here.”

Gingrich has been under fire on the immigration issue since a debate Tuesday, when he proposed granting permanent U.S. residency to illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for 25 years. Gingrich’s rival Mitt Romney slammed Gingrich’s proposal as amnesty, as did influential Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King.

Jacoby is a scholar at the Manhattan Institute who has been called an “open-borders advocate” favoring amnesty for illegal aliens. In addition to Gingrich and the late Jack Kemp, other prominent signers of Jacoby’s NFAP letter included Linda Chavez, Francis Fukuyama and Grover Norquist, as well as former Bachmann adviser Ed Goeas.


Herman Cain: ‘I Believe I Was Able to Clearly Explain My Philosophy’

Posted on Comments

The Obama administration is “dangerously incompetent” in foreign policy, according to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said, who accused the president of “coddling dictators” in a fundraising appeal sent to supporters after Tuesday’s debate on CNN.

“I believe I was able to clearly explain my philosophy about America’s international affairs and how I believe the Obama Administration has been so dangerously incompetent with our overseas dealings,” the Atlanta businessman wrote in the e-mail (see full text below). “Unlike President Obama, I believe America should treat our allies better than we do our enemies. That means we should embrace traditional allies like Great Britain instead of coddling dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.”

Some analysts have dismissed Cain’s campaign since he recently slipped to third place in national polls. However, there is evidence the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO may have begun recovering from damage inflicted by allegations of sexual harassment in the 1990s and by his own gaffes. A CNN poll taken Nov. 18-20 shows Cain at 17 percent, up three points from a CNN poll taken a week earlier. And polls in Iowa — where the Jan. 3 caucuses are now less than six weeks away — continue to show Cain competitive in the Hawkeye State.

“I am a consistent conservative who can solve our nation’s problems,” Cain wrote to his supporters. “That is why I am running for President. That is why I can win.”

– – – – –

** FULL TEXT OF CAIN CAMPAIGN E-MAIL **

Dear Patriots
I hope you were able to watch tonight’s Republican foreign policy debate. I believe I was able to clearly explain my philosophy about America’s international affairs and how I believe the Obama Administration has been so dangerously incompetent with our overseas dealings.
Unlike President Obama, I believe America should treat our allies better than we do our enemies. That means we should embrace traditional allies like Great Britain instead of coddling dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
Unlike President Obama, I believe America needs to stand up to Iran. We should build our missile shield in Eastern Europe to protect our interests from Iranian missiles.
And, unlike President Obama, I don’t believe in spreading America’s wealth all across the globe in the form of “foreign aid.” Our economy is in a shambles and our government is broke. We should only provide aid to foreign countries that are either our allies or who have suffered a great humanitarian disaster.
The differences between Barack Obama and me on nearly every issue are clear. We are politically polar opposites. It doesn’t matter if we are discussing foreign policy or the economic future of America. I am a consistent conservative who can solve our nation’s problems.
That is why I am running for President. That is why I can win.
Ideas and commitment alone aren’t enough to win the Iowa caucuses, however.
I need you.
Please make an urgent contribution to my campaign of $20, $30, $50, $100, $250 or more right away. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are only weeks away and our opponents have so much money.
I need the funds the match them dollar for dollar in TV ads and grassroots organizing. I need the money to spread my message of economic opportunity and fiscal discipline. I need the resources to recruit more and more volunteers to publicize the job-building benefits of my revolutionary “9-9-9 Plan” to spur economic growth. 9-9-9 means jobs-jobs-jobs!
Please make a generous donation to my campaign right away.
Thank you in advance for your support and God Bless America!

Sincerely
Herman Cain

 


Santorum Claims Victory in CNN Debate UPDATE: Gingrich Goes Soft?

Posted on Comments

Press release from Rick Santorum’s campaign:

SANTORUM ISN’T POLITICALLY
CORRECT, HE’S JUST CORRECT

Washington, DC — At this evening’s CNN/Heritage Foundation/AEI Republican National Security Debate, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) showed he is the one candidate ready and able to answer the 3am phone call to ensure our nation’s security and safety.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “Rick Santorum isn’t politically correct, he’s just correct. Should we be profiling grandma? No, we should profile the people who fit the description of radical Islamic terrorists. Senator Santorum is the one candidate with the experience, knowledge, and the willingness to level with the American people about the threats and challenges facing America.”

SANTORUM SAID:
On Profiling:
“We should be looking to find the bomber, not the bomb. To put the enormous responsibility on the Federal government and TSA is too much. I voted to allow privatization of the TSA. But the issue is the PATRIOT Act, we are at war. The last time we had a threat like this at home, Lincoln ran over civil rights because we had a domestic threat. But I disagree with Governor Huntsman. We have had the debate (on the PATRIOT Act and profiling) and it does show the values of our country.”

On Time Lines For Afghan Withdrawal:
“We are not fighting a tactic (terrorism), we are fighting radical Islam. All the radical Islamists are saying just wait America out — they are weak, they will set time limits and we will tell the people in Afghanistan and Iraq that we will be the strong horse in the region.”

On Foreign Aid To Africa:
“I believe it is essential. Africa was on the brink of chaos, where radical Islamists could take hold. While humanitarian in nature, (the aid) was essential for our national security…. We must promote our values. We are the shining city on the Hill.”

On Compromise:
“If the things you have to give up make the things you are trying to do harder, no. By raising taxes, what the Democrats are trying to do is slow down the economy. You don’t undermine the ability of our economy to grow. This president has poisoned the well. He’s divided group from group to position himself to win this election. I have a long record of bipartisan accomplishment. I point to Welfare Reform. We instituted work requirements, time limits on welfare. Yes, I compromised on some child care, transportation, but we 100% changed the welfare system because we stuck to our principles.”

On Highly Skilled Immigrants:
“As a son of a legal immigrant, I strongly believe in legal immigration because we are the shining city a hill unto the world. A huge percentage of legal immigrants come here want to innovate. That’s one of the reasons I put forward my economic plan to take advantage of legal immigration and encourage innovation. We need to make sure things are made in America. We need to make sure we create an environment to help innovation and create income mobility. That is why I have called for a zeroing out of the corporate tax for manufacturers, regulatory reform, repatriation of foreign profits, and increasing energy exploration to improve income mobility. Greatness has come from (legal) immigrants who have worked hard, created businesses, and created jobs.”

On The Most Under Discussed Foreign Policy Threat:
“I have spent a lot of time concerned with the militant socialists and radical Islamists bonding together in Central and South America… We have sent all the wrong signals to Central and South America. We need to build a solid hemisphere and they need to know we are in solidarity.”

UPDATE: By the way: I don’t know if Santorum won or not. It’s just that his campaign was the first one to send me a press release. I didn’t watch the debate. After the Nov. 12 debate in South Carolina, I’m kind of burnt-out on debates. We don’t get CNN at the house, and I’ve been watching Storage Wars on A&E all night. Anyway, Politico found Santorum’s performance worth a headline:

Rick Santorum says profile Muslim travelers

You may disagree. But are you going to be voting in the Iowa GOP caucuses? Because that’s the bottom line here, isn’t it?

UPDATE II: Daily Caller’s Will Rahn reports:

“We should be trying to find the bomber, not the bomb,” Santorum said when asked by moderator Wolf Blitzer whether the U.S. should use profiling. “Other countries have done it — Israel’s probably the best example. But to put this enormous expense on the federal government, to put this enormous expense on the traveling public for pat-downs and other intrusions — I think it’s too much money.”
Santorum then said that like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, he believes the TSA should be privatized and that Abraham Lincoln proved sometimes civil liberties have to take a back seat to national security.
Steering the conversation back to profiling, Blitzer then asked Santorum who, exactly, he believes security professionals should be on the lookout for.
“Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes,” he replied. “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely. Those are the folks — the radical Muslims have been people committing these crimes by and large, as well as younger males. Not exclusively, but these are the things you profile to find your most likely candidate.”

Again, remember: Iowa GOP caucus voters. Not many ACLU types are going to be showing up Jan. 3. You expect Republicans in Des Moines and Davenport to have a lot of sympathy for Abdul and Omar getting hassled at the airport?

UPDATE III: Allahpundit wonders if Newt can get away with being soft on immigration. Watch the video:

Again: How will it play with Iowa GOP caucus voters? I’m guessing they’re no more sympathetic to Juan and Maria than they are to Abdul and Oma.

It Ain’t ‘Whining’ If the Bias Is Real

Posted on Comments

No, I’m not talking about the bias of Tabitha Hale in excluding me from the BlogCon agenda for the second consecutive year. The final word on that has not only been said, but also set to music. Rather, I’m talking about the evidence of bias by John Dickerson of CBS:

In a slip of the finger that quickly ignited a furor among Mrs. Bachmann’s supporters, Mr. Dickerson e-mailed his colleagues that he would prefer to “get someone else” other than the Minnesota congresswoman for an online show after the CBS News/National Journal debate on Saturday night. The e-mail said that Mrs. Bachmann was “not going to get many questions” in the debate and that “she’s nearly off the charts” — an apparent reference to her low standing in many polls.
The problem was that Mrs. Bachmann’s communications director was copied in on the e-mail, and Mr. Dickerson hit “reply to all.” Oops.

Smitty has said that it is “whining” to call attention to such vicious backstabbing dishonesty, as though no one — least of all Michele Bachmann herself — should call attention to Dickerson’s contemptuous disparagement of her candidacy, lest they be accused of irrational and unseemly self-pity. Bachmann’s campaign manager Keith Nahigan, by contrast, complained of the insult with the obvious goal of exacting retribution.

Now, imagine yourself in Dickerson’s place, while your bosses at CBS News are being deluged with e-mails demanding your immediate termination. Imagine the next 24 hours, as Dickerson is denounced on the radio airwaves by Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, et cetera.

Even if Dickerson doesn’t get fired by CBS, he is now marked for life — his name a despicable epithet, so that no Republican will ever trust him again — thanks to the success of Nahigan in calling attention to that 29-word e-mail.

But there are many more scoundrels like Dickerson in high places amongst the soi-disant elite of the media establishment, and the way they’ve stage-managed the GOP presidential debates this year is the subject of my American Spectator column today:

Whether they’re accused of trying to gin up rating-friendly “fireworks” or limiting questions to a candidate they deem to have dropped out of contention, suspicions toward debate moderators are part of an ongoing erosion of the media’s credibility. Perfect fairness and complete objectivity are perhaps an impossible ideal, but when a candidate claims to have discovered “concrete evidence” of bias, it is a serious charge that merits serious consideration. Republican voters will ultimately decide their party’s nominee, despite efforts by the media elite to decide for them. And Bachmann’s poll numbers are still higher than Huntsman’s.

Please read the whole thing, because among the many unintended consequences of Dickerson’s insult to Bachmann was the fact that I was compelled to spend three hours writing that column in a McDonald’s in Spartanburg, S.C.  The necessary delay in my departure meant that I was on the road driving 452 miles to arrive home at 3:15 a.m., utterly exhausted at the end of a grueling 19-hour day.

Journalism as an act of personal vengeance — seeking vindication against bullies, backstabbers and other such miscreants — is a topic worth at least an essay, if not an entire book, but I’m too tired to write it now.

And why write that story at all, when I’m living it every day of my life?

Why The Whining About Debates?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Ann Althouse has a post that triggers the thought: Why are we whining about debates?

There is substantial butt-hurt in the blogs about how how candidates X, Y, and Z are getting short shrift (is there any other kind?) in the debates. If we are capitalists, and presidential debates are a marketplace of information about candidates, then why is the purported demand for more face-time for Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman not being met by more events like the Texas Patriots PAC?

The major reasons I can think of are:

  • Candidate schedules are too full,
  • There is not deemed sufficient legitimate interest,
  • Evil forces of the 1% are scheming away in the Dark Nexus of Communism (DNC) to ensure the weakest horse wins the GOP nomination.

But so, what? Given the low bar set by modern internet technology, why don’t we get some of the ‘second-tier’ candidates to discuss ideas and policies? Sure, the ability to attract eyeballs for a whole hour of streamed debate is going to be low, but the chance to chew on some harder topics at length would be welcome. Campaigns could derive fistfuls of short clips that would help get Americans talking about something more substantial than the latest random charges against candidate X.

What say ye?

Update: linked at That Mr. G Guy.

Spartanburg Remainders: CBS Debate Inspires Media Fear and Loathing

Posted on Comments

SPARTANBURG, S.C.
We had to leave Wofford College about an hour after last night’s Republican debate ended, because the Herman Cain campaign was having a private post-debate event at the Marriott Hotel. So I didn’t have time to upload many of my photos and video of the “spin room” activity, nor to register much of the headline reaction:

Foreign policy debate highlights
differences within Republican field 
— New York Times

CBS panned for Republican debate performance
— Politico

The Big Loser of the Night: CBS
— National Review

Bachmann, Paul Call Debate Moderators ‘Disgraceful’
— ABC News

Was it really that bad? The one glaring omission was that they never discussed the situation in Mexico, where narco-terrorist gangs and human trafficking pose a serious risk that our next-door neighbor could descend into “failed state” nightmare. It could be like having Somalia or Waziristan on our southern border, and yet Mexico was never mentioned last night.

My other big gripe about Saturday’s debate? Two words: Jon Huntsman.

Reports swarm the man I dubbed “Governor Asterisk.” Jon Huntsman represents no significant Republican constituency, he worked for the Obama administration, and his poll numbers are less than the margin of error. So of course, the media love him.

Reporters interview Eric Fernstrom, a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign. Here’s an interview I did with Romney’s state campaign chairman, South Carolina treasurer Curtis Loftis:

“I fully expect to win South Carolina,” Loftis says. “People love Mitt Romney.”

As I said, however, there was no time to upload that last night, because we all piled into our cars and did a caravan over to the Marriott for the Cain campaign post-debate party.

Linda Hansen and Mark Block of the Herman Cain campaign. A few minutes later, Block held up his cigarette pack, a signal that it was time for a smoke break. We went outside and I asked how the campaign was going. Block said, “We’re kicking ass, Stacy.” The event ended while we were out smoking, and pretty soon the Cain entourage poured out the doors, loading into two SUVs. I saw Cain briefly and he said they were flying back to Atlanta, then to Wisconsin on Monday before going to Iowa on Tuesday.  Then they roared off. “A million miles an hour,” as Block says.

Here’s an interview with a South Carolina supporter of Herman Cain who attended the post-debate event at the Marriott:

When the Cain event ended, our blogger caravan across town to the home of a Tea Party family who showed us some true Southern hospitality:

Grassroots conservative operative Austin James relaxes and discusses the 2012 campaign as bloggers gathered at an after-party that went on into the wee hours.

Herman Cain supporters Donna and Dennis Thorstad hosted a crew of bloggers who stayed up talking politics — and singing oldies — until 2 a.m. Mrs. Thorstad got up Sunday morning and fixed breakfast for everybody. They’re awesome.

My 12-year-old son Jefferson did an excellent job as my blog assistant on this trip. We are about to get out on the road and head back 450 miles north toward home. Hit the freaking tip jar!