Rick Santorum Nabs Big Iowa Endorsement
JOHNSTON, Iowa – Rick Santorum got his biggest endorsement yet at a small hotel here: Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz. Calling it the “best day of the campaign,” he said he is “committed to Iowa” and the campaign is beginning to “pick up that critical momentum,” despite his low poll numbers. “People have asked me, ‘Why haven’t you started to catch on?’ And I say, ‘Well you haven’t been in Iowa for the last week or so because we are definitely picking up momentum in the state of Iowa and across this country.’ We feel it coming,” Santorum told a crowd of more than 50 people at the Stoney Creek Inn here. . . .
CNN:
Santorum predicts last-minute surge . . . During his introduction of Schultz, Santorum lamented that Iowans “take their time to make these decisions,” but he was optimistic in his predictions for the coming weeks.
“We think the timing is going to be just perfect for us to be able to catch that wave at the right time as people start to make their decisions,” Santorum said. . . .
Politico:
Rick Santorum’s Iowa endorser:
‘I tend to like the underdog’ Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz became the first Republican statewide officeholder here to endorse a candidate in the presidential primary.
“I tend to like the underdog,” said Shultz, who won his own come-from-behind campaign in 2010, on Friday. “And slow and steady wins the race.”
Des Moines Register:
Iowa Secretary of State endorses
Santorum in GOP presidential race
. . . Schultz said he is asking Iowa GOP members to give Santorum a second look in the Jan. 3 Iowa Caucuses. He said he had been wooed by other Republican candidates, but felt the Pennsylvanian was the best person to put in the White House. He described Santorum as a strong voice for the pro-life movement who had fought for welfare reform and other conservative causes.
One cause of this year’s up-and-down cycles in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination has been the powerful influence Fox News exercises over conservative opinion. While I am capable of filtering Fox in the same way I filter any other information stream — and am naturally resistant to peddlers of Conventional Wisdom — it cannot be denied that, for some Republican voters, What Is True on any given day bears a strong resemblance to What Fox News Said the night before.
Understand that I have made a career in recent years as someone who knows what goes on behind the scenes in Media World and occasionally reveals it (usually through sly sarcasm) to readers who have never worked in a newsroom. And I have sometimes talked about what I call “The Water Cooler Consensus” that emerges among a group of newsroom co-workers discussing politics. The opinions that solidify in those informal conversations among colleagues have a way of expressing themselves in decisions about what is and is not news.
It’s Iowa minus 32 days, and barring yet another resurrection (or event of similar improbability), it’s Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich. . . .
My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).
Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?
(Via Memeorandum.) That’s the beginning and the end of his column, and everthing in between must be considered in light of a premise that Krauthammer implies without actually saying:
If you are a supporter of any candidate other
than Newt or Mitt, you’re wasting your time.
This is a belief that has been repeatedly telegraphed to Fox News viewers for the past two weeks. And the people who are communicating that message may be entirely sincere. But no one should discount the possibility that they are also sincerely wrong.
Charles Krauthammer is a brilliant man, but he is not the only brilliant man in the world, and not all of the brilliant men in this world are nationally syndicated columnists employed by Fox News. Ergo, I’m no more likely to outsource my political thinking to Krauthammer than I am to let Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan, Paul Krugman or Meghan McCain dictate my opinions.
Will Fox News pick the next president? Or do ordinary people in Iowa still have more influence than the Krauthammer Caucus?
What You Can Do If you agree with the logic of the foregoing argument, why don’t you copy it in an e-mail and send it to your Republican representative, senator, governor or state GOP chairman? You can also e-mail it to your favorite local or national talk radio host. Also, by using the “share” button at the bottom of the post, you can share it via Twitter or post it to Facebook. Thanks in advance for your help in spreading the word.
— RSM
Has the fight for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination already become a two-man race between Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich? Not according to Sarah Palin, who singled out former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum for praise during her appearance Thursday night on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.
“There is still a lot of fluid dynamic going on in this race,” Palin said, adding that if Republican voters “start shifting gears and deciding they want ideological consistency, then they’re going to start paying attention to, say, Rick Santorum.”
The former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate went on to praise Santorum for being consistent on issues including his support for Israel and his pro-life stance:
TRANSCRIPT: Sean Hannity: All right. If, if – if you were to assess – first of all, two questions in one: Do you think this come down to Newt versus Romney? Do you think any of the other candidates can emerge? And two, because they’re leading in the polls right now, a quick synopsis of the strengths and weaknesses you see in Newt and Romney. Sarah Palin: I don’t think it has come down solidly to Newt versus Romney – no, not yet, because there is still a lot of fluid dynamic going on in this race. And if voters kind of start shifting gears and deciding they want ideological consistency, then they’re going to start paying attention to, say, Rick Santorum, who has been consistent on being a hard-liner against Iran, to help protect Israel. He’s been consistent on wanting to protect the most vulnerable and the sanctity of life. He’s been consistent in saying, we need to slash the federal income tax – I say we need to do away with it, that’s the only way to re-industrialize America and create jobs. People will start paying attention to some of these other messages from some of these other messengers, like Rick Santorum – you’re going to see that happen, still, in the next 32 days.
“If Gingrich, who is now starting to feel the blowtorch . . . falters then, who knows, Santorum might be in a position to be the next Non-Romney.
“Certainly Santorum is unencumbered by any personal baggage. If his social views come under attack whilst he is rising, should he rise, then there would be little effect on his rising support as everyone is well aware of his right to life beliefs.”
No candidate in the Republican race has campaigned as hard in Iowa as Santorum, who has visited all 99 counties in the state, and will return to the state Sunday as part of his “Faith, Family and Freedom Tour.” In an appearance Thursday on MSNBC, Santorum told Andrea Mitchell: “We will do well in Iowa — I have no doubt about that. . . We’re going to surprise a lot of people on [Iowa caucus] Election Day on January third.”
A Catholic father of seven, Santorum ranks low in polls but has strong support among social conservatives, including an Iowa evangelical minister whose endorsement was announced in a press release sent by the Santorum campaign Thursday night:
Verona, PA – Tonight, Iowa evangelical leader, Pastor Cary Gordon announced his endorsement for Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum for President of the United States.
Senator Santorum said: “I am truly honored to receive this endorsement tonight. Pastor Gordon is a leader for God’s truth in Iowa and the nation – and has stood tall against the forces that have pushed the redefinition of marriage. His work in Iowa has helped ensure that the traditional American family is defended and protected. I am humbled to have such a stalwart defender of traditional American values by our team’s side as we work to return our nation to the values that made our nation the greatest in the history of the world.”
As detailed by Jennifer Jacobs of the Des Moines Register, influential Sioux City Pastor Cary Gordon endorsed former Senator Rick Santorum for President of the United States:
Sioux City evangelical leader Cary Gordon, who played a role in the defeat of three Iowa Supreme Court justices in last year’s elections, will endorse Rick Santorum for president on Friday.Gordon will make his endorsement via a text message Friday morning to 788,000 cell phones owned by registered Iowa voters or by residents of Iowa’s 5th Congressional District.He is pastor of Sioux City’s Cornerstone Church and president of PeaceMakers Institute. He is steadfastly opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion.Gordon told The Des Moines Register today that he also will spell out reasons why he favors Santorum – and rejects Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney – in a 20-minute video.
UPDATE: The text above has been edited to reflect a change in the video selection, substituting the YouTube clip for this video from the Media Research Center of the entire Palin/Hannity interview. The exchange in which Palin brought up Santorum’s name occurs at the 8:37 mark of this video:
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says a woman who claimed to have had an affair with him was among “many people” to whom he has provided financial assistance, and that her accusation was “out of the blue.”
“I have helped many people financially . . . She’s not the only person I have helped,” Cain said in an appearance today on Neal Cavuto’s Fox News program. Cavuto asked the Atlanta businessman about the claims of Ginger White, who has produced phone records showing more than 60 texts and conversations with Cain’s personal cell-phone number.
“That by itself doesn’t tell you the whole story,” Cain told Cavuto, explaining that his campaign has not had access to the records White showed to an Atlanta TV reporter. He said he had no warning that White was prepared to go public with her claims.
“Boom! Out of nowhere. . . . This was totally out of the blue,” Cain said, describing the accusations against him as “character assassination” because he was “doing so well” in his campaign. “As long as I was low in the polls, this stuff didn’t come out.”
Cain’s poll numbers have dropped substantially in the past month, as he has battled accusations that he sexually harassed women during his tenure as president of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.
Cain told Cavuto that he is concerned about the impact of the accusations on his family, especially his wife, saying the charges were “having an emotional toll on her . . . she gets upset.”
As for the motives of White, whom Cain acknowledges he has known since 1998, Cain suggested to Cavuto that “people . . . are putting her up to this . . . We don’t know who it is.”
Greta Van Sustern’s exclusive interview with Gloria Cain is, on the one hand, great news for the Cain campaign, but on the other hand, an indication that Cain’s campaign team views TheOtherMcCain.com as less influential than Greta.
Months of Cain coverage did not earn me that scoop? I’m hurt.
Never mind that now, though. The damage is done, and I have a duty to my readers, so I must overcome the humiliation of being scooped, suck it up and report the second-hand news:
Mrs. Cain strongly defends her husband against the allegations of sexual harassment.
“You hear the graphic allegations and we know that would have been something that’s totally disrespectful of her as a woman. And I know the type of person he is. He totally respects women.”
“I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said,” according to Mrs. Cain.
I’d like to provide you with an advanced transcript of tonight’s interview, or photos or something, but Team Cain is probably busy supplying that kind of exclusive stuff to really important blogs. But here’s something — a poll at Greta Wire asks, “Who in the list below is most likely to get endorsed by Governor Sarah Palin?” The results as of 10 a.m. today:
Remember: Sarah Palin endorsed Doug Hoffman; Newt endorsed Dede. So the idea that Palin would endorse Newt — who went on Fox News again and again in October 2009 trying to counteract Palin’s influence — seems wildly improbable to me. Newt was an Active Agent of Evil in NY-23. It was not until after Dede quit and endorsed the Democrat that Newt expressed even the mildest regret for his constant shilling for that vicious backstabbing RINO crapweasel.
Remember that Karl is the guy who engineered George Bush’s landslide victory, by a margin of hundreds of votes, over the formidable Al Gore.
Let’s face it: Rove is a spokesman for the Romney campaign. And right now, I’m watching Chris Stirewalt on Megyn Kelly’s show declare that Cain’s alleged downfall “creates an opening for Rick Perry.”
Fox News: “Fair. Balanced. Don’t Think the Black Guy Can Win.” IYKWIMAITYD.
“Hours before last week’s presidential debate in Orlando, [Fox News] anchors sat in a cavernous back room, hunched over laptops, and plotted how to trap the candidates. Chris Wallace said he would aim squarely at Rick Perry’s weakness: ‘How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration? Then I go to Rick Santorum: is Perry too soft?’
“ ‘That’s going to get some fireworks going,’ said managing editor Bill Sammon, grinning.”
— Howard Kurtz, “Roger’s Reality Show,” The Daily Beast
About 15 years ago, I read two excellent books by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, and The Disappearance of Childhood. Postman was a liberal, but his analysis of the ways in which television shape our culture — including politics and education — was praised by many conservatives. When Postman died in 2003, it was an honor for me to be asked to write an obituary feature for the British Guardian:
Postman was a disciple of Marshall McLuhan, who famously declared that “the medium is the message”. He was appalled not so much by the specific content of television as by the very essence of the medium, which he saw as an enemy of literacy and serious thinking. Television, he wrote, “serves us most usefully when presenting junk entertainment; it serves us most ill when it coopts serious modes of discourse — news, politics, science, education, commerce, religion. We would all be better off if television got worse, not better.”
You can read the whole thing. My point in citing Postman today is that if you don’t learn to view television critically — if you don’t attempt to see the ways in which the medium dominates the message — then you will be manipulated without your consent or knowledge.
Postman repeatedly emphasized that we intellectually process the written word in a different way than we process the spoken word or especially the visual imagery of television, which is always a matter of show biz spectacle, for good or ill. People who obtain most of their political information through television will have entirely different beliefs and attitudes than do people who get their information from newspapers, magazines or books — or blogs, for that matter. (Postman also did some prescient debunking of fashionable nonsense about the wonders of the computerized “information revolution,” and if you want to think more deeply about that, I would also recommend The Gutenberg Elegies by Sven Birkerts.)
Unless you actively seek out knowledge beyond the frame of the mainstream narrative, you are surrendering control to the producers of media — of whom, in some minor sense, I am one. What I have tried to do from time to time, as someone who has spent 25 years in the news business, is to de-mystify the media by explaining what goes on behind the scenes. Hell, I used to edit Bill Sammon’s articles at The Washington Times, which gives me rather an unusual perspective on Sammon’s work as executive editor at Fox News.
Sammon and the other people at Fox obviously understand the show-biz aspect of TV news and they are very good at it. Even when they are “fair and balanced,” the inherent bias of television toward visual spectacle — which is why Sammon grinned at the prospect that Mike Wallace’s question would “get some fireworks going” — shapes the nature of the information you receive.
UPDATE: While we’re on the topic of media analysis, here is a phenomenon that puzzles me. Three years ago, I sort of reverse-engineered the Memeorandum algorithm, which was the basis of Rule 3, a bit of knowledge I hope has helped other bloggers. It was via Memeorandum that I found this Kurtz item, but it’s also listed at the affiliated MediaGazer site:
Here’s what puzzles me: My posts are routinely linked at Memeorandum, but when I do media criticism, I’m never linked at MediaGazer. Look at some of the sites they include in the MediaGazer aggregation: Media Matters, HuffPo, Gawker, Mediaite, Washington Monthly, etc. How is it that I rank on Memeorandum with those sites when it comes to political commentary, but I don’t rank with them on MediaGazer?
Readers probably don’t give a damn about this kind of inside-baseball stuff, but in the eternal quest for more traffic, more influence and more money — because there are bills to be paid — shameless capitalism requires me to ponder these things.
