The Other McCain

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

@Soledad_OBrien’s Unpopularity Destroys Morning Ratings for CNN

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 36 Comments

Soledad O’Brien, America’s least-popular cable TV news personality

Executives at CNN must be in shock at the catatrophic implosion of their morning lineup, as Starting Point With Soledad O’Brien (7-9 a.m. weekdays) recorded the cable network’s lowest ratings for that time slot in more than a decade. Fewer than 100,000 adults 25-54 tuned in to O’Brien’s program on an average day, according to the latest quarterly Nielsen numbers.

Inside Cable News called the CNN morning numbers “brutal,” and “an epic ratings collapse,” further adding: “CNN cannot continue to hemorrhage viewers like this much longer without taking drastic corrective action.” While industry observers were amazed by O’Brien’s uprecedented unpopularity, the outspoken liberal host’s historically low ratings were a cause for vengeful celebration by conservatives like the Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher:

Every day, @Soledad_OBrien‘s ratings are worse than the last. That means every time you see her, it’s the worst day of her life.

O’Brien inspired widespread mockery from conservatives earlier this month when she embarrassed herself in an attempt to argue with Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak, whose site exposed President Obama’s ties to the late Professor Derrick Bell, an academic radical notorious for promoting so-called “critical race theory.”

Update (Smitty): linked by Don Surber:

Soledad O’Brien’s unpopularity is symptomatic of how out-of-touch CNN is. The network lost its credibility with conservatives, who are the core audience for cable TV news. MSNBC at least can get frat boy libs to tune in at night. CNN? It has to stick TVs in dental offices, airports and gas chambers to get people to watch. If I were about to be executed, I would say, hurry up. Wolf Blitzer is coming back on.

 


Category: CNN

Could The SCOTUS Prove Worse Than Nancy Pelosi?

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Big Government links SCOTUSblog, and then BG concludes, emphasis mine:

Apparently, both Justices Scalia and Kennedy didn’t trust that Congress might be able to work out a new law that was actually Constitutional; Kennedy stated that asking Congress to do its job would be unrealistic unless the Court was speaking about “the hypothetical Congress.”
This, of course, is what the Obama Administration had in mind the entire time they were constructing a nearly 3,000 page bill. Nobody in Congress knew what was in it; the American public doesn’t know what’s in it; and now the Supreme Court seems wary of determining just what’s in it. If the Supreme Court rules the individual mandate constitutional, it won’t do so because the mandate is actually constitutional – it will do so because it believes that its coequal branch of government, Congress, must be forced to uphold its own constitutional duty and take an axe to this thicket of complexity. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely to happen.

In software terms, that seems like saying: “Well, the SQL Injection compromised the LAMP stack out in the DMZ, so we might as well give the attackers the rest of the network, too.”

A few quick points:

  • ObamaCare is an anti-American, un-Constitutional pile of hooey.
  • Its passage represented, at all points, such a dereliction of duty that any member of the House who voted ‘Yes’ on it, and hasn’t already been impeached at the ballot box by their constituents, merits impeachment. Also, any ideological tool on the Court that somehow writes an anti-Constitutional dissent in favor of ObamaCare merits impeachment; they must have been telling a ‘Made in Zambiniland’ form of truth when they testified before Congress.*
  • The SCOTUS should tell the 113th Congress to review the job the 111th Congress so disastrously punted. Also, Federalist 62, especially the part where Madison said It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. Surely, Madison wrote that precisely with creeps like the Wicked Witch of the West in mind. Turning Nancy’s ObamaCare abortion into something that doesn’t suck with an unholy vacuum is not the task of the SCOTUS.

Protein Wisdom sounds an ominous note here:

Again, to the left — the ideological ruling class left, as opposed to the useful idiots they keep about screeching for “social justice” in lieu of having to actually reach into pocket and pay for such things voluntarily — this battle was never over health care. That was but the facade. This was an attempt to fundamentally redefine the relationship between citizen and government. It was an attempt to build on the already flimsy sham that was Wickard in order to assert federal control over every aspect of our lives — and to do so while (perversely) claiming a Constitutional basis for doing so.
If it fails, we shouldn’t rejoice so much as begin asking how we ever got this close to living under soft tyranny in a country built on a foundation meant to protect us from what has become — and will remain — a predatory federal authority always looking for ways to expand.
And it seems that’s the case regardless of which Party establishment holds office.
The battle to retake the US is only beginning. And the truth is, it may already be lost.

Yes, the pre-Progressive Age America is indeed lost. Indeed, it may be that the Federal government has become as odious as the Parliament we held the Revolution to escape. May our second, pro-Constitutional revolution remain peaceful.

Update: linked by That Mr. G Guy.

*OK, clearly I’m spun up about this. We wouldn’t want an environment where the merest dissent triggers impeachment. However, as the Administration’s Solicitor General correctly points out, this is a Special Case. 😉

Update II: POH Diaries links, reporting that Nancy Pelosi is as certain of the outcome of the SCOTUS review as she is about the contents of her legislative progeny.

Category: Health Care, Supreme Court

BlogCon 2012: Learn Podcasting With @FingersMalloy and @EdMorrissey!

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 28 Comments

That’s right, folks: BlogCon 2012 — April 20-21 at the fabulous Hilton Center City in Charlotte, N.C. — will feature a lunchtime podcasting seminar with my close personal friends Fingers Malloy and Ed Morrissey!

All of your favorite bloggers will be in Charlotte for this once-in-a-lifetime New Media extravaganza. RSVP now to make sure you don’t miss it.

Meanwhile, there seems to be some misunderstanding . . .

What can I say? I checked the list and my name’s not on it. Three weeks ago, when I tried to mend fences with Tabitha at the Breitbart memorial event in D.C., she chewed me out and made it clear that she resented the fact that I would even dare speak to her.

It appears that Tabitha and I agree on exactly two things:

  1. She has always hated my guts; and
  2. It’s all my fault.

Which might make an interesting seminar topic — “Effective Methods for Humiliating Bloggers You Hate” — but that’s more of a general theme, really, and Tabitha’s unexplained three-year vendetta against me is something I’ll probably never be able to figure out.

At any rate, my persona non grata status is entirely my fault. Smitty will be at BlogCon, along with many more of my close personal friends, who will all have fun laughing at me behind my back.

BlogCon 2012: Don’t miss it!

Category: Blogging

‘Cashiered Over Creative Differences’

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 14 Comments

Thus does Dan Collins explain his departure from Team Twitchy, saying that he “was let go for not grokking the comprehensive vision.”

OK, it happens. Sometimes things don’t work out, and the fault is neither the employer’s nor the employee’s, but simply a mismatch or disagreement for which no one is really to blame.

A free economy permits this trial-and-error approach to employment. Just as the employee reserves the right to seek employment where he wishes — to quit a job with which he is unhappy and seek employment elsewhere — so too does the employer reserve the right to hire or fire at will.

What makes people many people miserable at work is the entitlement mentality, the concept of worker “rights” whereby an implicit demand is made of the employer: “Make me happy or I’ll sue you!”

Conservatives should never think that way and, in whatever sense Dan’s departure from Team Twitchy is unfortunate, it’s good that when they got to the point where things obviously weren’t working out, they recognized the intractable mismatch and cut bait.

This reminds me of when I finally quit The Washington Times after more than 10 years. Had I stayed just another four months, I would have received a gold watch in recognition of my decade of service, but when they replaced Wes Pruden with John Solomon, it was as if God said, “Go” — and I went.

All that has transpired since then, for good or ill, has convinced me I did what was right. Just yesterday I was telling one of my former bosses about my campaign-trail adventures — including my Louisiana adventure with Lisa Graas — and remarked that I never would have gotten to do stuff like that if I had stayed at The Washington Times. I’d been pigeonholed as a section editor and news/feature writer and, no matter how often I asked for other jobs, my value in my assigned role was alway considered greater than whatever I might have added in whatever other assignment I sought.

It was a mismatch. The company’s needs were at odds with my own interests and ambitions, so that ultimately I was faced with a choice: Either make myself miserable by continuing in a job I didn’t want to do anymore, or else walk away and do what I wanted.

At any rate, Dan’s just gone through a similar experience, and you should go hit the tip jar at The Conservatory to cheer him up, even while continuing to follow Twitchy, which is awesome.

Category: Dan Collins, Twitchy

Rick Santorum: It’s About a Movement

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 74 Comments

“When Allahpundit first asked, ‘Second look at Gingrich?’ on Oct. 18, my visceral reaction was, ‘Are you freaking kidding me?’ Nothing astonishes me more than poll numbers . . . suggesting that people are taking Newt seriously as a presidential candidate. And of all the prognotications I’ve ever made, of none have I been more confident than in predicting this: It won’t last.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Nov. 14, 2011

Bill Quick is for Newt. Now that his candidate’s implausible posture of “viability” has collapsed, The Guy Who Named the Blogosphere shrugs:

You know, now that it’s pretty much guaranteed that we’ve got a Romneycare versus Obamacare race this year, I’m actually looking forward to voting for Newt in the California primary. At least I’ll get to vote for one candidate I actually want to vote for this year.

No regrets for Bill. He never had a problem with Gingrich’s narcissistic grandiosity, but Rick Santorum’s opposition to porn? Unacceptable!

My temperament and instincts are simply different than Daily Pundit’s, and this long-running friendly electoral flame-war between Bill and I (with Smitty throwing in the occasional volley) reflects those differences.

The point of yesterday’s political psychotherapy session was to put into perspective the emotional reactions to which political junkies are prone. My combative temperament and populist instincts — to hell with these elitist insiders and their shabby self-serving ways! — are not universally admired by my fellow conservatives, some of whom don’t share my view that the Republican Party keeps losing fights because it is run by people who are more interested in advancing their own narrow ambitions than in accomplishing anything meaningful toward the defeat of liberalism.

In that basic sense, nothing has changed since 2009: The GOP Establishment is still an arrogant bunch of clueless dilberts collecting paychecks for running their phony sham opposition to liberalism.

My support for the Santorum campaign is a continuation of my support for the Tea Party, for the “Not One Cent” Rebellion (Marco Rubio vs. the NRSC), and for Doug Hoffman vs. Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

What I would like to see is for Rick Santorum to emerge from this fight with the scalp of the allegedly “inevitable” Mitt Romney on his belt — a savage warrior, red in tooth and claw, and ready to lead a howling bloodthirsty tribe of right-wing barbarians against a Democratic Party stricken with fear at the prospect of contending against a genuine grassroots conservative movement.

This goes back to something my friend Stephen Gordon said to me a few years ago. Gordo was the Alabama state director for the 2008 Ron Paul campaign and, when I remarked on the ferocious dedication of the Paulistas, Gordo said: “The Ron Paul movement is not about Ron Paul, it’s about a movement.”

Exactly. Which is why I am perturbed by those who have viewed the 2012 presidential campaign as merely a matter of personalities.

To hell with that. It’s about building a grassroots conservative movement powerful enough to overwhelm all opposition. Newt Gingrich failed to do that, and why? Because Newt was always all about that 10-car motorcade and the big media entourage.

And the Tiffany’s account.

And the Aegean luxury cruise with his third wife.

Whatever anyone’s disagreement with Rick Santorum about “issues,” the point is that he has organized an actual movement, one which has exceeded all expectations, whereas Newt Gingrich . . .

Well, some guys actually like big fake boobs. I’m just not one of them.

 

RICK SANTORUM for PRESIDENT
He’s Real — And He’s Spectacular!

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

Making ObamaCare Constitutional

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

Here is a short clip, via Breitbart, of two modern Liberal sophists trying to dance around the un-Constitutionality of their puropse:

What is the proper way for them to achieve the aim?

Article 5 – Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

We’ve had the bulk of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights as a slow-motion suppository over the last four score years. It has, perversely, proven unaffordable. The real aim of the SCOTUS, I predict, will prove to be rejecting ObamaCare, while leaving as little opportunity for further restoration of liberty through rejection of the rest of the New Deal/Great Society/Bogus Idea parade of the last century.

The only correct way to pull off an idea of the scope of this Second Bill of Rights is to have a Constitutional convention. The last 80 years in this country, and the cratering of the Social Democratic state in Europe, are evidence that these ideas are too big and to complex to be rammed through over a weekend in the form of unread legislation, or shenanigans such as FDR’s infamous court packing scheme. When your cause is just, you don’t have to resort to tomfoolery. Conversely, the kind of circumlocution we see with all of these shiny Progressive ideas, their enactment, and their subsequent economic fallout is a clear indicator that the Progressives are full of hooey.

Also, nice Jonathan Edwards reference by Erickson, “Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy“.

Category: Health Care, Supreme Court

Rubio Unqualified For VP?

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

Allahpundit giving it the Full Eeyore. Senator Marco Rubio appears to be staffing up for some sort of promotion; there are books and rumors of books, and rumors of a past a flirtation with. . .psst: Mormonism, in his dim dark past! Oh Nos! Allahpundit hits a crescendo about the whisper campaign against Rubio somewhere around:

If the economy grows the next two months and unemployment drops, would Rubio want to be on a ticket that suddenly looks like it’s a longshot against The One?

Seriously? Understood, there is the usual caveat that the GOP couldn’t lead two nuns in one minute of silent prayer, for all it produces some stirring concession speeches.

But, really: through what method does this economy recover? Zimbabwe Ben* in the basement with the printing press, easing himself quantitatively for a third time? War with Iran, to jack up the Dow-Jones? More race war baiting? #OccupyResoluteDesk himself is reduced to hawking hoodies on his website, as though the Presidency of the United States is little different from a heavy metal band.

Next to Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich looks a serious, sober politician. Or at least has something going for him, to judge by the spouse.

Full circle, then: an anti-Rubio campaign stands to be as effective as the anti-Rush Limbaugh campaign, and a welcome form of advertising.

Marco Rubio for Vice President

* via Drudge

Category: Barack Obama, Marco Rubio

When Did Newt’s Campaign Become Unsustainable? And What Was the Result?

Posted on | March 28, 2012 | 7 Comments

In reporting on the financial collapse of Newt Gingrich’s campaign — which I described last night — Michael Shear of the New York Times writes:

Mr. Gingrich has struggled to raise money for weeks as he failed to win states outside of Georgia.

Look, the Georgia primary was Super Tuesday, March 6, but Newt “struggled to raise money” for more than a month before then. Here’s what happened:

  • During the final three months of 2011, Gingrich’s campaign raised $9.8 million. He began January with $2.1 million cash on hand, with debt of $1.2 million, for a net balance (cash on hand minus debt) of $900,000.
  • In January, Newt raised $5.6 million and spent $5.9 million. He ended January with $1.79 million cash on hand, with debt of $1.76 million. So his spending exceeded his revenue by $300,000 and he also added $560,000 to his debts. His net balance entering February was therefore only $30,000.
  • The wheels fell off in February, when Newt raised only $2.6 million — a 54% month-to-month decrease — while spending $2.9 million, some of which must have gone to pay off debts, which decreased to $1.5 million, but his month ending cash-on-hand was less than his debt, so that his net balance was negative as of Feb. 29, six days before the Georgia primary on Super Tuesday.

My guess is that Newt’s fundraising peaked in mid-to-late January, between the first South Carolina debate (Jan. 16 at Myrtle Beach) and the second Florida debate (Jan. 26 at Jacksonville). The Myrtle Beach debate was widely hailed as a triumph for Gingrich, while the Jacksonville debate was one of his worst performances of the entire campaign.

Live by the debate, die by the debate. Four weeks transpired between the Jan. 26 Jacksonville debate and the final debate, Feb. 22 in Arizona. After beating Mitt Romney in South Carolina by 12 points on Jan. 21, Newt lost Florida by 14 points on Jan. 31, then lost Nevada by 29 points on Feb. 4 and never recovered.

Also: Live by the poll, die by the poll. If you’ll look at the Real Clear Politics summary of national polls, you’ll see that in the week Jan. 8-15 (from the back-to-back New Hampshire debates until the first South Carolina debate), Romney led by 16 to 25 points in four consecutive polls (Gallup, CNN, Fox and ABC), but Romney’s lead was just 3 points in a Rasmussen poll taken the day after the first South Carolina debate. Between Jan. 22-26, three polls (NBC, Rasmussen, Gallup) showed Gingrich leading by 7 to 9 points.

After Newt lost Florida, however, the bottom fell out: Having led the RCP national average Jan. 27 by 4.3 points (31.3% to Romney’s 27%), Gingrich lost more than 15 points in less than two weeks, falling to third place at 16.2% by Feb. 14. That was three weeks before the Georgia primary.

While Newt’s fundraising might have bounced up a bit between Feb. 22 (the Arizona debate) and Super Tuesday on March 6, it likely never equalled the $106,000 per day Gingrich averaged in the last three months of 2011, and certainly not his January fundraising, which averaged $180,000 per day. And there’s no telling how far Newt’s daily fundraising has fallen in the two weeks since he lost Alabama and Mississippi.

But the point — correcting the New York Times — is that things started going downhill for Newt long before the Georgia primary on March 6, and his campaign’s finances were shaky even during his best month of fundraising. His “burn rate” was over 100% in January and he actually added debt while his cash-on-hand declined. On Feb. 21, the day after the FEC reports for January were published, I said Newt’s “burn rate” was unsustainable, and it took another month before the February FEC report proved this to be true.

Three weeks from now, after we see Gingrich’s March FEC report, we’ll know exactly how deep in the red his campaign is. It is already obvious, however, that Newt ceased to be financially viable sometime in February, but managed to conceal his bankruptcy for at least three weeks. Those proved to be three crucial weeks during which Gingrich effectively delayed the consolidation of the “Anybody But Mitt” vote behind Santorum, permitting Romney to score a key win in Ohio, by less than 1 point.

Even after he lost Alabama and Mississippi on March 13, however, Gingrich spent another two weeks pretending that everything was hunky-dory — “all the way to Tampa!” — before he finally quit trying to maintain the illusion and cut his campaign staff, which was still rolling in a 10-car motorcade last week in Louisiana.

Monday, after getting back from Louisiana, I warned: “Expect to see more stories in coming days about Newt’s final meltdown.”

That was a fairly safe prediction, and didn’t take long to be fulfilled. Pretty soon, we’ll have the typical “sources close to the campaign” telling tales to reporters about the wretched excesses inside Team Newt, and not long after that (by Sunday at the latest, I’d guess), you’ll see at least one of those long, in-depth retrospective What-Went-Wrong features about the Gingrich debacle:

“It began one night in October when, after a debate in Las Vegas, the blogger Allahpundit at HotAir.com said, ‘Second look at Newt?’ . . .”

Category: Election 2012, Newt Gingrich
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin