Seems word from on high . . .

I'm sorry. You were saying?

. . . has come down and our betters have had just about enough nonsense from the unruly urchins who inhabit the less respectable neighborhoods of the online right.  Having the unmitigated gall to poke at one of tenderest of Mitt Romney’s myriad soft spots, it seems Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have unleashed the hellish fury of the entire, supposedly non-existent, conservative establishment.  One after another, the finger-wagging fops whose duty to actually safeguard the legacy and integrity of conservatism have erupted from their months-long episode of intellectual catatonia in a great polemical freak-out.

Bless their hearts.

I suppose I should feign shock and outrage at this sudden spasm of concern for ideological consistency, but given the fact that it’s about as predictable as it is phony, I just can’t seem to work up the indignation.  Having witnessed the transformation of the online right over the past three years as our purported opinion leaders went from wide-eyed chroniclers of a nascent popular uprising to full-throated advocates of Main Street to meek, mousy bystanders in a battle royale, I guess I’ve come to terms the general uselessness of our ideological overlords.  Given their broad abandonment of principle over the past several months, the idea that I’m suddenly supposed to give a damn what they think strikes me as a little bit comical.

Spare me the histrionics over “shameful rhetoric” used against a guy who has shown no compunction toward using it whenever it suits his own needs.  We’re talking about a man who has done his own share of bashing corporations, done his level-best to cripple his opponents’ general election chances, engaged in his share of class warfare skirmishes, and even employs the very man who introduced “Vulture Capitalist” into the Republican electoral lexicon.

Whether you support Rick Perry or any of the other candidates in the race, make no mistake about it: The sudden rush to Mitt Romney’s defense is as lacking in principle as the man it seeks to defend.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with defending free enterprise, and everything to do with clearing the path for the “presumptive nominee“.  The fact that nearly the entire conservative establishment has credulously latched onto Romney’s assertion that questioning his business practices is tantamount to anti-capitalism stands as just one more piece of evidence that we are being herded toward a preordained outcome.

Never before has there been such unanimous outrage among our purported sentinels of the conservative movement in favor of a man who has done so little to deserve it.  And, irrespective of the rhetoric used in the challenges to his record, Romney and those who would thrust him upon resistant conservatives through browbeating and disingenuous shaming need to draw a lesson from their efforts.  There are consequences to assuming  and perpetuating the posture of inevitability and the failure to provide due diligence, and pouring on the frantic condemnation upon the first sign of an effective counter-effort does nothing to mitigate them.  It only serves to confirm long-held suspicions and stiffen resistance.

UPDATE:  Kyle at Prime Cut has a good run-down on the way this whole situation is playing out that’s well worth reading.  Click on over and give it a look.

About Walt

I'm the administrator of this here site. I also write and take pictures. Lucky you.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Seems word from on high . . .

  1. workingclass artist says:

    Romney is carpet bombing Gingrich with negative ads in SC.

  2. workingclass artist says:

    Great Post Walt…The Cash Pic speaks volumes.

  3. Llorta says:

    Since I’m in SC, I guess I’ll have to start watching TV again to keep up with how the ad campaign is going.

    My guess is Newt will edge out Romney here in SC. I don’t see Santorum doing particularly well here. I think Perry will move up, but I’m not sure if it will be enough of a bump to battle the Romney-media-meme that Perry’s campaign is dead.

    In any case, SC should end up being a lot more interesting than Iowa or NH. I don’t trust any polls, because I believe everyone in the media is shilling for Romney.

    • Walt says:

      I’m agnostic on the accuracy of the polls, but convinced there’s a consensus among our betters that Romney is going to be the man and we damn well better accept it if we know what’s good for us.

      To hell with them.

      • Llorta says:

        I believe polls today are mostly used to push a story, rather than to tell the story.

        Different polls give you different results, and results that fit the media’s narrative always get the lion’s share of the press.

        Rasmussen and ARG have very different results in SC, and the one that has Romney up by a good bit and Perry down in the dumps is the one being trumpeted everywhere. Even though my perspective, coming from SC, that ARG paints a more realistic picture.

        But that has Romney in danger of not placing first, Santorum imploding, and Perry gaining, so we can’t have any of that!

        • workingclass artist says:

          Guy o legal insurrection comment thread says he thinks the ARG poll is closer to what he’s seeing in SC.

          No way a Yankee Union Guy like Santorum is gonna play…not against a right to work job creatin governor from the south.

    • workingclass artist says:

      Perry is always counted as dead in every campaign.

  4. Kyle Miller says:

    Thank you for venting my frustrations! I really don’t understand the conservative movement, especially the conservative media these days. It’s like a dumb-dumb virus is going around.

    I penned a blog entry this morning as a therapeutic exercise. It’s very close to what you are talking about, but your article clearly has more punch.

    http://primecut.blogspot.com/2012/01/pain-of-bain-for-conservatives-gop.html

  5. Kyle Miller says:

    Started listening to Mark Levin today. Pushing his guy Santorum again and discounting Perry.

    Mark Levin, that Johnny Cash finger is for you. I don’t want a statist, so I’m not supporting Santorum! If you’re such a constitutionalist, why don’t you answer this?
    http://formidablecourage.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/perry-santorum-and-the-evangelical-dilemma/

    Off my radio today! Don’t want to hear your Santorum slobber.

    Conservative media is off its rocker.

    • Llorta says:

      It seems to me Santorum is cratering, and at least some of his support is going to Perry. My guess is Santorum will drop out after SC or FL.

    • workingclass artist says:

      Clearchannel is owned by Romney’s Bain Capital…All those radio pundits have deal with clearchannel.

  6. avgjo says:

    If our conservative media and bloggers were more analytical and sensible, America’d be far better off.
    What these morons don’t realize is that their dogmatic views are far more dangerous to the survival of capitalism in this country than anything Perry or Gingrich have said. It discredits it and reinforces the ‘coldhearted conservative’ meme.

    Awesome article.

    Thank you.

  7. workingclass artist says:

    Romney has to win 50% in the Super Tuesday states to get the winner take all and this is only likely in a two man race.

    “Well, in looking at the table below, FHQ has a few observations. The first, and perhaps the biggest, is that the states on the calendar through February have made no changes to their delegate allocation from 2008. They were already compliant with the 2008 method or were penalized for an early primary or caucus date and stuck with the 2008 rules knowing the RNC would not punish them further (…or daring the national party to do so). There is a chance, then, that if this nomination race resolves itself quickly, the rules changes will have no impact. Well, the new winner-take-all/proportional rules will not have had an impact. The new calendar restrictions — no states before the first Tuesday in March other than the exempt states — will play a bigger role in that scenario.

    If, however, the race stretches into March, that is when we may start seeing the winner-take-all/proportional changes influence the race. Looking at the March states and matching 2012 to 2008, the most frequent response to the rules changes was for states to tack on a conditional element to their allocation rules. Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia — all Super Tuesday states — added a conditional element to their allocation rules. Winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon a candidate receiving over 50% of the vote, statewide and/or on the congressional district level.2 This is an important point. That 50% threshold is really going to play a role if the field has been winnowed down to just two candidates. Actually, FHQ has made this point before: The fewer candidates there are, the more likely it is that someone breaks 50% of the vote, and subsequently takes all the delegates in any of these conditional states. Those January/February states become very important. In fact, that lull throughout much of February may be a killer for any candidate clinging to just a modicum of viability at that point. Voters will start limiting their choices to those who are most likely to win and if the likes of Bachmann and Santorum and whoever are not already out, that stretch will be very difficult to survive through.

    Obviously, in a scenario where there is a Clinton/Obama-type struggle for the 2012 Republican nomination, these rules are going to matter. But if Romney wins Iowa and wins where he is “supposed to” after that, the former Massachusetts governor will win the nomination and the rules won’t play that much of a role. Looking at both the changes to the calendar and the changes the states have made, I can see something in the middle of those two extremes being most likely. The early contests get split, but it favors Romney, the February dead period puts significant strain on the candidates trying to stay in the race but without the resources to make it happen, and Romney breaks 50% in some of these conditional winner-take-all states on March 6. That would put a significant amount of pressure on any other candidates from a delegate math perspective. At that point, it becomes a matter of making up the delegate deficit for any non-Romney candidate. Some later winner-take-all contests would theoretically help, but there are very few straight winner-take-all states to completely shut out Romney as the calendar enters April. There are a handful, but likely not enough.

    The bottom line is that there are no changes to the rules up front. Those start kicking in in March. But at that point, it could be too late for those changes to make any difference…”

    http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/12/republican-delegate-allocation-rules.html