Rick Santorum and Strage Media Attacks (Matt Drudge, Guest Villain)

This blog is simply never wrong. I told lyou that Drudge (drudgereport.com--a quck source for a larger variety of "new" stories than you will get from, say, Yahoo "News")is "all in" for Mitt Romney. That was again PROVEN today, as the Drudge baner headline is the NON-STORY: "SANTORUM BEGS DEMS FOR SUPPORT".


It should be no wurprise to you that this is ROMNEY'S latest attemt to SMEAR Santorum. Facts? Santorum used "robocalls" (used, of course, by Romney as well) to ask DEMOCRATS for their support in Michigan's primary. Romney called this the "low point" of the camaing. It may be, FOR ROMNEY.


Democrats can vote in the Michigan primary, as I voted for Hillary Clinton in the GOP primary in Texas in 2008 (there being no such thing as a 'registered Republican" or "registered Democrat" in Texas, except as you declare yourelf on electin day). The question is: What is WRONG with Rick Santorum "reaching out" to Democrats? Santorum's favoritism for "manufacturers" is NOT one of the things I lie about him, but he has CONSISTENTLY made this pitch for Reagan Democrats part of his campaign.


Yep, the media-including especially the unfair and unbalanced network) are HYPOCRITES on this. Mitt Romney, as John McCain before him, is CAMPAIGNING almost entirelyl on his ability to go beyond conservatives to get votes to defeat Barack Obama. Ype. I jsut called Romney a HYPOCRITE too. Romney can't simultaneouslly say he is unwilling to 'pander" to the raw meat loving GOP "bawse" by attacking Obama harshy, and then criticize Santourm for "reaching out" to Democrats. NO. There is NOTHING WRONG with inviting members of the opposing party to vote in our primary when that is part of the state system. If there ws something WRONG with it, then palaces like Michigan and Texas would LIMIT the voters to party "members". The REASON that the voters are no so limited is that political parties generally WANT more voters, and it really is persuasive that voters should not be "straightjacketed" into choosing a political party in order to vote in a primary. This laves it open to members of the oterh party to "sabotage" the nomination selection of the otehr party, but that reallyl has not been shown to be a real factor in results. Again, what is WRONG with Santourm reaching out to the SAME voters to which he has been trying to appel the whole lectin? Romney has al of this MONEY that Santourm cannot match. And Romney is constantly trying to appeal to "moderates", evn as he keeps saying HE is the "real conservative".


No, for Romney to WHINE aobut this is indeed, a low poknt in this campaign: FOR ROMNEY.


Is there anythgn wrong, by the way, in a cnadidate saying that the MEDIA is tryng to pick the nominee, and suggesting that a person like Joh McCain is using the "oopen primary" to attract peole who will not help him in the general electin? No, there is nothing wrong with using that as a POLITICAL point. Romney's problem is that the media is FOR HIM. If Romney were able to show that there was some sort of campaign against him, AS A COPNSERVATIVE, then that would be a legitimate political pont. Romney's problem is that he is hypocritically trying to do the impossible: calim he is the CONSERVATIVE in the race, while the GOP estalbishment, the media,, and "moderates" are trying to DESTROY Santorum as the "extreme conservative" in the race. Romney cannot hav eit both ways, athough he is cretainly trying.


Yep. I did tell you, as I did as earlly as a few months ago, that the unfair and unbalanced network is "all in" for Romney, alng with Drudge and so many "estalbishment" GOP types. The unfari and unbalanced netwrok, INCLUDING SEAN HANNITY (who I have never much liked because he has a corporate cable TV mind, desite the fact I agree with him on almost all individual issues), is pickng up on EVERY "charge" against Santourm that Romney or the mainstream media makes. Thus, Hannity asked Santourm aobut these robcallss asking for Demo suport., as Hannnity and his network have done as to EVERY "charge" aainst Santorum by either Romney or the mainstream medi. NO. This is NOT "fair" or "balanced". If ALL you do is ask a candidate about CHARGES (no matter how ridiculous, as Romney's ridiculous idea that there is somwthing "wrong" with asking from Democrats to vote for you), that PREVVENTS a candidate like Santorum from getting otu his "message". This is the same tactic used against Santourm n "social issues", where Santourm is made to appear ALL aobut "social issues", because ttaht is ALL he is asked about.


But I have already told you to boycott the unfair and unablancednetwork. It has nO redeeming sociial vlaue, and I now surf CNN MORE (a better source for matreial, and why watch "CNN light" when you can go right to the hard stuff).


I did think it was time for another "told lyou so" on Drudge. I am disapponted in Drudge, even though I well knew that his banner headlines (sometimes clever, although not here) are the one area on Drudge were you can count on Drudge's own agenda being expressed. This is a MINOR story--where Santourm did not even do anything arguably wrong--where the attempt is to blow it up into a major "scandal. Sorry, Romney, Drudge, Haniity, unfair and unbalanced network, et. al. All llyou have done is make me lose erespect FOR YOU ALL.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, it is becoming ever more clear to me that Ropmney CANNOT WIN if he he is the nominee. Oh, I still think Obama can LOSE (and may lose, even against Romney and without Romney having my suport), but Romney is incapble of running a winning campaign. And Romney CANNOT "win" based on a NEGATIVE campaingn agasint Obama, becaue Romney will NOT (as Santorum has said) ahve the advantages he has now. The main advantage is MEDIA SUPPORT for any "charge" he wishes to make. That will NOT be the case agasint Obama, and Romney wil be on the other end. Since all Romney has shown is that he MAy be able to get the GOP nomination with a NEGATIVE camaign, why do I even say Obma can LOSE to Romney? Easy. It does nto matter what Romney, or AnY GOP candidate does, if Obama manages to virtualllly DESTROY the U.S. ecomy by election day (or if nay one of a number of things break rongg for Obama in the owrold). Against Romney, Obama CAN LOSE. Romney cannot "win" (affirmatively). That is why it is a total myth--a myth that has been exposed--that Rmney is "more electible". That is not the cae. We may not really know whether Santourm can do any better than Romney, but I hink Romney has already provent that he is not a candidate who can really "win" this election.