USpolitical.com

Romney just can’t get ahead with the MSM.

If McCain wins in Florida, his status as the national front-runner will be cemented.

If Romney comes out on top, the battle for the GOP presidential nomination will be up in the air.

An article here at all-encompassingly added to my already forming opinion.

Today I got an email from Glenn Beck’s email list that includes a paragraph that really nails the nail on the head.

What Glenn finds interesting is that whichever state Mitt Romney wins (3 so far), that’s always the one that the media says isn’t important. Romney would be a change and people are voting that way as he is leading the GOP in delegates. Apparently the media isn’t noticing, because the only thing they report is that he should drop out if he loses Florida.

It is terribly important to recognize the future projections, but those are so heavily shaped by recent performance and the perceived media reaction to them. Recent performance should be enough to keep Romney at the front of the pack. Media reaction is another story. McCain and Huckabee seemed wildly acclaimed with their wins. Romney’s are always “catch up” victories that simply keep him in the game. McCain is at the point where “1 more win seals the deal.” If the roles were switched I simply cannot believe that the media would give as much attention to New Hampshire and South Carolina wins by Romney when compared to McCain victories in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada plus 2 second place finishes in Iowa & New Hampshire…all resulting in the most delegates and most votes total.

But again, it seems to all come down to fund-raising on par with a lemonade stand. Financial success in life coupled and indeed dominated by nearly unparalleled fund-raising by a Republican Washington outsider just doesn’t count.

UPDATE: Great video over at all-encompassingly.com of Joe Scarborough explaining his take on things

Glenn Beck who recently got sick or something records himself as he recovers at home and watches the results of the Iowa Caucuses.

While I think one of the points he makes about evangelicals has been covered by the MSM, it certainly wasn’t covered in a way that it should have been.  Huckabee is lauded as a smart politician who secured an important demographic in Iowa, but they seem to leave it there without hammering the fact that that will never hold up once Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson and Paul stop splitting the rest of the vote.

Watch Glenn here on his site. 

Mitt Romney’s biggest fan, Hugh Hewitt, was at least impressed by Romney’s performance. It certainly wasn’t bad and got a B- from Time for the 3rd spot in their evaluation of the debate performances. Huckabee was considered the winner by many, particularly among the media analysts. His surge is by no means hampered by the star treatment he has been getting. I can only imagine what these analysts think…”Huckabee is good because he goes after the support of evangelical voters while all the other candidates are bad because they go after the support of evangelical voters…”

I’ve been surprised though how the way things have been spun or presented the day after. I was just watching Lou Dobbs and he has Gloria Borger discussing the part of the debate when Romney and Giuliani clash about the “sanctuary mansion.” All they show is Giuliani restating his original assertion that Romney employed illegals “under his nose.” “Under your nose,” which oddly enough is a term used for things people don’t realize until after the fact, yet he infers Romney’s foreknowledge and consent. Hehe. Freudian slip? This is right after Romney had refuted it having to resort to a gradeschool question due to Giuliani’s gross misrepresentation of his “hiring” of illegals. The part where he basically takes the gloves off and says, “Ok, let me explain it to you.” He then asks if Giuliani expects homeowners to individually question the employees of contractors they hire to determine the legality of their residency in the United States.

Gloria Borger’s analysis consisted of something about Romney mentioning funny accents. If you watch the whole exchange, that is not exactly the point Romney made. Is “he mentioned funny accents” the best CNN has to offer?

Then I read this gem which is featured at RealClearPolitics.com. Here is what E.J. Dionne had to say:

Romney, who kept coming back to the dangers of runaway government outlays, insisted that farm subsidies were different because “it’s important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the farm.” Romney helpfully explained all this opportunism by ticking off the list of states besides Iowa, home of the first presidential nominating caucus, where farmers loom large. He sounded as if he were merrily counting delegate votes in his head.

Was I the only one that heard Romney clearly state the reason for his position being that we never want our food supply to be under the control of other nations, the way our oil is? I mean, I guess I’m a little befuddled as to how a 5th grader could pick out specific explanations or arguments made in candidate’s statements but professional columnists are at a loss. Or, should I clarify? They are fully capable of simply picking and choosing parts to assemble their own spin.

Ah well. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Peggy Noonan presents another one of those extraordinarily revealing realities in the MSM. Her article here starts as follows:

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, “Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you’re ‘for the children.’ I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you.”

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being “manipulative,” using “hot images” and indulging in “the politics of personal destruction.” The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. “I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction–of destroying a person–is what you stand for.”

Oh, I wish I weren’t about to say, “Wait, that didn’t happen.” For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

McCain was asked recently what he thought of some comments that Romney had made at a fund raiser. The following is my own transcript with emphasis added taken directly from this video.

Reporter: Senator can I ask you about some comments that Governor Romney made? I don’t want to mischaracterize him because I’m not sure exactly what he said. But it seems that he said that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet OR that he said it was not necessary to have a Muslim in the cabinet to better conduct the war on Islamic extremism.

The reporter then asks a couple of questions:

Reporter: Would you want to appoint someone in your cabinet for that reason and what do you make of his comments?

McCain proceeds to only answer the latter question under the context that Romney only said he would never appoint a Muslim.

McCain: I think his comment is indicative of how he might govern and I think its absolutely wrong. You appoint the most qualified people for the job.

Someone there with McCain then mentions that there are Muslims currently serving in the US Military.

McCain takes it to another level and throws in a “Romney never served” jabs.

McCain: I wonder if Governor Romney who has never served in the military would allow Muslims to serve in our military.

McCain basically showed his willingness to take something completely out of context and misrepresent another candidate.

In responding to questions about his comments Romney said the following in this video.

Reporter: There was a report today that a businessman says that at a closed fundraiser in Vegas a couple of weeks ago he asked you a question about having an Islamic person in your cabinet and you said that based on the population of Muslims in the United States you don’t think it would be justified. First of all, we weren’t there, is that what you said?

Romney: No, no. Thats not. His question was did I NEED to have to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet? And I said no, I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to take on radical jihad anymore than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature. I just rejected that argument number 1.

Then number 2 I point out that the people who would be part of my cabinet is something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to at this point. But I don’t have boxes that I check off as to their ethnicity and its not that I have to have a certain number of each different ethnic group. Instead I would choose people based upon their merits and capabilities.

Reporter: So you would be open to having a Muslim person in your cabinet?

Romney: I’m open to having people of any faith and ethnic group but they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and the values and skills that they could bring to the administration. But I don’t choose people based on checking off a box.

Whew! After all that…I come away with a couple of things. Romney is just as reasonable as ever and McCain seems foolish. I wonder if the media would now press McCain for his accusation and presumption of knowing exactly what Romney meant.

I glanced at msNBC.com and noticed an AP article about some recent riots in France. In a repeat from the 2005 riots, it is minorities, Muslim and African immigrants, that are the perpetrators.

Despite the fact that this entire episode, like the one in 2005 is perpetrated in the name of race, the AP journalist thought that fact, the one about it being Muslim and African minorities, was only worthy of the 5th paragraph.

I read an article that touches on this weird question I have only heard asked of Mitt Romney.  Did his sons serve in the military?

Mitt Romney has five strapping sons, and not one of them has ever served in the military.

No.  What is the assumption here?  At least one of them should have served?  Apparently none of them serving bothers some people, particularly Froma Harrop. So…if at least one had served then we’re talking about 20%.  Are we seriously expecting 20% of males to serve in the military, or just 1 per family which greatly increases the percentage nationwide.  And then what? That somehow qualifies their fathers to form foreign policy in wartime as it relates to the United States?  Can you imagine, out of my graduating senior class of high school, out of 200-250 males, 40-50 of them eventually serving in the military?

The article then goes on to paint a picture of wealth and ease that these sons enjoy, as if they alone ride stationary bicycles for exercise, participate in bike rides in Iowa, boat in New Hampshire and play volleyball with their family.  All the while unaccustomed to the hardship of war in Iraq.  The vast majority of people are non-military families.  Is this fact hard to swallow along with the pleasures of civilian life?

Throughout the campaign, Romney has showcased his athletic boys, ages 26 to 37, as all that is good about America and himself. It apparently never occurred to him that anyone in the audience would place his five princes in the same thought as Sadr City.

It didn’t occur to Froma Harrop that America is not a militarized nation with mandatory service.  Indeed we laud those that serve, but what are the rest of us to do?  Bemoan our not serving the military and delegitimize our family’s ability to analyze world affairs?

It simply strikes me as a poor jab at Romney that simply isn’t reasonable. Perhaps we should make some sort of law requiring those that vote to have a familial military connection…perhaps that would make those like Froma Harrop think twice.

This article really hit me when I read:

Now, imagine the scenario flipped: What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to “make a statement”?

Boom.  Just like those stories about Homosexuals being tortured and strung up on a fence to die…but then silence when the situation is flipped.

If there is such a thing as “hate crime” or “deranged military murder” (as evidenced by the blanket coverage of the Marines in Haditha and elsewhere in Iraq), there most certainly is “hate reporting” and yes, “deranged journalistic irresponsibility.”

Screen capture minutes after making my last post.

Apparently the warmest winter on record and Polar Bears aren’t enjoying it.