Sunday, January 08, 2012

Erick Erickson: Mark Levin and Sarah Palin unable to gauge true conservatism

I usually resist the urge to engage in internecine warfare, but RedState's Erick Erickson's attacks on Rick Santorum have moved me to action. As Rick Perry has faded in the polls after some disastrous debate performances, Erickson has likewise thrashed about trying to pump up the candidate. And similarly with Newt Gingrich, who -- after a brief surge in the polls -- has faded. Believe me, I'll happily support either, but right now Rick Santorum appears to be the most conservative candidate with momentum.

Erickson has been left with the proverbial dead parrot returned to his store, and must resort to arguing that it's still alive.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Dear Erick,

So you're saying Mark Levin, who is a personal friend of Santorum's and knows him as well as anyone (Santorum was an early campaigner for Reagan in 1980 in Pennsylvania with Levin) is wrong?

That Mark Freaking Levin is supporting a big-government Statist?

That Santorum's leadership work on the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- arguably the most successful re-engineering of an existing entitlement program ever -- is not worth discussing, especially now?

That Santorum's obvious knowledge and support of national security is to be dismissed as China prepares for war and the Middle East boils over?

That Santorum's brave battle for a Balanced Budget Amendment was all a sham?

That cherry-picking a couple dozen from thousands upon thousands of votes that Santorum cast -- many of which were thrust upon the GOP caucus by the big-spending Bush 43 administration -- are somehow representative of his personal interests?

That because he lost an election in a disastrous year for Republicans nationally, a year that swept the Democrats into power, as the most conservative Senator from Pennsylvania in the last half-century?

Why, didn't Barack Obama lose a Democrat Primary to Bobby Rush just a decade ago by 31 points? Uhm, yes. Yes, he did.

No. I don't get it. So Mark Levin and Sarah Palin don't know that Santorum is really a big-government guy, that he's fooled them for all of these years.

All candidates are imperfect, some more so than others.

But tearing down good conservative candidates like Rick Santorum to me makes no sense, especially when other good candidates like Gingrich and Perry appear to be losing momentum.

Some introspection, I believe, is necessary.


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mark Levin supports big government candidates all the time.

Levin is supporting Orrin Hatch in Utah against the Tea Party because he is being paid via commercial air time.

You are using a logical fallacy called "argument from authority"

directorblue said...

@Anon -

Hatch is, as Levin has said, an imperfect candidate, but his leadership on the Balanced Budget Amendment is critical.

As for "argument from authority", you're neglecting the bullet points describing Santorum's track record.

Which is called "selective reading".

Reliapundit said...

WILL RICK ATTRACT MORE INDS THAN MITT IN THE GENERAL OR LESS?

WILL RICK GET AS MANY GOP VOTES AS MITT?

POLLS SUGGEST NO ON BOTH.

(RICK IS 2ND CHOICE FOR FEWER GOPERS THAN MITT.)

THAT MEANS NOMINATING RICK IS A MISTAKE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DEFEAT OBAMA.

FOR THOSE WHO MERELY WANT TO NOMINATE A VERY CONSERVATIVE PERSON, NOMINATING RICK MAKES SENSE.

Anonymous said...

It's the exact same kind of crap that was said by Reagan's detractors-Red State has been unbookmarked for ages. His trashing of Sarah Palin was disgraceful.

He's crossed the Kathleen Parker line and is approaching, albeit in the distance, Charley "let's photograph a nail" johnson.

IMO Santorum would have almost the same energizing effect on conservatives as Mrs Palin would have had.
MM

nicedeb said...

Thank you Mr Ross. That so needed to be said.

I've been holding my fire on the other candidates because it's 2012 now - the vetting should be over. The nutroots are sitting back, pointing, laughing and eating popcorn while conservatives fight like rabid dogs over these candidates.

Good grief, where is our self respect? Any of these guys, save Paul, would be better than Obama.

Zilla/MJ said...

You should pass this along to Jim Hoft as well, as he is a Perryist too, although not quite as vicious as the Red State crew, lately he's been posting crap about Rick Santorum too which is just crap.

Perryists need to get over their butt-hurtedness over their guy's suckery.

And one more thing for all the Perryists: RICK PERRY SAYS "ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE", that alone should be enough for any right minded person to look at some of the other candidates. Get off the fricken koolaid, Rick Perry is NOT GOP Jesus.

heartlander said...

I agree with Zilla/MJ. Santorum and Gingrich are the ONLY ones who really, really "get" what Islam is all about, and in particular, about the mortal danger to our country not just from terrorists but from "creeping sharia" -- as witness the horrifying recent court decision about Oklahoma's law against sharia.

As for Perry more generally, while I LOVE his 10thAmendment passion and his business-friendly Texas JobCreatingMachine, he is evidently completely unable to ARTICULATE his views. After 8 years of maddening frustration with George Bush refusing to defend himself against the media's constant lies about him, I by golly want a Republican President who will FIGHT BACK. A Churchillian BULLDOG is what we need. That would be either Santorum or Newt.