'Unethical' a bit?

How coincidental. No, actually, how convenient. By now, everybody's heard the news broken by the Drudge Report about Newt's ex-wife Marianne sitting down with ABC News, saying she could end her ex-husband's career with this single interview. And not to connect the two, but this news broke in the evening, after Romney released his latest hit-pieces using former failed cowards of Congress to attack Gingrich's time as Speaker, one claiming he's unreliable, the other claiming he's undisciplined.  Now, I should preface this by admitting that I'm not the biggest Gingrich fan (although he's probably my second pick at this point in time), but it seems oddly convenient for the media to swoop in on the same day, right after some relatively hard hitting ads have been cast against Newt by the Romney campaign, to seemingly drive the nail in further.  Moreover, the unethical behavior of ABC News is astonishing, with its initial report that "now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!"

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

Then the update from Drudge came, informing us that the AP reported ABC is now likely to air the segment Thursday on NIGHTLINE. How ethical.

Of course, I'm being a little facetious. This is neither odd nor astonishing at all. It's typical & predictable. Might I remind folks of the savagely false and sexist attacks launched and permeated by the media against Herman Cain when he was surpassing Romney's frontrunner status heading towards Iowa (of course, they didn't count on Santorum, but that's another story, and let's stick to this one).  Haven't heard a peep out of those supposed accusers since he dropped out, have you?  Of course not, because that was the media's goal from the start.  It took several weeks, but they finally got there, and now they could care less about those ladies (I use that word in the loosest of terms).  Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not blaming Romney for this.  I'm saying that our driven liberal media was directed to take out the perceived threat to Obama's preferred election rival.  To borrow a line from the Great One, "Yeah, I said it!" Speaking of, Levin had a few things to put into perspective surrounding this topic last night as well (via theRightScoop).

However, Gingrich has proven to be a much tougher cookie to crumble.  So why not release this news (once again, using a female, because it worked before with their colleagues Politico) immediately following some of the most hard hitting Romney ads against the former Speaker?  You know, after he's already been perceptually tenderized, even if there is little merit or truth to them.  Too soon, too obvious?  Probably, but once the news leaks, they have to run with it, right?  Particularly when their chosen challenger is at risk of losing South Carolina.

Folks, please tell me that you can smell the stench from wherever you might be located?  The Media is out to destroy any and all conservative challengers, however fantastic or imperfect they might be, to assure that the man they have chosen to be Obama's challenger, Mitt Romney, will make it through the primaries to face their President.  Now, you'd be just as hard-pressed to get this admission from any of the media participants, as you would be for the Republican establishment wing that supports Romney to admit that their candidate is the preference of the other side, or for that matter, that either would have liked nothing more than to see every conservative knocked out of the running much sooner. Afterall, you have been paying attention to the setup for the inevitable attacks against Romney, right?  OWS, Bain, and the current Cayman Islands story, which was effectively derailed by Drudge's ABC News leak yesterday...this is all the initial legwork before the outright onslaught comes.  They don't have a mystery woman for him, they're intending to hit him head-on with the full weight of class warfare that far too many have bought into.  And again, Big Media is all to happy to oblige.

ADDENDUM: Hmmm, pretty interesting theory from Rush:

"I'm gonna tell you what I think. I think Drudge messed 'em up. 'Cause I think the plan, if you look at the news yesterday, the news yesterday was all Romney. Has Romney got money in the Caymans? Romney gave money to the Mormon church, Bain Capital, 15% tax rate, all of that was ABC News. ... I think the objective of ABC was to take Mitt out this week, or to just do damage. And I think they were saving Marianne Gingrich for Monday after the vote, after Newt wins or theoretically wins South Carolina, then they run the Marianne interview, and that takes Newt out of, and then who we left with? As far as they're concerned, Santorum and Ron Paul. And they think, okay, that's it, Obama's won now, and there's nothing the Republicans can do."

Regardless, Newt seems to be handling the ex-wife interview effectively, as theRightScoop reports, "he’s basically got his daughters on his side and he’s going to let them defend him. That’s very smart and will go far in bolstering his credibility over that of his ex-wife."

Also, Jeffrey Lord chimes in with some integral insight in understanding ABC's hypocrisy & motivation:

If ABC News is intent on playing this game, then in an era where the mainstream media has lost their monopoly, it is perhaps time to remind all of the way ABC personnel handle these stories when they involve -- ABC News itself.

Exhibit A: The late Peter Jennings [and] radio star Don Imus's once hotly controversial talk at the 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner [joking about Jennings' private life/marital problems].

Exhibit B of ABC News hypocrisy in this area? That would be, of course, the hiring of ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as an ABC anchor, now at Good Morning America.

No, the "news" tonight will be this hit piece on Newt Gingrich's private life. Decided old news indeed. Except for two very important things that make running this hit piece 72 hours before the South Carolina primary a necessity for ABC News.

1. Newt Gingrich is a conservative.

2. Newt Gingrich is not an anchor for ABC News.

Obama rejects Keystone (UPDATES)

(Here's that 'meanwhile' from the previous post) The Washington Post reports:

The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills.

Fox News adds, "The State Department has decided to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, suggesting that the department will say 60 days is inadequate time to do the required environmental impact assessment on the path of the coveted pipeline."



Ed Morrissey of HotAir points out, "Looks like the recommendations of Obama’s own jobs council got as much attention from Obama as the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission, huh? “Drill, drill, drill” just got changed to “delay, delay, delay.” Leadership!" What leadership, indeed.

So basically, what we gather from this post and the previous, is that America can't be allowed under an Obama Democrat-controlled regime to take advantage of our neighboring resources, much less our own, in order to begin the long road towards energy independence, thus creating more American jobs; but instead, we must strictly adhere to the ruler's path by continuing to remain dependent on foreign entities and sink (or more appropriately, waste) more taxpayer money into bogus government ventures that don't produce, that never could and that never will.  Do I have that about right?  And that's rational?  That's efficiency in government?  That's the will of the people?  'NO' on all of the above...that's a statist ruler advocating for the few and protecting his own vested interests over that of the many.

"So here we have election-year politics."

ADDENDUM: A couple of observations, via Weasel Zippers, to note. First, Obama says Republicans are to blame for his decision to reject the Keystone Pipeline. Do huh?!

"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

What a load of horsesh...Secondly, his Carney barker cites "the effect on the water that our children breathe — rather, the water our children drink and the air that they breathe," among the reasons Obama stopped what he deemed the "purlely political" Keystone Pipeline. I thought it was all the Republicans' fault? Huh. Well, Carney should have stuck with 'the water our children breathe' while they're making stuff up! Unreal.

UPDATES: Across the spectrum of political thought, it's clear that Obama's decision on the Keystone pipeline was 'stunningly stupid'. Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post had some choice words of his own for Obama's decision: 

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Rick Moran of American Thinker, referencing Samuelson's editorial, added:

This is the Obama we have come to know and love; piously proclaiming his priority being job creation while taking actions that directly contradict that priority. He says he wants business to thrive -- and then throws up roadblock regulations to prevent it. He says he wants the economy to grow -- and then advocates policies that stifle growth.

And then he blames his failures on others.

Energy independence, jobs, growth in the economy -- all of these would have been affected positively by building the pipeline. Instead, the president decided to pander to his far left base of Luddites.

And Kathyrn Marshall of Troy Media duly reminded us:

When U.S. President Barack Obama was running for president of the United States, he made a bold promise. “If I’m president, I’m immediately going to direct the full resources of the federal government, and the full energy of the private sector, to a single overarching goal,” he said. “In 10 years time, we are going to eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela.”

Obama has had four years to make good on that promise. He’s not even close. And his decision Wednesday to deny permission for a new pipeline that would replace oil from those OPEC countries with Canadian oil, indicates that he didn’t actually mean what he said. As the famed American energy investor T. Boone Pickens put it after the White House announced its veto on the Keystone XL pipeline, “We can kiss another chance at energy security goodbye. We must really like OPEC oil.”

So it appears, according to ABC News, that "As House Republicans launched an assault on President Obama this morning for nixing a popular energy pipeline from Canada to Texas, the party renewed its pledge to move ahead with the project even if the president won’t get on board."

Republicans are considering an array of alternatives that would put the Keystone XL Pipeline back on track.

“As much as the president might want this issue to go away and come back maybe after the election, we’re going to do everything we can to keep it on the front burner, and keep this in front of the American people and do what we can to get this mission accomplished,” [House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan] said.

Obama's 11 other 'Solyndras' (UPDATE)

Yep, as theRightScoop put it, "Obama is simply pouring our tax dollars down the ‘clean energy’ crap hole with no regard for whether it is a good investment or not." And Andrew Breitbart's Big Government reports, "In the wake of Peter Schweizer’s explosive revelation that 80 percent of the Department of Energy’s $20.5 billion in green energy loans went to President Barack Obama’s fundraisers and donors, CBS News is now reporting that the Obama Administration spent billions of taxpayer dollars on 11 more Solyndra-style loans to so-called green energy companies that have since gone bankrupt or are facing serious financial difficulty."



Wynton Hall of Breitbart adds that economist Peter Morici told CBS that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu lies at the heart of the problem:

Tasking a Nobel Prize mathematician [Chu] to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be the general in charge of America’s troops in Afghanistan. It’s that absurd.

Also, unmentioned in the report was that Obama put men in charge of divvying out the DoE loans and grants who were not even scientists, but instead were Obama’s top fundraisers, which probably had something to do with the DoE's refusal to be intereviewed by CBS News.

But no worries, kids. Harry Reid assures us that not only will Obama's re-election campaign remain unaffected by not having created a budget in 1,000 days, but all those green energy taxpayer-funded subsidies are doing just fine. In fact, we should invest in more renewable energy for the sake of energy independence!  Go back to bed, America!



Meanwhile...(next post)

UPDATE: Brace yourself, because this is INFURIATING!  Solyndra was caught tossing brand new million dollar parts into their dumpsters out back...your taxpayer dollars, shattered in the trash!



And remember, folks, there's 11 other Solyndras out there...

Fox News/WSJ debate highlights

And now it's down to five. Last night was the first of two debates to be held this week before the South Carolina primary. As can be imagined, everyone (but oddly Paul) was gunning for Romney; however, there was also a fair amount of sparring between the others to spread around. And now that the narrowing of the field has taken place, the intensity was glaring with a sharper tone, that one might argue needs to be shared by the moderators when it comes to consistent & pertinent questioning.  Anyway, let's get started...

Santorum came out swinging early in the debate, besting Romney over his fallacious Super PAC ads.

Since he stuck to the principle of Romney's actions and record, and not just about the Super PAC, Santorum fared better than Newt's later challenge to Romney's Super PAC ads against him.  Santorum also differentiated his economic plan from both Romney and Gingrich's, one in which the host, WSJ, has on a previous occasion scored 'bolder than Romney's'.  And then of course, Rick had the inevitable spar with Paul, but once again came out the better gentleman.

Despite the rough past week, Newt had a genuinely great night. The highlight of the entire night was probably when Newt owned Juan Williams over his race-baiting questions, receiving a partial standing ovation for it in the end.

This was back to classic debate Newt, but even more improved by not even acknowledging the media bait, just flat out pummeling the moderator by exquisitely answering the questions.  And in lieu of the Super PAC discussions, Newt lit up the audience on several occasions throughout the night (check out Newt's plan for America's enemies, how 99 weeks equate to an associates degree & how educational powers should return to the local level).

Perry actually had a pretty good night as well. Among the memorable moments was when the governor tore into the Obama Administration, laying out many of the state intrusions and proclaiming that the states are "under assault" and "at war" with a federal government that is "out of control."

And on many other occasions, like defining precisely what a despicable act is, Perry took the opportunity to remain on the trajectory of targeting the Obama Administration's disdain.  Although he was later asked about some of the 'vulture capitalism' remarks that had previously caused him grief, he managed to make the focus of his answer about Romney releasing his tax records.

As for Romney and Paul's performances...aside from my opinion that they weren't on their game, I'd refer you to any establishment publication for unending praise of the former, and the multitude of newsletters & fanatical sites for the latter...

All in all, a pretty good debate from the candidates (which a lively crowd likely energized that much more), aside from wanting more substance from the moderators, which I've past holding my breath for.  So next stop, we'll see how CNN handles theirs on Thursday night...

Check out the entire debate here, courtesy of theRightScoop.

ADDENDUM: Levin went on Fox & Friends this morning to promote his new book, and ended up talking primarily about the candidates and Monday night's debate, saying, "Nothing really changed. Newt's a good debater, Santorum's a good debater, Romney's a good evader, and Ron Paul wants to unilaterally disarm."



"What we want is an articulate, consistent, confident, relatively charismatic conservative. He'd wipe up the Republican primary, he'd wipe up the election. Obama is low hanging fruit.  His record is a disaster, his philosphy is a disaster.  The American people, you look at the polls, they are not in love with this guy, they're not in love with his policies."

Levin talks Ameritopia

Mark ventured into the studio with Neil Cavuto today and discussed his new book, Ameritopia, as well as the GOP presidential race.



The book 'officially' releases tomorrow in stores everywhere, but Levin is already making the rounds today from Fox News to CNSNews (giving an incredibly indepth interview worth checking out) to Hannity's radio program.  He also received a hearty congrats from the American Spectator's Quin Hillyer and a riveting review from NewsMax's Jedidiah Bila.  Get it, read it, and recognize what's going on! As Bila says, "The future of this country lies within us."

ADDENDUM: Knew it was just a matter of time until we get an extensive column from Jeffrey Lord on Levin's Ameritopia. Rush also proclaimed, "I don't have to write another book because Mark Levin wrote Ameritopia!" And Tuesday night, Levin gave his big interview to Hannity on his new book, as well as further opinions concerning the GOP presidential race.

a pro-life social conservative

"Injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. The Negro cannot win if he's willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Alveda King says it all on this MLK Day...

"How can the dream survive, if we murder our children?"



"...the dream comes from the Bible, from God, and the principles that are there."

AMEN, Alveda!  God Bless.

Huntsman out, backs 'unelectable' Romney

Yep, the RINO-esque Mandarin candidate Jon Huntsman has dropped out of the presidential race...then immediately endorsed Romney! Huh, what a difference a few months makes when he first told David Gregory that Romney was 'unelectable'. Or with last week's Romney gaffe, followed by the ugly Republican pile on...



...and then he walks lockstep to endorse Romney? Well, speaking of pile on, let's also remember what Huntsman said about Romney's endorsements...



He got one thing right: "Nobody cares!  Nobody cares about this.  None of the endorsements that Romney has picked up have meant a thing."  And that would include yours, Mr. Huntsman.  Farewell...and don't forget to take the Scarborough lamentations with ya!

ADDENDUM: I think Santorum hit the nail on the head when saying, "Moderates are backing moderates. That’s sort of the bottom line. No surprise there. Gov. Huntsman ran as a moderate, trying to compete with Gov. Romney for the establishment moderate vote."

More borrowing, more spending, more power

Sorry to end the week with Obummer, but there's a few things he's been up to while we've focused on the happenings and hullabaloo within the Republican race occurring this week.

Yesterday afternoon, Obama asked Congress to lift the debt ceiling by another $1.2 Trillion. CNSNews reports:

President Obama has sent a letter to Congress saying that the government is within $100 billion of its $15.2 trillion debt ceiling and that it must be raised immediately.

“I hereby certify that the debt subject to limit is within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in 31 U.S.C. 3101(b) and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitment,” the letter states.

Now that Obama has sent the letter, Congress has 15 days to pass a resolution of disapproval or the debt ceiling will rise automatically by $1.2 trillion, according to the terms of the August debt ceiling compromise.

When the August deal was cut between Republicans, Democrats, and the White House, the debt ceiling was immediately raised $400 billion and then another $500 billion in October. Now it is expected to be raised at least $1.2 trillion more.

Will they pass a resolution of disapproval?  Look for a lot of talk out of the Republican leadership, but little action, as we've unfortunately become accustom to. I wish I could be more optimistic about it, but considering that the GOP promised to cut spending throughout the 2010 campaign, then turned around & allowed the debt to be increased by $1 trillion over ten months, it’s a little difficult to believe they’d all of a sudden act differently now.  And before you hear the charge of 'but we only have 1/2 of 1/3' bouncing around in your head, consider what Eric Odom quite accurately explains:

Look, we get that Republicans can only do so much without the Senate or White House. What we don’t get is why Republicans don’t act like they control the purse strings? Democrats place unreasonable, outrageous budget proposals on the table. Republicans put sound, reasoned proposals on the table (which don’t go far enough). Democrats then go on full court press to pretend Republicans are taking extreme positions, Republicans fold and move towards what the Democrats want. And the rest of us are stuck with the bill.

I expect as much from Democrats; but sorry, it is abominable that this is the way our country is now economically run by a Republicans: succumb to a statist President's pressure with a media at his and his Party's disposal to tighten the screws on those conservatives that have the audacity to question the out-of-control spending, and sign on to an agreement that allows both debt and spending to rise because the GOP leadership can't find the courage or principle to accept the heat of responsible governance and stand against furthering rampant deficits.

Well, is that it?   Nope.  Not only is he willing the power to make appointments without congressional confirmation, and as of yet without consequence, now Obama announced this morning that he's seeking new power to merge executive agencies, and (drumroll, please) pledges to take action ‘with or without Congress’.  Also from CNSNews:

“This is the same sort of authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. Let me be clear, I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service, and a leaner government.”

“So with or without Congress, I’m going to keep at it. I’m hopeful it’s with Congress, because this is an area where we can receive bipartisan support, because making our government more responsive, strategic and leaner should not be a partisan issue.”

“With the authority I am requesting today, we could consolidate [the U.S. Commerce Department’s business and trade functions, the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency] all into one department with one website, one phone number and one mission – helping American businesses succeed.”

Now, let's decipher his words, one piece at a time.  He brings up "the authority that every business owner has," except, he's not a business owner, nor has he ever been a business owner.  He doesn't know the first thing about it.  Anybody remember Solyndra?  That's the closest he's come, and what a smashing success it was, huh?  Then when he says "let me be clear," you know he's about to lie to you.  Does anybody honestly think that our ideological statist President whose constantly grabbed more power for the federal government throughout his entire term "will only use this authority for reforms" to give us a better, leaner and more efficient government?  That's laughable...particularly when he follows this empty promise by saying he'll pursue this "with or without Congress."  And finally, does anyone think that by the executive branch consolidating under a dictatorial-inclined President like Barack Obama, this will somehow help "American business succeed."  When out of this man's entire term in office has he helped American businesses succeed?  He hasn't!  He's dismantled our economy, increasing regulations, infusing uncertainty and making it harder for business to grow and thrive.

This is yet another power grab from a desperate man who wants to ensure a second term, and is not about to allow a constitutional form of government stand in his way.  Congess MUST NOT grant him further power to do ANYTHING that he does not already have the power to do in his capacity as a president.  The office is NOT a dictatorship, no matter how much he wants to make it so.  And it's about damn time for Congress to stand up and let him know that.

ADDENDUM: The Hill reported on Friday that the National Right to Work Foundation has filed the first court challenge against Obama's so-called 'recess' appointments.  It's about time someone start throwing a roadblock or two in front of this runaway executive, wielding power that he doesn't have, particularly if the Congress won't! (just playing into that rhetoric of do-nothingness, guys)

Santorum's South Carolina surge (UPDATES)

While Kristol and Rove relish in the potentialities of their candidate-in-waiting, and the bickering continues between the fluid tiers, we're going to take a few moments to mention some happenings with the man that's stood above the fray as the South Carolina primary nears.  That man is Rick Santorum. 

I previously mentioned some endorsements and kind words from several significant societal figures for the conservative presidential candidate from Pennsylvania, and today comes word of more substantial endorsements from the political realm.

A major endorsement came from the beloved former Mayor of Hazleton, PA, and now freshman U.S. Congressman Lou Barletta, who has been a significant leader in the effort to crack down on the harboring or hiring of illegal immigrants in the state. Barletta joins U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson and U.S. Rep. Tom Marino as the now trio of Pennsylvania congressmen to throw their weight behind the former Pennsylvania senator.

On the South Carolina front, the campaign has announced the endorsement of state Rep. Greg Delleny, who was named the state's "Pro-Life Legislator of the Year" in '08, and recognized as "Legislator of the Year" in '07 by the Palmetto Family Council.

And speaking of the Palmetto state, Robert Stacy McCain reports from the American Spectator that the Santorum surge has begun with the opening of five new campaign offices throughout the state, the addition of his staff that helped him come within a mere eight-vote striking distance of defeating Romney in Iowa, and about a million dollars committed to ads, along with these latest endorsements.  He also points out that Santorum is currently third in the Real Clear Politics average of South Carolina polls (he's also currently third in the latest Rasmussen SC poll & appears to be in that same position in Florida).  Now, although this is yet another open primary (I could have an entire blog about that sham of an idea), we're out of New England for the time being and entering the southern states with an entirely different take on Republican politics, so odds are definitely more favorable.

Santorum continues to be positioned as the solid conservative alternative to the trio of moderation, distraction and lunacy!  I think I'll again refer to the previous post, and say what Mark is hesitant to say just yet: it's time to coalesce behind the one conservative whose game is on!



UPDATES: Over the weekend, Santorum received a boost from a group of evangelical leaders and social conservatives meeting in Texas who voted to back his candidacy as the conservative alternative to the establishment candidate, Romney.  Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator reported significant news on Monday that among those leaders, direct mail pioneer/Young American for Freedom impresario/conservative movement icon Richard Viguerie made known that he personally endorsed Rick Santorum for president.  If you're not familiar with Viguerie, this is actually pretty huge news!

Levin almost ready to say, "Game On!" (UPDATE)

Palin has kind words to say about him, the Duggar family has endorsed him, even Stallone likes him.  And on Wednesday's program, Mark Levin was almost prepared to call for Gingrich and Perry to drop out of the race so that conservatives can coalesce behind Santorum, because "we’re going to have to get behind one conservative to defeat Romney and Ron Paul."  But because of altering circumstances over the past day or so (Gengrich & Perry backing off, Romney stepping in it, all while Santorum's stayed out of that), he decided that he wants to wait and see what happens in South Carolina. However, I think a lot of conservatives are already there, Mark, and ready to say, "Game on!"

Some positive news for Santorum came Wednesday night on Greta's program. It appears that after the dust settled in New Hampshire, Santorum actually bested Gengrich to take fourth place in that open primary (not terrible for a conservative in a blue state considering). And odds are clearly looking up in South Carolina for Santorum to be the conservative alternative to the Massachusetts moderate. Perhaps this next contest will be the one to help the Great One push Santorum that much closer.

UPDATE: Well, he still hasn't flat-out said it, but it's pretty clear now, during last night's program (via theRightScoop), that Levin is alluding to what he was hesitant to previously say, he's just wanting listeners to really think about it, and not have to spoon-feed it to you! Levin rewound the clock to a statement made by Romney in '03 and posed some questions to his audience:

"Just step back and think about something. Who would never say what Romney just said here, 'I don't happen to subscribe to that traditional Republican caricature'? ... You want to lead the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and you can't even describe what the Republican Party and the conservative movement believes in in 200? And you describe capitalism as basically corporatism? And you're supposed to be the private sector business guy?"

Then going on to discuss Perry's 'vulture capitalism' statements, Newt's 'flopping around' with 'this capitalism stuff' against Romney, and Romney's authenticity problem & his description of corporatism as capitalism, Levin compared all those to some peoples’ concerns about a few questionable votes from Santorum...

"You may not agree with every vote that Santorum has taken, I don't agree with every vote Santorum has taken, Santorum doesn't agree with every vote he's taken; but fundamentally, he's the same man he was in 2003 and 1993 and 1983 that he is today. Romney's not! You have to pick a decade to determine what Romney believes. What did he believe two decades ago? What did he believe last decade? What does he believe this decade? It's bizarre; it's too chameleon-like."

Levin finally surmises that the following three have genuine problems: "Gengrich has been flopping around like a flounder on the beach with his bizarre responses...on Bain Capital and capitalism generally... Perry, what little chance he has, I think he wiped himself out, as a practical point. And Romney, the leader of the pack they tell us, well his feet are firmly planted in the air, aren't they? His principles seem negotiable." I think everyone knows what Levin thinks about Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman…they aren't even a factor in this equation. So who is the only viable candidate left? Yep. Santorum.